Smoking and HealthNice to see an acknowledgement that cigarettes aren't good for you and that they are "addictive" rather than merely dangerous.
Tobacco products, including cigarettes, are dangerous and addictive. There is overwhelming medical and scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases.
Addiction
All tobacco products are addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so.
The site goes on to state -
Secondhand SmokeNot, apparently, sufficient to support broader restrictions such as the proposals highlighted here and here.
Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes serious diseases in non-smokers, including lung cancer and heart disease. We believe the public health conclusions on secondhand smoke are sufficient to support smoking restrictions in public places.
Philip Morris continues -
Effective RegulationManufacturers and finance authorities are more equal than the others, with intellectual property interests overriding concerns regarding public health?
Philip Morris International (PMI) supports comprehensive regulation of tobacco products based on the principle of harm reduction.
To be effective, tobacco regulatory policy must be evidence-based, apply to all tobacco products, and should take into account the views of all legitimate stakeholders including public health authorities, government finance authorities, tobacco manufacturers, and other members of the tobacco supply chain.
Philip Morris states that -
Regulatory policy must consider the potential to trigger adverse consequences which undermine public health objectives, such as increasing the demand for illicit cigarettes.The tobacco industry over several decades was aware of harms associated with smoking. It failed to act responsibly. Appeals to principle are, alas, somewhat hollow.
While we support comprehensive, effective tobacco regulation, we do not support regulation that prevents adults from buying and using tobacco products or that imposes unnecessary impediments to the operation of the legitimate tobacco market. In that regard, we oppose measures such as generic packaging, point of sale display bans, total bans on communications to adult consumers, and bans on the use of all ingredients in tobacco products.
A Philip Morris media release states that -
Philip Morris Asia Limited (PMA), Hong Kong, owner of Australian affiliate, Philip Morris Limited (PML), today announced that it has served a notice of claim on the Australian government, stating its intention to pursue legal action over plans to introduce plain packaging in Australia for tobacco products. PMA is taking action under Australia’s Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong.Article 3 of the Treaty does not appear to prevent restrictions on packagaging (the Australian regime would apply to all cigarette manufacturers, rather than on a discriminatory basis to those with an connection to the HK SAR). Restrictions on the use of intellectual property are arguably not "expropriation" under Article 6. Expropriation is permitted if it is subject to "due process of law, for a public purpose related to the internal needs of [Australia], on a non-discriminatory basis, and against compensation".
"The forced removal of trade marks and other valuable intellectual property is a clear violation of the terms of the bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong. We believe we have a very strong legal case and will be seeking significant financial compensation for the damage to our business," said Anne Edwards, spokesperson for PMA.
PML has a long history in Australia, manufacturing and selling cigarettes since 1954. Over this time, PML has built well-known brands such as Marlboro, Alpine, Longbeach, Peter Jackson, choice and GT. Plain packaging robs PML of its ability to use these brands to differentiate from competitor brands, effectively turning tobacco products into a commodity. Damages caused by plain packaging may amount to billions of Australian dollars.
"Legal action is not a course we take lightly, but the government has unfortunately left us with no other option," continued Edwards. "The government has consistently ignored the concerns expressed by a broad range of domestic and international stakeholders about the adverse consequences of plain packaging and has failed to demonstrate that the policy will stop people from smoking."
Renowned law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Don Wallace Jr., Chairman of the International Law Institute and an expert on investor-state disputes, said "Plain packaging legislation would expose Australia to well-founded claims under the treaty, potentially costing the Australian government billions of dollars in damages."
The notice served on the Australian government by PMA begins a mandatory period of three months during which the parties must attempt to negotiate a satisfactory outcome. If this is not achieved, PMA will then proceed to the next step of arbitration proceedings pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010
In October 2010 another media release stated that -
PMI statement and background information regarding the company's Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) claim against the government of UruguayFar beyond public health objectives?
A number of stories have recently appeared in the media relating to a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) claim against the government of Uruguay. Many of these stories contain inaccurate and misleading information.
Philip Morris International (PMI) is not seeking to overturn public place smoking restrictions, lift advertising restrictions, prevent graphic warnings on cigarette packs or reverse bans on the descriptors such as milds or lights. In fact, we have supported regulations in each of these areas.
Our BIT claim only challenges three regulations implemented in 2009 by the former administration that go far beyond public health objectives:... * an increase in health warnings on tobacco packaging to 80%. Although we support regulations requiring prominent health warnings, the requirement of 80% leaves virtually no space on the pack for display of legally protected trademarks.
* a requirement to print images on tobacco packaging that include repulsive and shocking pictures, such as a grotesquely disfigured baby. We do not oppose the use of graphic health warnings but believe that images should accurately depict the health effects of smoking.
The same media release states that -
We have supported and will continue to support effective and sensible tobacco regulations. The three measures challenged, however, are neither. They are extreme, have not been proven to be effective, have seriously harmed the company’s investments in Uruguay and have deprived the company of its ability to use its legally-protected trademarks and brands.Given the corporation's acknowledgement that cigarettes are "dangerous" and "addictive" I'm underwhelmed by Philip Morris' comment in that media release -
This Bilateral Investment Treaty claim is specific to three regulatory measures in Uruguay as described below. Prior Uruguayan governments have implemented numerous regulations, including smoking restrictions in public places, advertising restrictions, mandatory 50% health warnings, and a ban on the use of descriptive terms such as "light", "mild", "ultra light". The companies have not challenged any of these regulations.Given the addictive attributes of smoking it may be appropriate for health agencies to deploy "emotions of repulsion and disgust, even horror" ... the "meaningful information" is that smoking isn't a good thing.
The three measures challenged in the Request for Arbitration are, however, different. They are extreme, and in some cases confiscatory, regulations that have seriously harmed the companies’ investments in Uruguay and deprived the companies of their ability to use their legally registered brands. ...
A second measure, Decree 287/09, expands the size of the mandatory warning labels on cigarette packaging from 50% to 80% of the front and back panels of the package. No such requirement is in effect in any other country in the world. The size of the warning makes it virtually impossible for the companies to use their brands and trademarks to promote their own products or even distinguish them from other brands. The companies -- along with most other countries worldwide -- consider the previously mandated 50% health warnings more than sufficient to clearly communicate the well-known health effects of smoking.
A third measure, Ordinance 514 (1), requires the companies to include pictograms as part of the health warnings on packaging. The companies have no per se objection to regulations requiring pictograms.
However, the specific pictograms required by the Ministry of Public Health do not warn of the health effects of tobacco use, as would be appropriate; rather, they include shocking and sensational images designed to evoke emotions of repulsion and disgust, even horror. It is difficult to understand, for instance, what meaningful information can be drawn from seeing an image of what appears to be a burnt and grotesquely disfigured baby on a pack.
