Australiacigarette plainpackaging law upheld bycourt

inappropriate behavior

Your apology is accepted :)
NJhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19264245



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.

"At least a majority of the court is of the opinion that the Act is not contrary to (Australia's constitution)," the court said in a brief statement.

The full judgement is expected to be published on a later date.

The law was passed by the government last year. Authorities have said that plain packaging of cigarettes will help reduce the number of smokers in the country.

However, tobacco manufacturers have argued that removing their brand names and company colours from packets will lead to a drastic cut in profits.

They have also warned that it may result in fake products entering the market.

"It's still a bad law that will only benefit organised crime groups which sell illegal tobacco on our streets," said Scott McIntyre, spokesman for British American Tobacco (BAT) Australia.

Sonia Stewart, spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco, added that "the legislation will make the counterfeiters' job both cheaper and easier by mandating exactly how a pack must look".

Cigarette manufacturers have also claimed that the law is unconstitutional and infringes on their intellectual property rights by banning the use of brands and trademarks.

However, BAT's Mr McIntyre said the firms will comply with the new rules.

"Even though we believe the government has taken our property from us, we'll ensure our products comply with the plain packaging requirements and implementation dates."



Australia's new tough packaging laws are the first of their kind to be implemented in the world.

However, many other countries such as New Zealand, India, the UK and even some states in the US have been contemplating taking similar measures in a bid to reduce the number of smokers.

As a result, the case between the government and the cigarette makers was being watched closely all across the globe.

Jonathan Liberman, director of the McCabe Center for Law and Cancer, said the ruling was likely to give a boost to other countries looking to take similar steps.

"It shows to everybody that the only way to deal with the tobacco industry's claims, sabre rattling and legal threats is to stare them down in court," he said.

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."

O(∩_∩)O
 
I'm an ex-smoker but I don't agree with this! While it remains a legal product to buy and use, I think this 'Leperization' of smoking is nothing short of criminal. If the governments were dinkum about the smoking plague, they'd get a mandate from both sides of parliament to plan the eventual withdrawal of this product ( an example, say 5 years) from the public, with all the (excise) money to go towards a nicotine replacement program for the smokers who will be forced to quit. I'm astounded that with so much evidence out there about the danger's of smoking and the health cost, that no government has seen fit to do so.
 

bathorysbitch

Crawled out of the bucket at birth........
Should see my packet today. I've got a lovely pic of throat cancer. The cancerous eye is another good one.
 
I'm an ex-smoker but I don't agree with this! While it remains a legal product to buy and use, I think this 'Leperization' of smoking is nothing short of criminal. If the governments were dinkum about the smoking plague, they'd get a mandate from both sides of parliament to plan the eventual withdrawal of this product ( an example, say 5 years) from the public, with all the (excise) money to go towards a nicotine replacement program for the smokers who will be forced to quit. I'm astounded that with so much evidence out there about the danger's of smoking and the health cost, that no government has seen fit to do so.
They were going to do this in america, the gore packs if you will. It was struck down, i wanna say in court but most likely by lobbyists. If yall are anything like here, theres too much tax revenue from tobacco, it will never be illegal.

Sounds like your opinion of tobacco is similar to mine about sudefed. Either make it illegal or shut the fuck up and stop regulating the balls off it.
 
C

CO2

Guest
my occasional stick o' poison makes me not even give two fucks about this..

I'll grant it's important, but not enough for me to worry about..
 

Ora

Forum Veteran
I'll never understand why people let themselves get hooked on this shit in the first place anyway. I'm a tobacco user but I only do it on occasion where I will have a pipe or a cigar. Probably once every couple of months, if even that much. Last thing I need is another bad habit. Moderation.
 

BlogZilla

Banned
They were going to do this in america, the gore packs if you will. It was struck down, i wanna say in court but most likely by lobbyists. If yall are anything like here, theres too much tax revenue from tobacco, it will never be illegal.

Sounds like your opinion of tobacco is similar to mine about sudefed. Either make it illegal or shut the fuck up and stop regulating the balls off it.
___________________________
I think the reason why they don't make it illegal is because of the debacle they had with alcohol back in the 1920s. And the ridiculous war on drugs they have now, only speaks for itself
 
Top