Tobacco firms lose high court battle over plain packaging

[Jack W]

Quote

Plain packaging of cigarettes will be mandatory from Friday after the high court in London rejected an attempt by the tobacco industry to prevent the change in the law.

Campaigners say other countries considering plain packaging – including Canada, Hungary, Norway and Slovenia – will be encouraged by the defeat of the industry.

Can e-cigarette makers stub out addiction concerns?

 

Read more

“This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the government’s determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging,” said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the charity Ash (Action on Smoking and Health).

“Millions of pounds have been spent on some of the country’s most expensive lawyers in the hope of blocking the policy. This disgraceful effort to privilege tobacco business interests over public health has rightly failed utterly.”

Plain packs will not be in shops immediately, because the companies have been allowed to sell off existing stocks first, but within a few months it is expected that the major brands will no longer be distinguishable from each other apart from the brand name on the packet in standard type face, colour and size. The packs will be the same shape, size and colour and 65% of the front and back surfaces will be covered by picture health warnings, with written warnings on the sides.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/19/tobacco-firms-lose-high-court-battle-plain-packaging-uk

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

When I smoked a pack of Marlboro's cost $1.50 roughly today they are about $7.50 depending on the state. Most of the cost is taxes.

[Jack W]

Just now, Gary7 said:

When I smoked a pack of Marlboro's cost $1.50 roughly today they are about $7.50 depending on the state. Most of the cost is taxes.

I for one am glad they are increasing in price gradually. Pricing them out of peoples budgets; hopefully, over time, they will become something people actively avoid.

[Pam14160]

Oh boy another drug for people to buy at a high than hell price. . .and another drug to add to the drug wars. . .ain't life in the fast lane fun. . .sure glad I never got into any of the drug crap. . . .

[Sensi]

Man i'm throwing away my toby and sparking up my weed. Atleast die high!

[Pam14160]

Just now, Sensi said:

man i'm throwing away my toby and sparking up my weed. Atleast die high!

. . .and probably less expensive. . .

[Sensi]

Just now, Pam14160 said:

. . .and probably less expensive. . .

If treated with respect, yes   

[TrueMonolith]

I'm unsurprised at this ruling. HK had no IP agreement in ChAFTA.

Also, it's not the purpose of ISDS to sue governments for their policy, its the purpose of ISDS to sue governments for violating their trade agreements.

[Shiranui]

Read this on the train this morning. Put a big smile on my face.

The gangrenous foot was not really the kind of thing you want to see early in the morning, though.

[Jack W]

2 minutes ago, Shiranui said:

Read this on the train this morning. Put a big smile on my face.

The gangrenous foot was not really the kind of thing you want to see early in the morning, though.

Always good to have something to smile at, particulary in the morning

[PGHammer]

The *taxes of sin* and *legislating morality* strike again.  Answer me this - how many of you are in favor of it because you don't smoke (tobacco products)?  (Basically, they aren't coming after you.)  Do you REALLY think they are going to stop there?  I don't trust morals-based legislation as far as I can throw the Pentagon - let alone the "Great Wall of China".  The question is not WILL they come after other "guilty pleasures" (such as sugary foods) - but "when".

[Jack W]

1 minute ago, PGHammer said:

The *taxes of sin* and *legislating morality* strike again.  Answer me this - how many of you are in favor of it because you don't smoke (tobacco products)?  (Basically, they aren't coming after you.)  Do you REALLY think they are going to stop there?  I don't trust morals-based legislation as far as I can throw the Pentagon - let alone the "Great Wall of China".  The question is not WILL they come after other "guilty pleasures" (such as sugary foods) - but "when".

Sugary food tax is already planned. But on drugs, I agree with taxes. As humans, we shouldn't need to consume or rely on drugs to perceive happiness or ignore stress, instead we should focus on fixing the core issues. Papering over the cracks, as they say.

[PGHammer]

And therein lies the issue, Jack W.; where does the interference stop?

 

I don't trust EITHER side when it comes to that.

 

[wakjak]

3 hours ago, Gary7 said:

When I smoked a pack of Marlboro's cost $1.50 roughly today they are about $7.50 depending on the state. Most of the cost is taxes.

Where I live they cost about $13.50 per pack and I know people who buy 2 a day...

[techbeck]

Tobacco....it has cost a lot of lives.,,,and I have seen it first hand.  People addicted...will pay the money no matter what the cost and no matter what packaging.

[PaulATMOS]

Tobacco will go the way of other drugs and become part of the underworld. People will also steal to get their cigarettes. High prices do not put people off buying drugs.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just ban the things and be done with it.

[Skiver Veteran]

I don't really get this move that much - I can't think of any products I buy because of their aesthetically pleasing packaging. People who smoke aren't going to stop smoking because of this, I just don't see the point in these petty moves. Let's put horrible images on them - nope, lets "hide" them in shops - nope and now this? 

 

But tbh I'd rather see a ban on "vaping" then a ban on smoking, I despise those things!

[+John. Subscriber¹]

7 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Just ban the things and be done with it.

Won't ever happen. The Tax our government gets from those things are ridiculous and a huge income

 

Just now, Skiver said:

But tbh I'd rather see a ban on "vaping" then a ban on smoking, I despise those things!

Can I ask why? 

[Skiver Veteran]

2 minutes ago, John. said:

Won't ever happen. The Tax our government gets from those things are ridiculous and a huge income

 

Can I ask why? 

Whether people liked it or not, we were in a world where smoking wasn't socially acceptable everywhere, now come the vape sticks and it seems people are quite happy to do this wherever and whenever they want. The noise some of them make is a minor annoyance and the smell from some of them, so sickly sweet.

 

I've never been a smoker but I've never minded the smell of someone else smoking so I'd rather have someone smoking an actual cigarette then one of those things. 

 

It's my own issues with them I know, people can do what they want - I just preferred the smokers to the vapers is all.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

1 minute ago, Skiver said:

Whether people liked it or not, we were in a world where smoking wasn't socially acceptable everywhere, now come the vape sticks and it seems people are quite happy to do this wherever and whenever they want. The noise some of them make is a minor annoyance and the smell from some of them, so sickly sweet.

 

I've never been a smoker but I've never minded the smell of someone else smoking so I'd rather have someone smoking an actual cigarette then one of those things. 

 

It's my own issues with them I know, people can do what they want - I just preferred the smokers to the vapers is all.

You make some good points. In the UK, people with vape sticks are still subject to the same laws as smokers. Can't smoke inside, and only in bars/restaurants in dedicated spaces, so there's not much difference really. 

 

I used to smoke, and I now have a vape stick purely for money/health reasons, but you're right there is a vape culture that - especially in the USA - looks very annoying to be around. 

[BinaryData]

9 hours ago, Jack W said:

I for one am glad they are increasing in price gradually. Pricing them out of peoples budgets; hopefully, over time, they will become something people actively avoid.

I ended up paying my brother to quit. Cost me $500 and he quit after 2 months. Now, to get him to quit chewing. That'll be forever, he chews a can every 3 days.

 

I wish smoking in public would be considered illegal. I get sick and nauseous around smokers. My co-worker REEKS of cigarette smoke. I can smell the menthol's from 2 cubicles away. It's super gross

[Jack W]

4 minutes ago, BinaryData said:

I ended up paying my brother to quit. Cost me $500 and he quit after 2 months. Now, to get him to quit chewing. That'll be forever, he chews a can every 3 days.

 

I wish smoking in public would be considered illegal. I get sick and nauseous around smokers. My co-worker REEKS of cigarette smoke. I can smell the menthol's from 2 cubicles away. It's super gross

Agreed. It is quite an obnoxious smell, one I cannot stand at all. Good on you for getting him to partly quit, though.

[Nashy]

9 hours ago, Gary7 said:

When I smoked a pack of Marlboro's cost $1.50 roughly today they are about $7.50 depending on the state. Most of the cost is taxes.

$27 for a 25 pack of Marlboro here.

It's a good thing, but they really should just ban them.  But, the government makes so much money.

[BinaryData]

2 minutes ago, Nashy said:

$27 for a 25 pack of Marlboro here.

It's a good thing, but they really should just ban them.  But, the government makes so much money.

They'd make even more if they taxed marijuana production, and if they allowed the sale of hemp. I mean, hemp can replace a LOT. It's easier to grow, takes less time for a plant to reach maturity than a tree does. I mean, lumber production would still needed for building houses and what not. But so much more could be benefited from hemp.