au Australia cigarette plain packaging law upheld by court

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

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.

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."

'Deluge of legislation'

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."

'Still a bad law'

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.

Source: BBC News

[Tomoko]

I don't smoke but that's a stupid law, glad it didn't pass in the US.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

"Authorities have said that plain packaging of cigarettes will help reduce the number of smokers in the country."

LOL! No.

And seriously, enough is enough already, if a person wants to smoke let him smoke for god sake (in places meant for smoking of course)

[tiagosilva29]

The only way to make smokers quit is by directly tainting the tobacco with a burst action poison.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

No. Actually put fingernails in your tobacco or soak the ciggarette with milk, after that smoke it and I promise you, you'll never want to see one again :D

[articuno1au]

Just to pre-empt this pain in the arse discussion where in everybody spouts off without bothering to read anything..

The point of the legislation was to target teenagers who take up smoking by taking away the "coolness". A university published a paper showing that teenagers were less likely to try cigarettes if they made the packaging drab (which is to say less cool). Ultimately the paper says that teenagers are idiots and we should take advantage of this. This study was supported by a half dozen other papers that reached the same conclusion when testing for themselves.

If you stop teenagers smoking, this reduces the "seed" effect that smokers have. Overall it will lead to less smokers, it just won't affect current smokers.

Next, as a non smoker, walking through someone elses second hand smoke because they smoke wherever the **** they feel like it is offensive. Further, given we now know that smoking causes cancer, it's not just an inconvenience to others, it's also bad for their health. I have no issue with people smoking in principle, so long as I don't have to be subjected to it.

Inb4 idiots.

[rhianntp]

nanny state run amuck... life is tough get a helmet for christs sake...some people smoke...

[articuno1au]

How do you feel about anal sex? It's also legal and completely within a persons rights..

How about I force you to be subjected to it.. Are you still in favour of it?

Now tell me how you feel that subjecting other people to smoke is significantly different in principle.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

So when are they going to start sticking photo's of fat people on packets of cream cakes? Or pictures of people with liver disease on bottles of vodka?

I don't smoke and never have.. but I do think this law is a bit crazy.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Saying smoking causes cancer is stupid. Smoking can help along but it doesn't cause s*it. Go ask my grandfather who has smoked for 40 years, no sign of cancer nowhere.

[articuno1au]

Probably never for two reasons.

1. Society doesn't view over eating as a serious issue.
   
2. Eating is a need, not a want. Hard to condemn someone for over eating as opposed to deliberately doing themselves harm.
   

As a side note, that's also why breast cancer is generally better looked on as the person didn't inflict in on themselves. No-one has sympathy for people with lung cancer.

[compl3x]

How do you feel about anal sex? It's also legal and completely within a persons rights..

How about I force you to be subjected to it.. Are you still in favour of it?

Now tell me how you feel that subjecting other people to smoke is significantly different in principle.

Did you just compare being anally raped to the unpleasant smell of tobacco smoke?

[articuno1au]

Saying smoking causes cancer is stupid. Smoking can help along but it doesn't cause s*it. Go ask my grandfather who has smoked for 40 years, no sign of cancer nowhere.

Your grandfathers genes were exceptional. Congratulations.

In the average person, smoking does indeed cause cancer. For your one grandfather, I raise you a couple of thousand people dead from lung/throat/esophageal/mouth cancer.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Probably never for two reasons.

1. Society doesn't view over eating as a serious issue.
   
2. Eating is a need, not a want. Hard to condemn someone for over eating as opposed to deliberately doing themselves harm.
   

As a side note, that's also why breast cancer is generally better looked on as the person didn't inflict in on themselves. No-one has sympathy for people with lung cancer.

Yeah because smoking is the only thing causing lung cancer... :|

[articuno1au]

Did you just compare being anally raped to the unpleasant smell of tobacco smoke?

Nope. I was observing the health risks of smoking more than the smell.

Also, it was hyperbole. Intentionally overstated for the sake of making a point.

Yeah because smoking is the only thing causing lung cancer... :|

Clearly what I was saying. It's more that people don't bother to find out, and thus have no sympathy for those that didn't smoke.

People assume they smoked and don't feel bad for them as a result of it.

[tiagosilva29]

It's never too early for anal rape.

[compl3x]

Nope. I was observing the health risks of smoking more than the smell.

Also, it was hyperbole. Intentionally overstated for the sake of making a point.

I don't think being exposed to a very small amount of 2nd hand smoke every so often is going to have dire consequences for your health.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Clearly what I was saying. It's more that people don't bother to find out, and thus have no sympathy for those that didn't smoke.

People assume they smoked and don't feel bad for them as a result of it.

Please understand, family history (cancer) is everything here. If your family has had history with lung cancer why the hell do you even start smoking then? Of course you'll get it 99% out of those people will get lung cancer as smoking will contribute to that highly but saying smoking itself causes, no. It CAN cause, there's a difference.

[tiagosilva29]

I don't think being exposed to a very small amount of 2nd hand smoke every so often is going to have dire consequences for your health.

You think wrong.

[articuno1au]

Interesting given the amount of time people shared that point of view about smoking in general.

I would also challenge the notion that it's a small amount of second hand smoke.

Go to a club or pub for the night. Spend the entire night inside, not near the smoking section. Come home, sleep and then smell your clothes in the morning. You can smell the smoke.

If there's enough to make your clothes smell over the course of a night, how much do you think you've breathed in given the average breath is ~5L of air.

Please understand, family history (cancer) is everything here. If your family has had history with lung cancer why the hell do you even start smoking then? Of course you'll get it 99% out of those people will get lung cancer as smoking will contribute to that highly but saying smoking itself causes, no. It CAN cause, there's a difference.

Even for those without a history of lung cancer.

What you are talking about is an exemplar where in your family member didn't get cancer. This is the underwhelming minority of people.

My grandfather smoked like a chimney until he was 60, no cancer. My father was similar, no cancer (yet). That doesn't mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

You are hanging onto the absolute most literal interpretation of "smoking causes cancer". In the way it's used and intended, people know that not all smokers get cancer.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Than your clubs and pubs got some damn s*itty ventilations. We got strict rules about that over here, it must be a closed room with an excellent ventilation so the smoke can't get out otherweise you'll be either fined or closed down till you do that.

[articuno1au]

Our clubs and pubs are explicitly banned from allowing smoking inside.

You cannot smoke in a place that serves food and drink (I think it's 50M exclusion).

You still get drenched in it..

[compl3x]

You think wrong.

Walking past someone in the street who blows a puff of smoke and you take in a small amount isn't going to kill you. You probably breath in more crap standing on a side walk waiting to cross a busy road. I'm not talking about locking someone in a room and subjecting them to hours and hours of second hand smoke.

Interesting given the amount of time people shared that point of view about smoking in general.

I would also challenge the notion that it's a small amount of second hand smoke.

Go to a club or pub for the night. Spend the entire night inside, not near the smoking section. Come home, sleep and then smell your clothes in the morning. You can smell the smoke.

If there's enough to make your clothes smell over the course of a night, how much do you think you've breathed in given the average breath is ~5L of air.

Our clubs and pubs are explicitly banned from allowing smokers inside.

You cannot smoke in a place that serves food and drink (I think it's 50M exclusion).

You still get drenched in it..

Why did you use the example of going to a pub or club but then point out smoking in pubs and clubs is banned anyway :s

50M is plenty of distance. The idea you're drenched in it is absurd. Perhaps some more of that clever hyperbole.

[tiagosilva29]

Smoking ventilation partially fixes the "smell" bit. The chemicals are still there.

My grandfather smoked like a chimney until he was 60, no cancer.

One of my relatives smoked several packs a day and died at 90-someting. No cancer. His wife died at 70 with lung cancer.

Walking past someone in the street who blows a puff of smoke and you take in a small amount isn't going to kill you.

Instantly? Depends. But the effects start right away and develop and medium/long term.

[articuno1au]

Walking past someone in the street who blows a puff of smoke and you take in a small amount isn't going to kill you. You probably breath in more crap standing on a side walk waiting to cross a busy road. I'm not talking about locking someone in a room and subjecting them to hours and hours of second hand smoke.

Why did you use the example of going to a pub or club but then point out smoking in pubs and clubs is banned anyway :s

50M is plenty of distance. The idea you're drenched in it is absurd. Perhaps some more of that clever hyperbole.

Yeah, never seen anyone break the law. I wonder what that would be like..

People smoke in the streets, people walk in smelling like smoke or dragging some of it in with them, the chemicals and smell stay on people's breath, people smoke in toilets.

Man, I can't get over how much smokers are just straight up full blown ***** when it comes to their addiction.