On ciggies, Australia the world leader in public health reform
|
The Rudd government yesterday breathed new life into the smoking debate with the double-barrelled announcement that tobacco tax was jumping up by 25% effective at midnight and that tobacco would be sold in plain packaging from January 2012. Tobacco taxes are a proven cornerstone of tobacco control policy and have a long track record of preventing young people from starting and inciting current smokers to quit. Plain packaging, however, is without international precedence and positions Australia as a global leader in public health reform. Putting the accolades and triumphant high fives aside, what does plain packaging actually mean? Contrary to the musings of the conservative think-tank, Institute of Public Affairs, plain packaging does not equate to acquiring the intellectual property of tobacco companies. Tobacco companies will still maintain full rights to their logos and brand imagery; they will simply no longer be able to use these marketing tools on cigarette packages. And, while a pack of smokes in 2012 won’t be wrapped in comforting beach scenes or a high-tech metallic sheen, it will feature bigger and even more graphic health warnings. Unsurprisingly, every conceivable arm of the cigarette manufacturing and retailing sector has weighed in on why plain packaging will cause the very sky to fall. The executive director of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores showed heartfelt concern for convenience store employees as “many are new entrants to the workforce and immigrants. They rely on visual cues for product selection and we have real concerns for retailers as they struggle to restock and service consumers when legal products are unable to be quickly differentiated from each other”. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia said there was “simply no need for these extreme measures in order for the government to pursue the health outcomes it desires”. No advice on what non-extreme measures could be used to cut smoking targets to less than 10% by 2020. The tobacco industry itself was mostly tight-lipped on the issue, with Imperial Tobacco one of the few companies to provide the public comment. The company stated in its press release that it, “will make every effort to protect its brands and associated intellectual property and including, if necessary, take legal action”. Plain packaging was removed from the public health agenda in the early 1990s due to tobacco industry bolstering swift legal action. In 2010, it seems governments won’t be so easily scared off by this legal hot air. Becky Freeman and Simon Chapman are from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney |
|
|
|
23 Comments
Nice to see us leading the world in something.
We use to be good at that. But in recent decades we have been dragging our feet in so many issues. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries in the world to allow women to vote. They were the first to introduce secret ballot. Australia was the first (and is still the only) democracy in the world to have compulsory voting.
We can not boast so well in other areas: fighting climate change; clean energy production; not protecting old growth forests; not protecting endangered species; and more.
But one small victory and example for others to consider: cigarette packaging.
Preventing intellectual property from being displayed is not ‘acquiring’ it. They can use their brand images in different markets - no acquisition there.
The IPA is not a ‘conservative’ think tank, they are a neo-liberal one - society exists to serve the market in their view. But society is about to tell the cigarette market to blow smoke up someone else’s market….
I had tears in my eyes reading about the desperate plight of convenience store workers standing in bewilderment before an array of cigarette packs. Is there no end to man’s inhumanity to his fellow man?
As a very junior member of BUGAUP (Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions) back in the big hair days I applaud the latest steps to rid ourselves of this burning, chemical-saturated weed.
I don’t know why tobacco companies are being given a full 18 months to comply. I’d have thought 6 months would have been adequate.
Ah, BUGAUP. That campaign used to keep me amused as my train passed numerous billboards each day.
Will cigarette ‘blanding’ actually work? I don’t think so …
http://mumbrella.com.au/cigratte-blanding-wont-kill-cigarette-branding-24040#more-24040
AJ: If tobacco companies resorted to that, and it was decided that it thwarted the “blanding” policy, then the government could simply decree all cigarettes sold here must be plain white.
@Socratease - yes, good point. I suppose they could/would. I do wonder where it will all end.
There’s an interesting post here about civil liberties:
http://www.thoughtleadershipstrategy.net/2010/04/smoke-and-mirrors-as-democracy-goes-up-in-smoke/comment-page-1/
@Adam Joseph - According to Prof Simon Chapman, who’s been advocating for this for years, there is a lot of evidence that this works with young people - perhaps not with older smokers with a long history of smoking. Anything that will stop young people from starting is great. I just wish the health warnings were around when I was a young woman, particularly the dangers re pregnancy; I’d have stopped when I was carrying my first child - at 17. I stopped 14 yrs ago. I was hoping that people might take advantage of the price increase to quit, but then I hear of amazing amounts being spent today. Still, let’s hope lots of people have decided to quit from now! Good on them! Stay determined, and you’ll succeed!
Keep your rosaries off my alveoli.
can someone tell me if Nick Greiner ex Premier of NSW, is a director of a tobacco company ? If so why is he still on the payroll of the government {US} How hypocritical it would be to say that tobacco is killing us all when we spoonfeed our politicians.
I saw that grubby Tim Wilson from IPA on TV last night pontificating about tobacco companies having their IP rights usurped by the government with no-brand ciggies. What a wanker!! His claims are complete rubbish - it would be interesting to know how much big tobacco money bankrolls IPA. Sock it to ‘em Kevvie!!
And - I watched my brother die of lung cancer over an 18 mth period from 30 years of two packs a day. If you’re a sceptic, try what I and my siblings endured, you may be convinced.
Not a word in this about the hypocrisy of the fag tax: Rudd moralises (like Chapman) but the subliminal message is: keep smoking, we need that money.
And the state needs that money because it squandered billions on half-arsed schemes like…well, you know damned well about those.
Plain packaging. Great news indeed. Once this is in, I propose that the Govt take away brand names as well and replace them with a number.
“I’ll have a pack of 13’s please”….
Frank’s “subliminal message” is that he’ll believe whatever he wants to believe, regardless of the evidence. If it’s about more money then why introduce plain packaging?
Sometimes cynicism makes you stupid.
@BAKERBOY- I’m so sorry about your brother’s death - it is a hideous disease.
I had the same opinion about Tim Wilson - what a sleaze!
I lost 2 extended family members in a 12 month period - both had given up smoking, but not early enough. It’s very sad indeed! I’m hoping that I gave up in time - fingers crossed! I can’t even stand the smell these days!
One, a lovely woman who turned a young 70 just before her death, had a slow growing tumour that was 10 centimetres - in her lung? Too big for surgery - she had no symptoms, but her blood test showed that she was anaemic? Then it went to her brain, and then???The other one was my brother in law, of whom I was very fond - known him since I was 16! He died at 63?
I’ve owned up to my grand kids, and take the opportunity to warn them against the dangers of taking up smoking! They’re pretty smart, here’s hoping they stay that way!
When will the Coalition stop taking heaps of money from the revolting tobacco companies? I think that’s where you should concentrate your cynacism on FRANK? The problem is, that cigarettes are still legal - makes it very difficult for a govt to take action - I applaud this move?
Plain packaging of cigarettes is sensible, will reduce deaths from smoking, and health costs treating smoking related diseases.
Unfortunately, I’m sure cigarette companies will come up with ways of getting their logos out there. Such as on cigarette cases, so smokers can cover up those gruesome cancer and gangrene pictures and live in denial a little longer.
The tobacco value in cigarettes is its smallest component — marketing is most of it. Ifthe commonwealth takes the marketing property of the cigarette company except on just terms, The Commonweath is not only stealing the property of the cig coy, but is in breach of its own Commonwealth Constitution. If they really want to succeed, the Commonwealth should get the States to do it, because they are allowed to make unjust law that is not affected by the Cth Constitution — just like they did to the northern Queensland fisherman ten years ago. I hope the Commonwealth Government chooses to obey its own law before it if made to, and cost all us Aussies a fortune in legal costs.
Clive, I’d prefer to believe the Commonwealth’s legal advice rather than yours.
Clive, your understanding of the legal issues involved is almost zero, and digging. There has been massive international legal attention to this, and the gvt plainly would not have proceeded if it made them vulnerable to getting a costly roll in court. As Mark Davison, professor of law at Monash University said in the Australian last week the industry’s argument is “so weak, it’s non-existent. There is no right to use a trademark given by the WTO agreement. There is a right to prevent others using your trademark but that does not translate into a right to use your own trademark.”
Beachcomber: every time we introduced new pack health warnings, people said what you said (just watch pack covers & cig case sales boom). They never did. We’ve had the gruesome packs since 2003 — I don’t ever see people with cases.
Adam, re “where will it all end” argument. Tobacco advertising was first banned (radio & TV) in Sept 1976. In the 34 years since, there has not been a single instance of any banning of other product advertising, but 168 nations have signed the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to outlaw all tobacco advertising. The slippery slope argument has not gained any traction for the obvious reasons that the cases against the advertising of food & drink are very different.