Philip Morris fights Australian (no-logo cigarette) packaging rules (Contains Graphic Images)

[Turborama]

Source: AP Via CBS

June 28, 2011 6:48 AM

SYDNEY (AP) — Tobacco giant Philip Morris launched legal action on Monday against the Australian government over the country's plans to strip company logos from cigarette packages and replace them with grisly images of cancerous mouths, sickly children and bulging, blinded eyes.

The government believes the new rules will make the packages less attractive to smokers and turn Australia into the world's toughest country on tobacco advertising. Several outraged cigarette makers have threatened lawsuits, arguing the move illegally diminishes the value of their trademarks. Philip Morris is the first of those companies to file a claim for compensation.

"We would anticipate that the compensation would amount to billions," Philip Morris spokeswoman Anne Edwards told The Associated Press.

The legislation, which will be introduced to Parliament in July, would ban cigarette makers from printing their logos, promotional text or colorful images on cigarette packs. Brand names will instead be printed in a small, uniform font and feature large health warnings and gruesome, full-color images of the consequences of smoking. The law would be phased in over six months, starting in January 2012.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/28/ap/health/main20074942.shtml

---

FILE - This artist's impression provided
by the the Minister from the Department
of Health and Ageing shows a proposed
cigarette packaging stripped of all logos
and replaced with graphic images that
tobacco companies in Australia will be
forced to use.



Australia bans logos on cigarette packs
Move on cigarette packaging provokes Big Tobacco to take action, demanding billions in projected losses.

Australia is banning logos on all cigarette packets starting next year. It is the first move of its kind globally and it has provoked big tobacco companies into taking action.

Phillip Morris is taking legal action against a new law in Australia aimed at reducing smoking. The legislation bans commercial branding on all cigarette packets from next year - the first of its kind worldwide.

The tobacco giant wants the Australian government to strike the measure or pay up billions of dollars in projected losses.

Al Jazeera's Imran Khan reports on the looming showdown (video - contains graphic images): http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia-pacific/2011/06/2011627165513297856.html

-

[ZombieHorde]

1. We should have pictures of dead children on our gas pumps. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

2. they'd be spending their money better to give away free slipcovers to cover packs up

just include one with each pack or carton... people will slip their pack into it and cover everything

______

but they'll have to see the imagery during purchase

[alp227]

3. agree, but some will argue "what about pre-abortion sonograms?"

For the dimwits who'll browse here and plan on trolling, smoking and abortion are NOT in the same arena. Can't compare the two.

On subject now, of course the tobacco industry will want to defend its own self interest all the time.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. my guess is they already have a plan to have removable labels that reveal inner pack-graphic

it'll be like pulling out a tissue from a box of kleenex - toss the image, toss the graphic

[jmowreader]

6. Not necessarily

The shopkeeper just displays the cigarette packs so you only see the end, and behind some sort of a protective wall. The purchaser hands her cigarette case to the clerk. The clerk goes behind the wall, gets the cigarettes out, puts them in the case, brings them back...the customer pays and leaves.

If they REALLY want to cut down on smoking, require all cigarettes to be colored pink, to have the paper bleed color so it turns your lips red, and add 10 percent manure to all cigarette blends. No teenaged boy in the world would want to walk around with red lips, and no current smokers would want to smoke them if they taste, literally, like shit.

[Lionessa]

5. The problem I see is that the new packaging as shown in your OP is just plain

wrong. There are 100,000s, if not more, smokers who don't have cancer of any kind. So it would be best to say, "can cause mouth and throat cancer", not "does". "Does" means it will, and it only sometimes does.

The other problem I see is that cigarette smokers are being attacked but pipe smokers, cigar smokers, snuffers, and chewers seem to have no attention on them and if you want mouth or throat cancer sooner and more assuredly than cigarettes, then chewing tobacco is a better choice, for example.

[TroglodyteScholar]

7. You know what diminishes the value of your trademarks, Phillip Morris?

The fact that your product kills your customer when used as directed.

[onethatcares]

8. well, at least here in the good old U.S.of A. we can

give tax incentives, or subsidies to the tobacco growers and then moan a lot about how much it costs to treat a case of lung cancer, throat cancer,
jaw cancer and the other cancers brought on by the drug and it's sidekicks.

And I am an ex smoker. There are nights I lie in bed and wonder just how much damage I did to my body over 40 years of smoking and if

that little twinge I feel is a small tumor starting.

[Lionel Mandrake]

9. Philip Murderous deserves no pity.

:nopity: