In a move that would further expand Australia’s progressive crackdown on tobacco marketing, the Australian legislature is looking to impose even harsher restrictions on the packaging of tobacco products sold in the land down under. Accompanying the recent $2 rise in cigarette costs, the new restrictions would alter the standardization of tobacco product packaging. In requiring tobacco companies not only to print their packs in plain style on olive-green backgrounds, but also to include image warnings “such as black, diseased gums, blinded eyes and children in hospitals cover[ing] 75 percent of the front of a pack and all of the back,” Australia appears to be leaving nothing out of its bold fight against the tobacco companies.
Besides the obvious disgust of such graphic images, scientific research (which, Australia has paid for) has shown that olive is the ugliest color to smokers (and to be honest, nonsmokers too). Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon is pushing the law, hoping to gain the backing of the Conservatives and Greens to put into effect this landmark piece of legislation.
The aggressive stance comes as statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics find that despite the overall decrease in smokers in the country, there has been an increase in smokers aged 15-17. The legal age at which an individual can buy a pack of cigarettes is 18 in the country and these numbers, along with the announcement that approximately 5% of children aged 12-15 smoke, have provided legislators with ammo against the tobacco industry, which plans on fighting back if the legislation passes.
To say that this legislation is controversial is an understatement; Australia would be limiting the capacity of an industry to market its product, a move which will not ensue without serious quarrel. While I am all for reduction in tobacco usage, I am not sure that I agree with the government’s measures. Increasing the excise tax on tobacco makes sense as does forcing the companies to place consumer health warnings on packaging. However, restricting the capacity of companies to market their product may be going too far.
With the already existent restrictions on add campaigns this legislation would effectively ban all forms of tobacco marketing. A part of me believes that outlawing a company’s capacity to market its product (and thus remain competitive in the market) and violating its trademark laws are examples of government overstepping the boundaries between business and state. The other part of me believes that this legislation is an awesome, likely certain way to eliminate something that is the definition of a public nuisance. Nonetheless, I would be horrified if a government told another industry that its product can be legal but it would have no right to trying to sell it. Even though the crackdown involves the is sleazy tobacco industry, I like governments to be consistent in their legislation.
Therefore, the tried and true method of taxing tobacco into oblivion is the fairest way to defeat it. Tax-initiated price raises have significantly lowered tobacco usage worldwide, and Australia sees a 3-4% reduction in smokers with every $1 increase on the cost of a pack of cigarettes. This method does not cross the line and has been shown to work. Short of flat out banning the sale of tobacco, the answer should continue to involve taxes.
Photocredit: Wikimedia Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.