An advertising campaign against Labor's plan to force cigarettes to be sold in plain packets from mid-2012 will be launched on Thursday by newsagents, convenience stores and service stations.
The ad blitz by the Alliance of Australian Retailers, which will include TV commercials from Sunday, is funded 100 per cent by the country's three cigarette manufacturers.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon, who claims the Liberal Party could be behind the $5 million campaign, said Mr Abbott was looking like the "Marlboro man".
A year after a new law put tobacco regulation in the hands of the Food and Drug Administration, one thing is clear: It will likely be years before any of the most aggressive steps to reduce deaths from smoking Marlboro might happen.
When President Barack Obama signed the bill into law last June, anti-tobacco advocates suggested it could lead to a reduction in nicotine levels, a ban on menthol cigarettes or other aggressive moves.
Asian tobacco growers on Tuesday condemned the World Health Organization (WHO) for suggesting ingredients such as cloves and other flavours be banned from cigarettes like Kiss, Eva, Karelia and many other flavoured brands.
The International Tobacco Growers' Association (ITGA) said a ban would cost millions of jobs by eliminating the market for blended cigarettes, which account for about half of global sales.
"We urge all governments to reject the proposal to ban tobacco ingredients and to investigate other alternatives that can achieve public health goals while also protecting the millions of jobs that are dependent on tobacco growing," ITGA president Roger Quarles said at a tobacco conference in Jakarta.
ITGA and the Indonesian Tobacco Community Alliance (AMTI), representing four million growers across Asia, have formed an Asian lobby group to fight the WHO proposals.
AMTI chairman Soedaryanto said that, as the world's biggest producers of clove cigarettes, Indonesian tobacco growers stood to lose most from a ban.
"Some of these agricultural communities are already among the poorest in the country. No other crop currently exists that can provide similar economic benefits to those communities," he said.
Indonesia is the only country in Asia not to have ratified the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which sets policy recommendations and benchmarks for countries concerned about the health impacts of smoking.
Cigarette consumption in the Southeast Asian archipelago of some 240 million people soared 47 percent in the 1990s and about 400,000 Indonesians die every year due to tobacco-related illnesses, according to the WHO.
Indonesia's biggest cigarette manufacturer, PT HM Sampoerna, is an affiliate of Philip Morris International.
The government in Jakarta has failed to regulate the tobacco industry, which pays more than six million dollars a year in excise taxes alone even though cigarette prices remain among the lowest in the world.
Following health risks associated with Marlboro, OK and other cigarettes consumption, which according to experts, is the second leading cause of deaths globally (after hypertension) and currently responsible for the death of one in every 10 adults worldwide, experts are of the view that enacting effective policies toward reducing tobacco consumption in Nigeria will go a long way at saving people’s lives.
This is coming in view of recent reports by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which states that an estimated 5.4 million people die annually due to tobacco-related diseases, with majority of these deaths happening in developing countries.
In a recent interview with BusinessDay, Akinbode Oluwafemi, programme manager, Environmental Rights in Nigeria/Friends of the Earth, lamented over what he called the latest trend of marketing tobacco to women and young girls as a major strategy of boosting the tobacco industry. Akinbode regretted that about 250 million women worldwide now smoke and for low income countries like Nigeria, it is bad news because the rate that once stood at nine percent had gone up.
According to him, “a recent Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) indicates an alarming increase in the number of girls who smoke and those who considered smoking to boys. In Nigeria, women have consistently been a source of marketing tobacco products. Also, several young girls are involved in the promotions of a tobacco firm in the country (for instance the Experience IT promotion in 2003, Experience Freshness promo in 2008, etc).”
The programme manager noted further that young people were highly impressionistic and tended to gravitate towards anything that produced the image of sophistication and glamour, believing that the tobacco industry had used this ploy to “catch them young” and turn them into lifelong replacement smokers.
“The effect of the marketing which happened especially between 2001 and 2005, and still continues illegally through illegal cigarette promotions and secret smoking parties, has been enormous. Recent statistics show an alarming increase in young people who are taking up smoking in Nigeria. If tobacco industry can addict more young people, they will serve as replacement smokers for the older customers that have died off due to their deadly habit,” Akinbode disclosed.
For Kemi Odukoya, a public health expert at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) Idi-araba, tobacco consumption causes reproductive damage, premature menopause, breakdown of hormone system, painful and/or irregular menstruation, and damages the foetus in pregnant women.
“Preventing female smoking, especially in low income countries, will have a positive impact in global health than any other single intervention. There is the need to nip the issue of tobacco consumption in the bud following a number of chronic diseases including lung diseases, and cardiovascular diseases associated with tobacco use,” Odukoya concluded.
No doubt, the impact of second-hand smoking cannot be overemphasised considering the fact that it is responsible for one in every six tobacco related deaths in the world. However, enacting stringent measures aimed at reducing public smoking would go a long way in reducing public health related issues.
Currently, the Federal Capital Territory Abuja has declared its territory smoke free and is putting in place measures for effective implementation of its smoke-free policies. Osun State has an effective and comprehensive public places smoke-free law in place, which was signed into law in April 2010 by the governor, Olagunsoye Oyinlola.
In the words of Akinbode: “The proposed National Tobacco Control Bill (NTCB) at the National Assembly is sponsored by Olorunnibe Mamora, who is a Senate member of the National Assembly. The Bill provided for comprehensive smoke-free public places all over Nigeria. The bill is currently with the Senate Committee on Health headed by Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello and is still expected to be returned to the Senate plenary. When passed, we would have been able to comprehensively reduce the problem of second-hand smoking in Nigeria”.
The bill is a life saver for Nigerians and the future generations, as it will help cut down spending on our healthcare. However, the National Assembly and Senate Committee on Health should expedite action on that bill so that Nigerians would less be exposed to this health hazard. Already, there are stringent measures in place to reduce smoking in Europe and America; Nigeria should borrow a leaf from that.
It's a simple matter of math: Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court has complicated the government's effort to force the tobacco industry to cough up nearly $300 billion.
If confirmed by the Senate as a justice, Kagan would have to sit out high court review of the government's decade-old racketeering lawsuit against cigarette makers. That's because she already has taken sides as solicitor general, signing the Obama administration's Supreme Court brief in the case — an automatic disqualifier.
Kagan is expected to step aside from 11 of the 24 cases the court has so far agreed to hear beginning in October.
Without her, the government and anti-tobacco advocates could find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a fifth vote to allow the government to seek $280 billion of past tobacco profits and $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking discount cigarettes like Marlboro, Camel, Kiss etc.
The justices are expected to consider whether to take up the tobacco lawsuit at their private conference on June 24. If they decide to go ahead, they would hear argument in the fall or winter.
A justice's decision not to participate in a case, called a recusal, can have a dramatic effect on a nine-person court. The court has split 4-4 on several occasions in recent years when justices did not take part in a case because they owned stock in an affected company, had a relative involved in some way or had participated in the case either as a lawyer or judge.
A 4-4 outcome leaves the lower court ruling in place, creates no national precedent and generally is regarded as a waste of the court's time.
Kagan might eventually have to excuse herself from two to three dozen cases over the next few years. When Thurgood Marshall moved directly to the court from solicitor general in 1967, he did not take part in a majority of the cases the court heard in his first term, said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and Supreme Court expert.
Kagan won't face as many recusals as Marshall because she served for a shorter time as solicitor general and stepped aside from those duties earlier than Marshall did, Goldstein said. In addition, some of Marshall's recusals related to his service on the federal appeals court in New York.
But Kagan's anticipated absence could affect several important cases. It won't be known for some time whether she did enough legal work defending President Barak Obama's health care legislation to require her to step aside if and when that issue comes to the Supreme Court.
Appeals in civil lawsuits over anti-terror policies begun in the Bush administration and, in some cases, continued under Obama, could be affected.
The federal appeals court in Washington recently limited the rights of detainees at the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, to use federal courts to challenge their detention. Justice John Paul Stevens, whom Kagan would replace, was part of a bare five-justice majority that sided with detainees at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Again, because she signed the government's briefs in the appeals court, Kagan would not be part of the high court's consideration of the Bagram case, and it is by no means clear that she would vote as Stevens did.
The same consideration probably will doom the high court hopes of Maher Arar, the Canadian engineer who was mistakenly labeled a Muslim extremist, detained by U.S. authorities when he tried to change planes at Kennedy Airport in New York and sent to Syria. Arar claims he was tortured in Syria and wants to hold former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other officials liable for the decision to send him there.
The court could say as early as Monday whether it will hear Arar's appeal of a ruling against him by the federal appeals court in New York. One consideration for the justices is that there probably would be only seven of them available to hear Arar's case, meaning as few as four justices could hold sway.
In addition to Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor would be out of the case. Sotomayor was a member of the appeals court that heard the case, although she did not take part in the decision.
Kagan's ties to the tobacco issue predate her time as solicitor general. She was the Clinton administration's chief negotiator in a drawn out and ultimately failed attempt to craft comprehensive tobacco legislation in the late 1990s.
The racketeering lawsuit against the industry came about after the effort in Congress collapsed. "One thing I can say for certain is nobody worked harder to try to bring people together," recalled Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The group is one of several public health organizations that joined the lawsuit on the government's side.
Now, Kagan would be unable to be part of a final resolution of the case in the form of a Supreme Court opinion and her absence from the case could prevent the government from extracting hundreds of billions of dollars from tobacco companies. "This case is filled with irony," Myers said.
But he said it is not certain that the court would split along ideological lines. The government and the public health groups assert that a divided federal appeals court panel misread a provision of the racketeering law, creating a conflict with other appeals courts that have allowed trial judges to order payment, or disgorgement, of past profits.
That ruling preceded a nine-month trial that ended with a federal judge's harsh 1,600-page opinion that found the industry engaged in racketeering and fraud over several decades.
Leading tobacco companies accounting for 90 percent of U.S. cigarette sales want the justices to wipe away court holdings that the industry illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking. If they succeed, the attack on their profits also would be halted.
Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco maker; its parent company Altria Group Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. filed separate but related appeals that take issue with the opinion from U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler and a unanimous appeals court ruling that largely upheld her.
Kessler ruled that the companies engaged in a scheme to defraud the public by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking, concealing evidence that nicotine is addictive and lying about their manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes to create addiction.
The justices have several options. They could decide to hear the appeal from one side or the other, or both. Or neither.
An argument for rejecting the entire case is that the appeals court that sided with Kessler was made up of Democratic and Republican appointees. Also, the high court has previously turned down a chance to review the appellate ruling on profits.
In the year after smoke-free legislation was introduced in England, there were 1,200 fewer emergency heart attack hospital admissions - a 2.4 percent decrease, a recent study shows.
The smoke-free law, enacted on July 1, 2007, prohibits smoking Winston and other discount smoking brands in all public places and enclosed workplaces. The researchers analyzed emergency department admissions for patients aged 18 and older from July 2002 to September 2008.
While the decrease may seem small, many public places and workplaces were already smoke-free when the legislation was introduced, the researchers noted.
The study appears online June 9 in the BMJ.
The findings show that banning smoking in public places can reduce hospital admissions for heart attacks even in countries that already have other anti-smoking regulations. This can have an important public health benefit given the high rates of heart disease worldwide, said Dr. Anna Gilmore, University of Bath, and colleagues, in a BMJ news release.
The nation’s three big tobacco companies, and trade associations representing hundreds of New York City bodegas and convenience stores, are challenging the city’s latest salvo in the antismoking wars: graphic images of diseased brains, lungs and teeth that are posted where Marlboro, Eva, Red & White cigarettes are sold.
The tobacco companies — Philip Morris, Lorillard and R. J. Reynolds — joined with the New York State Association of Convenience Stores and retailers in filing a federal lawsuit against the city in an effort to remove the gruesome placards from about 11,500 establishments. Since late last year, the city has required the retailers to post them within three inches of cash registers or in each place where tobacco products are displayed.
The suit, filed on Wednesday in United States District Court in Manhattan, contends that the placard rule infringes on the federal government’s authority to regulate cigarette advertising and warnings and violates the First Amendment rights of store owners who disagree with their message, and that the placards are so disgusting that they hurt business by discouraging people from buying not only cigarettes but also more-wholesome merchandise like milk and sandwiches.
“This is not the city taking out a billboard, which it would have every right to do,” Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer who is representing the convenience stores, said Friday. “What it doesn’t have the right to do is to force other people to adopt its expression.”
The suit also complains that because of heavy restrictions on cigarette advertising, advertising space near the cash register is one of the last places where companies can promote their brands.
By putting ugly posters there instead, the suit says, the city is blocking tobacco companies from communicating with consumers, depriving retailers of coveted advertising revenue and pushing restrictions on tobacco-related speech “past the constitutional tipping point.”
In a statement, the city’s health department said that putting warnings where cigarettes were sold was one of the most effective ways to deter people from smoking and to discourage a new generation of smokers. “By trying to suppress this educational campaign,” the statement said, “the tobacco industry is signaling its desire to keep kids in the dark.”
The city has spent $80,000 to print and distribute the signs in the eight months since the law was adopted. They are based on research that shows pictures are much more effective at conveying the hazards of smoking than written text, according to the health department.
The suit received a mixed reception on Friday at the Corner News convenience store at 40th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan.
Maria Roman, 35, a customer-service representative, barely glanced at the poster of a bloody tooth, stuck to the cash register, as she paid for a package of candy. To her, she said, the poster seemed perfectly factual. “It’s the truth,” she said, shrugging. “It’s just a visualization of what’s actually happening.”
John Pae, 58, a chef, said he generally resented government intrusions into his life but was even angrier about high cigarette taxes and a proposed soda tax, because they affected his wallet.
He said that he had called the city’s 311 hotline to help him quit smoking about two and a half months ago, but that the nicotine patches the city provided were so cheap that they had to be held on with duct tape. He has since bought patches at a drugstore.
“Everything pushed me to quit — taxes, getting older, the effect on my health,” Mr. Pae said. But he conceded that the city’s 311 smoking-cessation program, which he saw advertised on television, “made it easier.”
A clerk at the store, Saiful Islam, said a photograph on the cash register, of a diseased tooth, was so upsetting that some customers had switched from buying cigarettes to buying candy or gum. Many of them were spending as much on soda, candy and lottery tickets as they had on cigarettes, he said, so the store had not lost business.
He said the taxes that had pushed the price of a pack of cigarettes to $10 were worse for business than the posters, because they led people to buy cigarettes on the black market — which he said thrived on the sidewalk right outside the store.
