Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
Victoria, no, what the hell are you thinking!? I love Melbourne... and I love smoking at Melbourne cafes. ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
-
-
AADD Moderators: andyturbo
The Cigarette Thread
- Thread starter Mr Blonde
- Start date
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
Peter Jackson hybrids are pretty decent and pretty fucking cool
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
^ The only 'kreteks' I ever smoked were Djarums after someone else mentioned them in this thread ages ago and they were pretty bad. Not an overly unpleasant smoke but had a tendency to make me feel ill.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
Thanks to my sister's boyfriend I am currently smoking my first clove cigarette. I'm liking it so far. :D
I'm happy to say for all pouch smokers, that aren't into the weakers ones and smoke the reds like a "Champion" (See what I did there?)
Anyway Marlboro Red pouches seem to be popping up everywhere, they are water treated meaning they have even less chemicals, and when you smoke the rolly M Reds, and then have a tailor, you can DEFINITELY taste the difference between the added chemicals and not having added chems.
Anyway they also have a little terracotta stone in them, you put a few drops of water on it every couple of days and it keeps your backy nice and moist and fresh. Best pouch I've ever bought :D
Also yeah those PJ Fusions are insane! Someone gave me one at a doof and I was just so fascinated by it. Although that may have been less the cigarette and more just the state of my brain.
Anyway Marlboro Red pouches seem to be popping up everywhere, they are water treated meaning they have even less chemicals, and when you smoke the rolly M Reds, and then have a tailor, you can DEFINITELY taste the difference between the added chemicals and not having added chems.
Anyway they also have a little terracotta stone in them, you put a few drops of water on it every couple of days and it keeps your backy nice and moist and fresh. Best pouch I've ever bought :D
Also yeah those PJ Fusions are insane! Someone gave me one at a doof and I was just so fascinated by it. Although that may have been less the cigarette and more just the state of my brain.
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
^ Thats pretty interesting, I just switched my brand from Marlboro Reds to Peter Stuyvesant Classic in the last 2 or 3 weeks because I really don't wanna be smoking 16's, Marlboro Reds are just fucking delicious though! Only problem with getting a pouch is it leaves me a bit high and dry when it comes to ciggies for a mix.
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
How are the Marlboro pouches price wise, compared to say Champion Ruby? If they are a lot more expensive they might not be worth it...
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
Bought a pouch of the Marlboro brand the other day and I gotta say thanks a lot for the heads up TangerinO! I don't think I used the 'hydrostone' enough, but the tobacco smokes great... perfect with my morning coffee right now. :D
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Tobacco giant Phillip Morris launches legal action against Australian government's ci
Tobacco giant Phillip Morris launches legal action against Australian government's cigarette plain packaging laws
here
Tobacco giant Phillip Morris launches legal action against Australian government's cigarette plain packaging laws
THE federal government has ushered its world-first plain-packaging laws through parliament, but it will have to defend them in international and domestic legal arenas.
Less than an hour after the amended laws passed the lower house today, Philip Morris announced it had already launched court proceedings.
The cigarette manufacturer served a notice of arbitration with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
It claims the Commonwealth is essentially stealing its brands.
"In passing the laws today the government has breached an international treaty," Philip Morris spokesman Chris Argent said.
"Plain packaging will damage the value of our brands and there are international business laws against that."
THE tobacco industry will fund a $5 million anti-Labor ad blitz with the help of the Liberals.
Philip Morris is basing its case on a bilateral investment treaty Australia signed with Hong Kong 20 years ago. The manufacturer's parent company is based in the city-state.
Labor's laws will force all tobacco products to be sold in drab olive-brown packs from December 2012.
Graphic health warnings will dominate the packages instead of brand names and logos.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon on Monday criticised Philip Morris for prioritising profits over the lives of ordinary Australians.
"Big tobacco must curb their addiction to legal action," she said.
"The government has received comprehensive legal advice about this matter and are confident with our position."
Many legal experts agree the commonwealth has a strong case.
A lawyer who's had more experience than most fighting cigarette companies in court, Peter Gordon, said in June - when Philip Morris first flagged its intentions - the company was on shaky ground.
He argues the commonwealth isn't taking away the property rights of tobacco companies but rather ensuring they aren't used to improperly promote cigarette use among kids.
International law expert Don Anton has noted public regulation for a public purpose is not direct or indirect expropriation "and therefore is not prohibited by the investment treaty".
Like British American Tobacco Australia, Philip Morris also plans to launch a domestic challenge in the High Court of Australia.
A BATA spokeswoman said the local legal action would be "triggered" when the plain packaging laws received royal assent.
But Australia's doctors are urging big tobacco not to head to court.
"This legislation will save lives,'' Australian Medical Association president Steve Hambleton said.
"The AMA urges the tobacco industry to accept the decision and desist from legal action or disruptive tactics designed to delay or stop the introduction of plain packaging."
Cancer Council Australia lauded the legislation's passage as a "great day in public health history".
Chief executive Ian Olver said big tobacco was desperate to stop the laws because it knew pack design was critical to sales.
Ms Roxon was asked on Monday if legal action would delay the start of plain packaging.
"We don't believe that it needs to," she said.
"(But) I'm not going to go through the legal ins and outs and possibilities as we potentially face litigation in lots of different forums."
Philip Morris believes the UN trade case could result in the company being awarded billions of dollars in damages following a "two- to three-year" legal stoush.
The company and the government will both nominate arbitrators who then jointly select a third.
The panel then sets a schedule for the proceedings, which Philip Morris wants to be played out in Singapore.
Less than an hour after the amended laws passed the lower house today, Philip Morris announced it had already launched court proceedings.
The cigarette manufacturer served a notice of arbitration with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
It claims the Commonwealth is essentially stealing its brands.
"In passing the laws today the government has breached an international treaty," Philip Morris spokesman Chris Argent said.
"Plain packaging will damage the value of our brands and there are international business laws against that."
THE tobacco industry will fund a $5 million anti-Labor ad blitz with the help of the Liberals.
Philip Morris is basing its case on a bilateral investment treaty Australia signed with Hong Kong 20 years ago. The manufacturer's parent company is based in the city-state.
Labor's laws will force all tobacco products to be sold in drab olive-brown packs from December 2012.
Graphic health warnings will dominate the packages instead of brand names and logos.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon on Monday criticised Philip Morris for prioritising profits over the lives of ordinary Australians.
"Big tobacco must curb their addiction to legal action," she said.
"The government has received comprehensive legal advice about this matter and are confident with our position."
Many legal experts agree the commonwealth has a strong case.
A lawyer who's had more experience than most fighting cigarette companies in court, Peter Gordon, said in June - when Philip Morris first flagged its intentions - the company was on shaky ground.
He argues the commonwealth isn't taking away the property rights of tobacco companies but rather ensuring they aren't used to improperly promote cigarette use among kids.
International law expert Don Anton has noted public regulation for a public purpose is not direct or indirect expropriation "and therefore is not prohibited by the investment treaty".
Like British American Tobacco Australia, Philip Morris also plans to launch a domestic challenge in the High Court of Australia.
A BATA spokeswoman said the local legal action would be "triggered" when the plain packaging laws received royal assent.
But Australia's doctors are urging big tobacco not to head to court.
"This legislation will save lives,'' Australian Medical Association president Steve Hambleton said.
"The AMA urges the tobacco industry to accept the decision and desist from legal action or disruptive tactics designed to delay or stop the introduction of plain packaging."
Cancer Council Australia lauded the legislation's passage as a "great day in public health history".
Chief executive Ian Olver said big tobacco was desperate to stop the laws because it knew pack design was critical to sales.
Ms Roxon was asked on Monday if legal action would delay the start of plain packaging.
"We don't believe that it needs to," she said.
"(But) I'm not going to go through the legal ins and outs and possibilities as we potentially face litigation in lots of different forums."
Philip Morris believes the UN trade case could result in the company being awarded billions of dollars in damages following a "two- to three-year" legal stoush.
The company and the government will both nominate arbitrators who then jointly select a third.
The panel then sets a schedule for the proceedings, which Philip Morris wants to be played out in Singapore.
here
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ Fuck the Government, I hope Phillip Morris wins this one. They are effectively stealing the intellectual property of the tobacco companies, and it has nothing to do with stopping children from smoking; it's pure populist politics and it's another example of Australia being the nanny state of the world. If children are stupid enough to take up smoking because of the pretty colors on the package then they are bound to just go ahead and do other dumb things that endanger their lives anyway.
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
^ +1, the thing that gets me is, ofcourse brand packaging has an influence on WHICH brand a relatively new smoker may choose to smoke, but theres no fucking way anyone ever said "I think I might take up smoking, those little coloured boxes that they come in just look SO COOL!" The fact is that the packaging is driving ZERO people to smoke. It really drives me up the wall the way this country is headed.
Esotericism
Bluelighter
Why won't you guys please think of the children!
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
^ Fuck the children, they cost too much money to have, they make too much fucking mess and they ruin all your fun for 18 years of your life.
Esotericism
Bluelighter
hahahahahahaha Mr Blonde for PM
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
Those packets are going to be far more appealing to the people who smoke purely for self-destructive reasons.
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
^ Man anyone smoking for self destructive reasons would struggle to pick a slower way out... I mean it will very likely do the job but it takes decades and even when your knocking at deaths door its a pretty prolonged ordeal.
Its kind of odd to me really that Phillip Morris would even really oppose this, since they own several popular brands of cigarettes once you take away the branding of the product there is very little to differentiate between brands, as a result you will probably see greater social influence and certainly have new smokers automatically taking up the well established brands they have heard the names of. It really is likely to be the smaller brands that suffer a loss and I could almost see this move increasing market share for a company like Phillip Morris.
It wont affect smoking at all though because none of the appeal in smoking has to do with the branding anymore, all the packaging does is create a slight product differentiation which is probably a moderate factor in brand choice at best. Since they stopped putting cigarettes on display I am not even sure that cigarette packaging has much influence whatsoever anyway, its one thing to have that last frontier of advertising at the point of purchase but if your bumming a new cig off someone else whilst out and about your going to base your judgements on enjoyment of the smoke, not its packaging.
All that said I am glad that big tobacco is going to fight on this, its insulting as a smoker and its just another bullshit extension of Government control that we do not need!
Its kind of odd to me really that Phillip Morris would even really oppose this, since they own several popular brands of cigarettes once you take away the branding of the product there is very little to differentiate between brands, as a result you will probably see greater social influence and certainly have new smokers automatically taking up the well established brands they have heard the names of. It really is likely to be the smaller brands that suffer a loss and I could almost see this move increasing market share for a company like Phillip Morris.
It wont affect smoking at all though because none of the appeal in smoking has to do with the branding anymore, all the packaging does is create a slight product differentiation which is probably a moderate factor in brand choice at best. Since they stopped putting cigarettes on display I am not even sure that cigarette packaging has much influence whatsoever anyway, its one thing to have that last frontier of advertising at the point of purchase but if your bumming a new cig off someone else whilst out and about your going to base your judgements on enjoyment of the smoke, not its packaging.
All that said I am glad that big tobacco is going to fight on this, its insulting as a smoker and its just another bullshit extension of Government control that we do not need!
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
Yeah but there's a huge percentage of people with depression that smoke. Try telling them that.
Too true about them not even having packs on display anyways. Can't see their packages now so changing them isn't gonna do much lol.
Too true about them not even having packs on display anyways. Can't see their packages now so changing them isn't gonna do much lol.
Busty St Clare
Ex-Bluelighter
My brother and I are developing fancy sleeves to go over the top of cigarette packets, sort of like phone covers. We have a couple of designs including "lung lollies", "coffin nails " and "fags" to look like the cigarette lollies as well as blingy designs to appeal to the girls.
We are thinking of the untapped market of impressionable children with desposable incomes.
We are thinking of the untapped market of impressionable children with desposable incomes.
poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
Hoddle St killer Julian Knight wins right to challenge levy on smokes
Hoddle St killer Julian Knight wins right to challenge levy on smokes
here
Hoddle St killer Julian Knight wins right to challenge levy on smokes
HODDLE St mass killer Julian Knight has been given the right to light up a legal challenge to a levy placed on prisoners' smokes by jail authorities.
In the Supreme Court today Associate Justice Melissa Daly ruled that Knight's case that the levy is illegal is not "hopeless" and he should be allowed to pursue his attempt to have it abolished.
Prison authorities say the levy has been used to fund health and anti-smoking programs since 1993 but Knight, who spends $80-$90 a week on tobacco, says there is no authority in the Corrections Act to impose levies on goods sold to prisoners.
"If there is at least a real argument that the Secretary (to the Department of Justice) and prison governors are acting beyond their lawful authority in imposing and collecting the levy, then that argument should have the opportunity to be fully ventilated before the court," Associate Justice Daly said.
The ruling means that Knight can now run his case before the Supreme Court and a date for the trial was set for April 30 next year.
Knight, 43, who was declared a vexatious litigant because of the large number of legal actions he has launched, is serving life with a minimum of 27 years for shooting dead seven people and injuring 19 others in a 1987 rampage.
He will be eligible for parole in 2014.
Because of his vexatious litigant status he has to win court permission to launch legal actions.
Appearing by video link today Knight indicated that if he is successful the State Government may have to refund the money extracted by the levy over the years.
"The legality of the levy has to be determined first," he said.
The Department of Justice opposed Knight's application and said it was doomed to fail and it would be "unjustifiably oppressive" to make it fight his claims.
It also argued that the levy has been imposed since 1993 and there had been an undue delay in challenging its validity.
In her judgment Associate Justice Daly said the policy of imposing a levy on the wholesale tobacco price was part of a smoke-free environment policy for jails.
The initial levy was 10 per cent but this was increased to 20 per cent in 2004, bringing the price of smokes in jails up to the normal retail price.
In Port Phillip Prison, which is run by private firm G4S, the levy money is deposited into a 'prisoner's amenity fund' to pay for quit campaigns and nicotine patches.
"Mr Knight's contention is that there is a long established authority for the contention that a public authority may only impose a financial burden if expressly and unambiguously empowered to do so by the legislature,'' Associate Justice Daly said.
The DOJ argued that the levy brought tobacco prices in jail into line with what the public paid, that it was not a tax and a decision by a prisoner to purchase cigarettes was "an entirely voluntary transaction".
The case returns to the Supreme Court on December 15 for legal directions.
In the Supreme Court today Associate Justice Melissa Daly ruled that Knight's case that the levy is illegal is not "hopeless" and he should be allowed to pursue his attempt to have it abolished.
Prison authorities say the levy has been used to fund health and anti-smoking programs since 1993 but Knight, who spends $80-$90 a week on tobacco, says there is no authority in the Corrections Act to impose levies on goods sold to prisoners.
"If there is at least a real argument that the Secretary (to the Department of Justice) and prison governors are acting beyond their lawful authority in imposing and collecting the levy, then that argument should have the opportunity to be fully ventilated before the court," Associate Justice Daly said.
The ruling means that Knight can now run his case before the Supreme Court and a date for the trial was set for April 30 next year.
Knight, 43, who was declared a vexatious litigant because of the large number of legal actions he has launched, is serving life with a minimum of 27 years for shooting dead seven people and injuring 19 others in a 1987 rampage.
He will be eligible for parole in 2014.
Because of his vexatious litigant status he has to win court permission to launch legal actions.
Appearing by video link today Knight indicated that if he is successful the State Government may have to refund the money extracted by the levy over the years.
"The legality of the levy has to be determined first," he said.
The Department of Justice opposed Knight's application and said it was doomed to fail and it would be "unjustifiably oppressive" to make it fight his claims.
It also argued that the levy has been imposed since 1993 and there had been an undue delay in challenging its validity.
In her judgment Associate Justice Daly said the policy of imposing a levy on the wholesale tobacco price was part of a smoke-free environment policy for jails.
The initial levy was 10 per cent but this was increased to 20 per cent in 2004, bringing the price of smokes in jails up to the normal retail price.
In Port Phillip Prison, which is run by private firm G4S, the levy money is deposited into a 'prisoner's amenity fund' to pay for quit campaigns and nicotine patches.
"Mr Knight's contention is that there is a long established authority for the contention that a public authority may only impose a financial burden if expressly and unambiguously empowered to do so by the legislature,'' Associate Justice Daly said.
The DOJ argued that the levy brought tobacco prices in jail into line with what the public paid, that it was not a tax and a decision by a prisoner to purchase cigarettes was "an entirely voluntary transaction".
The case returns to the Supreme Court on December 15 for legal directions.
here