Plain cigarette packaging likely to snowball globally

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
25,094
Reaction score
2,032
Location
Durban
One of Australia's leading anti-smoking campaigners says a "snowball" effect is likely to result in plain packaging for cigarettes being introduced in a number of new countries over the next decade, after tobacco company Philip Morris lost a court case challenging Australia's strict packaging laws.

The Singapore-based Permanent Court of Arbitration declined on jurisdictional grounds to allow the company's case to proceed against the Australian government's plain packaging laws, which were passed in 2011 to curb smoking rates.

Under the Australian laws, the first of their kind, no branding is allowed on cigarette packages and retailers must store tobacco products behind blank screens or cabinets. In addition, cigarette packages in Australia also show large graphic warnings of the possible health effects of smoking.

Public Health Association of Australia spokesman Mike Daube, who chaired the government committee which recommended plain packaging, said the Singapore court's decision was a major blow to "Big Tobacco".

"People who work in tobacco talk about the scream test - the louder the tobacco industry screams the more you know you are on the right track," he said.

"The tobacco industry's campaign against plain packaging in Australia is more ferocious than anything I have seen in the 40 years I have been working in this area.

"They have fought it in the media, they have fought it in parliament, they have fought it in the courts - and they have lost all of the way through."

Daube told Al Jazeera that he expected to see the success of Australia's policy - which researchers say has led to a reduction in smoking rates and the volume of tobacco sold - cause a "snowball effect", encouraging other nations to implement similar laws.

Plain tobacco packaging is currently being introduced in the UK and Ireland, while a number of other countries are also considering legislative changes.

"Australia is showing that you can beat Big Tobacco," Daube said.

"What we are now seeing, and this often happens in public health, is that once one country successfully implements change, other countries follow. There is a leapfrog effect.

"It's going to be tough, because the industry is desperate for new markets, but I think we will see plain packaging in many more countries over the next decade."

Tobacco companies say plain packaging laws breach international regulations for trademarks and, along with the case in Singapore, the Australian government is also still facing challenges within the World Trade Organisation.

Philip Morris' International senior vice president and general counsel Marc Firestone said in a statement on Friday that it was "regrettable that the [Singapore court] outcome hinged entirely on a procedural issue".

"There is nothing in today's outcome that addresses, let alone validates, plain packaging in Australia or anywhere else," he said, adding that the company was considering further legal options.

But Australia's Rural Health Minister Fiona Nash, who is in charge of the government's smoking policies, said in a statement on Friday that "plain packaging...is consistent with Australia's international legal obligations".

"We welcome the unanimous decision by the tribunal agreeing with Australia's position that it has no jurisdiction to hear Philip Morris' claim," she said.

"Smoking does untold harm to Australians, causing deaths from cancer, lung and heart disease, and hurting families."

Source

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...kaging-snowball-globally-151218044928763.html
 
I really don't think it will make one iota of difference to whether someone smokes or not .... or starts smoking or not ... or stops smoking for that matter
If anything the ban on tobacco advertising probably had the opposite effect to what was intended ... just the tobacco companies are now not blowing a whole lot of cash sponsoring sports events
 
I really don't think it will make one iota of difference to whether someone smokes or not .... or starts smoking or not ... or stops smoking for that matter
If anything the ban on tobacco advertising probably had the opposite effect to what was intended ... just the tobacco companies are now not blowing a whole lot of cash sponsoring sports events

There are plenty of numbers supporting this kind of intervention, but form an anecdotal side I am sure that I would have been affected by this in my younger days when I smoked. I remember how much the "brand" was important as a kid to be cool. Smoking alone wasn't enough, it had to be the right brand as well.

I think the key point here is that if this had no effect on the uptake of smoking, the number of people stopping smoking or the brand loyalty of smokers the cigarette companies would not take issue with it. They know exactly how effective it is and that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to stop this kind of legislation.
 
So plain packaging = less ink used by printers = more profits?
 
I really don't think it will make one iota of difference to whether someone smokes or not .... or starts smoking or not ... or stops smoking for that matter
If anything the ban on tobacco advertising probably had the opposite effect to what was intended ... just the tobacco companies are now not blowing a whole lot of cash sponsoring sports events

If this is true why doe the tobacco industry fight this in the European court and furiously in Australia, in fact Im sure if it is true they will voluntary impose restrictions on them selves
 
Fair enough. I just don't see what the big deal is maybe. .... Don't get the hating against "Big Tobacco" at all
I'm not a smoker, but other people smoking doesn't bug me. I reckon everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies
 
I reckon everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies

But second-hand smoke ruins lives and damn smokers are the cause for my medical aid and insurance increases.
 
But second-hand smoke ruins lives and damn smokers are the cause for my medical aid and insurance increases.

.... and don't forget global warming ... all those fekking glowing embers are heating up the atmosphere and stuff
 
Fair enough. I just don't see what the big deal is maybe. .... Don't get the hating against "Big Tobacco" at all
I'm not a smoker, but other people smoking doesn't bug me. I reckon everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies


Problem is it affects people health which puts increased constrains on various country's public health systems,also have nothing against "big tobacco" Im sure pharmaceutical and industries that deal with Coco and Gold and others are just as poor in terms of morals ,Im not a smoker so I cannot comment on whether I would continue buying with plain packaging.

there are some studies to show that it has reduced smoking and a counter one by a smoking company http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/philip-morris-wrong-plain-packaging/5137682
 
.... and don't forget global warming ... all those fekking glowing embers are heating up the atmosphere and stuff
You went from a more immediate thing caused directly by others to something that is caused indirectly by everyone.
 
Problem is it affects people health which puts increased constrains on various country's public health systems,also have nothing against "big tobacco" Im sure pharmaceutical and industries that deal with Coco and Gold and others are just as poor in terms of morals ,Im not a smoker so I cannot comment on whether I would continue buying with plain packaging.

there are some studies to show that it has reduced smoking and a counter one by a smoking company http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/philip-morris-wrong-plain-packaging/5137682

Everything affects people's health. Fsk man , I'm sure sugar causes more strain to the public health system than any other substance known to man. Don't see everyone jumping up and down telling BigSugar she must all have the same packaging and is not allowed to advertise
 
Everything affects people's health. Fsk man , I'm sure sugar causes more strain to the public health system than any other substance known to man. Don't see everyone jumping up and down telling BigSugar she must all have the same packaging and is not allowed to advertise

Yeah, but my donut doesn't affect your health. Your smoke affects mine.
 
I really don't think it will make one iota of difference to whether someone smokes or not .... or starts smoking or not ... or stops smoking for that matter
If anything the ban on tobacco advertising probably had the opposite effect to what was intended ... just the tobacco companies are now not blowing a whole lot of cash sponsoring sports events

Seems to be working.
A large study in the Australian state of Victoria found that in just 12 months plain packaging both reduced the appeal of smoking and increased desire to quit for adult smokers. Another study found calls to Quitline, an Australian government service to help people quit smoking, rose by 78 percent after the plain packaging laws came into effect. Smoking in outdoor areas, where the graphic packaging is visible to more people, also declined.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/20/10629896/australia-plain-packaging

[video=youtube;6UsHHOCH4q8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8[/video]
At 6:03 they start talking about plain packaging.
6:58 they mention that cigarette consumption fell to record lows. (Based on the department of health)
 
Fair enough. I just don't see what the big deal is maybe. .... Don't get the hating against "Big Tobacco" at all
I'm not a smoker, but other people smoking doesn't bug me. I reckon everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies

It is costing you a massive amount directly in your medical insurance premiums and less directly in tax and things like GDP. Some stats from the CDC

Smoking costs the United States billions of dollars each year.1,5

Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year, including
Nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults5
More than $156 billion in lost productivity due to premature death and exposure to secondhand smoke1

So the US population is about 320 million, thus the annual cost in direct medical care per person in the US is $531 and $487 in GDP per person.

If I said you had to pay the gov R15 000 every year to allow people to smoke would you feel differently?
 
We covered this during one of our honours Ecos courses (although the object was to apply it to alcohol in the form of no advertising) and empirically it is a sound practice; the only studies that say advertising bans have no effect on drinking or smoking are the ones sponsored by the companies themselves.

There was simply very little evidence or rational to support the alcohol industries position (I know since I had to argue for them and it was damn near impossible to formulate a strong argument) and the same thing extends to tobacco.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X