MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Philip Morris prepared to sue the UK over plain packaging of cigarettes
Australia and Uruguay are already being challenged by PM over similar situations. 
“'Standardized packaging' is a euphemism for government-mandated destruction of property,” Philip Morris said in its submission Philip Morris International, the world's largest tobacco company, is prepared to sue the British government should it implement a law requiring plain packaging of cigarettes, a document showed.
The UK government has conducted a consultation with its Department of Health on potential legislation which would force cigarette makers to sell their products in plain packages with graphic health warnings and no branding.
The maker of Marlboro cigarettes “is prepared to protect its rights in the courts and to seek fair compensation for the value of its property,” the company has told the UK government in response to its consultation.
The UK government said in April it wanted to implement plain packaging after a review found it could reduce the incidence of children taking up smoking. It published draft regulations in June, and launched a six-week consultation that ended last week.
Philip Morris submitted its response to the UK government after the consultation.
“'Standardized packaging' is a euphemism for government-mandated destruction of property,” Philip Morris said in its submission today. “It is unlawful, disproportionate, and at odds with the most basic requirements of the rule of law.”
If it goes ahead, Britain would be the second country after Australia to ban cigarette branding.
Australia is already facing challenges at the World Trade Organization over complaints the laws create illegal obstacles to commerce.
Uruguay which is also in litigation with Philip Morris over labeling in packages had a support clause included in the latest Mercosur Caracas Declaration.
Mercosur member states express full support to Uruguay in the event of any interference from the multi-national tobacco industry in the implementation of policies to control tobacco, which is considered an attack on States sovereign rights to define their healthcare policies as established in Article V from the WHO accord for the control of tobacco.
Likewise Mercosur welcomes the recent opening of the International Cooperation Center for Tobacco Control at Uruguay's Public Health ministry, which has the purpose of developing, analyzing, synthesizing and reporting knowledge and information relative to issues of its own experience such as free of smoke environments, sanitary warnings and stop smoking.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
-
Read all commentsThey used the same argument in Australia and lost.
Aug 13th, 2014 - 07:18 am 0“The majority judges variously described the case of the tobacco companies as “delusive”, “synthetic”, “unreal”, and suffering “fatal” defects in logic and reasoning.”
http://theconversation.com/the-high-court-and-the-marlboro-man-the-plain-packaging-decision-10014
Why is it that the power-mad morons in government have to try to impose their personal preferences on everyone and everything? It is not a legitimate function of government to manage our lives, businesses, or property, or to protect us from the consequences of our individual bad, or stupid, decisions by forcing their bad and stupid decisions on all of us.
Aug 13th, 2014 - 05:16 pm 0Tobacco companies, like most manufacturers of most products, package their product with the intention of making their particular brands readily identifiable and unique, so that their existing customers, and others who might be inclined to try their product, can distinguish them from numerous similar products. This is part of a campaign to destroy the tobacco industry by “death by a thousand cuts”, imposing an endless stream of regulations, each making it a bit more difficult and expensive to function. If some people want to use tobacco, and others can make money by supplying this demand, leave them alone; their actions, and whatever results from them are no concern to anyone else.
I usually refer these motions as a pandering to the anti smoking fascists, why not go the whole hog and just ban smoking? Oh they won't because there's too much tax revenue to lose. With no other option of advertising left, especially now supermarkets are not allowed to display the product, I really don't see a need for this. As you said Bisley, Big Brother knows best or so they think.
Aug 13th, 2014 - 05:28 pm 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!