Plan B Forum

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. [doh! you think?]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."

The US government cannot force tobacco firms to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages, an appeals court in Washington has ruled.

It said the government's plan undermined free speech in America.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had wanted to put nine pictures of dead and diseased smokers to convey the dangers of cigarettes.

But tobacco firms had argued that the images went beyond factual information and into anti-smoking advocacy.

The ruling comes as a number of other countries have ordered similar pictures to be placed on all cigarette packets.

Australia has gone a step further, banning even tobacco company logos from the cartons.

NEW restrictions on the online advertising of tobacco products will come into effect this week as the federal government looks at ways to drive down the number of smokers.

Online tobacco advertisements will be largely banned from Thursday as the internet becomes subject to the same limits as other types of media.

"These changes will limit the exposure of the public, particularly young people, to tobacco advertising on the internet, or published advertising, for example, via mobile phones," the federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, said.

"Smoking kills 15,000 Australians a year and we are committed to our fight to rid Australia of this product which, if used as the manufacturer recommends, will kill the user."


The federal government last month celebrated a victory in the High Court when it rejected the tobacco industry's challenge to legislation that will ban brand logos and trademarks on cigarette packets from December 1.

The regulations that come into force this week will require tobacco retail websites to list products for sale in plain black and white text only. Displaying product images will be banned, as will the use of words such as "cheap" and "discount".

Websites will also need to display graphic health warnings and limit access to consumers aged 18 years or over.

“This move is an important part of our strategy to reduce the adult daily smoking rate in Australia to 10 per cent by 2018,” Ms Plibersek said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/tobacco- ... z25GBmOC6s

Displaying product images will be banned, as will the use of words such as "cheap" and "discount".

Health Minister Tanya Plibersek has condemned the latest cigarette company advertising - "it's what's on the inside that counts" - as the ultimate sick joke.



Imperial Tobacco's new motto, sent in material to retailers for its Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes, suggests the plain packaging doesn't matter because everyone knows what's on the inside.


But Ms Plibersek said what's really on the inside of a smoker are diseased lungs, hearts and arteries.

Gob wrote:

...


But Ms Plibersek said what's really on the inside of a smoker are diseased lungs, hearts and arteries.

New York City has passed the first US ban on large-size sodas and other sugary drinks being sold in restaurants and other eateries.

The measure was passed by eight members of the city's mayoral-appointed health board, with one member abstaining.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called for the ban as a way to reduce obesity and its related health problems.

Opponents have vowed to fight the law in court.

"We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink," Liz Berman, a business owner and chair of New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a soft-drink industry sponsored group.

A New York Times poll in August suggested that 60% of New Yorkers were against the measure.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:Does that 16oz's measure include the ice? Ice is not a "sugary drink".