Smoking in Australia

[North Kai]

In a decision announced Wednesday, Australia's high court upheld the plain packaging act, which says that tobacco products must be in plain packaging without logos and bear graphic health warnings as of December 1.
The government immediately hailed the ruling, calling it a "watershed moment for tobacco control around the world."
"The message to the rest of the world is big tobacco can be taken on and beaten," Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said in a statement. "Without brave governments willing to take the fight up to big tobacco, they'd still have us believing that tobacco is neither harmful nor addictive."

Australia is the first nation in the world to require "plain packaging" for tobacco. Only the brand and variant name will differ against a drab dark color background. Other government initiatives against tobacco have included a 25% excise in 2010, restrictions on Internet advertising, and more than $85 million in anti-smoking social marketing campaigns.

According to the World Health Organization, tobacco kills nearly six million people a year, 10% of them from secondhand smoke exposure. The WHO says the death toll could rise to more than eight million a year by 2030 without urgent action.

Tobacco companies, including Imperial Tobacco, Philip Morris Limited and British American Tobacco, had challenged the act as unconstitutional, saying the government was unfairly taking its intellectual property.
The high court posted the decision on its website, but not the opinion. That will be published at a later date, it said.

"Any company in similar circumstances, when faced with the loss of brands worth billions of dollars, would challenge such laws," said Sonia Stewart, spokeswoman for Imperial Tobacco, an Australian company, in a statement.

"Our biggest concern is the effect plain packaging will have on illicit trade," Stewart said. "Plain packaging will make Australia a magnet for the growing black market in tobacco, which already costs the Australian Government nearly $1 billion per annum in lost revenue."

In a similarly worded statement, British American Tobacco said only organized crime gangs will gain from an illegal market. The policy, said spokesman Scott McIntyre, "will actually increase smoking rates particularly in young people who'll have greater access to cheap illegal cigarettes."

Imperial Tobacco and PML said the legal fight was not over, citing challenges by three governments -- Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Ukraine -- within the World Trade Organization. PML is also suing Australia for breaching the Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong.

Public health advocates, however, hailed the ruling, which conforms with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, of which Australia is a party.

Richard Daynard, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston and president of the school's Public Health Advocacy Institute, called the Australian ruling "extraordinarily encouraging."

"It means that governments are pretty much free to do what they feel is necessary to protect their population from tobacco marketing, including marketing on packages. In other words, it's a blow for public health."
Daynard said Philip Morris has taken the lead in litigation against governments that take strong anti-tobacco control measures. "They have a case against the government of Uruguay for requiring that 80% of the packages have warnings on them," he said in a telephone interview.
Beyond Australia

Last year the United States unveiled nine graphic health warning labels that must cover half the area of cigarette packages by this September, joining 41 other countries that mandate pictorial warnings.
Tobacco use is the nation's leading preventable cause of death, responsible for about one in five deaths -- or 443,000 -- a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Additionally, cigarette smoking is responsible for $96 billion in direct medical costs and $97 billion in lost productivity each year, according to the U.S. government.

Five tobacco manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, have challenged the requirements, saying they violated the First Amendment rights. In February, a federal judge sided with the companies, and the Obama administration's appeal is still pending.

In a report last year, the CDC found in a 14-nation study that graphic health warnings on cigarette packages have led a "substantial" number of smokers to consider quitting.

The World Health Organization says 19 countries meet the "best practice for pictorial warnings," which include warnings in the local language and which must cover at least half cigarette packages. Less than 11% of the world's population is protected by comprehensive national smoke-free laws, it says.

What is your opinion on this?
Me: I totally support the cause, I dont care if ppl smoke or not its their choice, but if it helps even one person reach the decision not to smoke I say do it

 

[KAGE RYUU]

Smoker gon smoke ......i quite 7 years ago tho so i dont give a shit

 

[AP2k]

I couldn't care less if people wanna smoke, let them do whatever. If changing the packaging actually stops people from doing it (it won't. If someone wants to smoke, they will) then go ahead. I live in New York, where its about 15-20 bucks for a pack, its scary how people can afford to smoke a pack a day.

 

[Gatsuuga]

I couldn't care less if people wanna smoke, let them do whatever. If changing the packaging actually stops people from doing it (it won't. If someone wants to smoke, they will) then go ahead. I live in New York, where its about 15-20 bucks for a pack, its scary how people can afford to smoke a pack a day.

Being someone that lives in australia I can say that this new legislation isn't to deter current smokers from smoking. It is a way to discourage new people from taking it up. If they all look the same no one brand can look 'hip'.

I don't see anything wrong with it and I think its a major win for Australia. Tobacco companies are just upset they may not be able to kill as many people.

 

[AmaniPaz]

It's not like it was doing anything to put smokers off

 

[Gatsuuga]

It's not like it was doing anything to put smokers off

Thats not really the point, and they are open with that. Its to stop new people taking it up, making it less attractive to young people.

 

[AP2k]

Being someone that lives in australia I can say that this new legislation isn't to deter current smokers from smoking. It is a way to discourage new people from taking it up. If they all look the same no one brand can look 'hip'.

I don't see anything wrong with it and I think its a major win for Australia. Tobacco companies are just upset they may not be able to kill as many people.

Honestly a blank pack would look more hip then one with a camel on it. There would be better ways to make it look bad and deter kids, maybe if it had a picture of an Ork from LotR xD thatd teach those kids.

 

[Nathan]

Being someone that lives in australia I can say that this new legislation isn't to deter current smokers from smoking. It is a way to discourage new people from taking it up. If they all look the same no one brand can look 'hip'.

I don't see anything wrong with it and I think its a major win for Australia. Tobacco companies are just upset they may not be able to kill as many people.

I concur.

But, with the killing part. It's more the fact they, may or may not make more profit out of there product. It's not about them killing people who smoke, it's money, money, money.

 

[Gatsuuga]

Honestly a blank pack would look more hip then one with a camel on it. There would be better ways to make it look bad and deter kids, maybe if it had a picture of an Ork from LotR xD thatd teach those kids.

There not completely blank they have big pictures of gangreen feet and cancer riddled teeth on them. Those kinds of images will never be hip, unless you run in a seriously f**ked up crowd.

I concur.

But, with the killing part. It's more the fact they, may or may not make more profit out of there product. It's not about them killing people who smoke, it's money, money, money.

Haha, I know I didn't mean it literaly, actually killing people would be bad for there business. I was making a pun on how they profit from slowly killing people, yet big tobacco don't really care, instead saying this infringes in there rights. It is actually ridiculous how people profit from the tobacco industry.

 

[ShishaMastah420]

Man... Having cigs in a plain package,IMO, won't change jackshit...

Kids/Adults don't go in the stores and say; "Oooh shiny,pretty, i want those cigarettes!"

I think it would help Australia better if they required the Big Tobacco businesses to let their customer know of the risk of using their products...

 

[Ashflura]

Australia does pretty well with its smoking laws. I live here, and I can say I go through a good day to school, without having to walk through puffs of smoke. The increase in smoking bans in public places like restaurants, or wherever there are children makes me happy. My sister is or temporarily isn't a smoker because she's pregnant, she gets frustrated from the increased taxes, new labelling, and bans. While I smile.

 

[Shinobi Train]

I'm just curious, why are people so against smoking? If someone smokes a pack in a week or two, is it really that bad? Sure, pack a day obviously isn't okay, but why do those who moderate themselves get thrown in with those who are out of control?

 

[Ashflura]

Because anything that your body inhales as an intoxicant or poison shouldn't be going down your system at all. Even in moderation, you're organs will deterioate over the long term. There's obviously those miraculous exceptions, where people have smoked for 50 years and nothing has happened to them, but that's an extremely rare case. My uncle went through something similar and passed away a couple years back most likely because of his lung cancer.
Prevention is better than waiting for a cure.