Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

Kermit.de.frog

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tobacco-giant-issues-legal-threat-over-plain-packaging-1.2106300

One of the world’s largest tobacco firms has told the Government to immediately halt plain packaging legislation in the Dáil or face a High Court claim for damages.

JTI Ireland, owner of the Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut brands, has told Ministers James Reilly and Leo Varadkar that it will take legal action if they fail to promise by Friday that no further steps will be taken to enact the draft law (on plain packaging).

....

The firm’s legal threat to the two Ministers, which was copied to Taoiseach Enda Kenny, was issued a week ago via solicitors Arthur Cox.

Seems heavy.


Won't somebody please think of the children! their profits!

K4t

Evil giants need to be slayed.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

BlaasForRafa

The government should sue them back for selling products that they know kill large numbers of their customers.

lertsnim

Didn't tobacco companies try this bully boy bull**** in Australia too? They were told to piss off and ordered to pay legal costs.

degrassinoel

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them. Sure they cant advertise cigarettes in shops, billboards, magazines etc.. anymore anyway, that's been law for at least 10 years now.

imo it's just FG trying to score votes again with a crappy idea

Simi

lertsnim wrote: »

Didn't tobacco companies try this bully boy bull**** in Australia too? They were told to piss off and ordered to pay legal costs.

They're pulling this stunt anywhere governments try to introduce plain packaging. It was covered in John Oliver's show in-depth here http://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8

The_Valeyard

Bring it on.

darkpagandeath

if only our home grown alcohol did not do this.... minimum pricing anyone ?

Ruu

I think they are just blowing smoke!

bjork

That's a drag. How many young people have been led ashtray by this company?
It's just a smokescreen for more price hikes

Just a little Samba

The TTIP makes crap like this a massive, real and scary possibility once it comes into effect.

TinkledPink

That John Oliver piece was the first thing I thought of too. Great segment. The question now is whether the government will bottle the legislation or carry on. I'm sure the last thing they want or need is more protracted legal proceedings but the tobacco lads haven't much of a leg to stand on. How can they honestly expect to prohibit the legislature of a sovereign state from enacting legislation particularly one based on public policy health grounds? Go way with ye!

The fact that the government's approach goes beyond what the EU Directive demands is no reason to stop there. Directives are about creating comparable minimum standards across the EU and Member States are more than entitled to go beyond them. I really hope Reilly carries it through as giving in to big tobacco will only reward and encourage their bullying tactics.

Roger Hassenforder

The industry's response is hardly unexpected.
Keep going O'Reilly, you're doing something right.

weisses

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them.

Spot on ..... Got my weed in plain packaging all the time and no issues

Roger Hassenforder

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them.

it actally might.
from Irish Cancer Society

"The first study of the impact of Australia’s ban compared the smokers has found that standardised pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago and were 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying than branded pack smokers. They were also 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the previous week and to rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives than smokers using brand packs"

more over on Wikipedia

Ghost Train

An I the only person kind of worried the government would screw this sort of legal case up and bankrupt the country

Badly Drunk Boy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

it actally might.
from Irish Cancer Society

"The first study of the impact of Australia’s ban compared the smokers has found that standardised pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago and were 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying than branded pack smokers. They were also 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the previous week and to rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives than smokers using brand packs"

more over on Wikipedia

Does this mean that people would be more likely to buy illegal coloured-y cigarette packs from Lithuania and Poland? :pac:

macnug

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them. Sure they cant advertise cigarettes in shops, billboards, magazines etc.. anymore anyway, that's been law for at least 10 years now.

imo it's just FG trying to score votes again with a crappy idea

If it wont work then why are the tobacco giants so afraid of it?

Duck's hoop

macnug wrote: »

If it wont work then why are the tobacco giants so afraid of it?

Good question. It's been very well researched. The main benefit is it becomes much, much less attractive to young people who have not already started smoking.


Funny thing is Phillip Morris and the rest argue all day that it is ineffective and will have no effect in stopping people smoking.

yumyum10

Wish they did a thing like a age card where only people have a smokers card can buy smokes and people can apply for the next year. After the year is up no smokers card, no fags. It would stop people starting.

random_guy

just watched this last night:
John Oliver
Didn't think I'd be reading about it so soon.

circadian

Ban tobacco.

Legalise weed.

Sorted.

Dravokivich

macnug wrote: »

If it wont work then why are the tobacco giants so afraid of it?

It's about trademarks and branding.

Apple won't be happy if the had to concede the iXxxxx branding they use.

Larbre34

Why wouldnt a large profitable company selling a legal product move to protect its revenues?

I dont think challenging the competence of the Oireachtas to pass legislation that is constitutional will get them anywhere though, just looking to tie it up in legal knots for years

Buona Fortuna

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The industry's response is hardly unexpected.
Keep going O'Reilly, you're doing something right.

By the law of averages he had to do something right anytime soon. Maybe this is it.

Buona Fortuna

Ghost Train wrote: »

An I the only person kind of worried the government would screw this sort of legal case up and bankrupt the country again

FYP

ThisRegard

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The government should sue them back for selling products that they know kill large numbers of their customers.

The government has a contract via the HSE with Arthur Cox, the legal firm who issued the letter to the state on behalf of those cancer peddling scumbags.

renegademaster

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tobacco-giant-issues-legal-threat-over-plain-packaging-1.2106300

Seems heavy.

Won't somebody please think of the children! their profits!

profits are all some people see, also if there's jobs in it people will also defend the companies right to flashy packaging

lertsnim wrote: »

Didn't tobacco companies try this bully boy bull**** in Australia too? They were told to piss off and ordered to pay legal costs.

TTIP

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them. Sure they cant advertise cigarettes in shops, billboards, magazines etc.. anymore anyway, that's been law for at least 10 years now.

imo it's just FG trying to score votes again with a crappy idea

that's grand, blank packaging it is so

dark crystal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The government should sue them back for selling products that they know kill large numbers of their customers.

That might work if the government didn't make huge money off these companies and their customers. But they they're more than happy to.

Grayson

random_guy wrote: »

just watched this last night:
John Oliver
Didn't think I'd be reading about it so soon.

#jeffWeCan

darkpagandeath

Ghost Train wrote: »

An I the only person kind of worried the government would screw this sort of legal case up and bankrupt the country

What ever do you mean, They have a history of handling stuff they want to introduce smooth and without any problems. IW is a perfect example :pac::pac::pac:

Gaelgangnuis

degrassinoel wrote: »

Stupid idea is stupid - if people want to smoke, a blank ciggie package wont stop them. Sure they cant advertise cigarettes in shops, billboards, magazines etc.. anymore anyway, that's been law for at least 10 years now.

imo it's just FG trying to score votes again with a crappy idea

If it doesn't work then why does the tobacco giant seem to be so worried about it?

Karl Stein

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's about trademarks and branding.

Apple won't be happy if the had to concede the iXxxxx branding they use.

Well there is a difference in that people who shmoke have a considerable impact on wider society whereas people who use Apple products are mostly self-harming by being insufferable tech-hipsters.

LoonyLovegood

As John Oliver informed us this week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

They've no legal grounds to do this, but they'll do their best. I'm looking forward to see this play out in court.

TheDoc

Fully support them. If they are so concerned with packaging that "targets young people" they would be just as happy rolling the same thing out removing marketing and designs from bottles of beer and cans of beer. God forbid someone suggest removing the Harp from a can of the black stuff.

It's a total washout. When I started smoking it was because I want to try an actual cigerette, and I kept smoking because I enjoyed it. I smoke now because I enjoy it, it's part of a 10 year habbit, and there is the addiction segment. But I made a conscious choice, knowing it would be dangerous long term.

To try insinuate that packaging has some effect on teens to get them to smoke, is the biggest load of make up nonsense I have ever heard. There is simply no basis for it, at all. It's another copout for the Government of the day to maintain their massive revenue streams from tax on Tobacco, and avoid doing anything innovative in regards education.

Ireland has one of the highest RRP's on Tobacco in the world.
Ireland has the highest taxation on Tobacco in the first world
Ireland has the highest population % of smokers in Europe.

As per Varadker himself publishing bullet points from a report he was handed in November.

This Government, as many before it, feel raising the price of cigarettes will somehow create a financial situation whereby people can't afford them? Is that serious? Have a walk off Henry St. any day of the week and hear street sellers shouting selling smokes and tobacco.

Plain packaging is just another toothless, pointless idea that we are copying from somewhere else( Australia) with absolutely no basis or evidence of success( Australia has been unable to ascertain if the initiative has had ANY impact) and a cheap shot at the "lepers" of society, in order to score support from the "won't someone think of the children" segments of the electorate.

If tobacco companies were smart they've play along, slash the price of tobacco(plain packaging actually decreses their costs, and improves tobacco margins) and watch the government hike tax to bring it up and up and expose what all this really is. Unfair taxation on a section of society exploiting a moral viewpoint.

TheDoc

macnug wrote: »

If it wont work then why are the tobacco giants so afraid of it?

Like any company, they are being faced with a removal of their brand from their product which is a serious issue for a company. That shouldn't need explaining.

I'd also imagine their concern is that there is no conclusive or even preliminary data to indicate leads to a decrease in smoking take up.

When you consider the initiative of both the smoking ban, and the idea to price tobacco to a point where it's a financial decision to smoke, has not been effective, it's a company taking a relatively serious hit to it's right to bear it's brand, on the basis of something with no evidence of success.

As per Varadker in November, Ireland has highest population % of smokers in EU, despite two large initiatives.

Karl Stein

TheDoc wrote: »

To try insinuate that packaging has some effect on teens to get them to smoke, is the biggest load of make up nonsense I have ever heard. There is simply no basis for it, at all.

If the tobacco scumpanies concurred with you then why threaten to take countries who plan plain packaging legislation to court?

My name is URL

macnug wrote: »

If it wont work then why are the tobacco giants so afraid of it?

Because it'll hurt their brand. Do you think the likes of McDonalds would sit idly by while governments try to stop them from using their own trademarks and branding on their restaurants and products?

I'm not saying that McDonalds food is as bad as cigarettes, obviously, but it's certainly one of many things that poses a public health risk. Obesity related illnesses will be killing more people than tobacco products within the next few years, and is already linked to higher rates of chronic conditions than smoking, drinking and poverty.

hoodwinked

yumyum10 wrote: »

Wish they did a thing like a age card where only people have a smokers card can buy smokes and people can apply for the next year. After the year is up no smokers card, no fags. It would stop people starting.

they could have done this years ago, or an even easier version of increasing the age limit every year until cigarettes were finally illegal. then no young people would be smoking at all (or at least a minority of people who smuggled them in)


but they won't, because while they want to cut the amount of people smoking (and ease the burden on the health system) they make too much in revenue from the companies and the steep taxes on the packets)

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not saying that McDonalds food is as bad as cigarettes, obviously, but it's certainly one of many things that poses a public health risk. Obesity related illnesses will be killing more people than tobacco products within the next few years, and is already linked to higher rates of chronic conditions than smoking, drinking and poverty.

the only good thing about that is my eating mc donalds won't affect anyone else but me, where as smokers affect anyone who inhales their second hand smoke.

TheDoc

Karl Stein wrote: »

If the tobacco scumpanies concurred with you then why threaten to take countries who plan plain packaging legislation to court?

Why does this need explaining?

While Tobacco companies have their evil stereotyping, which is fair enough considering the product involved, it is still a legal practice, a legal industry and they are legitimate business.

So a company should sit idly by, while their trademark and branding is removed from their products, on the basis of no encouraging evidence, only an "idea" ?

This government bangs on about tackling the drink problem and culture in this country? Would you also side with the state if they removed branding and logos from alcoholic packaging?

TheDoc

hoodwinked wrote: »

the only good thing about that is my eating mc donalds won't affect anyone else but me, where as smokers affect anyone who inhales their second hand smoke.

That's a rubbish argument. You need a seriously high concentrate of second hand smoke for it to have any effect on you physically. Getting a whiff of it the odd time as you walk down the street, isn't damaging your health : /

As a previous poster mentioned, obesity is becoming such a national topic in this country not only because it fits into the nice narrative that "Government knows best" but numerous studies are showing obesity is trending skyward and there are projections it will become more strenuous on healthcare resources in this country then smoking in the years ahead.

not to mention there is typically genuine concerns over a number of these types of reports that come out (Frequently they don't segregate/isolate the topic, but instead provide the caveat that there is impact from additional sources/conditions etc)

TinkledPink

TheDoc wrote: »

To try insinuate that packaging has some effect on teens to get them to smoke, is the biggest load of make up nonsense I have ever heard. There is simply no basis for it, at all. It's another copout for the Government of the day to maintain their massive revenue streams from tax on Tobacco, and avoid doing anything innovative in regards education.

What?! Your argument makes no sense. On the one hand you give out about the government trying to discourage people from smoking and then you say it's a plan by the government to increase revenue streams. How would the government increase revenue streams by getting people to stop smoking. Surely t would have the opposite effect. Also, it well established that plain packaging has had effects. You just haven't bothered your head looking for the evidence. People particularly young kids starting out aren't as quick to buy packs of fags when there's pictures of diseased lungs and infected throats etc. You just sound like a whinger to me. You think it'd be hard to be against encouraging people not to smoke yet you find a way.

Just a little Samba

hoodwinked wrote: »

the only good thing about that is my eating mc donalds won't affect anyone else

That' not strictly true as Obesity is set to become the biggest drain on Ireland's healthcare system in the short-medium term.

Whether you're the in private or public system you will be effected. Insurance premiums will be driven up by diabetic care and related problems like cardiac issues, kidney dialysis, stroke, etc, etc, etc.

Along with that, the Public system will have to pump more and more money into dealing with the same issues, eating up resources which are badly needed in other areas.

The standard of nutritional education in Ireland (or lack there of) is scary. Every child/young adult should have to take a compulsory course akin to home-economics where they are thought about proper nutrition, how to cook real food (because if they can't cook the bloody stuff, what's the point in telling them to eat it all the time?) and the dangers of obesity or even just being over weight, to their health.

Before some libertarian wingnut comes in and preaches personal responsibility or some such drivel, that's working just great so far, isn't it?

Dyr

Just ban the fooking things and be done with it

hoodwinked

Just a little Samba wrote: »

That' not strictly true as Obesity is set to become the biggest drain on Ireland's healthcare system in the short-medium term.

Whether you're the in private or public system you will be effected. Insurance premiums will be driven up by diabetic care and related problems like cardiac issues, kidney dialysis, stroke, etc, etc, etc.

Along with that, the Public system will have to pump more and more money into dealing with the same issues, eating up resources which are badly needed in other areas.

The standard of nutritional education in Ireland (or lack there of) is scary. Every child/young adult should have to take a compulsory course akin to home-economics where they are thought about proper nutrition, how to cook real food (because if they can't cook the bloody stuff, what's the point in telling them to eat it all the time?) and the dangers of obesity or even just being over weight, to their health.

Before some libertarian wingnut comes in and preaches personal responsibility or some such drivel, that's working just great so far, isn't it?

ok i meant in the immediate right now, who would you like to be in a sealed bubble with, a smoker or a burger eater?

Just a little Samba

TheDoc wrote: »

That's a rubbish argument. You need a seriously high concentrate of second hand smoke for it to have any effect on you physically.

Untrue. Ireland has one of the highest instances of respiratory diseases in the world, from the extreme like CF to the manageable like asthma, for some people even a "whiff" while standing at a bus stop can trigger a severe reaction.

On top of that, it's just bloody ignorant to be walking around blowing your disgusting noxious fumes in peoples faces while you're standing outside clogging up the entrances to shops, pubs, bus stands and public buildings.

Just a little Samba

hoodwinked wrote: »

ok i meant in the immediate right now, who would you like to be in a sealed bubble with, a smoker or a burger eater?

Depending on the size of the bubble, the burger eater :pac:

Joe Exotic

TheDoc wrote: »

Why does this need explaining?


So a company should sit idly by, while their trademark and branding is removed from their products, on the basis of no encouraging evidence, only an "idea" ?

But there is encouraging evidence that its working particularily in the teen age brackets

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff

TheDoc

TinkledPink wrote: »

What?! Your argument makes no sense. On the one hand you give out about the government trying to discourage people from smoking and then you say it's a plan by the government to increase revenue streams.

Where did I say that? I gave out that the Government of the day, fail to do anything innovative.

The first real plan to tackle smoking in this country was for taxation to be introduced and raised in order to try make smoking financially nonviable, or at least a conscious decision for smokers to make. As of last year, Ireland has the highest taxation and RRP on tobacco in the EU, yet now has the largest % population of smokers.

There are a number of avenues open to the government in order to properly stop smoking. But they won't do it, nor has any country done it. Why is that? It seems clear to me the revenue streams from the companies tax and also the taxation streams from smokers, is to significant to simply get rid off. It's a significant revenue stream that subsequent governments have come to rely on, and is a taxation on a section of society that garnishes very little support from those not directly involved.

How would the government increase revenue streams by getting people to stop smoking. Surely t would have the opposite effect.

I don't know where you are getting this from, so can't really comment. There is the possibility that tobacco firms would reduce the RRP of Tobacco, if the government they combated this by raising tax again on them, it would indicate it's a revenue stream they cannot do without.

Plain packaging provides a margin increase to manufacturers.

Also, it well established that plain packaging has had effects. You just haven't bothered your head looking for the evidence.

As of about an hour ago, I was listening to a liaison for an office in Austrialia. Can't remember the exact name but it was a what I believe a government setup relating to cancer and lung disease who carry out research and the likes.

The spokeswoman was pretty clear in indicating it's too early to provide any consensus if plain packaging has had an impact or not. Various surveys and studies have been done, but they have been disproportionate in relation to the volume of people surveyed against the volume of estimated smokers in Australia.

Independent commentators also point out how the push and frequency of these reports and studies is a clamoring to try find some concrete evidence plain packaging works, in order to garner support for further action. As of now, there is nothing concrete on it. IT's simply too early to tell. Would happily read anything you have that the Australian government havn't been able to share.

People particularly young kids starting out aren't as quick to buy packs of fags when there's pictures of diseased lungs and infected throats etc.

Again, it's all based on theory and the "ideas". Which is fine, but I'm sorry a survey where 70% of 100 kids asked saying " pictures of scary lungs puts me off smoking" does not equate to overarching fact that something works or doesn't.

You just sound like a whinger to me. You think it'd be hard to be against encouraging people not to smoke yet you find a way.

I'm not a whinger. I'm just a bit sick and tired of being treated as a leper in society for making a conscious choice to do something. I don't advocate smoking, I'm not someone championing the cause. I'm fully aware of the dangers. But I made a conscious decision to smoke. At an age where I was expected to make conscious decisions about many things in life at 17.

At the end of the day, nothing that has come in, or will come in, has made me consider quitting in the slightest. I'm sure at some point I will quit, I know it's bad for me, but simply but I just enjoy smoking, so what can you do.

I just hate how Governments score cheap political points with the mammy brigade of the electorate, for implementing stuff that is devoid of innovation or even pretends to address the problem.

That's not even getting into the debate/discussion about the level of taxation involved on the product.

But let's be clear, I'm not here championing the cause or advocating smoking, I'm just tired of these half arsed measures that are supposed to be some form of achievement or progress.

walkingshadow

Anything that pisses off the tobacco giants is a good thing.