Australia to Pay $50 Million in Tobacco Lawsuit Against Philip Morris.
44 replies, posted
[QUOTE][IMG]https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/150728/b8838190z.1_20150727224919_000_gr79m1ah.3_1-1archk1.jpg?x=656&sig=jB5VwU8160zuKBS3Xz4Y.Q--[/IMG]
More than $50 million of taxpayer money is expected to go up in smoke defending cigarette plain packaging in a secretive international tribunal in Singapore.
But costs will pile much higher if Australia loses on its first defence that Philip Morris indulged in cynical “venue shopping” by shifting its headquarters to Hong Kong to sue Australia.
The West Australian can reveal the Attorney-General’s Department, which is running the case in defence of plain packaging, called former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan as a witness before a special tribunal sitting in Singapore back in February.
Philip Morris, which is claiming the plain packaging regime harms its intellectual property in such famous brands as Marlboro, Peter Jackson and Longbeach, called its own high-profile witnesses, also at considerable cost.
Among Philip Morris’ witnesses have been former High Court judge Ian Callinan who gave evidence on administrative law.
Source:
[url]http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/[/url][/QUOTE]
Wait, am I understanding this right? A private company is suing them over the packaging (or sorry, a "tribunal" as if it some kind of fucking war crime)?
What the fuck. How is a private company able to sue a goddamn democratically (in theory) elected government!?
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48318957]Wait, am I understanding this right? A private company is suing them over the packaging (or sorry, a "tribunal" as if it some kind of fucking war crime)?
What the fuck. How is a private company able to sue a goddamn democratically (in theory) elected government!?[/QUOTE]
Free trade agreements. Be thankful that it's just the label, they've effectively forced third world countries to roll back their anti smoking measures as well as lower smoking age to like 8
Tobacco Giants vs Australia, or Capitalism vs Democracy.
Fair enough. Government shouldn't dictate what you put on your product box. (Especially when it comes to stuff along the lines of "Don't buy this".) The average buyer for cigarettes knows that it's killing them anyways and they don't give a damn, so why even bother putting it on the box?
See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
It won't, though. Government have a vested interest in keeping the tobacco industry alive - it nets them huge huge gains in taxes because we've decided it's an industry that is allowed to be taxed at obscenely high rates.
If vaporizers even come close to threatening big tobacco, you can be certain that they will be taxed and legislated directly into the same category as tobacco. It's too major a source of government funding for them to give it up. It'll fall in the same old pattern.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
nah
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48318957]Wait, am I understanding this right? A private company is suing them over the packaging (or sorry, a "tribunal" as if it some kind of fucking war crime)?
What the fuck. How is a private company able to sue a goddamn democratically (in theory) elected government!?[/QUOTE]
Ehhhh
While this case is debatable, corporations ought to be able to sue, and governments to be sued. States can screw up you know.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48319216]It won't, though. Government have a vested interest in keeping the tobacco industry alive - it nets them huge huge gains in taxes because we've decided it's an industry that is allowed to be taxed at obscenely high rates.
If vaporizers even come close to threatening big tobacco, you can be certain that they will be taxed and legislated directly into the same category as tobacco. It's too major a source of government funding for them to give it up. It'll fall in the same old pattern.[/QUOTE]
There's no economic incentive there, what they bring in from taxes is nothing compared to the healthcare bills that smokers put on the public system. The only reason it might happen is because you get fucked by lobbyists or they bring up shitty lawsuits as in the OP.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;48319290]There's no economic incentive there, what they bring in from taxes is nothing compared to the healthcare bills that smokers put on the public system. The only reason it might happen is because you get fucked by lobbyists or they bring up shitty lawsuits as in the OP.[/QUOTE]
He's right though, it's only a matter of time before they start taxing it, there's little evidence it causes cancer at the scale smoking does, but that doesn't mean there's 0% risk, even if it's (and I quote from numerous sources) containing 1/100th to 1/1000th the carcinogens of cigarettes. It's still going to cause a buzz at the CDC, and they'll find reasons to tax it regardless.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;48319089]Fair enough. Government shouldn't dictate what you put on your product box. (Especially when it comes to stuff along the lines of "Don't buy this".) The average buyer for cigarettes knows that it's killing them anyways and they don't give a damn, so why even bother putting it on the box?[/QUOTE]
To stop new people from smoking and give reminders to smokers just what is happening to them. In canada we have them come with a little info thing and resources to quit if you so choose. Its very reasonable to have these things on the package.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319361]He's right though, it's only a matter of time before they start taxing it, there's little evidence it causes cancer at the scale smoking does, but that doesn't mean there's 0% risk, even if it's (and I quote from numerous sources) containing 1/100th to 1/1000th the carcinogens of cigarettes. It's still going to cause a buzz at the CDC, and they'll find reasons to tax it regardless.[/QUOTE]
It depends on how the government classifies them. If they see them as a safer alternative to smoking they might get minimal or no taxes, if they're incorporated as a way of quitting then they could even be [url=http://www.cancervic.org.au/about/media-releases/2010-media-releases/media-december-2010/government-subsidises-patches.html]subsidised[/url], but there is almost no chance that they will be taxed on the same level as cigarettes just because they want to maintain the tobacco industry.
The title is terrible. You make it sound like the tribunal decided that Australia owes $50 million, when that money is what will be spent on defending the matter.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;48319290]There's no economic incentive there, what they bring in from taxes is nothing compared to the healthcare bills that smokers put on the public system. The only reason it might happen is because you get fucked by lobbyists or they bring up shitty lawsuits as in the OP.[/QUOTE]
Smokers actually cost less than non-smokers within the healthcare system because they die earlier. ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html[/URL])
Healthy people are the most expensive over their lifetime.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48318957]Wait, am I understanding this right? A private company is suing them over the packaging (or sorry, a "tribunal" as if it some kind of fucking war crime)?
What the fuck. How is a private company able to sue a goddamn democratically (in theory) elected government!?[/QUOTE]
They moved their Australian HQ to Hong Kong, so they could then sue them for violating an free trade agreement, because the Australian government would have actively tried to harm their industry and them as a company with their anti smoking laws.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
Till the fda bans them, they're too easy to make to completely outlaw but they're probably going to announce ecig rules in 2016 which have most likely been heavily lobbied in their favor to crackdown on "unsafe" vapes and favor disposable cigarette model ecigs
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
When the fda bans them then regulations all over will pop up similar to the US
[QUOTE=sgman91;48319533]Smokers actually cost less than non-smokers within the healthcare system because they die earlier. ([URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html[/URL])
Healthy people are the most expensive over their lifetime.[/QUOTE]
One simulation of healthcare costs in the Netherlands doesn't counter the significant literature there is in lifetime healthcare costs, lost productivity, and public wellbeing costs attributed to smoking.
In how many costs there are associated over a lifetime, dying sooner due to preventable diseases is a very small offset.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;48319988]One simulation of healthcare costs in the Netherlands doesn't counter the significant literature there is in lifetime healthcare costs, lost productivity, and public wellbeing costs attributed to smoking.
In how many costs there are associated over a lifetime, dying sooner due to preventable diseases is a very small offset.[/QUOTE]
Quite a few smokers die after retirement age, and you've got to remember that aged care is very fucking expensive for society. I don't really have a problem with it, especially since we are an aging society.
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
Also, i was talking to a law student and he reckons that Phillip Morris actually has a leg to stand on this case, and that likely British American tobacco will follow up with their own lawsuit if this actions proves successful.
I'd actually like the old packets back, they looked so much nicer.
This shit is fucked, when your industry is based on something that directly kills over 5 million people every year, your profit margin can suck it. Public health comes before the rights of business owners to poison people for profit.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
Nobody looks cool smoking this, so your point is invalid.
In a country where 12.5% of tax is added every quarter (3-months) to tobacco until 2016 since 2012, it's not surprising that Phillip Morris would want to sue, with more lawsuits likely. Their products had to be packaged in plain-packaging that is done in a way that tries to put people off from either starting smoking or continuing such habit, even though roughly 20% of the population still do irregardless of prices, variety & availability. Average prices were already high compared to our international neighbours before legislation was ratified & this compounded it even more, thus paving the way for a gap in the industry for bootleggers who buy vast amounts of cartons of smokes abroad to come back and sell it at retail prices (if they can get past customs...), all the while making as much as a 250% profit, not to forget illegal growing of tobacco without the required certifications & permission from governmental agencies.
Most smokers, like myself, understand the risks in having such a habit and usually make the decision on their own prerogative whether to continue or to quit.
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;48319089]Fair enough. Government shouldn't dictate what you put on your product box. (Especially when it comes to stuff along the lines of "Don't buy this".) The average buyer for cigarettes knows that it's killing them anyways and they don't give a damn, so why even bother putting it on the box?[/QUOTE]
Because statistically it works and has worked in Australia for a long time
Compared to America and Europe we smoke less, I think? 19% in America, 34% in Germany, 27% in France, and 17.5% in Australia
Australia does a lot towards educating people about the dangers of smoking and sometimes just straight up restricts people from doing it in certain areas and it has reduced our smoking population significantly
[editline]29th July 2015[/editline]
On revision, I am by no means saying that we are have less smokers than every other country - I keep finding conflicting sources about whether or not americans smoke more than we do. We definitely smoke less than European countries. I think I'm saying more that plain packaging laws have had a significant effect on the amount of people in australia that smoke
[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;48319089]Fair enough. Government shouldn't dictate what you put on your product box. (Especially when it comes to stuff along the lines of "Don't buy this".) The average buyer for cigarettes knows that it's killing them anyways and they don't give a damn, so why even bother putting it on the box?[/QUOTE]
More or less. It's no secret that smoking is bad for you and everyone around you in every way imaginable(How many people are injured in distracted driving crashes where the distraction was lighting a smoke or finding the pack or whatever? Quite a few I'm sure) so all this plain packaging does is annoy and confused buyers.
Now, there should be [i]some[/i] limits. They shouldn't be able to put anything on the box that would construe an ad aimed at kids or anything like that. Or, hell, ads at all. But I have no problem with their logo and color scheme being on the pack, as it is here in the US.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no
They're called mouth fedoras for a reason
I owned one, novelty wears off quick
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48319172]See this?
[IMG]http://s13.postimg.org/6599wsy4n/image.jpg[/IMG]
That's going to make them bankrupt in the long run anyway. Vape on brothers.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it had a chance before it became a mouth fedora, but since pretty much strictly hilsters use it, not a chance in hell.
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;48354348]Yeah no
They're called mouth fedoras for a reason
I owned one, novelty wears off quick[/QUOTE]
Except they actually provide a healthier alternative to smoking tobacco. My dad can breathe a shitload better vaporizing instead of smoking. It wasn't even a week after he switched that he felt better.
only if you can get a hold of nicotine juice
[QUOTE=Ivef;48319097]Relevant
[video=youtube;6UsHHOCH4q8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8[/video][/QUOTE]
Hehe if you search Marlboro images Jeff is right on top.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.