Plain packaging result!

[Gob]

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."

[dales]

deja vu all over again

[Gob]

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.

[rubato]

Pictures are not 'factual information'?

really.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Of course they're not rubato--they aresomething designed to shock and scare people, not present the facts about what will happen to each and every smoker. It's designed keep prople from choosing to smoke, not to provide information on what the risks really are. Do some people get very sick and die from smoking? sure. does everyone who smokes inevitably suffer these complications? of course not. Those are the facts, but some prefer to scare rather than inform.

[Lord Jim]

Well said.

[Gob]

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

[Joe Guy]

Australian court ruling seems rather odd...

[Lord Jim]

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

They better ban the listing of prices at all while they're at it, since unless Australian cigarette smokers all have rubatoesque math skills, they'll probably be able work out which ones are cheaper by looking at the numbers...

[Gob]

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.

[rubato]

...


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

And that's the truth.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Truth or not, people should be able to make their own choices.
especially when others disagree with that choice

[Gob]

Soda in plain packages?

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.

[Big RR]

Next, a ban on buying more than one soda to get around the ban. I think NYC has to figure a way to get rid of Bloomberg first, obesity second. I doubt this will stand up to judicial scrutiny if it s ever finalized as a law.

[loCAtek]

Next: graphic images on Medical Marijuana packages, depicting beheaded big cartel competitors.

[oldr_n_wsr]

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

[rubato]

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

In the drug laws if you have a substance which is 6% heroin it is all considered to be heroin. 1kg of 6% heroin is 1kg of heroin not 60g of heroin. Maybe its like that?

(the only exception I saw was for amphetamine where the purity was used to determine the amount)

Or you could just wait a few minutes until it melted and was diffused into a 'sugary drink' solution.
yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I think this proposed law is jut the beginning of a conversation about how we combat a public health crisis which already has 23% of 12 - 19 year olds with diabetes or pre-diabetes.

We are entitled to decide which is worse.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Perhaps the parents of these diabetic and pre-diabetic children should be held more accountable?

[oldr_n_wsr]

First they came for the cigarette smokers, but I wasn't a cigarette smoker so I kept silent.
Then they came for the supersize soft drink drinkers, but I didn't drink supersized softdrinks to I kept silent....
to be continued