BleepingComputer.com: Smokeres This is just incredible!

To Smokers and also non Smokers, this is very Important.

Some very Basic Rights are being challanged here.

[quote]

[size="5"]'World first' plain cigarette packaging[/size]

Health groups have backed the federal government's crackdown on cigarette promotion, but business says the move will be costly and risks legal action from tobacco companies.

Under the proposed law, Australia would become the first country in the world to require tobacco products to be sold in unattractive plain packaging to reduce their appeal to consumers, federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced on Thursday.

Cigarette packets would be matte olive green - the colour found to be least appealing to smokers - have no obvious logos and carry large pictures of the physical damage caused by smoking.

"This plain packaging legislation is a world first and sends a clear message that the glamour is gone - cigarette packs will now only show the death and disease that can come from smoking," Ms Roxon said.

Plain packaging was one of a number of government measures aimed at reducing the toll on families from 15,000 smoking-related deaths and associated costs of $31.5 billion a year, she added.

The draft law was welcomed by health groups but criticised by retailers and tobacco companies, which had flagged potential legal action that could result in billions of dollars in compensation.

Ms Roxon said the government would not be scared by potential legal action from "big tobacco" companies and called on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to support the bill.

"There is a clear question for Mr Abbott today: will you join with the Gillard government, or will you continue to be in the pocket of big tobacco and accept their donations?" she said.

But opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said there were "a lot of question marks" around the proposed law.

"They've announced this three times, but they still haven't given the detail which shows this would actually reduce smoking rates," he told reporters in Perth.

The coalition's current position is that while it backs measures to reduce smoking, it wants to see evidence that plain packaging cuts smoking rates.

"If this debate is about hope and she is putting forward a proposal based on hope, I think Australians would want to see evidence," Mr Dutton said.

Global cigarette makers Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) on Thursday said the law would infringe international trademark and intellectual property laws.

"The government could end up wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars in legal fees trying to defend their decision, let alone the potential to pay billions to the tobacco industry for taking away our intellectual property," BATA spokesman Scott McIntyre said.

The Australian Industry Group said that while it "strongly supports" objectives to reduce smoking, the plain packaging guidelines raised "broad and serious industry concerns".

The Australian Retailers Association said the proposal was "unnecessary" and would be costly for retailers.

But Ms Roxon said the government would fight on.

"We believe we are on very strong legal grounds," she told journalists in Sydney.

"We might be breaking ground but we are on firm ground and others will follow us."

Health and anti-smoking groups, including Cancer Council Australia, Ash, Heart Foundation, Quit and the Australian Medical Association, said the measure would save lives and improve the health of thousands of Australians.

Cancer Council Australia chief executive Professor Ian Olver said he believed many young people would be deterred from taking up smoking.

"We believe it will be effective," he told AAP.

The legislation is due to be introduced into parliament in the winter and, if passed, will become law on January 1, 2012.

[/quote]

Worth watching the Video link to see the Crap already on Aussie Tobacco Products?

Link http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8233930/tobacco-giant-to-fight-plain-packaging

I am honestly ashamed of our duely elected Polititions that rule in a hung Parliment for even thinking of this BS. It really strikes at the heart of any one's right to have their "interectional" Right established, as by the Tobbaco Companies Rights to freedom to use their Trade Mark,, same as ALL Industries.

Our elected "Idiots" are just sitting in their Pool and thinking they can change the World, just on their whim, that is just so wrong and could cost my Country Billions, if not Trillions of Dollars.

This is just so Stupid.

Ray.

You do have a good point there Ray but don't you want to reduce the health risk in people when they smoke? Also i would like them to ban smoking when near or in restaurants.

Mate,
I have noproblems with restricting smokers around non smokers,I certainly try to do that myself.

The real problem is that the non smoking Polititions use the add ons on Tobacco Products in an untrue way.

Good example is, "Smokingcan cause your Child to get Ashma"

Fact.

[quote]

Causes of Asthma

The cause of asthma is not known, but there is evidence that many factors play a part.

[/quote]

Link http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Causes_of_Asthma

On this I really do know whatI am talking about, as I have had two Families of Kids? First own was four, two of them were Ashmatics, second Family of two, none of them. Go figure?

The simple insert of the word, "may" would make it truethful, but as it stands it is totally untrue.

Ray

We need true proven facts not rubbish comments from politicians

Yep.

But don't die waiting on any answer from them, Mate. Just stick it fair up them and demand Ahswers, in any way you can. That is the Aussie way.

Ray

This post has been edited by Drovers Dog: 07 April 2011 - 05:43 AM

Edit: Moved topic from General Chat to the more appropriate forum, due to content. ~ Animal

Ray, the statement says "The cause of asthma is not known, but there is evidence that many factors play a part". That doesn't mean that cigarette smoke is not a factor.

You will have to explain to me what rights are being violated, because I don't see it. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. There are tons of studies that show tobacco smoke is harmful. What is the problem with using any means to reduce smoking rates?

@ Groovicus

Please get this straight betwen us? I am a thinking smoker, but in no way is this any thing to do with smoker v non smoker. Same way as I am known as a Thinking Christian. I rely on Logic.

I am very happy to explain in a very logical fashion the reasons for my concern over this and to also supply a good possible example of the danger to "intellectual rights" that well could happen if a precident is established, not by logical reasoning, but rather by the same method that Religions use their particular Books to blindly follow it on. Even where, as both of us have pointed out, some things used are just simply not able to be logically proven, rather logic can be used to cast doubt on them. Yet these people still blindly follow on what they have been taught.

I am certainly happy that Animal saw fit to move this Topic here because it certainly has all the ingredients for a darned good Debate/arguement/discussion/ or any of the varions meanings of it and I compliment Animal for recognising the controversity even just in Australia, let alone to the rest of the World, in a very subtle way.

I originally posted it in General Chat, as it was certainly news worthy and very unusual, hence, to those that wonder why? the quotations that have been used in here.

Firstly let's deal with this broard Statement that is not logically correct? No Logical Data is ever provided to show that Smoking is the only cause of all Deseases and the numbers quoted are quite remarkable. No Details, rgarding true statitics confurm the Statement, what is availabe contradicts the Statement, from Australian Government sources. Hence my concern, as for many other Aussies, smokers or non smokers.


Plain packaging was one of a number of government measures aimed at reducing the toll on families from 15,000 smoking-related deaths and associated costs of $31.5 billion a year, she added.

In this Gem we get a breakdown of figures.

The risk of death from tobacco consumption exceeds that of any other addiction, exposure or injury. In 1996, tobacco smoking caused an estimated 16 875 deaths in Australia (Mathers et al., 1999). This total included an estimated 6262 deaths from lung cancer, 4645 deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 2507 deaths from coronary heart disease, and 3461 deaths from a variety of other conditions (notably several other cancers and strokes).

Link

http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/reports/health/ph02.htm

The figures plainly show a dramatic decline in smoking related deaths, as are used, however those figures are also flawed in where smoking is also blamed for other causes for particular deseases.

This is where my point about Ashma comes into this.


* In 2002, there were 397 deaths where the category asthma and status asthmaticus (acute severe asthma) was identified as the underlying cause (158 males and 239 females), accounting for 0.3% of all deaths in that year.
* Death rates for asthma have declined over the recent decade. In 1992, the age standardised death rate for asthma was 5.0 per 100,000 persons compared with 2.0 per 100,000 persons in 2002 (ABS 2003).
* Although the risk of dying from asthma is low, this risk increases with age. The majority of deaths from asthma occurred in people aged 65 years and over.


Link

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/0/33552374DEFE95B5CA25720500242A9D?OpenDocument

Why use Kids like they are being used? Where is any proof of this? Just a good example of Reverse Child Abuse that has no meaning. Noone wants to abuse their Child, that is what is played on, untruthfully. Please show me if I am wrong in my assumption.

This picture is just crazy yet on tobacco Products here.




You asked "how can it affect 'intellectual right'?



Global cigarette makers Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) on Thursday said the law would infringe international trademark and intellectual property laws.

"The government could end up wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars in legal fees trying to defend their decision, let alone the potential to pay billions to the tobacco industry for taking away our intellectual property," BATA spokesman Scott McIntyre said.

From the Story I posted firstly.

If the Government was sucessful in implimating this, it would set a precident that the World would truely regret.

My example of what could happen then.


Suppose similar to them people decide that Loud Music causes Deafness?
Then they decide to put ALL music into plain wrap? No one could do a thing about it.

Maybe we should think?

Ray.

This post has been edited by Drovers Dog: 09 April 2011 - 10:48 AM

I think that you are correct Ray. But if the government banned smoking altogether (on the well proven health considerations), they would be safe from the lawyers bills!
Regards John.

quote:
Why use Kids like they are being used? Where is any proof of this? Just a good example of Reverse Child Abuse that has no meaning. Noone wants to abuse their Child, that is what is played on, untruthfully. Please show me if I am wrong in my assumption.

You're wrong in your assumption

Second hand smoke or passive smoking is extremely dangerous and by smoking you subject your children to this. Even if you do not smoke in the presence of your child and you smoke outside you are still exposing them through the residual smoke on your clothing and your breath. Obviously if you light up with them in the room, then this is far more dangerous.

A quote from Wikipedia:

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.

(I know Wikipedia is not a scientific source, but it does give its references).

To be honest, I don't think plain boxes are going to stop any die-hard smoker from buying another pack of cigarettes. It may not be as attractive to children/teenagers, however, I have my doubts about that too. But, if it stops one person from starting smoking, then I'm all for it.

Casey

This post has been edited by Casey_boy: 09 April 2011 - 02:42 PM

@ JohnCe

There are several reasons why they can't just ban Tobacco.

Firstly there is the Money in Taxes. The five main ways the Government raises funds are by Tobacco, Alcohol, Gasoline, Income Tax and GST, (Goods and Services Tax) Guess which one is at the highest rate?

The World certainly learnt a lesson from America in the 1920's when Alcohol was banned. It just simply put it underground controolled by Criminals. It diddn't stop people drinking, but it cost the Government a fortune in trying to control it without any income coming in from it. A simple fact about Tobacco. it is just like "Mary Jane" ( Mary Jane is a different name for Marijuana.), in so far as it is also a weed that will grow any where. Here it is known as "Chop Chop" (Chop Chop, Australian English for homegrown tobacco.) So banning it wont stop people smoking. Vicious circle?

You said,
But if the government banned smoking altogether (on the well proven health considerations), they would be safe from the lawyers bills!

Unfortumately there are Billions of packets available to prove that the Government is not being honest in their choice of words on those products and rely on hysteria to try to scare people. A good example of this is the use of children and the statement that passive smoking causes Ahshma in children as if that is the only cause of Ashma. This is not correct and very dishonest. I certainly can give many more examples but this one will do, but lets leave it for the3 time?

Now even if they Ban it on well founded Medical grounds, they will face Class actions from all over as to why it was not banned when they knew all these facts, instead of allowing the sale of it to continue. The simple fact that it is banned will come back to bite them on the Butts.

Please don't ever think I am pro smoking or anti smoking, I honestly believe that each person has the right to make a choice based on clear and concise information, but that certainly is simply mot the case in this subject

@ Casey_boy

Let's deal with passive smoking and the use of children quite badly. There is a Statement that passive smoking causes Ashma in children as if that is the only cause of Ashma. Let's see? Sorry for the long Post, but they are Medical Facts regarding the causes of Ashma.

What Causes Asthma?


According to recent estimates, asthma affects 300 million people in the world and more than 22 million in the United States. Although people of all ages suffer from the disease, it most often starts in childhood, currently affecting 6 million children in the US. Asthma kills about 255,000 people worldwide every year.

Children at Risk

Asthma is the most common chronic disease among children - especially children who have low birth weight, are exposed to tobacco smoke, are black, and are raised in a low-income environment. Most children first present symptoms around 5 years of age, generally beginning as frequent episodes of wheezing with respiratory infections. Additional risk factors for children include having allergies, the allergic skin condition eczema, or parents with asthma.

Young boys are more likely to develop asthma than young girls, but this trend reverses during adulthood. Researchers hypothesize that this is due to the smaller size of a young male's airway compared to a young female's airway, leading to a higher risk of wheezing after a viral infection.

Allergies

Almost all asthma sufferers have allergies. In fact, over 25% of people who have hay fever (allergic rhinitis) also develop asthma. Allergic reactions triggered by antibodies in the blood often lead to the airway inflammation that is associated with asthma.

Common sources of indoor allergens include animal proteins (mostly cat and dog allergens), dust mites, cockroaches, and fungi. It is possible that the push towards energy-efficient homes has increased exposure to these causes of asthma.

Tobacco Smoke

Tobacco smoke has been linked to a higher risk of asthma as well as a higher risk of death due to asthma, wheezing, and respiratory infections. In addition, children of mothers who smoke - and other people exposed to second-hand smoke - have a higher risk of asthma prevalence. Adolescent smoking has also been associated with increases in asthma risk.

Environmental Factors

Allergic reactions and asthma symptoms are often the result of indoor air pollution from mold or noxious fumes from household cleaners and paints. Other indoor environmental factors associated with asthma include nitrogen oxide from gas stoves. In fact, people who cook with gas are more likely to have symptoms such as wheezing, breathlessness, asthma attacks, and hay fever.


Pollution, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, cold temperatures, and high humidity have all been shown to trigger asthma in some individuals.

During periods of heavy air pollution, there tend to be increases in asthma symptoms and hospital admissions. Smoggy conditions release the destructive ingredient known as ozone, causing coughing, shortness of breath, and even chest pain. These same conditions emit sulfur dioxide, which also results in asthma attacks by constricting airways.

Weather changes have also been known to stimulate asthma attacks. Cold air can lead to airway congestion, bronchoconstriction (airways constriction), secretions, and decreased mucociliary clearance (another type of airway inefficiency). In some populations, humidity causes breathing difficulties as well.

Obesity

Overweight adults - those with a body mass index (BMI) between 25 and 30 - are 38% more likely to have asthma compared to adults who are not overweight. Obese adults - those with a BMI of 30 or greater - have twice the risk of asthma. According to some researchers, the risk may be greater for nonallergic asthma than allergic asthma.

Pregnancy

The way you enter the world seems to impact your susceptibility to asthma. Babies born by Caesarean sections have a 20% increase in asthma prevalence compared to babies born by vaginal birth. It is possible that immune system-modifying infections from bacterial exposure during Cesarean sections are responsible for this difference.

When mothers smoke during pregnancy, their children have lower pulmonary function. This may pose additional asthma risks. Research has also shown that premature birth is a risk factor for developing asthma.

Stress

People who undergo stress have higher asthma rates. Part of this may be explained by increases in asthma-related behaviors such as smoking that are encouraged by stress. However, recent research has suggested that the immune system is modified by stress as well.

Genes

It is possible that some 100 genes are linked to asthma - 25 of which have been associated with separate populations as of 2005.
lab test

Genes linked to asthma also play roles in managing the immune system and inflammation. There have not, however, been consistent results from genetic studies across populations - so further investigations are required to figure out the complex interactions that cause asthma.

Mom and Dad may be partially to blame for asthma, since three-fifths of all asthma cases are hereditary. The Centers for Disease Control (USA) say that having a parent with asthma increases a person's risk by three to six times.

Genetics may also be interacting with environmental factors. For example, exposure to the bacterial product endotoxin and having the genetic trait CD14 (single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) C-159T) have remained a well-replicated example of a gene-environment interaction that is associated with asthma.

Airway Hyperreactivity

Researchers are not sure why airway hyperreactivity is another risk factor for asthma, but allergens or cold air may trigger hyperreactive airways to become inflamed. Some people do not develop asthma from airway hyperreactivity, but hyperreactivity still appears to increase the risk of asthma.

Atopy

Atopy - such as eczema (atopic dermatitis), allergic rhinitis (hay fever), allergic conjunctivitis (an eye condition) - is a general class of allergic hypersensitivity that affects different parts of the body that do not come in contact with allergens. Atopy is a risk factor for developing asthma.

Some 40% to 50% of children with atopic dermatitis also develop asthma, and it is probable that children with atopic dermatitis have more severe and persistent asthma as adults.



Heaps more on the Subject .

Link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/asthma/what-causes-asthma.php

Ray.

I think the evidence is strong enough to maintain that children shouldn't be exposed to cigarette smoke. The fact that asthma can be attributed to many factors doesn't excuse us from removing factors we can control.

That being said, I understand that you are frustrated with the way this argument is being used to further larger agendas. But I'm afraid that's just politics for you (in any country).

You obviously feel strongly about this issue but I'm just not sure your argument is defensible. I really don't think that current smokers care what the packages look like. Addiction to nicotine has little to do with aesthetics. I honestly doubt that plain boxes (even plain boxes with anti-smoking images) will impact smoking rates at all. The exception may be young "pre-smokers." Perhaps unattractive boxes will get at least a few kids thinking; at the very least, reduced marketing won't actively attract them. I imagine that the real target the authors of the bill had in mind are potential smokers; likewise, the real fear in the tobacco industry is the threat to future customers.

Ray, First off i'm a smoker, BUT i'm a considerate smoker, even in my own home, if somebody is visiting i ask first if it will bother them if i smoke, if they say yes then i don't smoke around them, that's my choice and i have the right to make that choice without any gooberment interference!!, quite frankly it's none of the gooberment's business!! This is how our rights are being erroded away, little by little....
Second, i'm gonna take issue with this second hand smoke deal.....I grew up in a house of smoker's..my parent' Aunt's Uncles, their friends..ect..ect... Now if second hand smoke was really all that dangerous I wouldn't be here and neither would a bunch of other people!!..Is smoking the smartest thing i could do for myself....I'd have to be crackers to say yes....because it's not, no arguement whatsoever!!

In my opinion, the main problem with the "evidence" regarding smoking, is that, pro or con, it is politicians that are promulgating it. As the general public know that all politicians are liars, they don't believe anything that is told to them by their governments, so that any truths are lost.

I watched an old TV episode from the 70's yesterday. Strange to see people smoking even in hospital rooms.

It does bother me when limits on smoking extend to private homes and yards.

Now that the FDA will regulate electronic cigarettes, it will be interesting to see what municipalities do. Apparently a lot of people want to ban and severely restrict their use, also.

This post has been edited by pacificdenizen: 23 May 2011 - 10:56 AM