The nanny state marches onward

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International fear the law will set a global precedent that could slash billions from the values of their brands

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?

[Chippiewill]

I have to say, whilst I'm all for smoking being frowned upon and discouraged, not giving the companies the liberty of customising the packaging with their brand is just stupid and unneeded.

[dirrty]

it's such a stupid law. i really do fail to see what they wish to achieve. it won't deter people from smoking, and i wish the gov't would see that. they're just simplifying the reasons behind the actions, when it's most definitely more complicated than that. if people want to smoke, they will.

[Mathew]

We studied this in Psychology last year when discussing Addiction. Studies have shown that banning images on cigarette packaging (and covering them up like they are now :rolleyes does discourage people from starting. It doesn't, however, encourage people to stop outright. Sadly, the studies are packed with flaws and there could quite easily be something else at play (Social Learning Theory is just as weak at the other explanations). For this reason, it's quite worrying when countries start to shove laws on such unimportant matters. The law is based on weak and reductionist findings. Shame really.

[peteyt]

People are always going to smoke. If you make it harder for people not to be able to do something - drinking, illegal downloading, smoking, people will try even harder. If this is mainly aimed at stopping under age usage then it will probably fail big time and those who smoke will continue to smoke. I work in Tesco and the customer service desk which also sells the cigarettes can't have the cabbinet open - they have to open and close it when getting them out.

[Munex]

I don't see the problem. If anybody wants to smoke, it won't bother them at all - it's just a logo. The good thing about this is that it may deter new smokers, teenagers, that do it because it's on show and it's 'cool'. I know nothing about the economic impact but excluding that, there are no negatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see the problem. If anybody wants to smoke, it won't bother them at all - it's just a logo. The good thing about this is that it may deter new smokers, teenagers, that do it because it's on show and it's 'cool'. I know nothing about the economic impact but excluding that, there are no negatives.

If somebody wants to smoke and wants to buy coloured packets, then it shouldn't bother you either.

[Munex]

If somebody wants to smoke and wants to buy coloured packets, then it shouldn't bother you either.

That's ridiculous. Smokers don't buy it for the coloured packets, and even if they did, this will prevent them from buying any more cigarettes. Win-win situation. Logically, though, I think it will only deter new smokers and won't have much of an impact on the old ones.

Also, it doesn't bother me at all. My mum smokes and I reckon she always will. I don't care what people do to themselves.

[FlyingJesus]

Who the hell buys cigarettes because they like the picture lol this is ridiculous. Stopping a business from putting their logo on their products is not in any way justified unless the logo happens to be graphic in itself, but even then cigarettes are an 18+ item now so that wouldn't be an issue in this case

[dbgtz]

Surely by removing the branding and all of that, companies can produce the boxes cheaper and therefore get a larger profit. Therefore if profit is taxed rather than revenue (I'm not sure which is actually taxed), it means more money for the government?