Dianna,

I do not contest that tobacco usage is falling in Australia and I believe that changing social and health attitudes are responsible, this is a good thing. However I don't believe the continued use of tobacco has all that much to do with brand loyalty, somkers simply buy the brand they know and if their preferred brand is unavailable they will just buy another.

I know of British-American Tobacco donating large sums of money to charities as recently as last financial year. This is filling the void left by inadequate govenrment funding. Charities protect some of our societies most vulnerable people and should be a funding priority our government. These well intentioned groups should not have to "make a deal with the devil" to finance their continued service to our community.

I never suggested that Governments were "fully funded" by tobacco sourced revenue. I suggested that it was wrong to claim a "holier than thou" position while still accepting funding or collecting taxation sourced from tobacco companies and products. Our government has spent considerable PR time and money making a big deal out of their "anti tobacco" stance and painting users and suppliers as disgusting sub humans, a blight on our world that must be eliminated. So to accept or collect any revenue derived from such a despicable practice would clearly taint the morality of our "whiter than white" leaders.

Every cent of that money is a product of a persons suffering and ill health. The point of all taxation is to fund government, the "reasons" for any tax are largely irrelevant. A tax of $X does not mean that $X goes directly into anti smoking programmes, the money is absorbed into other areas as well.

I would not suggest we do nothing and "Hope big tobacco will develop a moral spine and change". I would suggest that we say no to the tobacco and no to the money. Phase out tobacco products over the next 10 years and use will plummet as supply dries up. Sure there will always be some "personal use" die hards but it will always be that way with any drug.

Forget trying to deprive tobacco companies of a brand name, forget the PR "point scoring" remove the product all together! It's kind of hard to have a brand name if they can't sell the product. Thousands more will be better off for it, those thousands plain packaging will have no effect on.

I have never seen so much celebration over a incomplete job.

James - I understand your points - and as to the point about brand loyalty I think you should read some of the extensive research available about the process of marketing tobacco and the lengths to which tobacco compnaies have gone to forge and image, link various groups to that image and protect it at all costs. This very issue, plain packaging was fought so hard by the tobacco companies because they wanted to maintain that link - if as you suggest the link was not there, why would they resist the effort?

As for revenue. We tax the 'bads' as a way of reducing consumption of them. Outright prohibition has not worked for illicit drugs and yet we don't even get to tax those. From a purely economic perspective those that are legal should probably not be prohibited. You lose the revenue and gain additional enforcement costs.

From a harm minimisation perspective, yes, far better if commonly misused drugs are not available, I'm just not sure if that is ever a realistic proposition without substantial infringement of individual rights. This is very distinct from the rights of a company to market the product however.

"Yes tobacco companies have made huge investments in advertising but it's to keep smokers buying their cigarettes and not those of their competitors."

James, that is the definition of "brand loyalty".

"Harmful products and substances are removed or restricted all the time asbestos, creosote and fireworks for example. These were all once freely available"

Congratulations, that is the biggest red-herring of the year - three items that have no relationship with drugs.

As PJ O'Rourke noted so accurately: The principal feature of liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape [and cigarette smoke (sic)]— liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things.... It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

What it really boils down to is that statist-leftists are so lacking in any kind of individual self-esteem that they have to resort to gaining their smug sense of self righteousness from the silly notion of belonging to the biggest mob.

What merit is there in sublimating your hatred for the financial success of others to the degree that you are willing to trade your vote to class-war spouting demagogues who promise to smack them down on your behalf.

Have you not considered that the initiation of force against individuals remains the greatest evil and that when you use your vote to bribe the ruling elite to go and forcibly loot the private property and individual freedoms of others who have done you no harm, you are no more than a common thug, despite the fact that you are part of a group of 1 million of them?

Thanks James...If you look at the magnitude of this con job, you may be forgiven for thinking that it is the machination of some magnificently evil genius.

The truth is much worse however. When you lift the blanket and shine the torch on the lot you will see that the whole thing is perpetrated by small mean smutty lice.

How is the loot to be divided?. Ambulance chasers bribing politicians for legislation to frisk tobacco companies for millions in legal fees in exchange for personal favours and campaign contributions.

Politicians get to double the tax on tobacco companies for the sake of being able to buy more votes from the liberal left in the form of some sort of handout or another.

Of course they wouldn't be able to get away with this had they not been certain of the pseudo-moral camouflage gained from their millions of envy fuelled constituents.

What this country needs is not to return to morality, but to discover it. The faster everyone discovers that they are being deliberately set up against each other in free for all pressure group warfare, the faster we will return to the notion that each individual should be guaranteed an inalienable right to take the actions necessary to support and further their own lives, whilst being free from the initiation of physical force, whether it be from a common thug or thief, or the intent of a mob with the government as its henchmen.

Hilton (and by extension James), the article above is discussing the issue of whether a private investor should have the power to use international treaties to force a government to change public health policy. The implication of the final decision reach far beyond tobacco. Imagine, a soveriegn free state being forced to comply because a privately owned corporation is unhappy with a decision made by the highest legal court in the land - we don't like to tolerate that as individuals and certainly should not as a nation.

Hilton - on your point "Politicians get to double the tax on tobacco companies for the sake of being able to buy more votes from the liberal left in the form of some sort of handout or another."

Have you looked at the cost of treatment of tobacco related illness? It is many times the revenue returned from tobacco sales - and that revenue base has been steadily decreasing as the number of tobacco users decreases.

The cost of tobacco use is more than the purchase price of tobacco, from an economic perspective it would be entirely rational for the government to place an excise level on toboacco to ensure that they received sufficient revenue to cover the full costs of medical expenses that would be bourne by a smoker should they acquire a smoking-related disease. Obviously this is not every single smoker but the actuarial statistics on smoking are very well researched and a model to do this would be possible. Under this regime anyone may choose to smoke, so long as they took personal responsibility for offestting the future cost of their health treatments.

In Australia there is an inverse relationship between smoking and socioeconomic status - the group most likely to be unable to afford to pay for their own medical costs.

What dribble Hilton. You talk about morality, but the spending of multiple millions of dollars on faked science, misleading marketing, bribery and other manipulations of the public sphere by the tobacco companies is supposed to be ok? If you can get past your ridiculous collection of tired culture-war tropes imported from the US that is.

James, I have much more sympathy for an argument actually based on individual freedom rather than a lame attempt to equate genuine personal freedoms with the ability of corporations to spend millions of dollars on deception. However, the thing about plain packaging is that it doesn't "stop people doing something they like". Cigarettes will still be legal and freely available, as they should be. The right to smoke on private property where it's not infringing on the (equally important) rights of others to enjoy smoke free air will still be there, as it should be. But the ability of corporations to use manipulative and deceptive marketing practices to associate smoking with other desirable attributes will be severely infringed, thereby evening the playing field a little. If these marketing practices were not capable of such manipulation, then people should be able to ignore the change and continue their behaviours and there would be no effect on sales. The fact that the corporations are panicking is a pretty good sign they know this isn't so.

"On the other hand, since man evolved in smoke-filled caves and hovels, we have built up a natural immunity to its effects over the last 300,000 years or so, as can be attested to by the fact that all of us know smokers, in fact heavy smokers who have lived to a ripe old age that we can only hope to achieve."

Got some science to back that up? Yes, individuals live to a ripe old age regardless of what they consume - viva la genetic variation, however, statistically it is very very clear that that amazing old age is acheived only by a very small proportion of smokers.

Again - the article is not about individual freedoms but about the government attempting to undertake its proper role in defending its citizens from the known tactics of companies known to use deception about their products. Tobacco companies are not individuals who need their freedoms protected. The proper role of government is to intervene on behalf of citizens when they cannot necessarily act alone - think of it as a form of border defense if you like.

"Tobacco companies are not individuals who need their freedoms protected."

Precisely.

Dear Mr HH

A couple of questions:

1. Just how much time do you have on your hands?

2. Did you receive a copy of Neo-Con for Dummies?

Just curious.

Too flattering.... no really.

I am in very good company then.

Stephen Fry, Robin Williams, Carrie Fisher, Tony Hancock, Spike Milligan, Kurt Vonnegut, Sinead O'Connor, Jim Carey and many, many more.

"bony prominence"

I was a little curious about this - then I realised you had incorrectly attempted to interpret my name.

Mr Holder,

Imagine an island on which you could establish your utopian vision of an Ayn Rand inspired libertarian society.

Good luck with that.

Would tobacco pass regulations and be placed on the market today?

Thalidomide was taken off the market as soon as (well almost) the health complications were detected. Until then individuals chose to use the product, in ignorance. Ditto asbestos - although that has taken even longer for individuals to receive justice.

You're all for individuals freely choosing a product but not about individuals receiving compensation when injured - despite manufacturers' prior knowledge of health issues. Very interesting take on libertarianism you have going there.

Are you into abusing people with mental illness now?

Yeah - Malleolus may ALSO mean bony prominence - that's not the original meaning however.

"That should do it."

Really? that's your best? Which of those countries would ever, by any stretch of the imagination be considered a utopia.

Also, with me not being a marxist at all the whole point of your trust was somewhat dulled to non-existence.

Oh, and any response on that comment I posted above from Phillip Morris?

The bony prominence was named after the shape it resembles.

Ah, A Tobacco Troll. Folks, don't feed it

Have you heard of Jonathan Swift?

It's just that he came to mind when you called war, hunger and date rape 'bad things'.

Haven't advanced much since his time, have we, if being against such things means we testify to our own terrific goodness?

I'd have thought 'civilised' night have been a better option but I guess you haven't heard of him.

Are you claiming that mental illness is caused by cigarette smoking?

I am bi-polar - since my teens, since well before I ever smoked anything. There was a period in my life where I was being relentlessly bullied in the work place. Even though I had people around me who understood and supported me (to the extant that one of my supporters was demoted), if I had NOT been able to go and have a cigarette I fear that I would've lost all control with my tormentors.

I have since given up smoking - when I was in a position mentally to do so. Since then, life being what it is, I have faced problems that once would've had me reaching for a Styvo, but I no longer crave that evil drug. I am free.

Just yesterday, outside a supermarket an elderly woman approached begging for money, she was smoking a rollie. She was quite repugnant in her appearance and desperation and I walked by her. Then I remembered how I used to feel at my lowest, how the only way I could cope was by inhaling a cigarette, I went back to give her a $2 coin. At the same time a man brushed her away from him. I followed him into the supermarket and asked why he did not give her any money, he said, "Because she was smoking". I told him that maybe that cigarette was the only thing keeping her from lashing out. He nodded in understanding - although did not go back to give her any money - which is fine I understood his reasons.

What is my point in all this? That smoking is so addictive that it becomes a form of life support, that it is also a poison makes it beyond reprehensible. The tobacco companies prey on people's weaknesses - this should be a crime. Yesterday's decision is a small step towards a more civil society. One we all should work towards without casting blame on individuals whose circumstances we can never know in full.

Hang on! Read the paper. I'm not claiming a damn thing.

I do know the Black Dog. I know what it's like to have people fry your brain and tell you it will make you better. It doesn't!

Like many I know Lady Nicotine and her persuasive ways.

The last thing I wish to appear to be is either strong or sanctimonious. Also, I will not be enticed into an argument.

But the troulbe is, they only mask the underlying anxiety and stress, rather than relieve it.

Ron

Agree that most young people start through experimenting with their peers. After that they become loyal to particular brands for a variety of reasons usually centred around their peers preferences.

For example, soft pack cigarettes such Camel, Peter Stuyvesant are very popular with some groups, for girlie girls Sobranies are preferred, others such as Winston are considered acceptable by blue collar smokers or for the upwardly mobile Silk Cut. This demonstrates very clearly the importance of the packaging and why the Tobacco industry has and will continue to fight hard.

Plain packaging changes all of that. Although I predict that the actual individual cigarette may alter in appearance - currently one can recognise Sobranies or Cheroot by appearance. For some the status of the cigarette is very important.

The other issue that is extremely important, is to avoid prohibition. Despite all the publicity about prohibited drugs, the arrests, the quantities seized etc, the war against drugs is lost, in its present format. Just as with alcohol on the 20'-30's, criminal and black market forces are having a field day with the illicit drugs issue. Take it from one who worked in the area. Ban cigarettes and the crims would make a motsa and the courts would be overloaded. I know of several prominent people, that for legal reasons I cant identify, who are seriously suspected of making their fortunes in the illegal drug trade, as I'm sure many others in the forum would support.

People have to be given the responsibility to make their own decisions about these issues and be open about it. You have a far better chance of addressing the issues when there is no legal prerogative associated with prohibiting the substance.

You're preaching to the converted Ron. I agree with every word of your last post. Prohibition has to be one of this biggest blunders regarding human behaviour. Only the small dealers, mules and users get pinged, the big ones at the top (and I know they are outwardly very respectable indeed) never get caught (or rarely and then it is limited; their connections to others swiftly severed).

On personal choice - that works until the behaviour impacts on others. The main breadwinner of a family going down with emphysema hurts far more than just themselves, it harms families and so on the harm goes - the 'butterfly effect' in action. This applies equally to alcohol - we cannot ban that either but need to start on limiting the harm.

What concerns me and I think concerns you also, are the people who, there being no wondrous perfect solution, seem to want to do nothing at all and cast aspersions on other people who do try to limit harm.

"would use the millions of dollars they get from excessive taxes on cigarettes and would have provided free therapies a long time ago"

Except the costs associated with paying for health damage from tobacco far outweigh the revenue.

In the Czech republic Philip Morris made a submission to the government claiming that they save the government money by ensuring that a proportion of the population die early and thus save money on health care and aged care.

Not only is this argument repugnant but it is also wrong since people who die early do not earn money and pay income tax, or buy goods and services and pay GST, or generate other wealth through economic activity.

The rip-off merchants here are the tobacco companies - and you seem to be following there well worn business defense lines.

Diana

So you are happy that the government has managed to stand up against a big corporate bully.

I don't get it, how is it that Philip Morris is a bully when the government is wielding the club.

Picture a standard public school, and during break you have one guy 10 times more powerful than all the other kids and who is wielding a club (the government) going around and bullying other kids at the behest of little groups of acolytes and hangers on.

Among these little groups we have some who hate the rich kids whose dads drop them off in fancy cars (the socialists, egalitarians, progressives, leftists..whatever you want to call them) , next we have a group who hate everyone, because they have been brainwashed to believe that all humans are messing with nature and are therefore evil (the environmentalists), and further among the big groups we have those who believe that the only good thing anyone can do is to sacrifice themselves and do selfless stuff for other people (the conservatives).

Of course there are many other groups,(aboriginals, lesbians, feminists, farmers etc), but these are the main ones, and all of them promise to give the bully some of their lunch money if he promises to become their exclusive thug, willing to bash others if they do not cough up and hand them a half their lunch money every day.

Depending on the wishes of the biggest group he is either to redistribute the lunch money(as per the socialist egalitarians) or shut down industry (as per the wishes of the environmentalists) or hand out money to the unfortunate here and across the globe ( as per the religious conservatives).

So how did it come about that the group of schoolkids who are just innocently going about their business of making the most of their lives, but who do not belong to any of these groups have become the bullies?

Have the individuals constituting the organisation called Philip Morris ever used a club to force you or anyone to smoke a cigarette? Has it ever been unclear to you that sucking your lungs full of acrid smoke could be anything other than bad for your health?

Dear Hilton Holder

I hope that massive dummy spit has made you feel much better.

Cheers

marginally better Dianna, only marginally!

Revenue Wally. Double the tax, maybe reduce the smokers, still to be proven, net result an increase in revenue. Easy!

Surely there's no sovereign risk in Australia, despite what the Opposition and miners claim. No one's forcing foreign investors to invest in Australia and no one's preventing them from pricing in risk.

Won't someone please think of the poor tobacco companies!

Wow, another tobacco troll with every tobacco trope!

Individuals still have the choice of what to smoke - and if as you claim it is all about the taste then they are hardly likely to care what the packet looks like are they?

If it was all about the taste the case would never have gone to the high court.

Personally Daryl, I think you make some valid points and its one of the reasons I'm opposed to prohibition, because such acquisitions will just fall into the hands of the black marketeers. Certainly I am one who believes in the importance of personal responsibility. Of course there is a caveat there regarding where your personal actions start impinging on others rights and lifestyles.

From my perspective your actions should be balanced up against the cost not only to people as a whole, but also to those who you share your life with and who you may be responsible for, and I suspect as the World becomes more global in attitudes, many things we take for granted we may have to sacrifice or pay a much greater sum for.

An example is coffee. Probably the health costs are minimal, but there is the question of an equitable benefit for those who produce the product. We may have to pay more in future to ensure producers receive a fair price for the product they are growing.

With cigarettes, the issue seems much more related to the impact on health, and health services. This is less to do with 'taking care of people' and more to do with the pragmatic cost of services to address the health consequences of such activity. The costs of addressing health issues relating to smoking are huge. As a non smoker therefore I have to ask why should I have to pay to address those issues.

I supposed this is where a strong campaign to ensure people understand the consequences of their actions is so important. In my opinion for example I believe the cost of the product should incorporate the cost to our health services and other impacts on others affected by an individual's smoking. I am not opposed to a person choosing to smoke a cigarettes, any more than someone drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, gambling, playing sport, whatever. But in each action there must be an imperative that you accept the consequences of your actions and the cost your activity imposes on others. It is also I believe imperative for our society to ensure people are aware of the dangers inherent in any activity.

For that reason, I think as a society we must make assessments on each action as to their consequences not only to the individual but also the society at large, and determine a strategy that ensures that people know what they are getting themselves into and the ultimate costs. For that reason I do oppose hard line selling of products that will most probably be detrimental, and we have to gauge what those activities are. This applies to gambling (I get angry with the amount of promotion this activity gets), alcohol, childrens' foods that are detrimental etc. I dont want them banned, I just want people to receive honest appraisals of the consequence of such activities and what it may cost them.

Obviously the less dangerous the item is, the more flexibility in advertising should be allowed. University education, or a choice of breakfast cereal (except those with negative consequences) for the most part would be free to be advertised in any acceptable manner in society. Cars generally should be open to advertising, as long as its honest, and those vehicles with greater safety and emission restrictions should be promoted.

All this does not limit your freedom to choose. It only ensures that you are sufficiently forewarned regarding potential dangers of a product and that you are prepared to pay the price for such activity. I doubt that restricted branding would deny the product to identify itself. But why should such advertising be allowed to promote it with some attractive male or female on a beach or in a yacht or beach house promoting a healthy lifestyle when the product does not promise that at all.

I therefore support what the government is doing, though I suggest cigarettes are only one of the items I would be looking at. I also think governments needs to ensure that they have easily accessible information, expressed in a manner suited to the audience, regarding the pros and cons of potentially dangerous products or activities.

Oh Darryl, nobody is trying to stop you from smoking - to take away your right to smoke. What this legislation will do is make the ADVERTISING more honest. You will still be able to get your favourite brand, still be able to make the choice to risk your health and give your money to the big business Tobacco Companies.
We've all heard that song "Cigarettes and Whiskey and Wild, Wild Women" ....it goes on
"They'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane...". Have you listened to the last verse? It goes
"Cigarettes are a blight on the whole human race,
A man is a monkey with one in his face,
Take warning dear friend, take warning dear brother,
There's a fire on one end and a fool on the other". Enough said.