The nanny state marches onward
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...#disqus_thread
Australia upholds world's toughest law on tobacco packaging
Tobacco giants have lost their bid to stop Australia from introducing plain packaging for cigarettes in a landmark case that paves the way for other countries including Britain to adopt tough anti-smoking measures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph
Under laws that come into effect this December, Australia will become the world’s first country to require cigarettes to be sold in drab olive packets with graphic health warnings and no logos. The laws are tipped to trigger an “olive revolution”, with similar measures being considered in Britain, Canada, New Zealand, China, France, India, South Africa, Norway and Uruguay.
Australia’s High Court on Wednesday knocked back a challenge by British American tobacco, Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco. The companies claimed the laws unlawfully extinguished the value of their trademarks without providing compensation. The court has not yet released its reasons but published its finding yesterday and awarded costs against the tobacco companies. The decision was hailed by the Gillard Government as a “massive victory" which would save lives and help reduce smoking rates. It clears the way for the government to ban all brand marks and logos on cigarette packets from December 1. The packets will feature large graphic health warnings while the brand name will be written in a small generic font.
"This is good news for every Australian parent who worries about their child picking up an addictive and deadly habit,” said the Attorney-General, Ms Nicola Roxon. "This will only improve the government’s ability to defend strongly any actions that are taken in international forums.” The Health Minister, Ms Tanya Plibersek, said: “For anyone who has lost someone to smoking, this one is for you.” But British American Tobacco said there was no evidence that plain packaging prevents people from smoking and called for a review of the laws. "What we’re calling for now is the Government to do a review in 12 months’ time,” said a spokesman, Mr Scott McIntyre.
The tobacco firms have not given up the fight against the laws, which are being challenged in two separate cases. Phillip Morris Asia is suing Australia for a breach of an investment treaty with Hong Kong. Ukraine, Honduras and the Dominican Republic have taken a case to the World Trade Organisation, claiming the legislation breaches Australia’s commitment under global trade rules. A spokesman for Phillip Morris, Mr Chris Argent, said it believed the challenges were strong. “There is still a long way to go before all the legal questions about plain packaging are fully explored and answered,” he said.
But legal experts say the challenges are unlikely to succeed and that the High Court’s ruling vindicates the Government’s position. Ms Roxon, the Attorney-General, said the ruling confirmed that Australia had not acquired the company’s brand and logos. Tobacco firms have also claimed that plain packaging will lead to the growth of the black market because illegal importers will easily be able to produce counterfeit packets. “When all packets look the same and easy to copy and smuggle over the borders, we expect that it will head in that direction,” Mr McIntyre said.
Before anybody tells me "oh but its saving lives, and surely thats worth it no matter what the economic and personal costs of this" - fine, but I also have a list of things which cause health problems that we should ban...
- Ban tobacco outright (if its so dangerous, simply ban it outright).
- Ban alcohol outright (far more dangerous than tobacco and far more social problems arise).
- Ban one night stands (dangerous in terms of diseases, as well as rapes and theft).
- Ban certain sex acts which carry a higher risk (unprotected sex, gay sex).
- Ban all fast food outlets/cafes (salt and fat content unacceptable).
- All extreme sports, or most sports for that matter including school PE.
- Ban sex outside of marriage/relationships (often results in violence, social costs also).
But I know, from past experience debating this, that most people who support the dogmatic campaign against tobacco aren't at all logical and are essentially hypocrites - believing the vices and risks that they partake in or approve of are somehow exempt from state control or concern. The lesson of this is, if you don't want to be nannyed - don't nanny others.
Another nail in the coffin of property rights, the free market and liberty - so expect it here soon.
Thoughts?
