TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

Australia’s top court upholds rules on generic cigarette boxes

Individual brands of cigarettes will no longer have different boxes – all will instead carry health warnings with graphic images.

Image: AP Photo/Minister for Health and Ageing, File

AUSTRALIA’S HIGHEST COURT has rejected an appeal from tobacco companies against new rules which will stop manufacturers from keeping their customised designs on their boxes – instead forcing them to carry graphic health warnings.

The new rules, coming in from December, will replace the usual colourful cigarette boxes with a plain olive green box, which will include photographs depicting the damage that sustained tobacco consumption can cause.

The High Court appeal had been taken by some of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers, including Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco, British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International.

The companies had worried that Australia’s laws could set a precedent for other countries around the world – and claimed that the generic packages, designed by the government, devalued their own trademarks and violated their intellectual properties.

They also made the case that they were not being compensated for the move, which sees them hand over almost all of the packaging space on the cigarette box to the government which can then use it for its own purposes.

It is not yet known what impact those arguments had, however, as the court has yet to issue its ruling in writing – merely saying yesterday that the case had been rejected outright.

The government hopes that the uniform boxes will make smoking as unattractive and unglamorous as possible – and is keen to ensure that the tactic makes children less likely to take up the habit.

Cigarette makers reacted with dismay to the court decision, with several companies arguing that the generic boxes – although apparently in keeping with the country’s constitution – would make it easier to create counterfeit forgeries.

Read next:

Comments (66 Comments)

  • Not a smoker (anymore – off them about 15 yrs!) but can see a major business op here manufacturing custom cig box cases/pouches that act as a cover to put ur newly purchased cigs into. These in turn could carry
    Adverts/themes/colours etc and mask the disgusting images on the original box!!! Damn, shudda patented that first before I opened my gob!!!

    Reply
  • I ruined my teeth and gum’s by smoking for 20 years. Thankfully I haven’t smoked now for 3 years and have spent the many thousands I would have smoked getting my teeth sorted. I regret so much ever smoking. Hopefully graphic pictures like this might stop people from starting.

    Reply
  • I know people will say, ‘it’s my body and if I wanna smoke I’ll smoke’ yadda yadda but it does not disguise the fact that smoking is truly horrific. By smoking you are putting yourself in the high risk category of dying early or young…it’s all well and good if you puff away and say you don’t care but the impact on the health service is huge, not to mention the pain and suffering caused to your family having to watch you whither away. As it happens, my partners stepdad died from lung cancer a few months ago at the age of 63, when they found it, it was much too advanced to treat. He spent his last months in bed on morphine.

    People have made the argument, if you ban smoking you should ban alcohol. I quickly rebut with the fact that alcohol is generally made up of natural products whereas cigarettes are rammed full of poisons such as mercury and all the other fine carcinogens.

    Cigarette companies have got far too much power, I think we should follow Australia’s example. If cigarettes can’t be banned lets make it as difficult as possible to smoking acceptable.

    /rant

    Reply
    • Why don’t they just ban smoking period? We keep hearing about smokers being a huge financial drain on health services! Ban smoking and provide help to people coming off cigarettes! I guarantee that within 6 months we’d have forgotten all about smoking! I mean it’s not like coming off heroin or that sort of stuff! I’ve never heard of smokers committing crimes in order to feed their addiction! Just imagine the kind of publicity Ireland would generate if we had the foresight to be first to introduce this legislation!

      Reply
    • But if you ban it, you can’t tax it. People would still smoke. Some people would probably smoke that bit more à la drinking on Good Friday, you know, just because it’s banned. People would still end up contracting the smoking related illnesses that cost the State an absolute fortune to treat every year, but we’d have no way of having smokers contribute to the costs of their healthcare. I don’t believe someone should have to pay for healthcare, apart from through their taxes. But if you’re voluntarily going to increase your risks of contracting countless diseases all through your lifetime, then you should bloody well have to pay for it.

      Reply
    • I’d agree with banning only it would create a black market and more criminals. It just needs to be seen as more and more of a pain in the ass and a burden for smokers to actually have a cigarette, until the trend eventually stops and young people simply don’t bother taking it up . We’re on the right track imo.

      Reply
    • It’s gas, every time there is legislation introduced we hear “Nanny State” from the readers of the Journal and now they seem to want a Nanny State. I’m an ex smoker thank god but if the people here get there way and cigarettes are banned then what?

      It would have to be a ban on alcohol because regardless of the arguments against such a ban, Alcohol is causing massive massive damage in this country. And yes I love a drink as much as the next lad.

      Then obesity- big drain on the health service so the fast food industry has to go.

      What’s next?

      Reply
  • I hope they bring that in here before my son is a teenager

    Reply
  • Great decision.

    Anyone who runs a company that profits from a substance that causes cancer, ruins lives, destroys your health and plays on the humans addictive personality to achieve its sales of this substance has absolutely no moral high ground whatsoever. There is absolutely no advantage to smoking. Even the producers of cannabis, ecstasy and alcohol have solid arguments.

    Reply
    • Adrian the problem with your comment is that it is scientifically and economically untrue. For example alcohol causes more deaths and illnesses when compared on a global scale to tobacco. It is the biggest cause of lost working days in Industry which carries a much greater cost than genuine illness from tobacco related diseases. I should add that I am excluding deaths from both products. So be very careful in giving this Absolute and undemocratic right to your Government or that Friday evening Pint may be a thing of the past.

      Reply
    • mattoid 15/08/12 #

      @Mick
      ok – you’re right about the dangers of alcohol abuse, but Adrian is spot on with the general thrust of his point.

      Also, I think he’s saying that alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation and can provide health benefits when consumed as such, but nobody can smoke in moderation without causing themselves harm.

      Reply
    • What mattoid said^ I’m not saying alcohol is without problems but many many people in the world,in fact most, can enjoy alcohol throughout their life harmlessly, there are many arguments FOR alcohol.

      There are none for cigarettes, at all, the only reason they are perceived to be a stress reliever is because the person is addicted in the first place.

      Reply
  • No comment just of to have a nice cup of tea and a smoke!

    Reply
  • Let’s see if our wonderful government will do anything like that here!

    Given the opposition to any restraint on flogging booze, I doubt it.

    Reply
  • Eventually people will be desensitised to the images and they’ll cease to be effective. Less nanny state and more education and empowerment would be a better approach.

    Reply
  • This law would not get past the lower Courts in most European States on infringement grounds alone. A much simpler approach that the Tobacco Industry could have taken was under the Indecency Laws which in many countries prevents anyone publishing offensive pictures.
    However with Democratic States prepared to show that they can behave just like the old Soviet Union I see an alternative whereby a smart entrepreneur manufactures attractive sleeves for these repulsive packs and the buyer then just slips them over the offending pictures. I would like to see the Aussie State try and ban something as inoffensive as that.

    Reply
    • Niall Naughton (above) already touched on that. The other thing to address is that with generic branding it will make it easier to smuggle ciggies in as they will all look the same. Who is to know what brand someone is smoking when the buy them down the pub.

      Reply
  • Smokers by dying 10-14 years before non-smokers, save the State a fortune in pensions, healthcare etc. No EU State could afford to ban or restrict it.

    Reply
    • Foolish statement!!

      Reply
    • Nonsense Connor! Should we start up suicide booths too!! In an economy killing people off as soon as they are not productive is wonderful !! In a society where we are not robots that’s a bit harder to accept!! I guess you’ve never seen a loved one wither away and die !!

      Reply
    • What a ridiculous childish argument !

      Reply
    • Don’t take my word for it: ask Philip Morris http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/
      Smoking is good for public finances but very bad for individuals, families (for obvious reasons). It is good for the smoker for about 1-2 hours with a hit of adrenaline and dopamine (and remove withdrawal symptoms). It is one of the world’s greatest con jobs and governments are co-conspirators.

      Reply
    • Micheal 15/08/12 #

      Conor, what a silly, foolish comment.
      With the advances in the provision of health services to these people in particular, they are living just as long as non-smokers.
      If you smoke, you should not be allowed access any public health services, you should be forced to go private, and you should not be allowed access health insurance.
      Smoking among older people is slightly acceptable, but among young people, with all the knowledge in this area RE heart disease, kidney, lung, oral disease, for them to ever touch a cigarette is criminally negligible to their health on their part.

      Reply
    • Micheal 15/08/12 #

      *criminally neglectful

      Reply
    • The basis of Conor’s statement is spot on. If nobody were to die due to cancers before the age of retirement there would be immense pressure on the working population to pay for the increase in pensioners.

      Reply
    • Micheal 15/08/12 #

      Have you any idea as to the cost of providing health care?
      Presume that the patient just lies in the bed, no drugs, no treatment, no scans, nothing done in a standard hospital bed: 950euro.
      Add to that, you might request blood tests to be run, a chest x-ray, a C-Scan, if the patient has difficulty breathing, you might hook up the ventilator, if they deteriorate, you might send them to ICU, where they have one-one care. This work isn’t carried out by elves, so you need 24hr nurses, doctors, radiologists, phlebotomists, lab technicians and so on.
      Yes they may (although, usually not anymore), die earlier. They still cost a huge amount of resources and money. In fact, the earlier they die, usually the worse their condition, even more the cost.
      Anyone who can put forward that line of argument is severely deluded.
      Smoking costs, and costs dearly.

      Reply
    • I think this is an interesting point conor.hadnt thought of it that way before. I didnt know why your getting the red thumbs there has to be some truth in it. its says on my pack of fags “smokers die younger” maybe the people giving you red ones dont agree with this statement!! Smokers live longer yay!

      Reply
    • Micheal 15/08/12 #

      If you can find a single smoking patient under the age of 65 who just dies from smoking, no hospitalised care, no oncological services, palliative care, nothing, they just keel over and die, you’re in line for a medal.
      People die from smoking AFTER they have been admitted to hospital care. AFTER they take up the hospital services. AFTER they have costed the state hundreds of thousands. At 950e a night for a standard bed, it’s not cheap.
      People who die from smoking related diseases do so after an extremely long and protracted period of extreme suffering. Their organs in the end basically pack it in, and give up the ghost. That in itself takes place over years. (after they have been diagnosed, not from the start point of smoking).
      Anybody who argues the line smokers don’t cost because they pay taxes, or die younger is either a smoker or deluded. Get real.
      There is a double cost with smokers, because while they are taking up the ICU bed, there is another RTC/trauma patient waiting for you to kick the bucket, because smokers do not get better, they get worse. They do not die overnight, they die over years, and years and years.
      Smokers don’t die younger on account of the dedicated and endless care they receive. Smokers very often outlive non-smokers due to that exceptional, costly care.
      If you smoke you should not be allowed access a single public health service, you should be made pay for every aspect of your care. Then, maybe then, you might appreciate the care, dedication you receive that enables you to live a long life.
      This thread is heading off-topic, to bring it back – good on Oz – about time somebody kicked the tobacco industry in the gonads. Maybe they might start to realise what it is they are doing to our population.

      Reply
  • Or put a picture of a stab wound injury at the back of pocket knives.

    Reply
  • the Government makes nearly as much as the cigarette companies in excise and vat. no way they would ban or restrict it.

    Reply
  • If they were actually committed to eradicating smoking, they’d slap another €20 in excise on each pack, or force the addition of a chemical(what’s one more between friends!) that has a putrid smell when burnt.

    Being in places like Germany and seeing tobacco advertised makes you realise how well we actually do in Ireland on that front.

    Reply
    • mattoid 15/08/12 #

      We might do slightly better in terms of numbers smoking (35% Germany, 31.5% Ireland, depending on who’s statistics you use) but the smokers we do have are heavier smokers (1391 cigarettes per capita total population per annum compared to 1125 for Germany).

      Having said that, I would still support anything which makes it less socially acceptable for young people to take up smoking – the very people the tobacco industry targets to form its next cohort of addicts…

      Reply
  • Smoking is horrific, to see what it does to a person health, ‘breathing, skin, teeth, fingers, heart, lungs, is shocking, both parents very heavy smokers and have been since the70′s. I look forward to the day they are completely banned, and kids haven’t the option to take a drag.

    Reply
  • Or put a photograph of a wife, partner or child huddled in a corner in fear when the drunk comes home could be put on a pack of cigarettes.

    Reply
  • This ruling is dangerous….

    Wait until you find pictures of damaged livers on your pint glass or a gluttonous person on an operating table on your food. This isn’t about smoking, it’s about the control over a private companies advertising that is the worry. As many have said if the government really cared they would put 100% of the duty made into rehabilitation programs and treat smoking as a first class addiction.

    Reply
  • Gagsy 99 15/08/12 #

    What you’re all forgetting is that smoking makes you look cool and is a great draw for the ladies.

    Reply
  • what about restricting the sale of cigarettes even further , like they have done with alcohol . ban vending machines , limit the times in which they can be sold. as much as I’m against the opposing of the government’s will on any section of society, I can say as a person who smoked for half his life , that it is a horrible destructive habit that should not facilitated in any way shape or form .

    Reply
  • Greg 15/08/12 #

    not a smoker but I am uneasy at this ruling (more so about it being taken up here). While I fully accept the health risks etc, the Australian govt are effectively forcibly taking over a private product to promote their message. It sets a dangerous precedent. Why stop at smoking! Why not take over all magazine covers to promote political parties (I know it’s a stretch but one step at a time).
    are they going to pay the cig companies for the advertising space?
    while I agree with the message, this does sound like a cheap cop out. If smoking is so dangerous then ban it but this smacks of populist tricks

    Reply
  • just why? smokers don’t want to b looking at that, everyone already knows the risks

    Reply
    • Selfish comment. It’s not aimed at current smokers who already know the risks. It’s aimed towards young children who might look at their parents smoking and think “that looks all grown-up, I want to do that too” until they look at the package and actually see the risks. It’s one thing to tell someone, it’s a completely different thing to actually show.

      Reply
    • I’m a non smoker and I don’t want to see these pictures. Someone leaves a box on their desk, or pressing a discarded box on the ground, no thank you!

      Reply
    • Exactly, everyone knows the risks but these graphic images hammer home the message better than words.

      Reply
  • Nanny state laws are just as bad as smoking.

    Reply
  • Serge 15/08/12 #

    Wow that’s manky!

    Reply
  • @shanners thats the whole point of putting the pics there..as well as being a reminder to smokers what they are doing to themselves non smokers are meant to be disgusted by it. so they remain non smokers! unfortunately everyone is not is sensitive as you otherwise there would be nobody smoking!

    Reply
  • I see there are a lot of smokerphobics out in force here. Paid astroturfers from the Tobacco Control Industry perhaps?

    Smokers are in far more danger from the nasty foul and ignorant smokerphobics than any tobacco many who still smoke have consumed over a lifetime.

    Insanity is catching. Aussie has gone mad and is trying to infect the UK. We don’t want it. We ARE a free country. We are NOT a dictatorship.

    Reply
  • Paul 15/08/12 #

    Its a nice idea, but it wont work. I smoked for years and while living in Asia for a few years the graphic boxes never put me off. It may take the shine off the marketing of smokes to a new generation but if you smoke you wont quit because some filthy toothless mouth is displayed on the box. I quit because I wanted to and I couldnt afford to smoke in Ireland. The only way to reduce numbers of smokers is an outright ban from the nanny state.

    Reply
  • Perhaps they should have a picture of “Stubbs Reilly” on the packs. That’d scare the kids away from them !

    Reply

Add New Comment