Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,004

    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.

    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."

    More here


    BBC News - Australia cigarette plain packaging law upheld by court
    Last edited by Norton; 15-08-2012 at 02:21 PM.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    15-10-2016 @ 10:22 PM
    Posts
    3,859
    Olive green. That's not too bad.

    No rotting feet on the packets? Htf is rotting feet caused by smoking btw.

  3. #3
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    The graphic images remain.

    Filthy fucking habit!

  4. #4
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413

    scilogs.com

  5. #5
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,004
    The issue seems less to be smoking vs non smoking but that the Aus Court ruled branding and logo's illegal on packaging. No question smoking is harmful to health but so is alcohol. Which leads to the obviuos, can the government of Aus or other countries apply the same packaging law on alcohol?

  6. #6
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFree
    Htf is rotting feet caused by smoking btw.
    restricted blood flow .

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    15-10-2016 @ 10:22 PM
    Posts
    3,859


    No doubt. So are many things. Olive green cars and guns for instance. An interesting concept.


    Beware. Living can kill you.

  8. #8
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    The issue seems less to be smoking vs non smoking but that the Aus Court ruled branding and logo's illegal on packaging. No question smoking is harmful to health but so is alcohol. Which leads to the obviuos, can the government of Aus or other countries apply the same packaging law on alcohol?

    Not quite as obvious as it may first seem.
    Indulgence in any amount of tobacco endangers health; but, as with food, only over indulgence in alcohol is dangerous and the medical world confirms that limited alcohol intake can have positive health benefits.

  9. #9
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    29,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming
    Indulgence in any amount of tobacco endangers health; but, as with food, only over indulgence in alcohol is dangerous and the medical world confirms that limited alcohol intake can have positive health benefits.
    If you cut and pasted tiny fragments from different reports/research then you may be able to make this conclusion; but, put into any type of context, it's nonsense, imho.

    Some conext might be:

    Total deaths caused by: smoking, alcohol, drugs, old age, etc.
    Drain on health system.
    Misleading/deceptive/downright false advertising campaigns.
    Impact on vulnerable groups (these very same tobacco companies have been documented giving free cigaretes to school children in Africa/South America (anywhere they can get away with it...).

    The branding/logo freedom to advertise is an interesting area. But, when these tobacco companies are well known and documented to: hide/bury/deny known medical issues; use massive finances to affect legal cases, pay 'contributions' to politicians and senior community members; etc, you get the gist... Then, the government taking their rights away seems perfectly acceptable to me. If somebody commits premeditated murder then they will be tried and sentenced and lose their right to social freedom. These companies, by their actions, illegal action after illegal action, have lost their rights, to my mind.
    Last edited by Bettyboo; 15-08-2012 at 06:33 PM.
    How do I post these pictures???

  10. #10
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    ^I'm not into cut and paste jobs.

    I agree that advertising aimed at minors for alcohol is unconscionable. Australia has banned such advertising of so called 'alco-pops', which appear more like soft, rather than hard drinks and restricts the hours where advertising of alcohol is permitted on the broadcast media.

    However, it is not speculative that limited alcohol has health benefits. Also, it is not speculative that over indulgence in food, kills and negatively affects the health of more people, in the west, than does over indulgence in alcohol.

    It doesn't mitigate the problems caused by alcohol, but by extension, if you ban alcohol advertising, you must also ban advertising for the major food culprits such as Maccas, KFC and such. Which would be fine by me, but which could never be enacted because moderate and occasional use of the product does not produce demonstrably negative health effects,

  11. #11
    Member Umbuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    715
    I see a big export market selling plastic cigarette packet sleeves.


  12. #12
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    29,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming
    It doesn't mitigate the problems caused by alcohol, but by extension, if you ban alcohol advertising, you must also ban advertising for the major food culprits such as Maccas, KFC and such. Which would be fine by me, but which could never be enacted because moderate and occasional use of the product does not produce demonstrably negative health effects,
    It's certainly a multifaceted problem, who can say how it will pan out? Maybe just jailing the Cigi execs would be a better alternative...

  13. #13
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettyboo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming
    It doesn't mitigate the problems caused by alcohol, but by extension, if you ban alcohol advertising, you must also ban advertising for the major food culprits such as Maccas, KFC and such. Which would be fine by me, but which could never be enacted because moderate and occasional use of the product does not produce demonstrably negative health effects,
    It's certainly a multifaceted problem, who can say how it will pan out? Maybe just jailing the Cigi execs would be a better alternative...
    Yup! I don't know much about the politics of tobacco outside Oz, but I firmly believe that tobacco will be totally banned from sale in Australia within my lifetime. Currently the retail price for a packet of Marlboro 25s in Oz is 520 baht.

    The vast majority of that is tax, much of which is funnelled into the health system to fund smoker's health care. Also, surgery is always performed on non smokers before smokers requiring the same ops.

  14. #14
    Member
    Bettyboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    29,717
    ^ well, if Aussieland takes the lead, that'll be something to get behind; the Yanks and back home are far far behind, too many politicians have been getting rich from cigarette money (probably the whole of the house of Lords); I blame the Spanish!

  15. #15
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming View Post
    Currently the retail price for a packet of Marlboro 25s in Oz is 520 baht.

    The vast majority of that is tax, much of which is funnelled into the health system to fund smoker's health care.
    An urban myth.

  16. #16
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 10:56 PM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    721
    Another way the Govt is hitting smokers is by reducing the amount of duty free Cigarettes/ Tobacco /cigars that are allowed to be brought in from 250 cigs to 50 cigs /50grams of handrolling/pipe tobacco per person and also a reduction in the number of Cigars allowed from the 1st of September this year ! any amount over that limit will see you slugged for the appropriate excise duty and GST on the amount over the limit . As yet the alcohol allowance isnt affected

  17. #17
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming

    I firmly believe that tobacco will be totally banned from sale in Australia within my lifetime.
    AUSTRALIA'S push to bring in the world's toughest tobacco packaging laws has won the backing of the High Court - but some of the nation's leading healthcare executives have called on Canberra to take the next step and ban cigarettes.

    Push grows for total smoke ban

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    bobo746's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    24-01-2019 @ 09:21 AM
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    14,326
    ^To much tax revenue for that to happen.

  19. #19
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by bobo746
    ^To much tax revenue for that to happen.
    appears to be a valid point

    17.4 Benefits of tobacco to the economy? - Tobacco In Australia

  20. #20
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Koojo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming View Post
    Currently the retail price for a packet of Marlboro 25s in Oz is 520 baht.

    The vast majority of that is tax, much of which is funnelled into the health system to fund smoker's health care.
    An urban myth.
    Ya can't just say these things because they are a personally appealing notion Kooj. Australia has a relatively transparent budget which is examined and reported on by an independent oversight committee on an annual basis.

    A 25% across the board tobacco tax increase in 2010 goes, 100% to the health industry. 70% of the retail price of cigarettes and tobacco products in Oz is tax, more than 78% of that goes to health care.

    If tobacco was banned immediately in Australia, the nett impact on the budget would be positive. 3% of total federal tax income comes from tobacco tax. If that was lost, the nett gain in saving to the health care industry, through not having to pay for smoking related illness, would trump the tax by an estimated 6%.

    In other words, banning tobacco in Australia would be a financial winner.

  21. #21
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming
    If tobacco was banned immediately in Australia, the nett impact on the budget would be positive.
    not what the above link suggests .

  22. #22
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-10-2012 @ 10:19 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by Mid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming
    If tobacco was banned immediately in Australia, the nett impact on the budget would be positive.
    not what the above link suggests .
    I have read this through and I think if you look at the whole document, you will see that indeed it does suggest that a ban would be beneficial. You can probably discount the Philip Morris commissioned survey which makes such silly claims that as smokers die younger, their impact on the health care system is reduced.

    Obviously the cost of getting smokers to that early death has a great impact on the public health system.

  23. #23
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    03-06-2014 @ 09:01 PM
    Posts
    27,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue water dreaming View Post
    The graphic images remain.

    Filthy fucking habit!
    It's not a habit at all.
    Far from being that.

  24. #24
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    US court stops graphic cigarette warning
    Sunday, August 26, 2012


    A US court has upheld a ruling that stops forcing tobacco companies to put graphic warnings on cigarettes.

    A US appeals court has upheld a ruling that stops the government from forcing tobacco companies to put graphic warnings on cigarette packs.

    The US Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed a lower court ruling that the requirement ran afoul of the US Constitution's free speech protections.

    Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies sued to block the Food and Drug Administration mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy.

    The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual in conveying the dangers of tobacco, responsible for about 443,000 deaths in the US a year.

    The nine graphic warnings proposed by the FDA include colour images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, and a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss. These are accompanied by language that says smoking causes cancer and can harm fetuses. The warnings were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back.

    In recent years, more than 40 countries or jurisdictions have introduced labels similar to those created by the FDA. The World Health Organisation said in a survey done in countries with graphic labels that a majority of smokers noticed the warnings and more than 25 per cent said the warnings led them to consider quitting.

    Tobacco companies increasingly rely on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers - one of the few advertising levers left to them after the government curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV.

    The FDA declined to comment on pending litigation, and the Justice Department said it would review the appeals court ruling. Public health groups are urging the government to appeal.

    Warning labels first appeared on US cigarette packs in 1965, and current warning labels that feature a small box with text were put on cigarette packs in the mid-1980s. Changes to more graphic warning labels that feature colour images of the negative effects of tobacco use were mandated in a law passed in 2009 that, for the first time, gave the federal government authority to regulate tobacco.

    The share of Americans who smoke has fallen dramatically since 1970, from nearly 40 per cent to about 20 per cent. But the rate has stalled since about 2004, with about 46 million adults in the US smoking cigarettes. Some experts have cited tobacco company discount coupons on cigarettes and lack of funding for programs to discourage smoking or to help smokers quit.

    bigpondnews.com

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat terry57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Posts
    26,033
    I believe people should be able to kill themselves with cigs if they want simply because its there own body.

    On the other hand when they get lung cancer or any other smoking related illness they must not expect the public health system to pick up the tab but cough up with the cash themselves.

    Fuked if I want my tax dollars paying for there filthy habit and its cash or die easy as that.
    Stroller is a Yerman faggot.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •