8 Reasons To Oppose Plain Packaging

With Labor desperate to create a diversion from fiasco of their unnecessary and destructive carbon tax, they've decided to again bring up "plain packaging" for tobacco products. Tim Andrews provides 8 reasons why this is a bad idea :

1)It won’t cut smoking: There is no credible  evidence that plan will lead to a decrease in smoking. None.  Zero. All this may possibly do is cause people to change brands. In fact, by denying companies to compete on the basis of logo/trademark differentiation, consumers will differentiate products more on price. As such, the Bill will result in some cigarette manufacturers choosing to compete on the basis of price, leading to a fall in tobacco prices and therefore might have the counter-intuitive effect of increasing tobacco consumption.   

2)Australia already has some of the most draconian restrictions on tobacco products in the world. These include prohibition on tobacco advertising & sponsorship, display bans and graphic health warnings occupying 30% of the front of a cigarette pack, and 90% of the back of the pack.

3)It violates intellectual property rights: The right to own and enjoy property is a fundamental part of rights of people and referred to as an extension of human rights. This does not only apply to physical property, but also intellectual property, and is critical to economic development, and an important guarantee of freedom. The protection of trademarks, defined by the WTO as “a distinctive sign which identifies certain goods or services as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise.” is a vital part of protecting intellectual property rights. This bill seeks to deny that. By denying tobacco companies their right to use their trademark to identify their product, this Bill strikes at the very core principles of corporate identity and consumer information that the Australian economy is based upon. As such, it not only violates the legal rights of the companies affected, but furthermore sets a very dangerous principle for the future of a government unwilling to honour or respect intellectual property right

4) It will increase tobacco smuggling: Intellectual Property Rights and Trademarks are one of the strongest protections we have against counterfeit goods, and by violating them we are giving an open door to smugglers.: According to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, there are an  estimated 600 billion counterfeited and smuggled cigarettes crossing national borders each year with severe consequences -  people die as a result of the illegal cigarette trade just as they do as a result of drug and human trafficking, and tobacco smuggling has also been found to directly finance terrorism. Furthermore, a 2003 report by the BBC noted that counterfeit cigarettes contain 75% more tar,  28% more nicotine and about 63% more carbon monoxide than genuine cigarettes – leading to worsening health outcomes.

5)It is potentially unconstitutional: As anyone who has seen The Castle will know, the Australian Constitution specifically prohibits the acquisition of property by the Commonwealth, except on “just terms”. Forbidding the use of a trademark, which is legally considered property, can be seen as an expropriation of the property right’s with no compensation or “just terms” provided - a fact previously denied yet now acgnowledged in the Exposure Draft. 

6) It violates international law. As I detailed previously,  this proposal violates numerous international treaties that Australia has signed, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Paris Convention, The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the Australia- U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Australia has signed these conventions, received great benefits from them, and,  as such, must abide by them.

7) It will potentially cost the taxpayers $3.4 billion: At a time when the Federal Budget is already in a deficit hole, legal challenges to this – which will undoubtedly succeed – will cost the taxpayer an estimated $3.4 billion.

8)It will kill jobs: At a time our economy is in a seriously fragile state, this proposal  poses a serious threat to numerous jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises throughout the supply chain, such as graphics designers and paper producers

In summary: it won't cut smoking, it will increase smuggling, it violates international law, and will hurt our economy. Opposing this daft proposal should be a no-brainer. 

Tim Andrews is Managing Editor of Menzies House, and co-author of a submission into the Senate Inquiry into Plain Tobacco Packaging on behalf of the Property Rights Alliance. He has written about plain packaging before on Menzies House here and here, and was interviewed on the matter in 2010 on 2GB Radio. 

Comments

[brett]

1.

you should read this bro: http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property

[Tim Andrews]

2.

Okay, I recognise that argument against intellectual property/trademark protection... I don't agree with it, but I can see where it's coming from.
With that being said though, nothing in that would justify the government's actions by banning freedom of packaging in this particular instance.

(TVA)

[brett]

3.

Well its not really a matter of intelletual property rights at all, just regular property rights.
The issue is that the cigarette manafacturers aren't being allowed to do what they want with their own property ie. cigarette packages. Nothing to do with 'owning' a brandname/trademark.

[Tee]

4.

Smokers will keep on smoking whether the product is packaged or not. all this seems to be not necessary.

[Richo]

5.

The Government seems to be pussy footing around on this issue. As mentioned, the intellectual property rights issue is the main consideration and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in a case that the cigerette companies will probably win.

The claim that it will reduce smoking, is as half baked as the claim that the alco pops tax would stop young people binge drinking.

If Labor was fair dinkum, they would simply ban cigarettes on health grounds. But it seems the government also has a addiction problem, namely an addiction to tax revenue from these products.

[Ben]

6.

Admittedly, I tend to buy the “unhealthy addiction” argument if it is strongly associated with mental illness, because when man's mind is destroyed there is no free will. In some contexts, the said company can be fairly judged as predatory. Not in this case.

Indeed, according to Julia logic, all sugar labels should be banned because of Diabetes, type 2. It makes no sense. If Labor truly believed that cigs were evil, they’d ban them, just like they’ve tried to ban free speech in universities. Btw, clear and persuasive post.

[D Williams]

7.

Nice post with some very good points. It's easy to be fooled by the "this will reduce smoking" argument by the government. But when you look at the facts behind the scenes this really is just a government trying to take away liberties and starting a battle they most likely won't win.

[Alex]

8.

What a waste of time and money this ban will be. Tobacco companies will protect their branding and the taxpayer will foot the bill. Ban the product entirely or restrict its use further in public areas, the only solutions to reducing tobacco use. The introduction of underage enforcement, will prevent young people taking up the habit. At the moment it is illegal to buy but not use tobacco underage.

[The Philosopher says]

9.

I guess you will Tee Pot although what you might smoke is not good for paranoia.....Zeg to Tee Pot.......Zeg to Tee pot........

[The Philosopher says]

10.

Serious intent would be a complete ban but we know that probably won't work.

The answer is not in the packaging but in putting smokers right at the end of the treatment ques for smoking related injuries. If you know the risk and take the chances well why should you get a free ride.

The only problem of course is that this will mean that some might get overseas treatment....I guess its gonna take a lot of education and in the meantime make its as difficult and unattractive as possible.

It goes beyond freedom of choice issues in that effects non smokers too.

As a " reformed " smoker I know you can quit but it takes motivation. Tax isn't one of them and once your hooked neither is packaging. If it helps to stop at least one young person from taking it up, saves at least one life then I'm for it.

[Anton]

11.

#9 - Not the government's shere of legitimacy. Suicide cannot be illegal, so neither should self harm. The colour of packaging in no way affects non-smokers either, so this is just another unjustified big brother intrusion.

[Anton]

12.

It would be a bit hypocritical putting smokers at the back of the queue for medical treatment and at the same time taxing them to pay for medical facilities.

[The Philosopher says]

13.

Like Isaid Anton...its a bit tongue in cheek because the wealthy would just go overseas but it flys a kite here about should we make them pay more Taxes via pricing and if we do how to make sure it goes into hospitals.

The only value in generic packaging is to break the assosciation between the product and glamour. The industry does rely heavily upon that connection.

Lets face it ...smoking related diseases are not glamorous and the generic advertising helps I would think.

Perhaps smokers might also have to pay higher health Insurance co payments if admitted for a smoking related illness ?

Some more kite flying

I think its a bit rich to try to defend the smoking industry however as a freedom or marketing issue when you consider the end product.

Nice to have a rational discussion here today Anton.

[The Philosopher says]

14.

Anton attempted suicide was illegal until just recently in my home state. Its now treated more as a psychiatric issue. The point however is always been that self harm is not the norm and requires sanction. Of course the state only interferes in the worst cases or we would npt drive cars but we are regulated in how we drive them.

I don't mind peoples individual free choice unless it has a negative impact on me and / or society at large.

You can harm yourself with smoking but I have to pay for your health care as well as run the risk of cancer from your by products wafting about. Apparently this smoke is worse than what stays in a smokers lungs.

[Alex]

15.

At the moment Qld has the strictest laws regarding smoking in public places. Unfortunately little or no enforcing of this laws occurs. Greater control and enforcement will reduce the amount of tobacco used. Addiction to the product will always affect the outlook of people involved in the discussion.

[Go Entrepreneurialism, Go Capitalism, Go Growth. Go Liberty.]

16.

If this Government spent their time on ways to decrease government interference then increasing it then they might actually do better in the polls.
Now I admittedly do not smoke, but I would think the bland packaging idea won’t do diddly squat to cut the number of people who smoke.
I also don’t agree with banning a legal product either.
People at the end of the day are responsible for their own bodies and if I was the Government I would make the cigarette excise tax increase by 5% every year forever and I would also say to those people who refuse to give up smoking for their own health that the Health System will discriminate against you for smoking related illnesses (same goes for drug users and chronic alcoholics).
We shouldn’t be subsidising the health services of smokers who refuse to help themselves.

[Anton]

17.

This is one of the problems with our "free" health care system - there is no incentive to look after one's own health. It is also very expensive (free?), which will drive government to look for additional tax revenue - and smokers are about the easiest target.

An insurance based system in a competitive market with market based premiums, would determine the actual cost of smoking and charge this exact amount to the smoker.

As far as passive smoking goes - no smoking in government buildings, limited allowance in some facilities such as airports and owners determination in private property.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

18.

Greater control and enforcement will reduce the amount of tobacco used. Addiction to the product will always affect the outlook of people involved in the discussion.

If you're that obsessed about other people using tobacco, why don't you just call for a ban on it?

[Anton]

19.

This site does seem unusually rational today.

On an unrelated note, Jenny has been absent today.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

20.

the Health System will discriminate against you for smoking related illnesses (same goes for drug users and chronic alcoholics).
We shouldn’t be subsidising the health services of smokers who refuse to help themselves.

I'll support it so long as the public health system is willing to correspondingly discriminate against people who ride horses, bicycles, motor scooters and bikes, skateboards and roller blades, go rockclimbing, go to loud rock concerts, go on hunger strikes, refuse to follow their doctors advice, have too high protein diet, don't consume enough calcium, have any sort of self-inflicted injury, don't exercise enough or have sun related skin cancer.

These people have all chosen to take risks. Why should we be publicly subsidising their health services.

[Chris]

21.

The problem that I see with this is that it sets a dangerous precedent of government interference in the activity of businesses.

McDonald's is widely considered to be unhealthy, but does this mean the government should step in and make them remove all of their branding, and just have small signs advertising themselves as "Fast Food" rather than using their existing recognisable brands? Of course not, it's ridiculous!

But because tobacco is politically unpopular it gets picked on. However it is a legal industry and should be allowed to operate freely in a free economy.

[Anton]

22.

It is not so much that tobacco companies should be allowed to freely sell products into the market.

The issue is that individuals should be allowed to buy products freely in the market.

And yes, this should include other drugs as well. Just remove "under the influence of ..." as a legal defence in criminal charges

[kim]

23.

I would like to remind all stakeholders That nicotine is the most addictive drug on earth. It is also a major carcenogenic.. Nicotine kills and burdens the health care system! Nicotine adds no value to society. End of story!!

[Anton]

24.

Bugger freedom, kim knows all.

I would like to remind all stakeholders That nicotine is the most addictive drug on earth.

Are you sure? I take it the science is settled then, by order of kim, wannabe god figure

It is also a major carcenogenic.

A little research would reveal that this statement is complete bullshit. Nicotine may be addictive, but it is the other components of tobacco smoke that have been linked to health effects.

Nicotine kills and burdens the health care system!

Hence the provision of nicotine patches for those wanting to stop smoking.

Nicotine adds no value to society.

The fact that millions of people willingly pay for nicotine, and the associated taxes has no significance in kim's dream world. kim, and kim alone shall declare what adds value

End of story!!

The science is settled, kim has spoken

kim, you should marry Jenny (gender is not an issue). So much in common. You can defend the nation against freedom and intelligent thought every day

[Violeta]

25.

I think you'll find, if you care to look, that your entire post has been demolished - without contest - by the Marxist feminist teacher extraordinaire, Fran Barlow, over at Catallaxy.

If you were smarter, and serious about this blog, you'd allow left women and men to post here and have a least one or two people capable of or willing to respond to their arguments at face value. As it is, mobbing by abusive fake identities, who are obviously the one quite disturbed person, is what people with contrary views must expect.

How liberal and libertarian. How productive.

Good luck with such an approach. I note that even most liberals, libertarians or conservatives do not post here, link to or ever mention or take this site seriously.

Ever wonder why?

[Michael Sutcliffe]

26.

I note that even most liberals, libertarians or conservatives do not post here, link to or ever mention or take this site seriously.

Ever wonder why?

No. I keep hearing about this site on the news and reading about it in the paper.

[Anton]

27.

Interesting follow up to

As a libertarian... you posted on the 31 March.

Is this the real Violetta or fake Violetta? or the pretend Jenny?

[Alfred Vaughn]

28.

If we let this one through, what's next?
Australia is already a laughing stock internationally as being the most renowned 'Nanny State'...
When will the rest of you wake up - how much of your life and your privacy are you going to allow Gillard and other incompetent fools like her to control?
Can nobody else but a few of us see the pattern that's been emerging over the past couple of decades?
Enough is enough!

[Violeta]

29.

[Removed - violation of comments policy]

[Anton]

30.

That would be gainfully employed, attractive to women engineer schmucks I presume.

Were you going to offer some cut and paste wisdom on the article? Possibly, based on your last post, your special tobacco comes in unprinted packaging anyway.

[Violeta]

31.

[Removed - violation of comments policy]

[Violeta]

32.

Why does Tim post a photo of himself with his fist and index finger obscuring and pressing on his mouth?

Does he not know what that pose means?

[kim]

33.

I wonder which science Anton refers to? The research conducted by the tobacco behemoths? Or perhaps my preferred and more respected science (as researched by respiratory cardiology or oncology professionals)?
Oh Anton and others.. Far be it for me to stall your incessant need to debilitate your person- Furthermore, I would be deeply distressed if you liquidated your interest in Philip Morris or alike? However I would kindly appreciate that you refrain from encouraging my teenage child to share your capitolistic and reckless mindset?

[Account Deleted]

34.

Kim I have to agree.

As a reformed smoker I totaly agree and understand. I was able to get out of it in time.

The issue is not about the freedom of smokers. The nature of the addiction is that it effects others badly.

It as if I like shooting. Its no problem and a legal product in rifles etc. When I go into the public domain and start killing people then its not freedom of choice of the shooter is it ?

No the issue is about the remainder of us being protected from firstly the threat of death from passive smoking and secondly the unwarranted inflation of health costs.

In a deregulated health market Insurance companies would load smokers with massive premiums knowing fulwell the burden that they place on the system.

To claim this is a freedom issue is to be blinded by the smoke and to value an individuals right to kill himself above others right to like.

[Account Deleted]

35.

Admin when is this known troll going to get the heave

Her racist and insulting outporings are enough.

I wait still for here retraction of the word Dyslexic as an insult and her reference to Jews as Big Noses.

Come on she is a known spammer and kindrred spirit with Jenny.

Just look at her continual disruption of threads.

[Account Deleted]

36.

You have to speak Violeta speak.

To her libertarian is " ANARCHIST "

Read her posts littered with anti democratic and Echo anarchist dribble.

[Cressida O]

37.

It’s not something I’ve taken any interest in till now and But a brief perusal of the debate via our world library, Google, shows the following very good reasons for supporting plain packaging on ciggie packets.

• The WHO recommends this course of action.
• WHO policy is based first and foremost on best practice public health policy irrespective of politics or industry concerns.
• Branding is a form of advertising and it is already illegal in Australia, and elsewhere, to advertise cigarettes.
• Tobacco is very harmful and very addictive, regardless of where the cigarettes are made or who is smoking them.
• One cigarette does damage. The damage is cumulative over a lifetime.
• The growth in cigarette smoking comes, unsurprisingly, from youth.
• Young people are susceptible to advertising.
• Young people think they are immortal.
• All advertising is manipulative and effectively so, that is why it is such a huge, powerful, well-resourced industry.
* Advertising is a parasitic, wasteful, resource intensive industry that contributes ZERO that is socially useful.
• Advertising is aimed at maximising the purchase of a particular commodity, or brand of that commodity.
• The only losers from this are the tobacco industry. And they’re already on the nose.
• No-one, least of all addicted smokers likes the tobacco companies. They know they are being ripped off and harmed by this product.
• Many prescription drugs already come in plain packaging such as psychotropic drugs, pain killing drugs, etc.
• National public health and safety laws can and will trump and thus negate legal challenges by the tobacco industry to this initiative made on the basis of secondary intellectual property or anti-trade arguments.

[Account Deleted]

38.

Good bye Violetta Hello Miss O

The same sort of paranoid posting continue but olease look at this one closely ADMIN

"If you were smarter, and serious about this blog, you'd allow left women and men to post here and have a least one or two people capable of or willing to respond to their arguments at face value. As it is, mobbing by abusive fake identities, who are obviously the one quite disturbed person, is what people with contrary views must expect. "

Sums it up the classic pot calling the kettle black. They come here to spam the sight, use false bio and them blame us ? How many false names does this person post under? well at least two today.

I am neither disturbed or a sufferer of multip,le personality disorder.

Violeta and Tee and Jen seem to think I am a manifestation of something called a Zeg.

No proof offerred no retraction given.

ADMIN confirmation please and a suspension is on order for Violeta alias Clarrisa O

[Account Deleted]

39.

Cressida O sorry to muck up your alias

Zeg calling.....zeg calling.....whoooooo...whooooooo

[Account Deleted]

40.

Indeed, according to Julia logic, all sugar labels should be banned because of Diabetes, type 2. It makes no sense. If Labor truly believed that cigs were evil, they’d ban them, just like they’ve tried to ban free speech in universities. Btw, clear and

Not quite the same thing Ben as sugar labels and Type 2 diabetes.

No direct sidestream smoke from sugar and its hard to smoke !

seriously Sugar is now the subject of health warning and education just as smoking was earlier in the health awareness campaign around it.

Given the imposts of type 2 Diabetes on our system it is plain that something will have to be done about excess consumption.

Cigarettes aren't something that you can reduce consumtion of so readily and require stronger intervention.

Sugar will hopefuly require just education to achioeve healthier lifestyles. You can't have a healthCare system and then allow its overloading by Preventable diseases.

[Account Deleted]

41.

This site does seem unusually rational today.

On an unrelated note, Jenny has been absent today.

Never fear Vi is out there..Changing names but out there. Probably went to a cafe to get a new I>P. address or maybe visited Red Jen so they could post some joint thoughts...Joint thoughts would be more than a pun I think

[Account Deleted]

42.

Anton I think Vi thinks you and I and Zeg are the same person Judging from her above little rave.

I share your suspicion about her smoking material coming unmarked. In little plastic baggies one suspects.

[Anton]

43.

Further proof that its smoking materials come in plain packaging.

[Rilivon]

44.

WELL SAID ANTON

[Tee]

45.

Zeg is the cartoonist on the T.E.A Party home page who's cartoons are also regularly posted here. Isnt that you Philosopher? Surely you know what a Zeg is? Come now. its allright, we know, its obvious.

[Moz]

46.

On the one hand the three trans-national tobacco companies that operate in Australia are spending millions of $s trying to defeat the proposed legislation for plain packaging. On the other hand they are arguing that it wont work! Perhaps this is the only evidence our decision makers really need. The legal arguments presented by Tim Andrews are absolute garbage and he knows they are, and so do the tobacco companies. And the argument and data on the consumption of 'chop chop' tobacco are equally disingenuous.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

47.

And the argument and data on the consumption of 'chop chop' tobacco are equally disingenuous.

The black market in this stuff seems pretty strong to me.

[Moz]

48.

"The black market in this stuff seems pretry strong to me." If this is so, why aren't the federal police and customs officers making arrests on every street corner? And the current misleading advertising campaign being run by the AAR on the use of illegal tobacco, funded by the tobacco companies, is based on a survey of 929 respondents and "anecdotal evidence" published by Deloittes, and again funded by tobacco companies. In contrast the 2007 National Drug Household Survey found that only 8.7% of Australians had ever smoked unbranded tobacco, and only 0.2% half the time or more.

[alez]

49.

In contrast the 2007 National Drug Household Survey found that only 8.7% of Australians had ever smoked unbranded tobacco, and only 0.2% half the time or more.

2007, welcome to 2011.
Should we talk about 1999? Or even 1950?

Latest figures pls

[bluebell]

50.

Well folks - it looks like this incompetent government is about to cost us billions in legal fees and possible compensation costs. Of course this fight will take on international proportions as Roxon and her cretins try to strip companies of their trad mark rights.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tobacco-plain-packaging-to-pass-senate/story-e6frfku0-1226190633343

[Stephen]

51.

"it won't cut smoking, it will increase smuggling, it violates international law, and will hurt our economy."

and "legal challenges to this – which will undoubtedly succeed – will cost the taxpayer an estimated $3.4 billion."

None of this looks like happening so far. but to be fair let's come back in yet another year and see who is the "no-brainer"