Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Big Tobacco loses Appeal in High Court (Australia).

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Big Tobacco loses Appeal in High Court (Australia).

Old 15th Aug 2012, 02:09
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Big Tobacco loses Appeal in High Court (Australia).

In a ruling handed down today, the Australian High Court rejected an appeal by "Big Tobacco" against the Federal Government's "Plain Packaging" legislation.

From December 2012, all cigarettes and tobacco products must be sold in drab olive packaging. The decision effectively shuts down Big Tobacco's last remaining advertising stronghold, and is expected to be adopted by other governments around the world following the court decision.

Big Tobacco is an industry that needs to recruit around 300 new smokers a week (in Australia alone) to replace those that die from smoking related diseases, and this decision has been welcomed by anti-smoking lobbies world wide.
Ovation is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 02:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 196
So when does the plain packaging for alcohol come into effect so the government can say they're stopping the bad, naughty drinkers and "Big Alcohol"? Looks like the Puritans pulled up stakes in Salem and sailed off to run the government in Oz.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 03:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,372
I noticed as well that cigarettes are kept in a closed cupboard and not on open display in shops anymore.
Metro man is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:03
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 44
Posts: 244
The government are such a bunch of hypocrites and bull****ers. If they really want to do something helpfull to curb smoking they should donate all the tax they collect to anti smoking campaigns and health care to get smokers to kick the habit instead of just pooring it all into general revenue. This stupid plain packaging law is just a ploy by the government to appease it's core voters, the huggy fluffy jokers that have replaced the old core, the workers.

Btw I'm a non smoker and can't stand the bloody things. I just don't like to see the government pick on a legal product. It should be unconstitutional but it seems Gillard has stacked the High Court with compliant left wing judges.
dat581 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
And, something that may have slipped by people, all these big scary warning labels and pictures on cigarette packs have no effect on deterring people from smoking (according to a study from the University of Maastricht).

Angstaanjagende waarschuwingen schrikken rokers niet af - Het Nieuwsblad

Putting packs of cigarettes in plain packaging and making sure they are kept under the counter will have EXACTLY the same effect, as in NONE, and the plain packaging will probably only increase counterfeiting which will lead to some far more dangerous substances appearing in what people think is their regular pack of Marlboro.

If they want to "do something" about smoking they have to go further and ban tobacco, but since that would mean losing a valuable revenue stream you know that's the last thing they want to do.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Regardless of Auslander opinion the High Court decision on tobacco packaging has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of thinking Australians.

Dissenters appear to fall into two noisy minority groups.

1. Those selfish few individuals who continue to indulge in the unhealthy and socially unpleasant smoking habit regardless of the impact on others and the environment.

2. Those who are politically in bed with Big Tobacco. And not ALL of those either - there was considerable dissent among the naturally Right-Wing NoAlition.

As was pointed out at the time the legislation was being opposed by those in receipt of Big Tobacco political donations "........it beggars belief that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott - a fitness fanatic and former health minister - would oppose this planned legislation, much to the unease of many in his party room, it would appear.

As a world-first, the impact this initiative may have on smoking rates remains to be seen but just because it hasn't yet been tried anywhere else does not mean it is not worth doing.

We've had Tony Abbott the Iron Man.

Now we have Tony Abbott the Marlboro Man - the champion of Big Tobacco's corporate rights and grateful recipient of their political donations."




"Maybe the Liberal Party could devise a new campaign slogan along these lines. Instead of "Come to where the flavour is. Come to Marlboro Country" we might see something along the lines of "Come to where the policy stops. Come to Just Say No Country".

In light of this somewhat unfathomable policy stance, one has to wonder if the Abbott Liberals have any policies at all beyond mindless negativity and opposing everything the Government puts forward regardless of its merits. The tobacco debate reveals Abbott as little more than a political thug, hell-bent on waging a campaign of fear and destruction, while at the same time offering no alternative to replace what he sets out to wreck. That is just sheer vandalism."
MattGray is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
Take it elsewhere, Matt, there is a thread for you posting that political nonsense.


Oh, you got a link to a poll where EVERY person in Australia was asked about what they think of the plain packaging of cigarettes? Thought not. Therefore

Regardless of Auslander opinion the High Court decision on tobacco packaging has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of thinking Australians.
is a bare faced lie, unless you are going to try and say that only the Australians who agree with you are the ones who can think..........
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Hmmmm.
............is a bare faced lie...........

2. Personal attacks on others are not allowed. To be mortally insulting without getting personal is a artform. Acquire the skill. If you can not counter an argument without attacking the person, then do not post here. If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, “your facts are wrong,” but it is not appropriate to say “you are a liar.”
MattGray is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:54
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
To return to the issue of counterfeit smokes, and contraband ones, can Matt or another of those who agree with him explain how this new law will cut the level of counterfeit/contraband tobacco used in Australia, something which has been rising year upon year and even shot up by 39% over the period between 2007 and 2009, meaning the Government "lost" $624 million in revenue in 2008/2009 alone? Or what about the estimated figures for 2010 that are DOUBLE that? Over $1 BILLION per year in lost revenue, that would pay for a hell of a lot of nurses..........

Can someone explain how the current "hide, tax, persecute" policies are working when it's clear that, with around 12-15% of all tobacco products consumed in Australia being "illegally sourced", the amount of people using counterfeit/contraband tobacco products is increasing and, since that increase means a decrease in legally obtained tobacco, that means that Government's claims that the amount of people smoking is dropping can only, at best, be described as fantasy?

The same can apply to any country who is following the same type of policies, especially the UK. They like to talk but will do what they must to ensure they always get a certain amount of tax revenue no matter what. Getting people to stop smoking goes against their needs, they have no interest in people doing that. They just need enough people to buy cigarettes legally to cover their revenue stream, nothing more.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 06:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
Matt

Where did I actually CALL you anything? I said your claim was a lie, nothing more.

And if that is the *best* argument you can come out with............
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 07:03
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
MattG

You just can't help yourself, can you.........

What is a subject of great importance and interest related to the health of the Australian community is hijacked into a spray about Tony Abbott. Sure there is still debate about the subject with strong arguments from both sides, but I find your contribution offensive. Are you sure you're not one of the 1,500 media spinners working for Gillard?

For me it's personal, because a long-time friend of mine passed away 2 weeks ago from cancer, after many years of smoking.

perhaps you might want to read:

ALP Still Seeking Donations

And you might want to read this lifted from an article in Crikey back in 2010

But much of the coverage has neglected to mention that Labor also has a bevy of lobbying links to Big Tobacco. A revolving door of advisers and ex-party hacks routinely pop up singing the praises of the puffing fraternity.

Other Civic directors include former right-wing Victorian ALP state secretary Andres Puig and ex-John Pandazopoulos chief of staff Brett Miller, who both worked for Labor-linked lobbyists CPR before a blow-up last November left them out on their own.

CPR, run by Victorian ALP heavyweight Adam Kilgour, has done loads of work with British American Tobacco in select states over public smoking bans and the like.

And then there’s Victorian ALP phone spam favourites Auspoll, which has previously run numerous projects and surveys for British American Tobacco in the past, including this “retailer and community attitude survey” in 2008 (Auspoll says it has since stopped working with the company for “ethical reasons”). Recently resigned board member and director of research and development John Armitage was a former ALP candidate for Flinders and worked on the ACTU’s Your Rights at Work campaign.

Interconsult also opens doors for BAT — a different firm run by Armitage and ex-ALP national organiser Melissa Horne. Ex-Jenny Macklin staffer Jess Sumich is a shareholder in Interconsult.

CPI Strategic — a firm co-directed by dumped ALP state secretary Stephen Newnham and former Liberal staffer Rick Brown — is said to have done work for Philip Morris, although Brown said the firm wasn’t a current client. “If you want to allege that we’ve done work for Philip Morris, you’re okay,” Brown told Crikey.
Ovation is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 07:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
If they really want to do something helpfull to curb smoking they should donate all the tax they collect to anti smoking campaigns and health care to get smokers to kick the habit
that is something that's really puzzled me (well, not on a daily basis, but). Why produce something that is harmful? Same goes about fizzy-sweety drinks (bad for kids in more than one way), transfats, stuff that's bad for the environment (like it used to be with leaded petrol until fairly certain it's bad etc. Of course the buyer could make an educated choice (or not buy something), but...
probes is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 07:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
I think people who are drinking several times a week and/or people who are smoking are actually a bit "simple" (and not the good way)
Well, KAG, to try and accuse people who smoke and drink alcohol of somehow being "mentally underdeveloped" is, even by your standards, one of the most offensive things I have read.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are times when it would make more sense for you to keep it to yourself. This latest one is a prime example of that.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 07:28
  #14 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 781
I'm a smoker and I'd be happy if the sale of cigarettes was banned.But that won't happen,as HB says,because governments are raking in too much coin on the tax.
TWT is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 07:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
that is something that's really puzzled me (well, not on a daily basis, but). Why produce something that is harmful? Same goes about fizzy-sweety drinks (bad for kids in more than one way), transfats, stuff that's bad for the environment (like it used to be with leaded petrol until fairly certain it's bad etc. Of course the buyer could make an educated choice (or not buy something), but...
How far do you take that argument, probes? Ban red meat? Ban eggs? Ban electricity because of the pollution from coal/oil/gas/nuclear power stations? How far do you go?

Or, better still, why not just do what you said at the end, but ensure people are educated properly so they can make an educated choice. After all, we all know the harmful effects of smoking, but the amount of people smoking has not dropped as drastically (if it has dropped, see the bit about "illegal" tobacco in Australia and the UK for that but) as those who wish to dictate to us and control our lives expected, despite all the measures already in place like advertising bans, smokes kept "under the counter", etc. Millions still start smoking annually, yet most of the "triggers" like advertising are not there any more. Putting tobacco product in plain packages will do NOTHING, especially as it's known that the bigger, more graphic, health warnings have no effect on the uptake of tobacco smoking. So they have to stop "blaming" Big Tobacco for the reasons are far closer to home and no amount of tinkering at the edges of the issue will do anything to affect it..

But, as I said, actually getting people to stop smoking will upset a major revenue stream so there is no government who will actually do that.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 08:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 44
Posts: 244
I wonder if sales of cigarette containers will go up? Smokers can just by a pack and decant the contents into a nice pocket sized container and chuck out the olive drab packet.
dat581 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 08:13
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 54
Posts: 798
Would it make a difference at all? After all, find me an example of ONE smoker who admits that he/she uses the pack as some sort of "status symbol" and would be so vain he/she would not be seen with a "drab" pack in his/her possession.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 08:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 75
Posts: 3,874
As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, ecstacy tablets etc are all sold "under the counter" in plain packaging and none of them are advertised on tv or in the print media.

Doesn't seem to have affected their popularity so I doubt if this move will make a blind bit of difference.

Live and let die I say!

TTN (non-smoker).
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 08:23
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 825
it seems Gillard has stacked the High Court with compliant left wing judges
Could hardly be more incorrect: of the seven justices on the High Court, only two have been appointed since the advent of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Details are here: About the Justices - High Court of Australia
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2012, 08:32
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
- hellsbrink,
How far do you take that argument, probes? Ban red meat? Ban eggs? Ban electricity because of the pollution from coal/oil/gas/nuclear power stations? How far do you go?
How far? I'm not sure about eggs, probably just the ones that get dioxine in them 'somehow'... and the 'farms' where hens are mutilated by being packed side-by-side, treated like egg-machines.
But more seriously, it's about what is or isn't reasonable. There are bans most people consider 'not too far'. In most countries porn is not 'on the counters', although there would be abundance of customers. Or drugs.
I'm just saying it seems weird to produce something and at the same time spend money on campaigns explaining the product is harmful.

But thou shall not upset "major revenue streams", of course.
probes is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.