Replying to cancer-mongers

Written By: - Date published: 10:34 am, August 16th, 2012 - 23 comments
Categories: australian politics, capitalism, health - Tags:

The Australian Government has won a Supreme Court case on its plain packaging law. The tobacco companies are now planning to take it to the WTO. I hope Gillard responds to the law suit with a letter along the lines of: “Dear Cancer-mongers, Consider yourselves lucky we don’t nationalise your assets and pass a law to have you arrested for corporate homicide. Go fuck yourselves. Regards, Julia.”

I wonder if Key will have the balls to take on Big Tobacco. Considering he and his government are in the pockets of the alcohol and gambling misery merchants, I doubt it.

23 comments on “Replying to cancer-mongers ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. blue leopard 1
    16 August 2012 at 2:12 pm

    It is a shame that it hasn’t been emphasized on mainstream news that the “threat” relayed by one of the Big Tobacco groups (British I think), the one assuring the NZ Government that if they are to follow the same course of action as Australia re plain packaging for cigarettes, they can be assured of legal contest, is what we are going to face in a large number of areas, due to the TPPA arrangements our politicians are busy agreeing to.

    That this further destruction of democracy in favour of big money interests doesn’t warrant a mention just shows how unconcerned about informing the general public our media, or opposition politicians are.

    Why act in the interests of ordinary people when your future becomes “so much brighter” making friends with the big players? Why act in the interests of ordinary people, despite that being your job description, when you receive no negative consequences for not doing so?

    Ah well, at least lawyers are assured of ongoing work.

    Inverted Totalitarianism and Managed Democracy; our best option?

    • mike e 1.1
      16 August 2012 at 4:48 pm

      The favorite spin line big tobacco uses at the moment it won’t hurt our business so whats the point of doing.With that sort of logic and if it were true big tobacco would be jumping up and down pleading with the government to brig it in.

    • bad12 2.1
      16 August 2012 at 5:57 pm

      Breathing is as well, but, theres a margin of about 10 years later than tobacco that breathing will kill ya…

    • Carol 2.2
      16 August 2012 at 6:03 pm

      Hmmm… it always pays to read beyond the headlines with an MSM article reported on research.

      The study was looking at cardio-vascular conditions – people who eat more than 3 eggs a week or who smoked, are more likely to suffer ateriosclerosis. Nothing about eggs causing lung cancer, for instance.

  3. bad12 3
    16 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Obviously the post author aint a smoker nor addicted to tobacco products,

    My view being one is that YES i know theres a 50/50 chance that smoking the stuff will kill me, that happens to be my legal choice to make,

    How bout all you lot that don’t smoke the stuff F off and leave us lot to live and die the way we choose…

    • wtl 3.1
      16 August 2012 at 6:17 pm

      I fail to see how forcing tobacco products to be in plain packaging effects your smoking. If you have made to choice to smoke, as you say, then surely you will be buying tobacco products regardless of the packaging they are in. I would have thought to you would support such a measure – wouldn’t you rather this happen than raising the taxes on tobacco or banning it?

      • bad12 3.1.1
        16 August 2012 at 7:24 pm

        Lets see, tobacco taxes rack raised 70% over five years,umm what was it you had to say about what i would rather,

        what i would rather see banned is people like you and the one below from telling people like me how to live their lives,

        Especially the real hypocritical ones who will when the denbte about euthanaisa comes up again fall all over themselves telling us all how great that will be,

        Wah Wah Wah, but what about the people that will be left behind…

        • wtl 3.1.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 10:39 am

          You never answered the question. This is about plain packaging, not banning or raising taxes. Here’s better question then – why do you oppose plain packaging for cigarette products? Please answer in terms of the issue at hand, without bringing up stuff like banning or taxes.

    • Frank Macskasy 3.2
      16 August 2012 at 7:08 pm

      @ bad12: So what? How does plain packaging impact on your right to kill yourself?

      If anything, that will be directed at young people, most of whom start that addiction at around 14 or 15. Or do you think 14 year olds have the nous to make considered decisions?

      By the way, it may be your right to kill youreself – but what about the people you leave behind? Do you not consider the emotional impact it will have on them?

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        16 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

        By the way, it may be your right to kill youreself – but what about the people you leave behind?

        Death is a normal part of life. No matter what happens, we’re all going to die and leave people behind who will be emotionally affected by it.

        • Bob 3.2.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 3:31 am

          Draco, that is one of the best comments I have ever read, never a truer word spoken.

        • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.2
          17 August 2012 at 12:33 pm

          “Death is a normal part of life. No matter what happens, we’re all going to die and leave people behind who will be emotionally affected by it.”

          Hmmm, I think that justification wears thin after a while. You can just about use that for anything that has a negative impact on the community.

          There’s no rationale for hurrying the process by facilitating the availability of a product that kills people and offers no benefit to the human condition. (As opposed to, say, cars.) Or it’s effects cannot be mitigated by controlled consumption (eg; alcohol, medication, etc.)

      • bad12 3.2.2
        16 August 2012 at 7:45 pm

        Considered decisions by 14 and 15 year old’s ???, yeah some do make em, a lot of the time what we might consider wrong ones,but, considered none the less,

        Interesting you should tho mention 14 and 15 year old’s at the same time as plain packaging, and, when you consider that there’s zero advertising and it’s all hidden in the shops, tobacco that is,

        As a rule the kids don’t smoke on brand choice, wanna know why, coz most of them can’t afford to buy a whole packet of fags,

        So, if you have ever seen a school of drunks,dopers, or, other substance abusers you will know how it works,

        In the school of tobacco users/addicts at least one of them at any given time will have some of the product, whether they stole it off of mum or their big brother bought them some, at other times it will be a matter of commerce the going rate for a single ciggy being 2 bucks, like i said the considered decisions of 14 and 15 year old’s i might not always agree with,

        Plain packaging to kids is just another joke, it aint going to stop them accessing the stuff, but, in addressing the likes of you, supposedly oh so concerned for the ‘poor’ i just cannot resist pointing out that poor diet will kill and maim the parents and their kids one hell of a f**king lot quicker than smoking tobacco is ever going to do, 90% of tobacco related deaths being end of life events that occur round the 65 years old point in a life, whereas bad diet will have bad health outcomes throughout a persons life,

        But, in all your correctness of attitude thats just tough right, taxes on tobacco products can wipe the food off of the tables of the poor and you wouldn’t give that poverty a second thought in your little correct crusade against a company legally selling a product…

        • Frank Macskasy 3.2.2.1
          17 August 2012 at 12:37 pm

          “Considered decisions by 14 and 15 year old’s ???, yeah some do make em, a lot of the time what we might consider wrong ones,but, considered none the less,”

          Rubbish. 14 or 15 year olds can rarely make a considered decision on choosing to smoke, than a 5 year old can to cross a busy road. Such facilities to make such complex choices come with tim, experience, and maturity. For 14 and 15 year olds, peer pressure and family circumstances play a greater part than they might for someone 24 or 25.

          If kids could make “considered decisions” we might as well not have an age restriction for drinking, smoking, driving, owning firearms, etc.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    16 August 2012 at 7:36 pm

    I wonder if Key will have the balls to take on Big Tobacco.

    Take them on? He’ll be wondering how much he should charge for helping them.

  6. Jimmie 6
    16 August 2012 at 9:09 pm

    I’m guessing the tobacco companies will make branded ‘skins’ available that smokers will be able to put their plain packaged smokes inside to hide the scary pics.

    I personally think that smoking is a disgusting habit and I know a lot of dr’s have little sympathy with patients that smoke.

    I have an employee who smokes more than a fire place and every week or so has a coughing fit and has a hard time doing any work that involves physical effort.

    Maybe increasing the price some more may help? $40 a packet or $100 per 50 gram rollies.

    Then use some of this tax revenue to provide free patches to smokers to help them give up.

    • Treetop 6.1
      16 August 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Knowing the damage that a legal product can do to your health is to be informed. The choice is then your own on whether or not you dodge/restrict the substance.

      Some things are harder to dodge than others e.g viral/bacterial flu.

      • Frank Macskasy 6.1.1
        17 August 2012 at 12:39 pm

        As I pointed out to Bad12 above, most people take up smoking at age 14 or 15. Therefore, any “choice” they may exhibit is not a considered one.

        • Treetop 6.1.1.1
          17 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

          I was a smoker from age 14 – 20, (a packet a day). The reason for starting was different to the reason for stopping.

  7. Oncology Surgery india 7
    16 August 2012 at 11:03 pm

    I think your information on cancer treatment is not sufficient.Can you give more details so that reader can easily understand it.
    Thank you for giving this information.
    Regards:cancer treatment in india