Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

ThisRegard

My name is URL wrote: »

Alcohol is far more of a blight on this country than tobacco, both in terms of individual well-being and cost to society.

Debatable. You have one drink you're not likely going to drink several a day to the detriment of your health for the rest of your shortened life and force those around you to take a few sups while you're at it. Smoking is petty much the stupidest thing a person can legally do.

conorh91

listermint wrote: »

I wish folks would stop talking about the revenue argument we spend ten times that on tobacco related illness.

I wasn't making that argument. I was pointing out what I consider to be a contradiction. Sharing in the handsome profits of a business activity you facilitate, but claim to oppose, appears contradictory.

The revenue v health trade-off is a whole different issue.

gormdubhgorm

The sad part of all this the government make a profit out of cigarettes even when taking into account the health costs of the cigarettes themselves.

Basically the smokes are a nice earner so tokenism like this is the answer as apposed to an outright ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/459157.stm

ThisRegard

No, the sad part is everyone who has an issue with this saying it's a waste of time. Let it play out, it's no skin off your noses.

My name is URL

ThisRegard wrote: »

Debatable. You have one drink you're not likely going to drink several a day to the detriment of your health for the rest of your shortened life

That depends on the individual. The problem of alcoholism in Ireland hardly needs to be pointed out.

and force those around you to take a few sups while you're at it

No, but those around you may be forced to put up with a whole lot more than inhaling second hand smoke. More people can be shown to be harmed or killed each year by other people drinking than by other people smoking.

Smoking is petty much the stupidest thing a person can legally do.

Tell that to those who have to live with abusive, reckless or violent drunks. They'd probably sooner live with a smoker tbh.

gormdubhgorm

[QUOTE=My name is URL;94332759



Tell that to those who have to live with abusive, reckless or violent drunks. They'd probably sooner live with a smoker tbh.[/QUOTE] Unless of course the smoker is also a drunk falls asleep and sets the house on fire....:eek:

end of the road

ThisRegard wrote: »

So no harm in passing it so is there?

there is if it causes losses for companies and jobs meaning a loss to the economy

ThisRegard

The likelihood of becoming an alcoholic after one drink is a lot less likely than becoming an addict after one cigarette.

The rest is just more whataboutery irrelevant to this legislation.

ThisRegard

end of the road wrote: »

there is if it causes losses for companies and jobs meaning a loss to the economy

But how if won't make a difference and is a waste of time as you claim? Make up your mind.

end of the road

ThisRegard wrote: »

But how if won't make a difference and is a waste of time as you claim? Make up your mind.

nice twist. it won't make any difference to the amount of smoking, it will damage the companies though which in turn will harm the economy as they won't be able to market their brand, meaning jobs having to be lost within those companies, causing losses to the economy

ThisRegard

end of the road wrote: »

nice twist. it won't make any difference to the amount of smoking, it will damage the companies though which in turn will harm the economy as they won't be able to market their brand, meaning jobs having to be lost within those companies, causing losses to the economy

Do you read or understand what you post? I've twisted nothing, just used your very own words and claims to contradict yourself.

You say it makes no difference, so how are the companies affected?

My name is URL

ThisRegard wrote: »

The likelihood of becoming an alcoholic after one drink is a lot less likely than becoming an addict after one cigarette.

The rest is just more whataboutery irrelevant to this legislation.

Every alcoholic has to start somewhere. That somewhere is with one drink

It is whataboutery, but it's also valid when it comes to discussion about legislations purported to be for the benefit of society

Whataboutery doesn't always automatically negate any points made.

fwiw, I neither oppose nor support the idea of plain packaging. I don't think it'll make much of a difference, but I doubt those who either support or oppose it would do the same if similar laws and reasoning were introduced in other areas.

listermint

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you have a source that backs that up? It's an argument often turned out but I've genuinely never seen conclusive evidence of it. Couldn't it also be argued that smokers die younger and therefor cost the state less in healthcare in the long-run?

And couldn't similar arguments be used to force other businesses to not rely on brand recognition etc? If fast food chains, drinks companies etc were forced to drop branding on products and premises would it not also save lives and reduce healthcare costs?

The fact is smokers are an easy target for gathering revenue and for politicians to bring in populist legislation against. Look at how the government went soft and backed away from banning alcohol sponsorship in sports. Alcohol is far more of a blight on this country than tobacco, both in terms of individual well-being and cost to society. Yet most people opposed the idea of banning drinks companies from advertising in and sponsoring sports.

Huh?

It's not an argument there are countless studies showing we send multiples of billions on tobacco related illness and only take in about 1.2 or 2 bullion in revenue.

Here is one page 19 knock yourself out. If you wish to keep saying we don't, then get your own studies. There are far more contradicting your argument. So stop making it. Its not true.

You could find all this out yourself. But its easier to soundbite. Saying things like I haven't heard anything conclusive.....


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=Q77jVJL0JLCy7Qby8ICgAg&url=http://www.drugs.ie/resourcesfiles/ResearchDocs/Ireland/2013/tobacco-free-ireland.pdf&ved=0CCYQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHDdR08VLmbtzc0H1P7oRzZ6f3ceA&sig2=_xcoNOQPslJEz30hw31q0A

Tony EH

My name is URL wrote: »

Every alcoholic has to start somewhere. That somewhere is with one drink

There's absolutely no comparison between the addictiveness of alcohol and nicotine. None whatsoever.

Smokers will very quickly find themselves addicted, there's just no way around it. Yet, the VAST majority of people can enjoy alcohol all of their lives and never become addicted to drinking.

nullzero

Have to laugh at a Japanese tobacco company making threats to the Irish government for implementing a policy that benefits the Irish people. Although they seem to treat their staff well, all the fags you can smoke etc...

osarusan

If you ban cigarettes outright, tax dries up straight away.

People don't stop having cancer straight away though.

Qualitymark

I suppose they could counter-sue for the costs to the Irish health service of all the patients with smoking-related diseases?

Shrap

Just heard a doctor/senator (can't remember his name) on Newstalk saying that if they bring this case against Ireland we should just turn around and tax them for 99% of their profits. Sounds good!

Qualitymark

Shrap wrote: »

Just heard a doctor/senator (can't remember his name) on Newstalk saying that if they bring this case against Ireland we should just turn around and tax them for 99% of their profits. Sounds good!

Sounds sensible if the money were directed to the care of those damaged by smoking, and if this were made very clear to all involved with constant publicity.

al22

IF people would be required to pay for any medical treatment of any deseases caused by tobacco, narcotics and alcohol they would change their minds.

Qualitymark

al22 wrote: »

IF people would be required to pay for any medical treatment of any deseases caused by tobacco, narcotics and alcohol they would change their minds.

Unlikely to work. Mostly it's poor people who smoke, and (I may be wrong in this one) I think also you're more likely to be poor if you're a drug abuser. Maybe not an alcoholic; lots of rich functional alcoholics.

But also, this kind of self-damage isn't really amenable to logic. People do it when they're already suffering, somehow it makes them feel a little better for a moment. You know the famous study with the rats? https://www.intellihub.com/rat-park-experiment-shows-cultural-roots-drug-addiction/

But to make those who deliberately supply the addictive substance for profit pay for its effects, that has some logic.

Kermit.de.frog

This was passed today. Haven't seen when it's going to be implemented though.

TheDoc

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This was passed today. Haven't seen when it's going to be implemented though.

Needs to go to the President to sign into law. Then the actual implementation needs to be drawn up. Laws don't come in overnight, it will be a good few months for this to come in.

They'll need to provide a reasonable timeline for companies involved to re-design their process' and for retailers to look into solutions, so I'd put a tentitive estimate of 4-6 months on this one.

Reilly will be obviously conscious to get it in place before the run in to the next election, to show people he did something other then completely make a mess of the health service.

Even as Minister for Children he can't stop get involved in Health.....hopefully get's crucified at the polls like he should. Still dipping his fingers in health and trying to make himself a legacy, while being totally abject at dealing with things like costs of childcare that is a proper stumbling block for people getting back to work, or feeling a bump from the so called "recovery"

TheDoc

Shrap wrote: »

Just heard a doctor/senator (can't remember his name) on Newstalk saying that if they bring this case against Ireland we should just turn around and tax them for 99% of their profits. Sounds good!

More and more I've regretted not voting to abolish the Seaned, such a talking shop of space cadets and people totally out of touch with reality, trying to instill change where they have no power to do so.

In any other industry/company run into the ground hemeraging money, senators and TD's step in talking garbage about saving the jobs on an already sinking ship, but here is a guy with absolutely no qualms about crushing a few hundred jobs, good man...keep up the good work.

looksee

TheDoc wrote: »

More and more I've regretted not voting to abolish the Seaned, such a talking shop of space cadets and people totally out of touch with reality, trying to instill change where they have no power to do so.

In any other industry/company run into the ground hemeraging money, senators and TD's step in talking garbage about saving the jobs on an already sinking ship, but here is a guy with absolutely no qualms about crushing a few hundred jobs, good man...keep up the good work.

Right on! and look how many jobs you create by having people sick - people managing oxygen machines, manufacturing medical drugs, running clinics, providing wheelchair permits for cars - and wheelchairs of course. And all the relatives that provide care for these people, provides them with occupation and something to distract them from the everyday hassle of getting on with their lives. Stupid trying to get rid of cigarettes, they are a public service.

circadian

TheDoc wrote: »

More and more I've regretted not voting to abolish the Seaned, such a talking shop of space cadets and people totally out of touch with reality, trying to instill change where they have no power to do so.

In any other industry/company run into the ground hemeraging money, senators and TD's step in talking garbage about saving the jobs on an already sinking ship, but here is a guy with absolutely no qualms about crushing a few hundred jobs, good man...keep up the good work.

The pain of a few for the benefit of many.

RayM

TheDoc wrote: »

In any other industry/company run into the ground hemeraging money, senators and TD's step in talking garbage about saving the jobs on an already sinking ship, but here is a guy with absolutely no qualms about crushing a few hundred jobs, good man...keep up the good work.

I presume that was John Crown. You don't need to be an oncologist to believe that people's lives are more important than a few hundred jobs, but it helps.

He's one of the main reasons why I voted against abolishing the Senate.

TheDoc

RayM wrote: »

I presume that was John Crown. You don't need to be an oncologist to believe that people's lives are more important than a few hundred jobs, but it helps.

He's one of the main reasons why I voted against abolishing the Senate.

Think that was him.

Just don't like the hypocrisy that goes on around tobacco.

I'm also just annoyed that I smoke a brand that as it is, shop attendants normally mix up and provide the wrong one, then having to go back to the machine and get the right ones.

I'm hoping there is SOME form of label or writing on the packs so I can actually make out what I'm being sold.

*I smoke John Player Silver, and only my local Spar knows what I mean. Any other random shop I drop into I'm normally handed silk cut silver or L&M silver, such a mess

Shelflife

Look, we all know that smoking is bad for you but this new legislation is really a non event.
The companies want to protect their logos and trademarks as they fear that their premium brand range will lose out to the lower brand range once the packaging is all the same.
Retailers will lose out as smokers move from the €10 pack to the €8 packs and as a result of them all liking the same it will take more time to do a sale/stock them.
The forgers will have a field day. The plain packs will make it easier for them to counterfeit and seemingly this is already the case in Australia.
So the bottom line will be a negligible fall in actual smokers, a fall in revenue for the retailers and the tobacco companies due to the de premiuming of the brands and a fall in tax revenues as a result in higher number of counterfeit cigs being available.
So in short its a waste of time and resources for everyone who abides by the law and a bonanza for those who operate outside the law, and it will have little or no effect on the amount of people smoking .

darkpagandeath

It's a tough one The government will have to Prove it's a health benefit. If not removing branding will cost them a fortune. Rem Big tobacco have very deep pockets, and if one company sees the courts blink they will all be in here like a pack of wolves.