Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

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.

TheDoc

Just a little Samba wrote: »

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.

The last independent study I read, which was conducted in Greece I think, showed that it required twenty minutes of directly inhaling second hand smoke, before blood vessels began to thin, and air passages began to suffer.

Yeah, of course if someone has a predisposed condition like asthma or the likes, it's going to be rough on them. There are a number of cycling lobbies, lobbying Dublin City Council to introduce measures to combat diesel engines in the centre, due to an increase in asthma attacks being experienced by cyclists inhaling diesel fumes in heavy traffic areas.

While I'm all for being considerate, there is a certain length to go, before unfortunately there has to be some acceptance on the part of the affected individual, that if they have a condition that is highly reactive to social environments, that not everyone can be accountable for it.

I'd tend to agree though with the ignorant comments above. Personally I don't in my day to day find myself smoking in areas of crowded people. There is a designated smoking area in work, and I smoke exclusively out the back garden at home. I'd normally stay away from the doorway of a shop or building if I'm smoking, and when I was on public transport a few years back I normally stood to the side of the queue if I was smoking, and rejoined when I was done.

But then some people find it just as ignorant being in the company of people blaring music on their phone out loud, or having their music loud in their headphones. Some would find it ignorant with people having load telephone conversations on public transport and the likes. While I'm not putting it on par, it feeds into that fabric that smokers are lepers that should be shunted into corners and alleys to consume their filthy addictive habbit.

Just a little Samba

TheDoc wrote: »

The last independent study I read, which was conducted in Greece I think, showed that it required twenty minutes of directly inhaling second hand smoke, before blood vessels began to thin, and air passages began to suffer.

Yeah, of course if someone has a predisposed condition like asthma or the likes, it's going to be rough on them. There are a number of cycling lobbies, lobbying Dublin City Council to introduce measures to combat diesel engines in the centre, due to an increase in asthma attacks being experienced by cyclists inhaling diesel fumes in heavy traffic areas.

While I'm all for being considerate, there is a certain length to go, before unfortunately there has to be some acceptance on the part of the affected individual, that if they have a condition that is highly reactive to social environments, that not everyone can be accountable for it.

I'd tend to agree though with the ignorant comments above. Personally I don't in my day to day find myself smoking in areas of crowded people. There is a designated smoking area in work, and I smoke exclusively out the back garden at home. I'd normally stay away from the doorway of a shop or building if I'm smoking, and when I was on public transport a few years back I normally stood to the side of the queue if I was smoking, and rejoined when I was done.

But then some people find it just as ignorant being in the company of people blaring music on their phone out loud, or having their music loud in their headphones. Some would find it ignorant with people having load telephone conversations on public transport and the likes. While I'm not putting it on par, it feeds into that fabric that smokers are lepers that should be shunted into corners and alleys to consume their filthy addictive habbit.

So basically your right to damage your own health and drive up the cost of healthcare, insurance premiums and clog up hospitals in your old age because of your, as you put it filthy habbit, should be more important than someone with asthma's right to walk into a building without being effected by your noxious fumes?
What a load of tosh.

edit. my reply was in regards to paragraph 3 and 5 of your post.

I agree 100% about people blaring music from phones and portable speakers in buses/the luas. They should be told to feck off and all.

Also, diesal SHOULD be banned from use in urban areas, it's only cheaper because of tax differences between Diesal and Petrol anyway and it's been proven that the reasons Diesal is cheaper and was beign encouraged by governments for so long (better millage, cheaper to service, less air pollution) is a total crock of sh*t, so why continue to encourage it and give it preference over petrol?

TheDoc

murphk wrote: »

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

I read that report over the weekend. I don't think it indicates anywhere that they have been able to ascertain any data surrounding the impact of the plain packaging introduction.

Remember that Australia introduced three years of 12.5% excise increases on Tobacco which drastically increased the price of Tobacco in the country. A number of independant commentators have also advised that it's difficult to track or even provide rough estimates of black market sales, but that there is every possability it could be making up some of the perceived drops in these reports.

Also worth noting that Australia introduced plain packaging ALONGSIDE visual imagery on packaging warning of health. So not only do they have concrete data on the impact, they would further then need to seperate the two.

Again to clarify, I'm not some Tobacco lobbyist, and I know it might be first perceived like that. I just have a serious pain in my hole with all these theories and ideas, instead of tackling the proven areas of success, education of young children.

And considering smokers in this country pay the highest taxation in Europe on Tobacco, I don't think its an excuse for the Government of the day to recite "resourcing and capital" as the excuse for not having proper education campaigns.

darkpagandeath

Anyone any ideas of how to replace the 80% revenue per pack out of €10 the government gets off them ? 2013 only 2bn of that was spent on treating people with tobacco related conditions. Quite the money maker.

Karl Stein

TheDoc wrote: »

Why does this need explaining?

You're avoiding my question.

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.

Non-argument. Legal doesn't mean virtuous. Illegal doesn't mean evil.

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" ?

They should STFU and accept that the government the Irish people have elected are enacting public health legislation. Cheeky bastards.

Would you also side with the state if they removed branding and logos from alcoholic packaging?

If it was shown to reduce the harm alcohol causes to the public? Yeah, sure.

Just a little Samba

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Anyone any ideas of how to replace the 80% revenue per pack out of €10 the government gets off them ? 2013 only 2bn of that was spent on treating people with tobacco related conditions. Quite the money maker.

How much was the take? What is the differential from cost of treatment to tax take? I'd wager it's not all that high and could easily be absorbed.

TheDoc

Karl Stein wrote: »

You're avoiding my question.

Then to outline the response to your question, which I believe was along the lines of it the companies are not fearful of the impact of this change, why challenge it legally.

Trademarks and branding is a pretty big deal to any company. It's their imagine, it's their identifying mark. Look I'm not going to spell it all out, your clever enough to know what I'm talking about.

I think the companies in question have a perfectly valid right to challenge the restriction of their brand and logo on the basis of an idea or theory. They operate in a legal market, selling legal products. While we might have issues with the companies, or the products they sell, banning a company from using its trademark and logo is a seriously big deal in the corporate world.

Non-argument. Legal doesn't mean virtuous. Illegal doesn't mean evil.

It is an argument, just because society has moral issues with the company or the product, should not mean that they should sit down and take what's being fed to them. In this case a proposal that would has MASSIVE ramifications for any company operating in the world.

They should STFU and accept that the government the Irish people have elected are enacting public health legislation. Cheeky bastards.

Your clever enough to know that is not how the world works. In a country operating under EU directives and corporate law, alongside it's own sovereign law, a company has every right to defend itself should it feel it's been aggrieved. Just because we don't like the company, or the product/service, doesn't mean a company hasn't the right to defend itself or it's assets.

If it was shown to reduce the harm alcohol causes to the public? Yeah, sure.

This government is wielding out numerous talking shops about combating what is a serious drinking cultural/social problem in this country. Min pricing is being touted as targeting under cost selling, and targeting specifically cheap beer and spirits.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest there are maybe some ties in relation to the design and marketing of alcohol, similar to tobacco. Although granted Tobacco cant be advertised, or displayed publicly. I'd say the same sort of surveys being done to teens ( in low volumes remembering) would look pretty similar if rolled out in relation to alcohol.

And again to re-iterate, there is no convincing evidence available that plain package smoking curbs overall smoking, or reduces take up in the teen bracket.

It's basically just someone with what is perceived as " a good idea", so why the same cannot be applied to alcohol, fast food chains etc. ? I'd argue it's because a state wouldn't have the neck to try it, they have much more neutral suport when doing something like this to tackle the perceived " evil tobacco companies"

Just a little Samba

TheDoc wrote: »

It's basically just someone with what is perceived as " a good idea", so why the same cannot be applied to alcohol, fast food chains etc. ? I'd argue it's because a state wouldn't have the neck to try it, they have much more neutral suport when doing something like this to tackle the perceived " evil tobacco companies"

I'd be all for pictures of the effects of obesity and diabetis being put on McDonald's, coca-cola products and on cans of lindin village as well as ban on fast/junk food and alcohol advertising akin to the ban on advertising of tobacco products.

I'm a drinker who likes a burger now and then but is lucky enough to not have a problem with either issue but at the same time there's no harm in educating people without the same luck or knowledge as myself about the real dangers of over consumption.

There there in lies the difference.

The only time alcohol or junk food are an issue is when they are over consumed. Tobacco is negative effects on both the individual and those around them from even irregular use, having a pint after work on a Friday or a burger on a Tuesday doesn't.

darkpagandeath

Just a little Samba wrote: »

How much was the take? What is the differential from cost of treatment to tax take? I'd wager it's not all that high and could easily be absorbed.

Over 5 bn cigarettes sold, Doubt you could replace that revenue.

Just a little Samba

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Over 5 bn cigarettes sold, Doubt you could replace that revenue.

over 5 billion cigarettes sold, but what was the tax take on that?

That's 250 million packets of 20 at approx €10 a pop = approx €2.5billion total spent on smokes.

80% of 2.5billion is, funnily enough, €2billion.

So basically the money raised by taxing tobacco is barely (if even) enough to fund the current cost of treating tobacco related illnesses.