Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Tobacco giant threatens gov with legal action

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,070 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,168 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,822 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,688 ✭✭✭✭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...

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


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

    People don't stop having cancer straight away though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,132 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    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"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,964 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,145 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭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 :'(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


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



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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    Don't smoke but Tobacco liveries were the best sad to see them go, jp special, lucky streak 555, rothmnas etc.
    4925333867_aef4edd989_z.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 463 ✭✭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.


Advertisement