Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

Raging_Ninja

The Dail can pass whatever laws they want, and they can be enforced except where they are unconstitutional. The government doesn't need to prove a health benefit.

Don't think it's mentioned in the constitution that company's branding has to be visible.

keano89

Shelflife wrote: »

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 .

The forgery thing is a red herring in the debate, most illegal cigarettes are smuggled in from other countries where the duties and taxes on cigarettes are a lot less.

This legislation is aimed not at smokers but at children and young adults in trying to make the packets plain and unappealing by removing the fancy graphics and bright colouring.

SEPT 23 1989

A bankrupt country is not the right battlefield to take on the power of the tobacco industry

darkpagandeath

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The Dail can pass whatever laws they want, and they can be enforced except where they are unconstitutional. The government doesn't need to prove a health benefit.

Don't think it's mentioned in the constitution that company's branding has to be visible.

Yes they do, There are International laws EZ laws dealing with branding it's not as easy as saying. Alright lads yis only get to use plane packaging.

FloatingVoter

For those of you running the country, let John Oliver explain how this plays out....

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

I smoke a pack a day and I do enjoy the graphic pics on the Canadian duty free that my aunt beings in.

Shelflife

keano89 wrote: »

The forgery thing is a red herring in the debate, most illegal cigarettes are smuggled in from other countries where the duties and taxes on cigarettes are a lot less.

This legislation is aimed not at smokers but at children and young adults in trying to make the packets plain and unappealing by removing the fancy graphics and bright colouring.

I agree that the forgeries are not a huge issue, but it makes it easier for them and it will make the smuggled cigarettes more attractive as they are "prettier".
Kids don't smoke the package, it's the act of smoking that they perceive to be cool not which box they come in.

The current packaging will def influence which brand they buy, but a pretty box won't make them want to smoke. In the same way an ugly box won't make them want to quit.

Raging_Ninja

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes they do, There are International laws EZ laws dealing with branding it's not as easy as saying. Alright lads yis only get to use plane packaging.

What international laws? What's an EZ law?

wendell borton

Don't smoke but Tobacco liveries were the best sad to see them go, jp special, lucky streak 555, rothmnas etc.

mister gullible

The tobacco companies really are parasitic bastards and the govt (and any right minded person) should tell them to **** off and that they are lucky to be allowed sell smokes in any form.