Australia brings in plain packaging cigarette packaging .

[PeterSibley]

AUSTRALIA'S highest court yesterday upheld the world's toughest law on cigarette promotion, meaning tobacco companies will be prohibited from displaying their logos on cigarette packs that will instead feature images of cancer-riddled mouths, blinded eyeballs and sickly children.

The High Court rejected a challenge by tobacco companies who argued the value of their trademarks will be destroyed if they are no longer able to display their distinctive colors, brand designs and logos on packs of cigarettes.

Starting in December, packs will instead come in a uniformly drab shade of olive and feature dire health warnings and graphic photographs of smoking's health effects. The government, which has urged other countries to adopt similar rules, hopes the new packs will make smoking as unglamorous as possible.

"Many other countries around the world ... will take heart from the success of this decision today," Attorney General Nicola Roxon said.

"Governments can take on big tobacco and win and it's worth countries looking again at what the next appropriate step is for them," she added.

British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International are worried the law will set a global precedent that could slash billions of dollars from the values of their brands. They challenged the new rules on the grounds that they violate intellectual property rights and devalue their trademarks.

The cigarette makers argued the government would unfairly benefit from the law by using cigarette packs as a platform to promote its own message, without compensating the tobacco firms. Australia's constitution says the government can only acquire the property of others on "just terms."

The court, which ordered the tobacco companies to pay the government's legal fees, withheld its reasons for the judgment yesterday. They'll be released later.


http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nsp/Wor...rette%2Bpacks/

[Phillip Allen]

the plot thickens

[WX]

Australia's constitution says the government can only acquire the property of others on "just terms."

However Australia isn't acquiring their brands or trademarks, the government is just say they can't use them here.

[PeterSibley]

However Australia isn't acquiring their brands or trademarks, the government is just say they can't use them here.

and that's the point that lost the case for Big Tobacco.

[Norman Bernstein]

I'm all for the idea of governmental discouragement of smoking, as a matter of policy.....

....but this goes WAY too far, even for a pinko commie liberal like me.

If we were to apply this kind of draconian regulation to ALL products which are provably dangerous when abused, then we'd see a photo of a cirrhotic liver on the label on all liquor, wine, and beer, a photo of a head blown apart by a gunshot on all gun packaging, a photo of a severe crash on advertisements for sports cars, and so on. It might be appropriate for the government to discourage dangerous personal behavior, but this is way over the top.

[Phillip Allen]

an interesting perspective, Norman

[skuthorp]

There's a difference with tobacco Norman. You can drive without hurting anyone else (well that could be argued but not now) you can drink in company without harming anyone else, but you can't smoke in company without effecting all those about you. The legislation was motivated by health concerns, the action based on trade mark law. They would hardly have led an action based on contesting the health effects of their product. However given the US's experience of prohibition I do not think that the product will be outlawed.

[Paul Pless]

At next year's F1 race in Australia, will Ferrari have to replace their bar code cover up of their Marlboro sponsorship with mouth cancer photo's?

[Tom Hunter]

To be fair Australia should make their wineries put pictures of damaged livers on the bottles.

The Australian tourist board should have to run video of overweight Americans being stung by jellyfish and attacked by sharks while terrified tourist from Asia are bitten by poisonous snakes.

Smoking is terrible, but this law is pretty bad too. It's an arbitrary restriction on commercial speech that singles out a particular product partly because its damaging, but mostly because its unpopular.

[Hwyl]

At next year's F1 race in Australia, will Ferrari have to replace their bar code cover up of their Marlboro sponsorship with mouth cancer photo's?

I hope so

[Paul Pless]

I don't buy cigarettes. I've actually only taken one 'drag' off a cigarette in my entire life. But I did notice this packaging while in Cantada last month.

[Norman Bernstein]

There's a difference with tobacco Norman. You can drive without hurting anyone else (well that could be argued but not now) you can drink in company without harming anyone else, but you can't smoke in company without effecting all those about you.

It is clearly NOT about smoking in company. I imagine that Australia is no different than the US, in that regard; smoking is prohibited in public buildings, and even in public outdoor spaces, in some areas (I got castigated for lighting up in a park in my home town, even when there was no one around. Someone spotted me at a distance, and came over to yell at me).

[switters]

I'm all for the idea of governmental discouragement of smoking, as a matter of policy.....

....but this goes WAY too far, even for a pinko commie liberal like me.

If we were to apply this kind of draconian regulation to ALL products which are provably dangerous when abused, then we'd see a photo of a cirrhotic liver on the label on all liquor, wine, and beer, a photo of a head blown apart by a gunshot on all gun packaging, a photo of a severe crash on advertisements for sports cars, and so on. It might be appropriate for the government to discourage dangerous personal behavior, but this is way over the top.

+1, the camels nose is under the tent

[BrianW]

I agree with Norman.

The government reached too far.

Always thought Aussies were a rugged, individual thinking lot.

[Hwyl]

I'm all for the idea of governmental discouragement of smoking, as a matter of policy.....

....but this goes WAY too far, even for a pinko commie liberal like me.

.

It is clearly NOT about smoking in company.<snip> (I got castigated for lighting up in a park in my home town, even when there was no one around. Someone spotted me at a distance, and came over to yell at me).

Time to give it up Norman

[The Bigfella]

Back when I worked for a major consulting firm, I was asked to attend a briefing for work with a tobacco lobby group. I attended the meeting, went to a senior partner and told him I wouldn't work for the merchants of death. No problem.

This is a damn good result. The last government introduced the health warnings & images and it reduced the level of smoking from IIRC 21% to 17%... a good result. This will drive it lower still.

[Kaa]

...but you can't smoke in company without effecting all those about you. The legislation was motivated by health concerns

So, when are you going to put similar warnings on grills?

Kaa

[switters]

Beer and pokies will be next, have fun.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

I heard about this on the radio - and to me it sounds like a perfectly reasonable law..

But

How well has it been drafted?

Will Big Tobacco start selling logo-ed cigarette cases?

Can the plain olive drab outer wrapping be peeled off to reveal an old-style pack?

The merchants of death may be willing to spend time and money reducing the effectiveness of this new law.

[WX]

I'm an asthmatic, a few lung fulls of passive tobacco smoke can affect my health for a couple of days afterwards. I'm all for any discouragement to smoke the stuff.

[WX]

I heard about this on the radio - and to me it sounds like a perfectly reasonable law..

But

How well has it been drafted?

Will Big Tobacco start selling logo-ed cigarette cases?

Can the plain olive drab outer wrapping be peeled off to reveal an old-style pack?

The merchants of death may be willing to spend time and money reducing the effectiveness of this new law.

As long as they don't sell them with cigarettes in them then I imagine they could. The big tobacco companies have not given up, they will try any angle they can.

And on the comments about applying the plain packaging to other products well that might be a good idea. People might just notice the lack of difference between the 200 varieties of yoghurt.

[seanz]

I agree with Norman.

The government reached too far.

I disagree with Norman.


Australia has.....how to explain this to an American....hmmmmm....Super-Obama-Care? That should do it. Smoking is responsible for "poor health outcomes" which costs money. You join the dots.

Always thought Aussies were a rugged, individual thinking lot.

No. Sorry.

[PeterSibley]

Interestingly there is wide popular support for this amongst the Australian public, including the smoking public. Most of the smokers I know, all working class , resent tobacco and their addiction . They don't like Big Tobacco even a little bit , they don't like the fact that as kids they were seduced into taking on a horribly addictive product while the tobacco companies kept the truth about it's health effects completely hidden.

To illustrate my point, a few months ago I was having a few beers at the local general store, one of the blokes opened a new pack and out fell a little note from Big Tobacco asking the reader to write to their local representative and protest the coming plain packaging decision . He read the note , handed it around then said ,"F##k 'em, this will at least stop some of the kids from taking it up."

[WX]

We are mostly a nation of urban dwelling sport watchers who live on the coast, with our backs firmly turned to the scary interior and it's wild life.

I don't though

[George Jung]

Maybe. I wonder if any studies confirm this? I can see this sort of packaging be actually popular - a twist on 'the bird', so to speak. Good step, though - nice to see some effort.

[PeterSibley]

No studies that I know yet George but Australians aren't Americans, we don't automatically support corporate poisoners over government as reflected in the US responses above. We appreciate that it is far more likely government, our government is on our side than is Big Tobacco.

[Waddie]

I don't smoke; but aren't cigarettes still a legal product? And they don't even have the right to label their product? Liberty is lost a little at a time.

regards,
Waddie

[PeterSibley]

And the lung surgeons will have a little less work as the years progress. Freedom to poison is an interesting concept.

[WX]

I don't smoke; but aren't cigarettes still a legal product? And they don't even have the right to label their product? Liberty is lost a little at a time.

regards,
Waddie

Who's liberty? The tobacco giants or the poor sod on life support?
No one is stopping the sale of tobacco. The government is just saying you can't make it look appealing or flashy.

[skuthorp]

Waddie, it's till a legal product because prohibition will just help a black market for criminals, and the content of the product can still be regulated. Liberty to market a poison? In the past asbestos, was marketed in much the same way though as far back as the the Romans it was known it was a killer.
PI, "Will Big Tobacco start selling logo-ed cigarette cases?" It think that's been covered but creatives with no scruples will be working on the problem as I type.

[Waddie]

And the lung surgeons will have a little less work as the years progress. Freedom to poison is an interesting concept.

Then at least be honest enough to ban the product.

regards,
Waddie

[seanz]

I don't smoke; but aren't cigarettes still a legal product? And they don't even have the right to label their product? Liberty is lost a little at a time.

regards,
Waddie

Then at least be honest enough to ban the product.

regards,
Waddie

I will tell you "honestly" that part of the reason that Oz won't ban tobacco is because of free-trade agreements.....that's how countries lose their freedom to legislate in their own best interests these days.

[Captain Intrepid]

Prohibition doesn't work. We've proved that time and time again. The only way to stop the use of a drug is to reduce demand, and that's a social issue that takes a very long time and will never be completely effective. It will however be more effective than criminalization.

[Flying Orca]

It's been almost a year since I quit, and the Canuckistani equivalent of this kind of packaging was part of my motivation... not because it told me anything I didn't know, but because it confronted me every time I opened the package. I thought then and I think now that the social good (particularly in a country with socialized medicine) outweighs any supposed damage to the poor beleaguered death merchants. If they had the morals or ethics to be worth my consideration, they'd be in a different line of business.

[Steve McMahon]

Good for Australia. Canada is following close behind. The liberty loss argument is BS. There is always a line and the line is always shifting as we become better educated, and tobacco is (now) on the wrong side of that line. Better to educate and shame it out of society than to try to prohibit it.

[The Bigfella]

Good for Australia. Canada is following close behind. The liberty loss argument is BS. There is always a line and the line is always shifting as we become better educated, and tobacco is (now) on the wrong side of that line. Better to educate and shame it out of society than to try to prohibit it.

Precisely.

Incidentally, I've met T'urden's long lost brother, here in Chiang Mai. The conspiracy theory stuff is just amazing.

[Meli]

As long as they don't sell them with cigarettes in them then I imagine they could. The big tobacco companies have not given up, they will try any angle they can.

And on the comments about applying the plain packaging to other products well that might be a good idea. People might just notice the lack of difference between the 200 varieties of yoghurt.

I've already been offered a cute little tin as a free givaway to put my brand.

It's a psychological war out there.
Plain packages are associated with low life smutty books. Not very glamourous.
Won't stop me, but will help stop kids picking up the habit.
My kids hate cigs, They've grown up with the gangrinouse toes and mouth cancer images. They are smart kids.

[GaryK]

Then at least be honest enough to ban the product.

regards,
Waddie

Fortunately the government doesnt see the point of criminalising smokers. They have a tough enough battle giving up the habit as it is.
Some of you guys likening it to banning drinking and grills have to understand smoking is like asbestos - both carcinogenic.
I mean, the US has banned the use of asbestos right? What a detriment to justice, freedom & the 'mericun way that must be..

[The Bigfella]

Fortunately the government doesnt see the point of criminalising smokers. They have a tough enough battle giving up the habit as it is.
Some of you guys likening it to banning drinking and grills have to understand smoking is like asbestos - both carcinogenic.
I mean, the US has banned the use of asbestos right? What a detriment to justice, freedom & the 'mericun way that must be..

Absolutely... I'd have thought they'd be having to take the asbestos out of their cold, dead hands.....

[Waddie]

If smoking is so bad, and it is, it should be banned. We ban lots of dangerous things, and tobacco should be one of them. We should also get the salt out of our food and reduce sugar consumption. Our whole food chain could be a lot healthier at no additional cost.

I don't have any sympathy for smokers or people who say it's just so hard to quit. Get real. Smoking will kill you. If you have even a shred of willpower just quit. I smoked since I was 15 and one day in my 40's I decided the evidence was sufficient enough that It would be good to quit. I never smoked again.

Everybody knows how bad smoking is, so I have no sympathy for people who start the habit. I mean, how does it go; "Oh, today I think I'll start a habit that may kill me...but I'll look cool!!". I will never understand why anyone would ever start doing heroin or crack or LSD or hash or any other dangerous drug. We all know the dangers. Who in their right mind would ever have casual unprotected sex in this day and age????? I guess the world is just full of stupid people...

regards,
Waddie

[Meli]

Trouble is when we change things, we tend to do it overnight, not this phasing in nonsense.

Can you imagine driving to work next day on the freeway?
Mind you, could be worse if we had.......ggggg..ggg







Government subsidised nicotine withdrawal clinics

[The Bigfella]

If smoking is so bad, and it is, it should be banned. We ban lots of dangerous things, and tobacco should be one of them. We should also get the salt out of our food and reduce sugar consumption. Our whole food chain could be a lot healthier at no additional cost.

I don't have any sympathy for smokers or people who say it's just so hard to quit. Get real. Smoking will kill you. If you have even a shred of willpower just quit. I smoked since I was 15 and one day in my 40's I decided the evidence was sufficient enough that It would be good to quit. I never smoked again.

Everybody knows how bad smoking is, so I have no sympathy for people who start the habit. I mean, how does it go; "Oh, today I think I'll start a habit that may kill me...but I'll look cool!!". I will never understand why anyone would ever start doing heroin or crack or LSD or hash or any other dangerous drug. We all know the dangers. Who in their right mind would ever have casual unprotected sex in this day and age????? I guess the world is just full of stupid people...

regards,
Waddie

IIRC, it only kills one in four users. No, I don't have the stats with me... I did that research about 25 years ago..... so it isn't a matter of "smoking will kill you".... but it might, and the other health impacts are high.

It isn't that much different to having guns in a society for "protection".... Take the US for example... guns there have only caused every 41st male death in the last 30 years... so they are apparently an order of magnitude less dangerous than cigarettes...

[Waddie]

IIRC, it only kills one in four users. No, I don't have the stats with me... I did that research about 25 years ago..... so it isn't a matter of "smoking will kill you".... but it might, and the other health impacts are high.

It isn't that much different to having guns in a society for "protection".... Take the US for example... guns there have only caused every 41st male death in the last 30 years... so they are apparently an order of magnitude less dangerous than cigarettes...

There is no "good" use for tobacco, but guns are often used in self defense. Good to know that guns are considerably less deadly than smoking.

regards,
Waddie

[Meli]

nnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[GaryK]

If smoking is so bad, and it is, it should be banned. We ban lots of dangerous things, and tobacco should be one of them.

Because banning small personal use items doesnt work and is impossible to police. Just look at banning of illicit drugs in your own country (or any country) for proof. Policing the ban on tobacco trademarks, though, is easy.

Anyway, the fight is just beginning, Hong Kong, Honduras, Ukraine and Dominican Republic are using the WTO to fight Australia over this, for some reason. (The have almost no tobacco trade with our shrinking market, so what gives?)
Makes me wonder, if plain packaging doesnt work, their opposition to it makes me suspicious that it will.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

There is no "good" use for tobacco,
Waddie

Wrong.

Though I know of no good use in humans.

[The Bigfella]

Of course there's good uses for it in humans. Smoking makes you look "cool", it reduces nicotine withdrawal symptoms and it reduces personal income that might otherwise be frittered away on gambling.

[PeterSibley]

There is no "good" use for tobacco, but guns are often used in self defense. Good to know that guns are considerably less deadly than smoking.

regards,
Waddie

Actually it makes an excellent insecticide, that's the only decent use I know of .