Forums

Posted: 15-08-2012 07:26 Post subject:

Australia cigarette plain packaging law upheld by court

Australia's highest court has upheld a new government law on mandatory packaging for cigarettes that removes brand colours and logos from packaging.
The law requires cigarettes to be sold in olive green packets, with graphic images warning of the consequences of smoking.
Leading global tobacco manufacturers, including British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, had challenged the law.

The new packaging rules are scheduled to be implemented from 1 December 2012.
"At least a majority of the court is of the opinion that the Act is not contrary to (Australia's constitution)," the court said in a brief statement.
The full judgement is expected to be published on a later date.

The law was passed by the government last year. Authorities have said that plain packaging of cigarettes will help reduce the number of smokers in the country.

However, tobacco manufacturers have argued that removing their brand names and company colours from packets will lead to a drastic cut in profits.
They have also warned that it may result in fake products entering the market.
"It's still a bad law that will only benefit organised crime groups which sell illegal tobacco on our streets," said Scott McIntyre, spokesman for British American Tobacco (BAT) Australia.

Sonia Stewart, spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco, added that "the legislation will make the counterfeiters' job both cheaper and easier by mandating exactly how a pack must look".

Cigarette manufacturers have also claimed that the law is unconstitutional and infringes on their intellectual property rights by banning the use of brands and trademarks.

However, BAT's Mr McIntyre said the firms will comply with the new rules.
"Even though we believe the government has taken our property from us, we'll ensure our products comply with the plain packaging requirements and implementation dates."

Australia's new tough packaging laws are the first of their kind to be implemented in the world.
However, many other countries such as New Zealand, India, the UK and even some states in the US have been contemplating taking similar measures in a bid to reduce the number of smokers.
As a result, the case between the government and the cigarette makers was being watched closely all across the globe.

Jonathan Liberman, director of the McCabe Center for Law and Cancer, said the ruling was likely to give a boost to other countries looking to take similar steps.
"It shows to everybody that the only way to deal with the tobacco industry's claims, sabre rattling and legal threats is to stare them down in court," he said.

The BBC's Sydney correspondent Duncan Kennedy said the decision may have global ramifications for the cigarette makers.
"Whilst Australia might be a relatively small cigarette market, tobacco companies know that losing here could lead to a deluge of legislation elsewhere in their really big markets."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19264245

Posted: 15-08-2012 09:53 Post subject:

Anything that might help to reduce smoking is fine by me but I don't understand how it will work, will people now have no way of knowing if they are buying their normal brand or will they just have to ask for a pack of cigarettes and take pot luck ?

Posted: 15-08-2012 10:10 Post subject:

Posted: 15-08-2012 10:21 Post subject:

I've smoked for over 30 years and am now paying the price with emphysema.

Posted: 15-08-2012 10:28 Post subject:

Posted: 15-08-2012 10:28 Post subject:

Posted: 15-08-2012 14:48 Post subject:

Thank you, Ronson8 for paying for my college courses/top shrink/pending DSA et all.

Posted: 15-08-2012 15:30 Post subject:

What next, warning pictures of ugly women on lager cans?

Posted: 15-08-2012 19:42 Post subject:

Like these "growlers" ?

Posted: 15-08-2012 22:19 Post subject:

Posted: 18-08-2012 12:28 Post subject:

Having one unnattractive and cheap-to-produce packet design means the counterfeiters are going to have a field day.

Expect Tobacco Revenue to drop quicker than Facebook shares.

Posted: 18-08-2012 18:33 Post subject:

Yes, thats my worry.

smuggled baccy is a big problem and a lot of the suppliers sell to kids.

Posted: 19-08-2012 08:54 Post subject:

So what's to stop the smugglers just selling cigarettes in blank packaging now? Kids won't care if they're genuine or not, they'll just buy them to get cheap fags.

The tobacco industry here has complained about every attempt to stop them pushing their crap at people. Advertising bans meant they'd go out of business. Sports sponsorship bans meant they'd go out of business. Health warnings meant they'd go out of business. The gruesome picture packaging meant they'd go out of business. And now "plain packaging" means they'll go out of business.

Oddly enough, I think they'll survive. Which is better than many of their customers do.

Posted: 23-08-2012 07:45 Post subject:

An interesting idea:

Tasmania considers cigarette ban for anyone born after 2000
The Australian state of Tasmania is considering a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000 in an attempt to create a smoking-free generation.
By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney
3:15PM BST 22 Aug 2012

A week after Australia upheld its world-first laws plain packaging laws, Tasmania's upper house unanimously passed a motion to introduce the ban from 2018.

The measure was proposed by Ivan Dean, a Tasmanian independent MP, who said the ban would be easy to enforce because the state already has restrictions on sales of cigarettes to minors. It would be the world's first such age-based ban and is also reportedly being considered in Singapore and Finland.

Mr Dean, a former police officer and mayor, said the ban would prevent young people "from buying a product that they can't already buy" but would not affect adult smokers.
"This would mean that we would have a generation of people not exposed to tobacco products," he said.
"It would be easier for retailers to enforce because when they ask for ID, all they would need to see if the person was born after the year 2000 ... As the generation reaches 18 years, there will be fewer of them smoking and while some of those first turning 18 might smoke, as time goes on fewer and fewer will."

The state government, which will now consider whether to back the proposal in the lower house, indicated support for the ban.

"Saying that those people who sell cigarettes legally cannot sell cigarettes to a certain age is appropriate," said Michelle O'Byrne, the state's health minister. "We do it now. What the smoke-free generation would say is that, potentially, anyone from the year 2000 would not be able to buy cigarettes ever, because every year, it would just get that little bit older."

The measures follows a decision by the High Court last week to uphold the country's new plain packaging laws after an appeal by some of the world's biggest tobacco companies, including Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco. From December 1, cigarettes in Australia will be sold in drab olive packs with brand logos replaced by large graphic health warnings.

The federal Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, said after the court win last week she does not plan to ban cigarettes, but noted that if tobacco were a new product it would probably not be allowed.

The island state of Tasmania has the country's highest rates of smoking, with one in four young people smoking compared with one in five nationally.

While the proposal was today backed by health advocates and antismoking campaigners, retailers warned it will turn the island into a "nanny state".
"There needs to be awareness and education programs rather than throwing the book at today's youth, said Russell Zimmerman, from the Australian Retailers Association. "It puts back virtually you into to a nanny state rather than allowing consumers to make their own, informed decisions." As the clamour has grown for an outright nationwide ban on cigarette sales, critics have argued that such a step could lead to bans on other products such as alcohol or fatty foods.

However, Professor Simon Chapman, an antismoking advocate from the University of Sydney, said a ban on cigarettes would not lead to a "slippery slope", mainly because tobacco was far more deadly than other products.
"If the slope is slippery, it's the most unslippery slippery dip I have ever seen in my life," he said.

"The risks of smoking are just so off the table ... We started banning tobacco advertising in 1976 and there has been no other commodity where there has been anything like a serious move to do what we have done with tobacco." The opposition in Tasmania, the site of some of Britain's harshest penal colonies, said the proposed ban was excessive.

"What's next, 50 lashes for people who break the rules?" said Jeremy Rockliff, a Liberal party spokesman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9492504/Tasmania-considers-cigarette-ban-for-anyone-born-after-2000.html