This will be fun!

[Aussie]

The Lawyers will be laughing all the way to the Bank. No matter which side wins, the Lawyers win to the tune of millions.

Having said that, I am quite content to see how long the pockets of Phillip Morris are when they take on a Big Boy.

[lisa jones]

Same here Aussie.

Incidentally, I was affiliated with ONE company which had the nerve and the $$$ to take on the ATO. It won because the ATO gave up .. eventually. The legal bill was astronomical.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I hope the company has to compensate the government(australian taxpayers) for its legal costs. Cigarette companies make money out of selling a product that kills people, and this is despicable.

[Jovial Monk]

They are pushers in suits. No better than a yob standing on a street corner doing little drug deals.

[lisa jones]

Totally agree with you there Ms Rainbow and Mr Monk.

[donniedarko]

The Lawyers will be laughing all the way to the Bank. No matter which side wins, the Lawyers win to the tune of millions.

Having said that, I am quite content to see how long the pockets of Phillip Morris are when they take on a Big Boy.

That's not politics at all.

To be true to the forum's title, what do you think, Aussie, is the worthwhile spend of your fed tax dollar spend against tobacco? Do you think it's futile? Should we ignore the contribution that tobacco gives towards Aus burden of mortality and morbidity?

[donniedarko]

The Lawyers will be laughing all the way to the Bank. No matter which side wins, the Lawyers win to the tune of millions.

Having said that, I am quite content to see how long the pockets of Phillip Morris are when they take on a Big Boy.

That's not politics at all.

To be true to the forum's title, what do you think, Aussie, is the worthwhile spend of your fed tax dollar spend against tobacco? Do you think it's futile? Should we ignore the contribution that tobacco gives towards Aus burden of mortality and morbidity?

Or, should we ignore tobacco, and continue to fully fund the chronic disease burden on the acute/community health system secondary to tobacco?

Or, is this hypocrisy, given the tax that the federal govt receives from tobacco anyway?

[boxy]

I can't really see where they have a leg to stand on. Their arguement seems to be that the govt is "stealing" or taking away their intellectual property by disallowing their logos on the packs. It doesn't seem to hold water. The logo is still theirs, but governments have always been able to legislate where and when anyone can advertise their products. They already ban cigarette advertising on the tele, and also alcohol and sex industry adverts in inappropriate timeslots. This is effectively a ban on advertising at the point of sale.

Should be thrown out at the earliest opportunity.

[Plough]

If a product is legal then the company selling it should be able to brand it. The govt should either make the things illegal (or at least a controlled substance for addicts available from pharmicies under presciption) or continue taxing the crap out of them and shut up. They may be merchants of death but the govt should not be able to have it both ways raking in large tax revenues while deamonising the companies that provide these revenues.

[Jovial Monk]

I dunno, sounds great to me!