Thai Health Ministry to appeal ruling on cigarette box images

[webfact]

HEALTH
Ministry to appeal ruling on cigarette box images
Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation



Court cancels scheme to increase the size of warning graphics on packets.

BANGKOK: -- The Public Health Ministry is planning to file an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court so it can go ahead with making the warning graphics on cigarette packets larger.

The Administrative Court on Monday suspended the plan, under which tobacco companies would have to increase the size of the warning graphic from 55 per cent of the surface on cigarette packets to 85 per cent.

"I will consult with legal experts to find out about the appeal procedure," the ministry's permanent secretary Dr Narong Sahametapat said. He had just received the Administrative Court's order to suspend imposition of the new ministerial edict.

Meanwhile, Dr Nopporn Cheanklin, deputy director of the Disease Control Department, said health officials would convene today to study the legal procedure on filing an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court within 30 days of the lower court's ruling.

He said that according to the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a public health authority should not ask tobacco firms for recommendations on regulations aimed at controlling the consumption of their products.

"This regulation will not create any burden on the tobacco companies. In fact, this regulation will prevent young people from becoming addicted to smoking," he said.

The Administrative Court issued its ruling after the Thai Tobacco Trade Association, which represents more than 1,400 retailers nationwide, called on the court to invalidate the Public Health Ministry's "unconstitutional" decision to impose new warnings on cigarette packages.

The association reasoned that the regulation would lead to real problems for retailers. These would include higher operating costs and a likely consumer shift towards cheaper, lower-margin, roll-your-own tobacco, which is not subject to the new warnings and yet makes up about half of all tobacco sold in Thailand. It would also provide new incentives for the black market to increase - where products are less expensive to buy, highly profitable to sell and often have smaller warnings or no warnings at all.

Moreover, the ministry has no legal authority to issue this regulation, it argued.

Dr Hathai Chitanont, director of the Thailand Health Promotion Institute, said he backed the ministry's attempt to control tobacco consumption and to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

He suggested the ministry do a lot of homework and collect more scientific data and evidence to prove that making the warning graphics bigger on cigarette packets would reduce the number of smokers and prevent new ones. However, he acknowledged that he was aware of no research so far proving this assumption.


-- The Nation 2013-08-28

[WinnieTheKhwai]

How about just make it 100% and put the brand name in the fine print somewhere.

Then we're done, and the health ministry can move on to other things.

[retell]

since they started the images years ago the number of smokers and new smokers did not drop , actually the percentage grew

[retell]

smoking is bad for your health

but there are ways to manufacture cigarettes that are way less harmfull but offcourse that research is somewhere gone missing with bigtabbaco

there is too much money involved

[worgeordie]

They should force the tobacco industry to put a little bit of cow shit

in each cigarette, that would soon reduce the sales and save a lot

of suffering,its a filthy habit and everything should be done to stamp

it out,ditto with drugs.

regards Worgeordie

[bigbamboo]

They should force the tobacco industry to put a little bit of cow shit

in each cigarette, that would soon reduce the sales and save a lot

of suffering,its a filthy habit and everything should be done to stamp

it out,ditto with drugs.

regards Worgeordie

Why stop there? What about forcing the brewers to piss in every can of beer too. That would also reduce sales and stop anti social behavior of drunks.

And whoever heard of innocent people being killed on the roads by smoking drivers?

[seajae]

Australia has plain packaging and no brand names on the packets so it can be done if they want to, just sounds like someone is getting a bigger envelope to dissallow it.

[newermonkey]

They should just make cannabis legal and tobacco illegal, then everyone will be happy, those producing tobacco start to produce cannabis (Ganja) retailers sell healthy cannabis products and not killer cigarettes. etc...

I am total serious about this and I am not joking, so no trolls please, this is my sincere belief the way it should be and probably will happen sooner or later.

Please read this: http://www.philly.com/philly/health/10_health_benefits_of_marijuana.html

[trainman34014]

Shame they don't put pictures of piles of rubbish on the packets to remind them what a bunch of dirty, untidy cruds that they are as they throw the empty packets in the streets and countryside.

[Hunter88]

It's not about health, it's about money.

[cheeryble]

I am full of admiration for their anti smoking pictures, they seem so un-Thai.

If only they could have such a campaign to ensure people know a few basic traffic rules to save lives.

Sorry to see so many kids buy ciggies in a local shop.

I notice that cigs are sold in little packets of 3 and 5 which is very much aimed at the young for whom money is an issue and which practise is widely condemned.

BTW money really is an issue, cigarettes really are a big expense for a smoker here.

Edited August 28, 2013 by cheeryble

[lee b]

THIS WILL NOT WORK.

[Jdietz]

Here's a small suggestion for the next iteration:

(Brand name here)

[sfbandung]

Every step, however small, that is taken to reduce the number of people smoking is a good thing.

[Slaps]

It's not about health, it's about money.

And Spellin

.

[stoli]

since they started the images years ago the number of smokers and new smokers did not drop , actually the percentage grew

Please cite just one such proven study on this statement. Just one, please.

[stoli]

smoking is bad for your health

but there are ways to manufacture cigarettes that are way less harmfull but offcourse that research is somewhere gone missing with bigtabbaco

there is too much money involved

If they could provide the same product without being harmful, how would this affect their product sales, except in a very positive way? Wouldn't their profits shoot through the roof? Please understand, this is not an attack on you. It is to stop new smokers. You can continue. I smoked 2 and one half packs a day for 25 years. Glad that I quit 28 years ago. Realized that if I could fly somewhere for 5 hours, or sleep all night, without a cigarette, maybe I could stop. I don't care what you do, but please help stop new smokers and not encourage it.

[Thai at Heart]

The retailers are worried. The whole point any of these regulations is to reduce the total sales.

My lordy lord. Maybe they can survey aunt Bessie too.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[nisakiman]

However, he acknowledged that he was aware of no research so far proving this assumption.

That's because there is none.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that gruesome images on cigarette packets make not one iota of difference to smoking prevalence or take-up. In fact in Canada, more young people have started smoking since the graphic images were introduced.

It is merely am exercise in the uglification of the world around us. Yet another punishment visited upon those who have the temerity to smoke despite the fact that the finger-waggers don't like it. But of course, the anti-tobacco zealots will put their spin on it to make it seem like it's a good idea. I came across this comment about the medico-porn on cigarette packets a while back which made me smile:

"According to the World Health Organisation, in Canada the introduction of photo images on cigarette packs resulted in a fourfold increase in smoker’s intentions to quit."

They claimed that 70% wanted to give up before. So that's presumably 280% now. (My emphasis on 'intentions')

The reality is that the initial reaction to the medico-porn on packs may be "Yeeuch!", but then smokers just don't see them any more. And as for kids, they love that kind of thing - the gorier the better.

The anti-smoking bandwagon is running out of steam; you can tell by the ever more desperate (and patently unfounded) claims emanating from the fanatics.

As for all the 'smoking-related' deaths they constantly trumpet, people are waking up to the fact that not only are 'smoking-related' deaths multifactorial, (there is not one disease that is exclusive to smokers) so there is no certainty at all whether smoking caused, or indeed had any part to play in that death, but also the majority of those 'smoking-related' deaths occur in old age (past 70). And of course, as smoking prevalence is going down, lung cancer cases are going up. It's a bit like the global warming scam - real life is just not doing what it is supposed to be doing (according to the 'experts').

There's a very good article here:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/judith_wild_guesses_1.html

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/judith_wild_guesses_2.html

about how the Tobacco Control Industry massages the figures to get the numbers it wants. It was written in the 90s, but is as valid today as it was then.

It is well past time that the WHO stopped spending gazillions persecuting smokers and started to address world issues that actually matter, like Malaria control and providing sanitation and drinking water to those who need it. Oh, I know the zealots like their WHO funded all-expenses-paid junkets where they can all get together and bathe in the warm glow of self-righteous smugness as they discuss what new punishment they can force on a quarter of the world's population, but it doesn't help the people who are actually REALLY dying (as opposed to the theoretical numbers that are spat out by their computer model, which are the numbers we read about in the papers).

Smoking has provided a very useful red-herring for governments and the petro-chemical industry, and is a very nice little earner for the pharmaceutical industry, but the chickens are coming home to roost now, and they won't be able to get away with their lies for very much longer.

[Merangue]

I stopped taking any notice of the World Health organisation after reading and listening to all the crap it has said about E Cigs.

The WHO is unbelievably corrupt and does what its paymasters ask it to do ( EG the pharmaceuticals )

Hell, in the Phillipines it actually suggested people should stick to tobacco cigarettes over the E Cigs as Tobacco cigarettes have filters.

There is too much money invested in both selling tobacco ( including the taxation ) and selling the so called nicotine replacement therapies and cancer treatments.

If there was any real concern about public health every smoker would be issued with a good Ecig ( not the sort that looks like a cigarette, taste like camel turds and last about 1 hour ) to help them avoid cigarettes and tobacco would simply be banned after a year or so giving the industry and farmers a chance to switch to other options.

As for the chap who suggests legalising Cannabis and banning Tobacco, that would actually be worse as we would then have millions of cannabis smokers getting cancer from the cannabis which is still producing a tar of carcinogens and at the same time developing mental health problems including depression, anxiety and paranoia.

As for plain packaging or packaging with graphic pictures on it. I smoked for the best part of 35 years and I can confirm that what was on the packet made no difference to whether I wanted it. The contents and the smell/taste and sensations of the contents was what I wanted.

[belg]

cancer

sponsored by [company]