Skyscraper City Forum banner

Do you agree with plain packaging cigarettes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 3.3%
1 - 20 of 209 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Government wins on tobacco packaging
Jessica Marszalek | News Limited Network
August 15, 2012


FOUR multinational tobacco companies have lost their quest to stub out the Gillard Government's plain packaging laws.

British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco took their fight against the drab green boxes - designed to deter smokers - to the full bench of the High Court in April.

But in a win for the Government, a majority ruling by the High Court today dismissed their case.

The court also ruled the tobacco companies pay the Government's costs.

Although the court handed down its decision today, the reasons for judgment won't be revealed until later in the year.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is expected to hold a press conference shortly to discuss the court's ruling.

Quit Victoria policy manager Kylie Lindorff said the judgment removed the tobacco industry's last remaining advertising stronghold.

"Big tobacco knows this crucial public health reform will work, which is why they've thrown a lot of money and resources into fighting it,'' Ms Lindorff said in a statement.

"This world-first reform means the next generation of Australians will never be exposed to or deceived by tobacco advertising.''

Cancer Council Victoria CEO Todd Harper said the landmark ruling would give confidence to other governments considering plain packaging, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Under the section of the constitution made famous when it allowed Darryl Kerrigan to keep his family home in the Australian film The Castle, the cigarette companies had argued the Government was effectively taking their property without compensation by stopping them from using their trademarks.

But the majority of the justices disagreed.

The tobacco companies had also argued that the government was taking their property for anti-smoking "advertising'' and should pay for the privilege.

Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler had argued the Government was merely regulating, as it had done in relation to tobacco companies since the 1970s.

It was wrong to suggest health warnings were a "little billboard for Government advertising'' and should be paid for, he said at the time.

Under laws passed last year, all cigarette and tobacco products will be sold in drab olive packs dominated by large graphic health warnings from December.

Brand names will be written in small, generic font.

www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/government-wins-on-plain-packaging/story-fndo6ejf-1226450715860



Australia Wins Court Approval for World-First Plain-Pack Law
Joe Schneider, Jason Scott |Bloomberg Business Week
August 14, 2012

An Australian law requiring tobacco companies to sell cigarettes in uniform packaging was upheld by the nation’s top court, a ruling that may set a precedent for other countries to follow.

The High Court of Australia in a majority ruling today dismissed claims by Japan Tobacco Inc., British American Tobacco Plc (BATS), Philip Morris International Inc. (PM) and Imperial Tobacco Group Plc (IMT) that the Australian government illegally seized their intellectual property by prohibiting the display of trademarks on cigarette packs.

The ruling is a victory for a government faced with A$31.5 billion ($33 billion) in annual health costs from smoking. The decision means Australia will become the first country to introduce plain cigarette packs when the law takes effect Dec. 1, with governments in Europe, Canada and New Zealand indicating interest in implementing similar legislation.

A high court decision to uphold the ruling would be “world precedent setting” Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa, said by e-mail yesterday.

www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/australia-top-court-upholds-tobacco-plain-packaging-legislation


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Is there any research to back up this policy. Seems like a fairly useless bit of a legislation.
Just ban tobacco out right if its such a huge strain on the budget becasue I really can't see this having any impact on smoking levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,521 Posts
What's stopping the tobacco companies providing sleeves similar to mobile phone covers - could potentially make smoking "cooler" so to speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Is there any research to back up this policy. Seems like a fairly useless bit of a legislation.
Just ban tobacco out right if its such a huge strain on the budget becasue I really can't see this having any impact on smoking levels.
Well the Government quotes no less than 24 reports in the last 20 years or something which all recommend plain packaging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Well the Government quotes no less than 24 reports in the last 20 years or something which all recommend plain packaging.
I'm not sure about other states but in Victoria retailers aren't able to display any tobacco product, so its all hidden from view anyway. Seems like an easier solution, all this law is doing for us is stopping people from flaunting their cigarette packet and somehow influencing people to smoke?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
hope you're happy Hayds..
didnt really give a toss about packaging, but the tobacco companies who poured millions into taking the government to court then lost seemed to* :lol: Who knows if it will have an effect on cigarette habits but at the end of the day the final avenue of tobacco companies' marketing path has just been extinguished by means of removing their brands colors and logos. Other places like Europe and Canada looking at doing the same now a precedent has been set says something about it too.

Is this really as dramatic or different a move from the days of stopping cigarette billboards and smoking in planes and restaurants? (which actually sounds crazy today...) This just seems more of a natural progression if anything, tobacco companies arent being done any favours by supplying a product that causes so many health problems. People are voting with their feet too with less people smoking.


people can say why not ban fast food places who cause as many health problems, ban cars for their emissions etc etc.

The answer to that is, it is as easy and simple as taking the tobacco companies to court and winning for something like plain packaging and zero advertising to take effect. Go and try to ban mcdonalds or holden, you'll lose badly. And nobody really cares, basically every1 drives and eats shit food sometimes. Its getting to a point where nobody really smokes, or at least the minority that do are being done no favors along with the tobacco companies.


*they also have to pay the court costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,708 Posts
This is a "well derrrrr" decision. It wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being a unanimous decision (we don't know until reasons are released). Regulating the use of a trademark is not compulsory acquisition and it's not infringing constitutionally protected speech (ie political speech).
 

·
Crazy young doge man
Joined
·
2,697 Posts
Do people that smoke weed only do so because it comes in colourful packaging?

It's pretty obvious that if people are that worried about the drab cigarette packets they're just going to by cigarette tins that look pimp as.

Well done Jizzard, you just made smoking cooler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I'm not sure about other states but in Victoria retailers aren't able to display any tobacco product, so its all hidden from view anyway.
yeah thats the case here too, all behind closed doors behind the counter. I think its nationwide.



How's this from the tobacco guys n gals...

The tobacco companies had also argued that the government was taking their property for anti-smoking "advertising'' and should pay for the privilege.

at least they have a sense of humor :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,735 Posts
This is a "well derrrrr" decision. It wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being a unanimous decision (we don't know until reasons are released). Regulating the use of a trademark is not compulsory acquisition and it's not infringing constitutionally protected speech (ie political speech).
This is not regulating use of a trademark, it is forbidding use of a trademark rendering useless much intellectual property. I think the compulsory acquisition argument has merit.
I don't like cigarettes but that doesn't mean I or parliament should be able to force other people not to use them or force what packaging companies that sell them should use. The consenting agreements between a company and it's customer are none of my business, and none of the governments business. There are only willing victims here. And people should be allowed to make their own mistakes in life without the government as their nanny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
I don't like cigarettes but that doesn't mean I or parliament should be able to force other people not to use them or force what packaging companies that sell them should use.
Or should not be able to force them to stop advertising their product? maybe go back to the days of giant cigarettes on billboards and bus shelters? Cigarettes are pretty much in their own league so defending them as a company 'just trying to make business and get by' is a bit off.

Is plain packaging and removal of logos really a shock to them or a bigger shot in the foot than not even being able to advertise your product, where instead only the negative side effects of using your product are advertised...on your product!

What else can you legally buy that cannot be advertised? i can think of guns for one (prob do in the US). Not much else?
 
1 - 20 of 209 Posts
Top