Australian government wins on plain packaging tobacco products
76 replies, posted
[IMG]http://www.nevamwiti.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/logo-ninemsn.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE][B]The federal government has secured a big win over big tobacco with the High Court ruling Labor's world-first plain packaging laws are constitutionally valid.[/B]
The legal victory means all cigarettes and tobacco products will have to be sold in drab olive-brown packs from December.
Large graphic health warnings will dominate the packs and the manufacturers' brand names - such as Camel or Winfield Blue - will be written in a small generic font.
Although the court handed down its decision on Wednesday the reasons for judgment won't be revealed until later in the year.
British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco Australia argued in April that plain packaging was unconstitutional because it "extinguished" their brands and logos without compensation.
But the commonwealth insisted it had the right to regulate cigarettes just like other products harmful to human health, such as rat poison, which require warnings about safe handling.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon is expected to hold a press conference soon to discuss the court's ruling.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8516581/govt-wins-on-tobacco-plain-packaging[/URL]
Discreet cardboard boxes.
Australian for cigarette cartons.
But the pretty colours
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;37242267]I kind of feel bad for the tobacco companies, not much but just a little. It would feel pretty demeaning having your product, as horrible and destructive as it is, get these alterations to their packaging that make them look ugly and generic as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Gotta agree with this. Smoking is terrible for your health and very possibly the health of those around you but chances are if you're already smoking not much is going to deter you. I don't think some boring packaging or a warning that takes up 30% of the box is going to stop anyone.
[QUOTE=Joeyl10;37242738]Gotta agree with this. Smoking is terrible for your health and very possibly the health of those around you but chances are if you're already smoking not much is going to deter you. I don't think some boring packaging or a warning that takes up 30% of the box is going to stop anyone.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it to make it less appealing to teenagers and such?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;37242813]Isn't it to make it less appealing to teenagers and such?[/QUOTE]
Do you really think teenagers care?
Tobacco companies make so much money they really shouldn't complain
All the kids I know that smoke don't give a fuck about their health.
jesus christ this is the second time I've been sniped today.
Whatever I don't see the point. I think it's stupid. The anti cigarette ads are proven to do nothing
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
I know cigarettes aren't good for you and whatnot but why exactly is tobacco the only one being targeted if you are going to go down this route in the first place?
Why don't liquor bottles have huge pictures of fetal alcohol syndrome babies and guys passed out drowning in their own puke?
I disagree with all of it anyway but why are they picky when it comes to what they want to pummel into the ground with anti advertising
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;37242813]Isn't it to make it less appealing to teenagers and such?[/QUOTE]
all kids do is laugh at the stupid pictures they put.
That's all kids I knew did, and that's what I did and I'm not even a smoker.
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
Like really, how often does a kid on their own accord just walk into a convenience store and get seduced by some pretty advert on a cigarette carton? I doubt that even happens.
9/10 its peer pressure, or just being around other people who smoke regularly
[QUOTE=Aman VII;37242883]Whatever I don't see the point. I think it's stupid. The anti cigarette ads are proven to do nothing
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
I know cigarettes aren't good for you and whatnot but why exactly is tobacco the only one being targeted if you are going to go down this route in the first place?
Why don't liquor bottles have huge pictures of fetal alcohol syndrome babies and guys passed out drowning in their own puke?
I disagree with all of it anyway but why are they picky when it comes to what they want to pummel into the ground with anti advertising[/QUOTE]
Yes, they do. There's even [url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10810730305686]published work[/url] on how they are effective.
We pick smokes because they are one of the biggest costs to our society and healthcare system. Probably [url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-3-the-costs-of-smoking-to-australian-society]biased source[/url] but you get the idea. There's plenty of work on alcohol and other drugs too, you focus on all of the issues rather than just one, but smoking is the biggest.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;37243165]Yes, they do. There's even [URL="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10810730305686"]published work[/URL] on how they are effective.
We pick smokes because they are one of the biggest costs to our society and healthcare system. Probably [URL="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-3-the-costs-of-smoking-to-australian-society"]biased source[/URL] but you get the idea. There's plenty of work on alcohol and other drugs too, you focus on all of the issues rather than just one, but smoking is the biggest.[/QUOTE]
Could have sworn there were counter arguments and work on how they weren't effective but I might just be wrong.
Really I guess I can see your point of view, if you want to go down that nanny state route I suppose it'd be the correct thing to do. If you're going to have socialized healthcare you have to try and police the populous in what they do to their bodies since it will fuck up the system. No one way of running a country is "wrong" just a different way of meeting the same goal.
Personally I'd rather the personal liberties route where everyone is responsible for themselves.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;37243229]Could have sworn there were counter arguments and work on how they weren't effective but I might just be wrong.
Really I guess I can see your point of view, if you want to go down that nanny state route I suppose it'd be the correct thing to do. No one way of running a country is "wrong" just a different way of meeting the same goal.
Personally I'd rather the personal liberties route where everyone is responsible for themselves.[/QUOTE]
They are mostly effective in teenagers to prevent them from starting and change their effectiveness based on the advertisement in relation to the social culture. Generally though, they are effective.
It's a massive cop-out to just call on personal liberties and muh freedom. We would've just banned them if we were actually inconsiderate of personal liberties. Fortunately we have a balance between Libertarian individualism and working cooperatively as a community, so we don't forbid, but do try to coerce them into doing what is best for the society. If they want to enjoy the benefits of healthcare, security and everything else we offer, having their smokes be plain label isn't much to ask.
Waste of money, it's not going to stop people from smoking.
And generally the smokes are usually covered behind the counter in draws.
[QUOTE]But the commonwealth insisted it had the right to regulate cigarettes just like other products harmful to human health, such as rat poison, which require warnings about safe handling.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the plan, but that's an awful comparison. Rat poison sales aren't greatly harmed by having safety warnings on them. Same as toys that have a choking hazard and poisonous chemicals.
i bet the new packaging will become popular with the hipster crowd cuz it looks so indie and edgy
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37244251]I agree with the plan, but that's an awful comparison. Rat poison sales aren't greatly harmed by having safety warnings on them. Same as toys that have a choking hazard and poisonous chemicals.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but we WANT sales to be greatly harmed
So I guess if people start putting pictures of shit, penis and vagina on the box of a cigarettes, it would seriously deter them from buying?
How about putting rage faces on them? Overusing Memes can seriously deter people from buying a product
[QUOTE=Grimezy15;37243455]Waste of money, it's not going to stop people from smoking.
And generally the smokes are usually covered behind the counter in draws.[/QUOTE]
It's not that it will stop people from smoking, but it will stop people from starting smoking.
This will more likely deter younger kids from smoking, I've got cigarette cases so it really doesn't bother me.
I feel sorry for people who run smoke marts n stuff, having to search through the rows thoroughly trying to find one brand :v:
[QUOTE=mr apple;37245160]I feel sorry for people who run smoke marts n stuff, having to search through the rows thoroughly trying to find one brand :v:[/QUOTE]
If your business only has one service or one type of good, and it's a volatile one such as smokes, and one to be consistently affected by legislative pressures, then it's a shitty business to be in.
I don't feel sorry for them.
Damn now my pretentious friends wont know what type of pouch tobacco I discovered last week
I find it stupid how the government pretend to do stuff about smoking...if they really wanted to change it, they would put the prices skyhigh or ban them all together. But they get too much money from them, so they introduce laws like this to make it seem like they're doing something.
Should do what Canada does and just cover them in the most horrible, terrifying, huge images of various types of afflictions associated with smoking.
Made me damn glad I quit a couple months before they were implemented.
[QUOTE=DwarfOverlord;37245878]I find it stupid how the government pretend to do stuff about smoking...if they really wanted to change it, they would put the prices skyhigh or ban them all together. But they get too much money from them, so they introduce laws like this to make it seem like they're doing something.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the realities of the situation, and how drug addictions foreclude all other financial options. What then? An upper class with legal access to drugs? Enforcement? How do you deal with it, huh? How do you deal with the people coming cold turkey all of a sudden when they can't afford it in any way? What about the US, which shits money from cigarettes? You think the US government loves the $90b it loses a year? Look up some statistics, and then tell me how much governments love losing tax money to drug addiction.
[QUOTE=BCell;37244858]So I guess if people start putting pictures of shit, penis and vagina on the box of a cigarettes, it would seriously deter them from buying?
How about putting rage faces on them? Overusing Memes can seriously deter people from buying a product[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you but if I saw a packet of something with a picture of a vagina on it I'd buy it.
i give negative fucks, ill still be a smoker
[QUOTE=Mousy Sloth;37245894]Should do what Canada does and just cover them in the most horrible, terrifying, huge images of various types of afflictions associated with smoking.
Made me damn glad I quit a couple months before they were implemented.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Large graphic health warnings will dominate the packs[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Triarii;37246301]I don't know about you but if I saw a packet of something with a picture of a vagina on it I'd buy it.[/QUOTE]
What if it was blue waffle?
[QUOTE=DwarfOverlord;37245878]I find it stupid how the government pretend to do stuff about smoking...if they really wanted to change it, they would put the prices skyhigh or ban them all together. But they get too much money from them, so they introduce laws like this to make it seem like they're doing something.[/QUOTE]
The prices in Australia are sky high. Taxes make up almost 70% of the final price. In other countries, it's 80%.
Banning them all together wouldn't go down too well though.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;37242267]I kind of feel bad for the tobacco companies, not much but just a little. It would feel pretty demeaning having your product, as horrible and destructive as it is, get these alterations to their packaging that make them look ugly and generic as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Oh those poor tobacco companies that that consciously sell products that kill thousands of people on daily basis,they now they might go bankrupt!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.