The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Alcohol: plain packaging’s next casualty > Comments

Alcohol: plain packaging’s next casualty : Comments

By Patrick Basham, published 16/12/2014

The Indonesian trade ministry is preparing to mandate the plain packaging of alcohol products, including Australian wine, with the respective labelling devoted to warnings of the adverse health consequences associated with alcohol consumption.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
If industries that produce potentially harmful products suffer economically and find it more difficult to market their products that seems reasonable to me. Alcohol, tobacco and other harmful and addictive substances should all be in plain packaging with a mechanism to provide checks on quality control. The sale of most, if not all, drugs should be legalised and the items also put in plain packaging. Drugs, alcohol and tobacco products should not be allowed to sponsor or advertise through sport.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 9:12:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My sentiments re plain packaging or alcohol and cigarettes are similar to yours David; wouldn't necessarily agree on other drugs though.

Seems you are pushing a purely economic / industry line Patrick. If products (or pollutants) are harmful, they should incur appropriate restrictions and taxes. You seem to be promoting a similar line to the Abbott Government - Australia should not be a progressive leader but rather a laggard, for the sake of a economic gains in the short term.

These reforms are inevitable - those countries that enact them early, and adjust accordingly will better off in the long run and can capitalize on 'clean green responsible' reputations / branding.

Plain packaging would cause a reduction in alcohol industry revenues, but would not mean the end of the wine and beer industries. And that needs to be weighed against taxpayer savings in health costs.

It's a matter of clear notification of the dangers of over-consumption and what constitutes over-consumption. It's an education campaign.

Alcohol is a bit different to cigarettes in that it only affects some (over) consumers, when cigarettes can directly impact others due to passive inhalation.

Apparently smoking causes 10 times more deaths than alcohol while alcohol causes more hospital admissions; they are number 1 and 2 causes of preventable disease. http://www.channel4.com/news/alcohol-label-warning-harm-tobacco-graphic-quiz

Interestingly, promotion of alcohol and cigarettes during the WW2 war effort had a lot to do with latter day health impacts. My father, was a serviceman and they gave out a pack of cigarettes and bottle of beer a day to all soldiers. He didn't like beer and swapped his for smokes; succumbed to lung cancer aged 78.

How government policies have changed in 70 years!
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Completely agree with david f's patent pragmatism.
But particularly when we know prohibition just doesn't work, be it drugs, alcohol or abortion!

The war on drugs is over 80 years old and has already cost millions of lives (many of them law enforcement officers) and much national and private treasure.

Better these things should be out in the open, age regulated, legalized and taxed.
Particularly when most of them, coke, heroin, marijuana, mesquite and magic mushrooms are less or not more harmful, with fewer long term health consequences, than legal tobacco or alcohol?

And with that one sensible and massively overdue pragmatism, empty out as much as 90% of our prison populations; and a massive saving to the tax payer!
And how can privately run prisons gong bankrupt from lack of clientele ($70,000.00 a year each) be a bad thing?

And law enforcement, which will be finally free to chase down the real criminals/child molesters/tax avoiding white collar crime, with its ponzi schemes and equally problematic short selling/commercial collusion and consequent price gouging!

The last time oil was just $60.00 a barrel, petrol in this country cost less than a dollar a litre?
Even though our petrol was refined in the more expensive local refineries!

There are many ways for the inventive well heeled, to steal your hard earned; and get completely away with it!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 December 2014 11:27:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another legal mine field left behind by an incompetent government who is best remembered fir the wasted billions of tax layers funds.

The irony is that plain packaging was aimed at stopping the kids from taking up the habit yet, most who try smoking, and most do, bum their cigarettes anyway and don't give a toss about the brand.

If only politicians, from all sides, were accountable for their actions, not rewarded for being failures as is the case.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 17 December 2014 10:22:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub, far from being a legal minefield it's quite straightforward. Australia has the right to change cigarette packaging laws to make them look less attractive, and it has done so. I expect at least some of the kids taking up the habit care about image, even if they don't care about the brand. Opponents of the plain packaging law, most of whom are funded by the tobacco industry, make all kinds of silly claims such as that it involves confiscation of intellectual property. It doesn't; it merely restricts how such property can be used. But such claims will be tested in court and Australia's position will be vindicated.

Now Indonesia wants to do the same with alcohol. That's fair enough. If it lowers demand then so be it, but I doubt it will make much difference at the high end, where the value is determined by wine buffs not packaging.

And if you think the previous government was incompetent, take a look at this one!
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 18 December 2014 9:46:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....And if you think the previous government was incompetent, take a look at this one!

Aidan, have you ever tried to do much without money?

As for image, kids don't buy cigarettes, so how would image influence their habits?

As for imcompitance, if government wants to change the packaging, they should have told the manufacturers that if you wish to continue selling tabbacco products in this country you will have to change your packaging. Rather than this, the Gillard government changed the packaging and forced them to comply. This is where the legal argument is. Not in the packaging, but rather in the way it was implemented.

Win loose or draw, it will cost millions, if not billions we don't have to defend the incompetence of Gillard and her crew.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 18 December 2014 11:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy