In spite of the Australian judgement in favour of plain packaging, there are more battles to be fought.
The UK campaign goes on, as do battles in the World Trade Organization.
Simon Chapman, prime supporter in Sydney comments here (admitting the first result will be a price war, to which the government's response will be to raise the tax). He outlines outstanding challenges to the display ban in Australia, and interestingly describes these greedy capitalist tobacco corporations as 'global minnows' in their fight against plain packaging.
A branding expert Stephen Cheliotis, comments here, from the other side of the argument.
Both sides have comments below, as does the BBC report.
Views vary depending where you read them. Sadly there are people who feel that the opposition of tobacco companies to plain packaging must mean that the policy is sound and will have its desired effect. The less mannerly accuse anyone who disagrees with this position of being in bed with tobacco. This is ad hominem argument (usually quite without foundation) and doesn't really help anyone to understand the issue.
The Australian government's attempts to confiscate the intellectual property of branding should be illegal: they have confiscated something of value without compensating the owners. Arguing that they are not actually using the branding doesn't cut it – especially now admitting that the Treasury expects to recoup extra tax revenue as a direct result of the change in law.
1 comment:
So according to Australian Justice, I should not be compensated by a person who steals my priceless Picasso and tears it to pieces then burns the remnants out of spite, because he did not sell it?
But I suspect that, when the Judges explain their reasoning, the explanation will be quite simple - they will refer to the creation of the constitution and say that, in their opinion (and that is all it takes), the clause re compensation refers only to actual goods an property. End of..
Post a Comment