[Shinrei]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-australia.html

Quote

Tobacco companies in Australia will be forced to strip all logos from their cigarette packages and replace them with graphic images such as cancer-riddled mouths and sickly children under legislation unveiled Thursday.

The government says the move will make Australia the world's toughest country on tobacco advertising.

The law would remove one of the tobacco companies' last methods of advertising by banning them from printing their logos, promotional text or colorful images on cigarette packs. Instead, brand names will be printed in a small, uniform font, and the packets will be a dull olive green — a colour the government believes consumers will hate.

"This plain packaging legislation is a world first and sends a clear message that the glamour is gone — cigarette packs will now only show the death and disease that can come from smoking," Health Minister Nicola Roxon said in a statement.

"The new packs have been designed to have the lowest appeal to smokers and to make clear the terrible effects that smoking can have on your health."

Tobacco companies have been fighting the legislation and threatening legal action since the government first announced its plan last year. The law would be phased in over six months, starting in January 2012.

The legality of the measure and whether it violates trademark laws is a matter of debate among experts. British American Tobacco, which produces several cigarette brands including Winfield, Dunhill and Benson, will probably launch legal action against the government over the legislation, spokesman Scott McIntyre said.

"What company would stand for having its brands, which are worth billions, taken away from them?" McIntyre said. "A large brewing company or fast food chain certainly wouldn't and we're no different."

Packaging draws young people
Smoking rates have been declining in Australia for years, but the government says cigarettes still kill 15,000 Australians a year and cost the country about $31.5 billion annually.

Tobacco advertising on billboards and in magazines has long been banned and restrictions on smoking in public places, including restaurants and bars, are common.

Public health advocates said the move to strip packages of their enticing images goes one critical step further, and will have a particularly big impact on children.

"Our research shows that the look of the pack is an important consideration for young people at risk of being drawn to smoking," Ian Olver, CEO of Cancer Council Australia, said in a statement.

"So this move by the Australian government has the potential to be one of the most significant public health measures in recent history."

Other countries, such as Britain and Canada, have considered packaging restrictions in the past, but none of the measures has passed, in part because of legal questions.

The government is required under the constitution to pay compensation to anyone from whom it takes or devalues property, including intellectual property such as trademarks. But opinions are split on what the implications of those rules, and international trade laws, are in the case of cigarette packages.

Matthew Rimmer, a legal expert at The Australian National University, said the government is fully within its power to regulate the packaging of tobacco products.

"Trademarks are a government grant and governments always retain the capacity to regulate that grant," said Rimmer, who wrote a paper urging plain packaging of cigarettes in 2008. "So historically they've always had the provisions, for instance, to ban trademarks on certain things that are contrary to law."

Tim Wilson, an intellectual property and free trade expert at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, disagrees, saying the measure would violate international trademark and intellectual property regulations. Stripping the tobacco companies' logos from packaging diminishes the value of their trademarks, which is against the law, he said.

Threats of legal action from the tobacco industry will do nothing to dissuade the government from moving forward with the plan, said Roxon, the health minister.

"We believe we are on very strong legal grounds," she told journalists in Sydney. "We're not going to have 'big tobacco' scaring us with legal action. We want to make sure that the glamour that might have been attached to smoking in the past is dead and gone."

In December 2010, Ottawa introduced new rules for graphic warning labels on cigarettes.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quit double-threading it up, Shin!

And, what's your question? Whether the bill goes to far? Will it be effective?

It wouldn't have stopped me when I smoked, for about 9 years or so, and I doubt it will stop anybody else.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 10 April 2011 - 03:05 AM

[Shinrei]

I find this ridiculous for two reasons:

1) Because the problem, all this time, has been people haven't actually understood that cigarettes are bad for you. Most people think they are high in vitamen C and antioxidants...

2) This is a major precedent. If they can do this sweeping control of packaging by private companies across an entire industry, it isn't that far fetched (i know, the dreaded slippery slope argument), that they will use this as precedent to extend this to other industries.

Beer cans with pictures of diseased livers? Candy bars with pictures of grossly obese people? San Francisco will be quick to make McDonald's bag all of their food in bags that say "HORRIBLE PERSON ALERT, PLEASE SPIT ON ME IF YOU SEE THIS BAG!"

[Shinrei]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 April 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

Quit double-threading it up, Shin!

And, what's your question? Whether the bill goes to far? Will it be effective?

It wouldn't have stopped me when I smoked, for about 9 years or so, and I doubt it will stop anybody else.

Sorry, the forum froze the first time, and I can't delete it for some reason.

And yeah, I'm hearing this from other people - it won't stop smokers.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 10 April 2011 - 03:12 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't know. Most products wouldn't be directly related to an interest that was sufficiently compelling for the government to do such a thing and get away with it. Protecting the lives of its citizens is about as compelling an interest as they come though, so it would be an interesting decision.

If people will pay $7 for a pack of Marlboro (which a lot of is sin tax anymore), they'll put up with anything.

[Shinrei]

Protecting the lives of its citizens - but how far do we take that? You can certainly argue that alcohol ruins lives, so my beer example shouldn't be that far fetched. And if you have a public healthcare system like Australia does, increasing the guilt for shopping at McDonald's as a public health concern isn't that far-fetched either.

People make choices in their lives, and some choices are destructive. We can't (and shouldn't) regulate all of it.

Smoking is already banned in many environments (restaurants, offices, planes etc.) and the packs are already labeled and taxed. Hell, making illegal drugs entirely illegal with jail terms and fines as punishment hasn't exactly stopped a lot of people.

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei, on 10 April 2011 - 03:23 AM, said:

Protecting the lives of its citizens - but how far do we take that? You can certainly argue that alcohol ruins lives, so my beer example shouldn't be that far fetched. And if you have a public healthcare system like Australia does, increasing the guilt for shopping at McDonald's as a public health concern isn't that far-fetched either.

People make choices in their lives, and some choices are destructive. We can't (and shouldn't) regulate all of it.

Smoking is already banned in many environments (restaurants, offices, planes etc.) and the packs are already labeled and taxed. Hell, making illegal drugs entirely illegal with jail terms and fines as punishment hasn't exactly stopped a lot of people.

Alcohol would probably fall under the same umbrella as nicotine products, yes. Trying to enforce healthy eating habits is more attenuated than something that has immediate harm, so I think there we begin to stretch when it comes to compelling interests.

Of course, this is all based on U.S. law, no idea what standards for that sort of scrutiny would be in other areas. A compelling government interest narrowly tailored in the least restricting way is the strict scrutiny standard here, and the real debate would be over whether the packaging thing was "narrowly tailored" enough or the "least restricting" way to go about achieving the interest if it was applied to that standard.

But, I'm at a loss as to whether that would be the standard applied here. It is my inclination because of the "suspect class" that is inherit in the law.

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 10 April 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

I find this ridiculous for two reasons:

1) Because the problem, all this time, has been people haven't actually understood that cigarettes are bad for you. Most people think they are high in vitamen C and antioxidants...

2) This is a major precedent. If they can do this sweeping control of packaging by private companies across an entire industry, it isn't that far fetched (i know, the dreaded slippery slope argument), that they will use this as precedent to extend this to other industries.

Beer cans with pictures of diseased livers? Candy bars with pictures of grossly obese people? San Francisco will be quick to make McDonald's bag all of their food in bags that say "HORRIBLE PERSON ALERT, PLEASE SPIT ON ME IF YOU SEE THIS BAG!"

I just don't get the motivation for it. I dunno about your first point, Shin, because to me *everyone* by now is 'aware' (my God, I am hating 'awareness' campaigns at the moment...) of the risks of smoking. But the second one is what makes me think this whole focus on cigarettes is weird.

Alcohol? Let's have pictures of smashed cars, no brand distinction, people beating their wives, children or husbands, bar fights, liver disease, so on and so forth.

Cars themselves? Again, pictures of traffic accidents, people run over, drive-by shootings, etc.

Guns, surely that must be a major one. Pictures of hunters who accidentally shot another hunter, images of war, be it in Africa with child soliders, or Iraq, with Americans and 'insurgents', or Vietnam, and village massacres.

As you say, fast food - where are the pictures of obesity, heart disease/constricted arteries, etc, etc.

I'm only marginally worried about the 'slippery slope' aspect, fallacious or not. At worst it's going to affect alcohol, and that will take a long time to get rid of before they can move onto, say, cars, because of global warming. What I find disturbing, as a non-smoker, whose parents were smokers but they quit because they realized it was bad for them (and me), is that smoking has been so targeted. Why? Because it's socially unacceptable now? If so, why is it? If not, what other reason? It's harmful to others? See the above examples, ffs! It's harmful to the person? It's a choice. If you want to take that choice away, make it illegal. Worried that that will just create a black market? Oh, guess we have to run a hate-on-smoking campaign and try and destroy the companies producing it by forcing them to remove any distinguishing features from their products? Wtf.

I dunno...I don't particularly like smokers when they're hanging around (no offense to anyone who does smoke, btw, it's just unpleasant) - something I didn't notice when younger because my parents smoked, I'm sure - but this just seems like a really underhanded, hypocritical way to go about it. I guess if it was a 'harder' drug, I'd be for it...maybe. But when you walk around uni - ostensibly smoke-free, yet everyone sits just outside the uni grounds and smokes anyway, sometimes RIGHT IN FRONT OF (and on the uni side of) THE SMOKE FREE CAMPUS SIGN...need to get a pic of that, one day) and still smokes. It just makes people ostracized.
Irony is, the security folk who are meant to enforce the smoke free thing as part of their job? Yeah, almost all of them smoke themselves. XD

The thing is, I guess, I agree with the message, just not the steps they're taking to get it across, or the implications for other things the government decides is 'bad for you'. In many ways, it's propaganda on a grand scale, and it stops just shy of suggesting people should hate smokers. :S

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

Why cigarettes?

I'm going to list a few reasons, and I think it is an amalgamation of them.

1. The campaign to inform people about the health risks of smoking has succeeded beyond all expectations. Only smokers and small government types will care. And, smokers will only be annoyed at first, then move on. For fucks sake, they/we (I'd still love to smoke, if I wouldn't be insta-addicted again) have acclimated breathing smoke into their lungs as a recreational activity. Pictures aren't going to phase them, especially in the Age of the Internet. So, it makes a good starting point for (what did SE call them in The Healthy Dead?) lifestyle gurus.

2. It costs all taxpayers money. Lots and lots of money, be it nationalized or privatized.

3. Government has a duty to try and protect its citizens, even if it is from themselves.

I had more ideas, but the light-bulb moment has faded. Maybe I'll come back to this later. I don't share Shin's outrage, but my ears did perk when I heard this on the BBC a few days ago. Didn't Australia ban pornography of girls with small breasts in an attempt to combat pedophilia or something? Seems like the same sort of thing here, but less crazy because cigarettes are a normal target for this sort of thing.

[Shinrei]

Silencer, my point #1 was supposed to be obvious sarcasm.

This program doesn't raise my ire all that much. Mostly, it just makes me cock an eyebrow because it just seems so redundant. So, if the government wants to create a redundant regulation and as long as that action doesn't cast the taxpayers money - meh, I don't care so much.

However, I have to admit to being somewhat nervous about the precedent.

Quote

3. Government has a duty to try and protect its citizens, even if it is from themselves

I struggle with this statement. At times I think it's laudable, at other times I don't. Basically I can't accept it as a blanket statement, because it could really be worked to extremes. I had the discussion with a co-worker recently about mandatory helmet laws on motorcycles. It's mandatory in Japan, I think it's State-by-State in the US. Personally, if riders prefer to go helmetless, I don't see why the government should step in and say no. It doesn't increase the risk of injury beyond the individual themselves, so I don't see the problem.
Cigarette smoking regulations are different in my mind, since it presents an immediate affect on others in the vicinity of the smoker.

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei, on 10 April 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

Silencer, my point #1 was supposed to be obvious sarcasm.

This program doesn't raise my ire all that much. Mostly, it just makes me cock an eyebrow because it just seems so redundant. So, if the government wants to create a redundant regulation and as long as that action doesn't cast the taxpayers money - meh, I don't care so much.

However, I have to admit to being somewhat nervous about the precedent.

Quote

3. Government has a duty to try and protect its citizens, even if it is from themselves

I struggle with this statement. At times I think it's laudable, at other times I don't. Basically I can't accept it as a blanket statement, because it could really be worked to extremes. I had the discussion with a co-worker recently about mandatory helmet laws on motorcycles. It's mandatory in Japan, I think it's State-by-State in the US. Personally, if riders prefer to go helmetless, I don't see why the government should step in and say no. It doesn't increase the risk of injury beyond the individual themselves, so I don't see the problem.
Cigarette smoking regulations are different in my mind, since it presents an immediate affect on others in the vicinity of the smoker.

Accept it as a blanket statement because it is true. Governments were formed originally for very few reasons. Protection of its citizens was the primary reason. Now, we can argue about when government is overreaching in that goal, but it is necessary as a foundation.

The thing is that anything can be worked to the extremes. So, trying to use the slippery slope argument as the sole argument against something is, generally, fearmongering. Now, I know you aren't doing this, but it needs to be said. Now, the problem becomes that for every instance you cite, I can give you a legitimate government reason for doing so. Motorcycle helmets affect the taxpayer when injuries are grossly exacerbated by not wearing one. Eventually, this curve reaches absurdity in trying to find the legitimate interest, but it still exists.

The debate between personal choice and governmental interest is extremely interesting, especially where government has compelling interests, which is why I would find the discussion of the merits of this fascinating, legally.

[Shinrei]

Well, utlimately that's what the argument is - where should we allow the government to draw the line between regulated behavior and personal responsibility?

As you know, I generally prefer to err to the side of personal responsibility. Too much hand-holding can only becomes detrimental to a society. One of the common complaints by foreigners in Japan is the amount of handholding that happens here. Public announcements everywhere telling you to remember to turn your headlights on, and don't forget to lock your door, and 'the end of the escalator is ahead, please watch your step'. A police squad car sometimes passes our apartment in the morning- loudspeaker blaring things like "remember to check for cars before crossing the street." The result is a people who can frequently act very timidly for fear of failing to follow 'the rules' and can become completely lost when there aren't any apparent rules to follow.



....this makes me sound like a masochist for living in Japan.

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei, on 10 April 2011 - 05:26 AM, said:

Well, utlimately that's what the argument is - where should we allow the government to draw the line between regulated behavior and personal responsibility?

As you know, I generally prefer to err to the side of personal responsibility. Too much hand-holding can only becomes detrimental to a society. One of the common complaints by foreigners in Japan is the amount of handholding that happens here. Public announcements everywhere telling you to remember to turn your headlights on, and don't forget to lock your door, and 'the end of the escalator is ahead, please watch your step'. A police squad car sometimes passes our apartment in the morning- loudspeaker blaring things like "remember to check for cars before crossing the street." The result is a people who can frequently act very timidly for fear of failing to follow 'the rules' and can become completely lost when there aren't any apparent rules to follow.



....this makes me sound like a masochist for living in Japan.

"You all know Japan is really weird, right?" Shin, in 10 places you'd want to live. Lol.

That is a form of a slippery slope argument, Shin.

"Too much douchebaggery by the Fed, and the next thing you know Washington will be telling us we need to shake after we piss...."

I'm going to match this fairly weak argument with my own fairly weak argument, Terry Goodkind backed and all: People are stupid. Sometimes you need to remind them about how stupid they are en masse.

I'm generally inclined to let the idiots off themselves with as much vigor as possible. But, idiots are still citizens, and they need to be reminded from time to time. That being said, your point is noted. That's some weird shit, and probably annoying as fuck to most people.

[Shinrei]

I wasn't aware I was making that argument, only saying that handholding taken too far can be bad. Slippery slope is a 'one thing leading to another' argument, which wasn't (or at least I thought wasn't) what I was getting at. At least not in that last post. I was indeed using it in my original refute of the OP.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 10 April 2011 - 05:43 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

That might read strangely. I thought you were using Japan's hand-holding as an extreme example of the cigarette package thing. I.e., an extremely graphic reminder of how bad smoking is as opposed to a van driving around blaring "smoking is bad for you" out of it.

[Aptorian]

I skimmed over the last couple of posts so forgive me of this has been brought up, but the big difference between cigarettes and cars or guns or what ever, is that you do not become physically addicted to driving you car, if you want you can just jump out and start taking public transportation instead. Many people who smoke on the other hand have a hell of a time giving it up.

One of the points of the article is not that they are trying to remind smokers that what they are doing may reduce their life expectancy (and make them smell like death) but rather attempting to dissuade new users from taking up smoking, primarily kids. Packages that look fucked up will make the kids think an extra time when ever they look at the packaging.

If they want people to stop smoking, raising the prices and restricting smoking areas is the effective approach. I have a couple friends who stopped smoking just because it was so annoying trying to smoke in public.

But really, why not just skip a decade a head and ban cigarettes out right? We all know that is where we are heading.

[HoosierDaddy]

Battle Plaptypus, on 10 April 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

I skimmed over the last couple of posts so forgive me of this has been brought up, but the big difference between cigarettes and cars or guns or what ever, is that you do not become physically addicted to driving you car, if you want you can just jump out and start taking public transportation instead. Many people who smoke on the other hand have a hell of a time giving it up.

One of the points of the article is not that they are trying to remind smokers that what they are doing may reduce their life expectancy (and make them smell like death) but rather attempting to dissuade new users from taking up smoking, primarily kids. Packages that look fucked up will make the kids think an extra time when ever they look at the packaging.

If they want people to stop smoking, raising the prices and restricting smoking areas is the effective approach. I have a couple friends who stopped smoking just because it was so annoying trying to smoke in public.

But really, why not just skip a decade a head and ban cigarettes out right? We all know that is where we are heading.

Ah, one of the areas I light-bulbed out about: keeping kids from smoking in the first place.

Honestly, kids will still smoke. But, this is more affective targeting than at already dedicated smokers.

Drugs will be legalized before smokes are banned, IMO.

[Mentalist]

they tried this in Canada. it didn't work out too well. the first time they tried, Supreme Court declared the Law uncostitutional. The second time the case went to Supreme Court, 12 years later, the law was accepted in both cases, the principal argument was that it violated the tobacco companies' freedom of expression. The second, passed law ensured that tobacco companies cannot advertise to attract new smokers. they were allowed ads only as "brand awareness", so that they could compete for the existing smokers.

it was a hard law to pass though

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I can't honestly imagine that anyone who starts, or might start smoking, is going to give two shits what the packs look like. Sure, it might dissuade you from buying them initially, but not trying it.

[Illuyankas]

What they should is hire people to go around and punch everyone in the face who lights up. One punch per cigarette. COME ON THIS IS IDEAL FOR ME BECAUSE 1. IT MEANS I CAN PUNCH PEOPLE IN THE FACE AND GET PAID FOR IT AND 2. IT IS A JOB GIVE ME MONEY