Search

Placeholder Content Image

Crackdown on vapes after state records shocking number of toddlers smoking

<p dir="ltr">Victoria has recorded an alarming number of toddlers ingesting nicotine from vapes.</p> <p dir="ltr">In the last year, Health Minister Mark Butler said that 50 children under four were recorded vaping, and that it is now the biggest behavioural issue in primary schools across the country.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The Victorian poisons hotline has reported that in the last 12 months, more than 50 children under the age of four have had to be reported to the hotline because of the dangerous ingestion of nicotine,” Butler told <em>ABC Radio</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This is now the biggest behavioural issue in primary schools,” he added.</p> <p dir="ltr">Health ministers across the country are looking for ways to implement greater import and enforcement controls after the use of vapes has exploded in recent years, despite current regulations.</p> <p dir="ltr">Last year, a new rule was enforced where nicotine vapes were only available with a prescription. However a black market has emerged, and this market primarily targets children.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This is an industry shamelessly marketing, not just to teenagers but to young children. When you look at these things, pink unicorns and bubblegum flavours aren’t marketed to adults,” Butler said.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Health Minister also added that the multi-million dollar industry is threatening to undo all the hard work dedicated to phase out smoking.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This is an industry that is trying to create a new generation of nicotine addicts so they get around all of the hard work our country and other countries have done over recent decades to stamp out smoking,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">Butler used the example of a “very young” child who had been found with an “insidious” vape in her pencil case, in an attempt to disguise it as a highlighter.</p> <p dir="ltr">Earlier this month footage of an <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/jail-them-fury-after-baby-forced-to-vape-while-family-laughs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">11-month-old baby boy smoking a vape</a> went viral, when the distressed child was seen struggling for air as his teenage mother laughed at him.</p> <p dir="ltr">Butler said that when it comes to cracking down on the industry, “all options were on the table,” including better import and sales control.</p> <p dir="ltr">Butler refuses to normalise e-cigarettes, something that has been proposed by David Littleproud, the leader of the Nationals party.</p> <p dir="ltr">Butler said: “We can’t just say oh, well, it’s all too hard, let’s just normalise it because we know why these products exist”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“These products are pushed so hard by the tobacco industry because they want to create a pathway back to cigarettes.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Butler also cited research that showed that those who vape are three times as likely to take up cigarettes.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty, Facebook</em></p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

E-cigarettes are less effective at helping smokers to quit

<div><div class="copy"><p>Sales of <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/society/twelve-myths-about-e-cigarettes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">e-cigarettes</a> – particularly those with high nicotine content, similar to traditional cigarettes – skyrocketed in the US in 2017. Proponents of e-cigarettes say this jump in sales should lead to a jump in those quitting smoking, pointing to some clinical trials as evidence of this.</p><p>Unfortunately, this didn’t work out in practice. According to a new <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056901" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">paper</a> in <em>BMJ Tobacco Control,</em> e-cigarettes were linked to lower success rates for those who tried to quit smoking, and they weren’t any better at preventing relapses.</p><p>The study examines data from a US national long-term study on smoking. The researchers looked specifically at data from 2017-2019, on 3,578 established smokers who’d recently tried to quit and 1,323 recent former smokers.</p><p>“We found little evidence that smokers took part in the 2017 surge in e-cigarette sales, which was associated with the introduction of the high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette,” says co-author Professor John Pierce, a researcher at UC San Diego and UC San Diego Moores Cancer Centre, US.</p><p>“This is the first survey in which e-cigarettes were less popular as a smoking cessation aid than FDA-approved pharmaceutical aids. Not only were e-cigarettes not as popular, but they were associated with less successful quitting.”</p><p>In 2017, over 12% of recent quitters reported using e-cigarettes to quit – either by themselves or with other aids. About 2.5% used other tobacco products, and 21% used pharmaceutical aids or <a href="https://www.cancer.org/healthy/stay-away-from-tobacco/guide-quitting-smoking/nicotine-replacement-therapy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nicotine</a><a href="https://www.cancer.org/healthy/stay-away-from-tobacco/guide-quitting-smoking/nicotine-replacement-therapy.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> replacement therapy</a>. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64%) didn’t use anything.</p><p>By 2019, those who had used e-cigarettes were less likely to have successfully quit than those who’d gone cold-turkey – 10% versus 19%. In this study, “successful quitting” was defined as having gone 12 months without using tobacco products.</p><p>However, the number of respondents who were using or planning to use e-cigarettes to quit had nearly doubled – to 22% of all respondents.</p><p>The researchers stress that their study is observational – this data can’t show that e-cigarettes are the cause for these failed quitting attempts. But they do point out that their real-world data sits in contrast to other randomised clinical trials, which tend to slightly favour e-cigarettes over other quitting methods.</p><p>“RCTs [randomised clinical trials] are usually conducted under optimal conditions, which means that they may not translate to the effectiveness of the product in community settings,” point out the authors in their paper.</p><p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p><em><!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --> <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="height: 1px!important;width: 1px!important;border: 0!important" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=181614&amp;title=E-cigarettes+are+less+effective+at+helping+smokers+to+quit" width="1" height="1" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" /> <!-- End of tracking content syndication --></em></div><div id="contributors"><p><em>This article was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/body-and-mind/e-cigarettes-us-study-less-effective/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Ellen Phiddian. </em></p></div></div>

Mind

Placeholder Content Image

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

<p><em>Image: Getty </em></p> <p>Australia’s state governments must set an end date for the sale of cigarettes through retailers including supermarkets, according to public health experts.</p> <p>In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, researchers from the University of Queensland said anti-smoking measures such as plain-packaging laws and health warnings were no longer enough, insisting Australia now needed to address the supply side of tobacco consumption.</p> <p>The researchers said a product as harmful as cigarettes should not be available for purchase in supermarkets.</p> <p>“Despite tobacco’s legal status, it fails to meet consumer safety standards,” the authors wrote.</p> <p>“Consumer and drug regulatory systems would prohibit the sale of cigarettes as a new consumer product today.</p> <p>“Governments should set target end dates for tobacco sales and support retailers to transition to a smoke‐free society.”</p> <p>Lead author of the article and tobacco health expert Coral Gartner said Australia’s state governments were falling behind the general public in anti-smoking sentiment.</p> <p>“Most international governments, including Australia, are lagging behind the significant public support for ending tobacco retailing,” Dr Gartner said.</p> <p>“Research shows half of all adults in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and Hong Kong want tobacco sales phased out.”</p> <p>Last November, the Netherlands passed laws preventing supermarkets from selling cigarettes from 2024 and in April, the New Zealand government proposed several new measures that would significantly reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets.</p> <p>Dr Gartner said that setting a specific date for when the sale of cigarettes would end in Australian would provide tobacco retailers with certainty and assistance in future planning, make it easier for people to quit smoking, and assist the government to plan for reductions in tobacco tax revenue.</p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

Making the tobacco industry pay for cigarette litter could stop 4.5 billion butts polluting the Australian environment

<p>Cigarette butts with filters are the most commonly littered item worldwide, with a staggering <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347528/">4.5 trillion</a> of them tossed into the environment each year. This is a huge problem; many end up on <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935119300787">beaches and in the ocean</a>, and the tar from burnt tobacco in the filter can be toxic to wildlife.</p> <p>Fixing the problem has focused on changing the behaviour of people who smoke, but a <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">new report</a> shows making the tobacco industry responsible for the litter with a mandatory product stewardship scheme is likely to have a much greater impact.</p> <p>In Australia alone, it’s estimated up to 8.9 billion butts are littered each year. Under the proposed scheme, we could potentially reduce this by 4.45 billion a year.</p> <p>So how can it be done in practice? And what would the benefits be from a policy like this?</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433353/original/file-20211123-15-8zbai4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433353/original/file-20211123-15-8zbai4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Three wrens around a cigarette butt" /></a> <span class="caption">Smoked cigarette filters take months or even years to break down.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></p> <h2>Social and environmental costs</h2> <p>Cigarette filters are made of a bioplastic called cellulose acetate, and they typically take <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117393">years to break down</a>. Smoked cigarette filters are infused with the same chemicals and heavy metals in the tar that harm humans when they smoke.</p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/cigarette-butts-are-the-forgotten-plastic-pollution-and-they-could-be-killing-our-plants-119958">Research from 2019 found</a> adding cigarette butts to soil reduces the germination of grass and clover seeds and the length of their shoots. Seaworms exposed to used filters have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14119">DNA damage and reduced growth</a>.</p> <p>And exposure to cigarette filters (even unsmoked ones) are toxic to fish – <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i25?utm_source=TrendMD&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_campaign=TC_TrendMD-0">research with two fish species </a> found adding two to four smoked cigarette filters per litre of water could kill them.</p> <p>Currently, the tobacco industry does not have to pay for the clean-up of cigarette butts polluting the environment. Rather, the community bears the cost. Cigarette litter and its management <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">costs</a> the Australian economy an estimated A$73 million per year.</p> <p>Local councils in particular spend large amounts of money cleaning it up. The City of Sydney, for example, has estimated their cleaning crews sweep up <a href="https://campaignbrief.com/the-city-of-sydney-launches-ci/">15,000 cigarette butts daily</a> from city streets.</p> <p>And volunteers spend countless hours picking up cigarette butts from parks, streets and beaches. In its 2020 Rubbish Report, Clean Up Australia Day found cigarette butts accounted for <a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/cigarette-butts">16% of all recorded items</a>.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433349/original/file-20211123-19-1qwxthm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433349/original/file-20211123-19-1qwxthm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Two smiling men hold bags of rubbish" /></a> <span class="caption">Volunteers, such as for Clean Up Australia Day, spend countless hours picking up cigarette butts from the enviornment.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Glengarry Landcare VIC/Clean Up Australia</span></span></p> <h2>Current strategies are ineffective</h2> <p>The tobacco industry response to product waste has been to focus <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/2/100">responsibility on the consumer</a>. Tobacco companies have created public education campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of the butt litter problem, supplied consumers and cities worldwide with public ashtrays, and funded anti-litter groups.</p> <p>But given the amount of cigarettes that continue to be littered, it’s clear these strategies on their own have been ineffective. Many around the world are <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-explores-next-steps-to-clean-up-tobacco-litter-in-england">now calling for stronger industry regulation</a>.</p> <p>There have also been calls to ban cigarette filters completely. For example, lawmakers in <a href="https://calmatters.org/environment/2019/06/california-cigarette-butt-filter-ban-bill-electronic-disposable-vapes/">California</a> and New York have attempted to ban the sale of cigarettes with filters, and New Zealand is finalising their <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/proposals_for_a_smokefree_aotearoa_2025_action_plan-final.pdf">Smokefree Aotearoa Action Plan</a>, which may include a cigarette filter ban.</p> <p>Many jurisdictions in Australia and worldwide are starting to ban single-use plastics such as straws and takeaway containers, and have <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5890">been criticised</a> for not including cigarette filters in these laws.</p> <p>If filters were banned, cigarette butt litter would remain, but without the plastic filter. Although, <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2021/11/18/tobaccocontrol-2021-056815">a recent trial</a> of cigarettes without filters found that people smoked fewer of these than when they were given the same cigarettes with filters. More research is needed on the health impact of smoking filterless cigarettes and the environmental impact of filterless cigarette butts.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433352/original/file-20211123-27-d6ktd4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433352/original/file-20211123-27-d6ktd4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption">A pubic cigarette butt disposal facility in Salem, US.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></p> <h2>What would a stewardship scheme look like?</h2> <p>The federal government’s <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-plastics-plan-2021.pdf">National Plastics Plan</a>, released in March this year, committed to initiate a stewardship taskforce that would reduce cigarette butt litter in Australia, and would consider a potential stewardship scheme. However, they proposed the stewardship taskforce be industry led.</p> <p>Product stewardship schemes can be voluntary or written into law. For example, waste from product packaging is managed through a voluntary scheme, the <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/plastics-and-packaging/packaging-covenant">Australian Packaging Covenant</a>, which sets targets for reducing packaging waste that aren’t written into law. On the other hand, <a href="https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/product-stewardship/products-schemes/television-computer-recycling-scheme">there is a law in Australia</a> requiring companies who manufacture TVs or computers to pay some of the costs for recycling these products.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-WWF-Australia-Ending-cigarette-butt-pollution-3Dec21.pdf.aspx">new research</a>, commissioned by World Wildlife Fund for Nature Australia, considered four regulatory approaches: business as usual, a ban on plastic filters, a voluntary industry product stewardship scheme, and a mandatory product stewardship scheme led by the federal government.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433344/original/file-20211123-13-tpimfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=0%2C16%2C5442%2C3600&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433344/original/file-20211123-13-tpimfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=0%2C16%2C5442%2C3600&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="A hand in blue plastic gloves holds a cigarette butt on the beach" /></a> <span class="caption">Cigarette litter costs the Australian economy an estimated A$73 million each year.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Yurasits/Unsplash</span>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" class="license">CC BY</a></span></p> <p>Each of these options were ranked according to factors such as the regulatory effort required to implement them, their cost, consumer participation and the extent to which they would reduce environmental impacts on land and waterways.</p> <p>A ban on plastic cigarette filters and a mandatory product stewardship scheme were assessed as having the greatest potential environmental benefit. While uncertainties remain about a filter ban, there is no such barrier to implementing a mandatory product stewardship scheme on cigarette waste.</p> <p>This scheme could involve a tax that would pay for the recovery and processing costs associated with cigarette butt litter. The study suggested introducing a levy of A$0.004 – less than half a cent – on each smoked cigarette to manage the waste. Other studies from overseas, however, show this cost would need to be <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i36.full">higher</a>.</p> <p>We can look to the UK for an example of where to start. The UK is currently considering implementing an extended producer responsibility scheme to address cigarette litter. In November this year, it released a <a href="https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/supporting_documents/Call%20for%20evidence%20document.pdf">consultation document</a> on different options.</p> <p>They proposed a mandatory scheme where the tobacco industry would pay for the full costs of cleaning up and processing cigarette waste. Other costs they might be made to pay are for gathering and reporting data on tobacco product waste, provision of bins for cigarette butts, and campaigns to promote responsible disposal by consumers.</p> <p>It is time for the federal and state governments in Australia to make the tobacco industry pay for the mess they create.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171831/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kylie-morphett-1271253">Kylie Morphett</a>, Research Fellow, School of Public Health, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a></em>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/coral-gartner-7425">Coral Gartner</a>, Director, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a></em>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/william-clarke-380521">William Clarke</a>, Professor of waste management, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-the-tobacco-industry-pay-for-cigarette-litter-could-stop-4-5-billion-butts-polluting-the-australian-environment-171831">original article</a>.</p> <p><em>Image: Shuttershock</em></p>

Domestic Travel

Placeholder Content Image

Zoo condemned as “cruel” for video of monkey smoking a cigarette

<p dir="ltr">A Chinese zoo has been condemned as cruel and exploitative online after a video of a small monkey smoking a cigarette went viral. Hengshui Wildlife Park, in the province of Hebei, responded to critics, claiming the video was part of an anti-smoking campaign.</p> <p dir="ltr">The video, which had been uploaded to the zoo’s official social media accounts last week before being deleted, shows the monkey sitting on a bench dressed in a purple onesie. It can be seen puffing on the cigarette before the cigarette is removed by a woman.</p> <p dir="ltr">The monkey, blinking repeatedly, rubs its eye, seemingly because of the smoke, before falling backwards.</p> <p dir="ltr">The video has been criticised widely online after being shared to social media and subsequently being picked up by Chinese media outlets. Critics condemned the video as “sick” and called for action to be taken against the zoo.<br /><br />PETA Asia Vice President Jason Baker told<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/cruel-monkey-forced-to-smoke-cigarette-sparks-outrage-083651115.html" target="_blank">Yahoo News Australia</a><span> </span>that it was disturbing to see an incident like this framed as entertaining, saying, "How cruel to force a baby monkey to smoke for human amusement. Gradually, zoos are learning that spectacles like monkey performances, elephant rides, and photo ops with tiger cubs are inappropriate and exploitative."</p> <p dir="ltr">An employee at the zoo told Red Star News that even though the cigarette was lit, the monkey did not inhale any of the smoke, and was simply posing for a video designed to highlight the issues associated with smoking.</p> <p dir="ltr">Broadcaster CCTV said that zoos should be setting an example of how to treat animals, and questioned how effective it was to use a monkey to influence human habits.</p> <p dir="ltr">The China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation has commenced an investigation, with deputy secretary general Ma Yong calling the incident “unreasonable” and stating that it was most likely illegal. He added that the zoo would be under close scrutiny following the incident.</p> <p dir="ltr">Roughly 28% of the Chinese population, or 316 million people, smoke, according to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: The Paper</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Australia’s decisive win on plain packaging paves way for other countries to follow suit

<p>The decision, <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/435_441abr_e.htm">handed down on June 9 by the World Trade Organisation’s appeals body</a>, that Australia’s plain packaging tobacco control policy doesn’t flout WTO laws marks the end of almost a decade of legal wrangling over this landmark public health policy. And more importantly, it paves the way for other nations around the world to follow Australia’s lead.</p> <p>In 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to implement <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148">tobacco plain packaging laws</a>, having recognised that the tobacco industry uses packaging both to market cigarettes and to undermine health warnings.</p> <p>The industry has long acknowledged the powerful role of packaging design in attracting consumers and reinforcing brand image. A <a href="https://www.printinnovationasia.com/single-post/2017/01/18/The-Premiumisation-of-Cigarette-Packaging-in-Indonesia">2017 trade article</a> on the “premiumisation” of cigarettes explained the rationale behind glossy packaging:</p> <p><em>Features such as velvet touch, soft touch, etching, rise and relief can be applied across the surface of the packaging to make the product more impactful and raise customer engagement. The look of the packaging such as intense metallics through the use of foil simulation inks can also give cigarette packaging the luxurious effect and adds on to the premium feel of the product.</em></p> <p>A Cancer Research UK video shows how children react to glossy cigarette packs.</p> <p>The “plain packaging” mandated by Australia’s laws is in fact anything but. It features <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/smoking-and-tobacco/tobacco-control/tobacco-plain-packaging">graphic, full-colour health warnings</a> presented on a drab brown background. Brand logos, designs, emblems, and slogans are banned; product brand names remain, but must appear in a standardised font.</p> <p>The result means tobacco packages can no longer serve as mini billboards that make cigarettes look aspirational and desirable.</p> <p><strong>Legal challenges</strong></p> <p>The tobacco industry launched three separate legal challenges to the law. First, JT International and British American Tobacco filed a lawsuit in the Australian High Court. Next, tobacco firm Philip Morris sought legal protection for its packaging designs under an existing investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong. Finally, the industry filed a dispute through the WTO on behalf of four tobacco-producing countries: Cuba, Honduras, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic.</p> <p>In 2012 the High Court <a href="https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20121005-jt-intl.-and-bat-australasia-l">ruled in favour of the Australian government</a>, and in 2015 the investment treaty tribunal <a href="https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20151217-philip-morris-asia-v-australia">dismissed Philip Morris Asia’s claim</a>. The WTO also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-tobacco-ruling/australia-wins-landmark-wto-ruling-on-plain-tobacco-packaging-idUSKBN1JO2BF">ruled in Australia’s favour</a> in 2018, but the Dominican Republic and Honduras appealed.</p> <p>That appeal was denied last week, meaning all legal challenges to Australia’s plain packaging laws have now been finally and decisively overruled – more than a decade after the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd <a href="https://tobaccolabels.ca/australia-announces-plain-packaging/">first announced the policy</a> in April 2010.</p> <p><strong>No more industry blocking</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/435_441abr_conc_e.pdf">WTO’s appeal body agreed</a> plain packaging laws are likely to improve public health and that they are not unfairly restrictive to trade.</p> <p>The appeal was not expected to succeed, so the ruling comes as no surprise. But despite this, legal wrangling has become a <a href="https://untobaccocontrol.org/kh/legal-challenges/court-cases-litigation-policy-brief/">standard tobacco industry practice</a>, particularly through international channels such as the WTO. One reason is because the slow and cumbersome legal process can serve as a deterrent to other countries, who may hold off implementing similar laws until the legal outcome is known.</p> <p>Encouragingly, this stalling tactic seems to be losing its power. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand have all forged ahead with plain packaging legislation despite the outstanding appeal.</p> <p>Now, however, lower-income countries can also confidently pursue plain packaging measures <a href="https://www.mccabecentre.org/news-and-updates/tobacco-plain-packaging-legal-victory-for-australia.html">without fear of falling foul of the WTO</a>.</p> <p><strong>What next?</strong></p> <p>Australia’s plain packaging law was groundbreaking at the time. But now the tobacco industry has responded with a range of tactics to exploit loopholes and offset the impact on their brands, meaning governments need to come up with yet more countermeasures.</p> <p>Once plain packaging was implemented, the tobacco industry quickly trademarked new brand names, such as Imperial Tobacco’s <a href="https://open.sydneyuniversitypress.com.au/9781743323977/rtec-the-future.html">Peter Stuyvesant + Loosie</a>, which contains 21 cigarettes instead of 20, and advertises the bonus cigarette within the name.</p> <p>Canada’s <a href="https://www.cancer.ca/en/about-us/for-media/media-releases/national/2019/plain-packaging-regulations/?region=qc">plain packaging laws</a>, enacted in February 2020, directly control the size and shape of the cigarettes themselves. For example, the law bans slim cigarettes targeted at young women who associate smoking with slimness and fashion.</p> <p>Widespread plain packaging could also help curb the <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-wants-social-media-influencers-to-promote-its-products-can-the-platforms-stop-it-129957">uprise in tobacco marketing via social media influencers</a>. A tobacco pack covered in gruesome disease imagery doesn’t make for inspiring social media content.</p> <p>The WTO upheld Australia’s plain packaging laws because the government had convincing public health research to show the positive impact of plain packaging on public attitudes to smoking.</p> <p>Seen in that light, the decision isn’t just a win for public health. It’s also an encouraging sign that evidence-based policies can defeat even the deepest of corporate pockets.</p> <p><em>Written by Becky Freeman. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-decisive-win-on-plain-packaging-paves-way-for-other-countries-to-follow-suit-140553">The Conversation.</a> </em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Are you committing a crime by importing cigarettes into Australia?

<p>The tax on tobacco in Australia is astronomical, pushing the average price of a cigarette packet beyond forty dollars in recent months.</p> <p>The tax has been justified on public health grounds, and has been partially responsible for significantly reducing the consumption of tobacco products in Australia.</p> <p>The tax has been accompanied by a range of restrictions on the importation of tobacco products, with the number of cigarettes that a person can bring into the country without a permit being reduced from 200 just a few years ago, to one unopened packet of up to 25 cigarettes and one open packet of up to 25 cigarettes.</p> <p>Restrictions have also been placed over the years on the use of tobacco, with prohibitions on a range of venues and public places.</p> <p>The exorbitant price of tobacco has contributed to a <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/cheap-cigarettes-available-over-the-internet/">thriving black market</a>, with many arranging for the importation of products by mail and others packing it into their luggage.</p> <p>And while many feel there’s little wrong with bringing a few extra packs into the country, the law says something completely different.</p> <p><strong>The law on importing tobacco products</strong></p> <p>Since 1 July 2019, tobacco products including cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco, shisha/molasses tobacco and ‘heat not burn’ tobacco <a href="https://www.abf.gov.au/importing-exporting-and-manufacturing/prohibited-goods/categories/tobacco">have been classified as prohibited imports</a>, which means it is a criminal offence to import them in the mail. A permit is required to import them otherwise.</p> <p>A permit is not required to import cigars or up to 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco and snuffs intended for oral use, provided duties and taxes are paid.</p> <p>Travellers into Australia do not require a permit to import tobacco products in personal effects, provided they are 18 years or older, declare the product/s upon arrival and pay duties and taxes. Permission is, however, required from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner to bring in more than 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco or snuff.</p> <p>Travellers who contravene these rules are subject to having their visas cancelled, being issued with infringement notices (fines) or being criminally prosecuted.</p> <p><strong>Criminal offences</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/customs-act/smuggling-tobacco-products/">Section 233BABAD of the Customs Act 1901</a> (Cth) sets out four separate criminal offences which relate to tobacco products.</p> <p>Subsection (1) prescribes a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for ‘importing tobacco goods’ with ‘the intention of defrauding the revenue’.</p> <p>The offence applies, for example, where a person brings tobacco products into the country in breach of the rules or arranges for their importation in the mail.</p> <p>Subsection (2) sets the same maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products in the knowledge that they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue.</p> <p>The offence applies to those who receive or transport tobacco products for which they know duties and taxes haven’t been paid.</p> <p>In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (1) or (2) are subject to fines equivalent to up to five times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 1,000 penalty units (currently $210,000).</p> <p>Subsection (2A) prescribes a maximum penalty of five years behind bars for importing tobacco products in circumstances where the person is reckless as to whether there would be a defrauding of the revenue.</p> <p>A person is ‘reckless’ for the purposes of the subsection if they were aware it was likely that there would be a defrauding but went ahead with their actions regardless.</p> <p>And subsection (2B) sets the same 5 year maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products where the person is reckless as to whether they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue.</p> <p>A person is ‘reckless’ if they were aware it was likely that the products were imported with the intention to defraud but went ahead with their actions regardless.</p> <p>In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (2A) or (2B) are subject to fines equivalent to up to three times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 500 penalty units (currently $105,000).</p> <p>For the purposes of the Act, ‘tobacco products’ are broadly defined as including:</p> <ul> <li>Unmanufactured tobacco and tobacco refuse,</li> <li>Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes of tobacco and tobacco substitutes, and</li> <li>Other manufactured tobacco and substitutes, extracts and essences, including water pipe tobacco.</li> </ul> <p>See <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html">section 4 of the Customs Act</a> which refers to <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cta1995178/sch3.html">Schedule 3 of the Customs Traffic Act 1995</a>.</p> <p>Going to Court for an Offence Involving Tobacco Products?</p> <p>If you have been charged with an offence involving tobacco, call <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers</a> anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a free first conference with an experienced defence lawyer who will advise you of your options and the best way forward, and fight to ensure you receive the optimal outcome.</p> <p><em>Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-import-cigarettes-into-australia/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a></em></p>

Travel Tips

Placeholder Content Image

Is it a crime to import cigarettes into Australia?

<p>The tax on tobacco in Australia is astronomical, pushing the average price of a cigarette packet beyond forty dollars in recent months.</p> <p>The tax has been justified on public health grounds, and has been partially responsible for significantly reducing the consumption of tobacco products in Australia.</p> <p>The tax has been accompanied by a range of restrictions on the importation of tobacco products, with the number of cigarettes that a person can bring into the country without a permit being reduced from 200 just a few years ago, to one unopened packet of up to 25 cigarettes and one open packet of up to 25 cigarettes.</p> <p>Restrictions have also been placed over the years on the use of tobacco, with prohibitions on a range of venues and public places.</p> <p>The exorbitant price of tobacco has contributed to a<span> </span><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/cheap-cigarettes-available-over-the-internet/">thriving black market</a>, with many arranging for the importation of products by mail and others packing it into their luggage.</p> <p>And while many feel there’s little wrong with bringing a few extra packs into the country, the law says something completely different.</p> <p><strong>The law on importing tobacco products</strong></p> <p>Since 1 July 2019, tobacco products including cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco, shisha/molasses tobacco and ‘heat not burn’ tobacco<span> </span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.abf.gov.au/importing-exporting-and-manufacturing/prohibited-goods/categories/tobacco" target="_blank">have been classified as prohibited imports</a>, which means it is a criminal offence to import them in the mail. A permit is required to import them otherwise.</p> <p>A permit is not required to import cigars or up to 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco and snuffs intended for oral use, provided duties and taxes are paid.</p> <p>Travellers into Australia do not require a permit to import tobacco products in personal effects, provided they are 18 years or older, declare the product/s upon arrival and pay duties and taxes. Permission is, however, required from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner to bring in more than 1.5 kilograms of chewing tobacco or snuff.</p> <p>Travellers who contravene these rules are subject to having their visas cancelled, being issued with infringement notices (fines) or being criminally prosecuted.</p> <p><strong>Criminal offences</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/customs-act/smuggling-tobacco-products/">Section 233BABAD of the Customs Act 1901</a><span> </span>(Cth) sets out four separate criminal offences which relate to tobacco products.</p> <p>Subsection (1) prescribes a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for ‘importing tobacco goods’ with ‘the intention of defrauding the revenue’.</p> <p>The offence applies, for example, where a person brings tobacco products into the country in breach of the rules or arranges for their importation in the mail.</p> <p>Subsection (2) sets the same maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products in the knowledge that they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue.</p> <p>The offence applies to those who receive or transport tobacco products for which they know duties and taxes haven’t been paid.</p> <p>In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (1) or (2) are subject to fines equivalent to up to five times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 1,000 penalty units (currently $210,000).</p> <p>Subsection (2A) prescribes a maximum penalty of five years behind bars for importing tobacco products in circumstances where the person is reckless as to whether there would be a defrauding of the revenue.</p> <p>A person is ‘reckless’ for the purposes of the subsection if they were aware it was likely that there would be a defrauding but went ahead with their actions regardless.</p> <p>And subsection (2B) sets the same 5 year maximum penalty for possessing or conveying tobacco products where the person is reckless as to whether they were imported with the intention to defraud the revenue.</p> <p>A person is ‘reckless’ if they were aware it was likely that the products were imported with the intention to defraud but went ahead with their actions regardless.</p> <p>In addition to prison, those who are guilty under subsection (2A) or (2B) are subject to fines equivalent to up to three times the amount of the applicable duty or, if the court is unable to determine that duty, a maximum of 500 penalty units (currently $105,000).</p> <p>For the purposes of the Act, ‘tobacco products’ are broadly defined as including:</p> <ul> <li>Unmanufactured tobacco and tobacco refuse,</li> <li>Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes of tobacco and tobacco substitutes, and</li> <li>Other manufactured tobacco and substitutes, extracts and essences, including water pipe tobacco.</li> </ul> <p>See<span> </span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html" target="_blank">section 4 of the Customs Act</a><span> </span>which refers to<span> </span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cta1995178/sch3.html" target="_blank">Schedule 3 of the Customs Traffic Act 1995</a>.</p> <p><em>Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-a-crime-to-import-cigarettes-into-australia/" target="_blank"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers</em></a><em>. </em></p>

Retirement Income

Placeholder Content Image

Man kicked off cruise after flicking cigarette butt off the side

<p>The daughter of a Perth man sent home from a P&amp;O cruise says he was removed from the ship for flicking a cigarette overboard and left to pay his own way back to WA without due regard for his health.</p> <p>Mark O'Keefe, 57, and his wife Debra left for Bali on a 10-day cruise with the company on June 6 from Fremantle.</p> <p>His daughter Courtney O'Keefe commented that her father was spotted flicking a cigarette overboard by a P&amp;O security officer.</p> <p>"He had maybe two drags because the weather was horrendous - he butted it out, and without thinking, he flicked it," daughter Courtney said.</p> <p>"He instantly regretting it and apologised."</p> <p>The officer warned him to return to his cabin, and was told if he did so there would be no further repercussions, Courtney said.</p> <p>But the next morning Courtney received a panicked phone call from her mother letting her know of her father's removal from the cruise.</p> <p>"He had a letter in the room ordering him to a meeting," she said.</p> <p>"The captain said 'you're off' - no letting my dad apologise, no option of cutting him off at the bar, no giving him a fine. Nothing."</p> <p>According to Courtney, her father was disembarked on an island, where he boarded a small aircraft which took him to Denpasar.</p> <p>Courtney alleges her father was then left to find his own way home from Bali.</p> <p>"My dad is 58 in a few weeks - he's ex-army, SAS, with cancer and cholesterol problems - and my mum handles all his medication," she said.</p> <p>"My mum couldn't leave with him, because they scrimped and saved every penny for this holiday, so they couldn't afford the two tickets home."</p> <p>Mark paid for a flight back to Denpasar, a hotel in the city and a flight to return to Perth.</p> <p>P&amp;O confirmed the incident happened but would not comment on the specifics of it because of privacy reasons.</p> <p>P&amp;O spokesman David Jones said it would have been no surprise if a passenger was kicked off a ship for flicking a cigarette overboard.</p> <p>"The issue of fire safety on board is of highest priority," he said.</p> <p>"The mandatory passenger safety muster on embarkation includes an explicit warning about the dangers associated with disposing of cigarettes over the side.</p> <p>"A lighted cigarette can be drawn into the ship posing a serious risk to the ship and the safety of passengers and crew."</p> <p>P&amp;O's "safety muster" is a compulsory briefing given to all passengers, which covers the code of conduct and emergency procedures of a vessel.</p> <p>The P&amp;O website notes that smoking is permitted in designated areas on board, but states serious penalties for those who "inconvenience or jeopardise the safety or enjoyment of any guest" via smoking.</p> <p>"The captain has the right to confine or put you ashore," it says. "P&amp;O Cruises accepts no liability for this serious action or for any loss incurred - including repatriation expenses - and no refunds are available."</p> <p>Courtney said that, while she understood her father had made a mistake, P&amp;O failed to exercise a proper duty of care when forcing him to disembark.</p> <p>"No care was taken getting my dad home once he was off the ship," she said,</p> <p>"I called them almost hourly, and kept getting the response 'we don't know where he is'."</p> <p>Jones said procedures were typically in place to look after passengers left ashore.</p> <p>"When it happens, travel arrangements are made for a disembarked guest at their cost and these arrangements are followed through by our port agents and care team," he said.</p> <p>Courtney said this was not the case.</p> <p>"I wouldn't be in the state that I am if they had taken proper care of my dad," she said.</p> <p>"The two people I've spoken to have been from the customer service, and they refuse to speak to me anymore.</p> <p>"They've hung up on me twice."</p> <p>Courtney's correspondence with P&amp;O includes incredulous questions regarding the company apparently not knowing who the captain of the ship would be and suggestions she would hold it responsible if anything adverse happened to her father.</p> <p>It is understood Mark has now returned to Perth, while his wife Debra refuses to leave her room until the cruise docks on Sunday.</p> <p>"They haven't been apart in 35 years," O'Keefe said.</p> <p>"My mum is heartbroken."</p> <p>What’s your take on the situation? Do you think it’s an overreaction from P&amp;O, or should Mark have paid more attention to the rules?</p> <p>Share your thoughts in the comments.</p> <p><em>Written by Hannah Barry. First appeared on <strong><a href="/Stuff.co.nz" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Stuff.co.nz</span></a></strong>.</em> </p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="/travel/cruising/2016/05/5-things-you-must-do-to-avoid-seasickness-on-a-cruise/"><em><strong>5 things you MUST do to avoid seasickness on a cruise</strong></em></a></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="/travel/cruising/2016/05/10-things-you-must-never-do-in-a-cruise-cabin/"><em><strong>10 things you must never do in a cruise cabin</strong></em></a></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="/travel/cruising/2016/05/po-ships-first-new-zealand-cruise/"><strong><em>P&amp;O’s first cruise around New Zealand</em></strong></a></span></p>

Cruising

Our Partners

Over 60

© Copyright 2024 OverSixty.All Rights Reserved.