Smoking, Did you know?

Did you know?

·         Cigarette smoke contains up to 4, 000 chemicals.

·         Cigarette butts take, on average, 1.5 years to break down.   

·         Almost 50% of all litter in urban areas is tobacco related products including butts, cellophane wrapping, foil inserts and packaging.

·         An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered worldwide every year.

  

·         About 24 billion cigarettes are sold in Australia each year.  It is estimated that 7 billion of these cigarettes are littered.

·         An estimated 100 000 tonnes of polluted air is exhaled by smokers in NSW each year.

·         In some parts of Australia, if caught littering cigarette buttsyou can receive a fine of up to $2,000 if the matter goes to court.

·         Cigarettes accounted for 17% of the total rubbish items collected on 2004 Clean Up Australia Day.

·         A cigarette butt can smoulder for up to three hours causing a grass fire or even a bushfire.

·         Over 4,500 fires a year are caused by cigarettes and smokers’ materials.

(Source: Clean Up Australia)

Trademark Rights to Extinguish Plain Packaging Bill?

The content of the government’s release on the draft plain packaging Bill offers few surprises. The government thinks stripping tobacco products of any branding will cut smoking rates as part of a basket of anti-tobacco measures, they’ve picked the colour (an allegedly offensive olive green), and the already garish health warnings are going to extend from just the lip to most of the front packet.

But amongst the consultation paper is also an admission of something the government has long denied – plain packaging could acquire the value of trademarks and expose taxpayers to a compensation bill from big tobacco.

At the time of the government’s initial announcement both Health Minister Nicola Roxon and then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd dismissed these concerns arguing they have still-to-be-publicly released “robust” legal advice supporting no IP violations.

The IPA raised concerns that stripping trademarks from packaging could lead to the acquisition of property rights under the Constitution and lead to compensation on “just terms”. But the government’s consultation paper now acknowledges property rights risks exist. Under the banner of “Constitutional provisions” the paper on the “abundance of caution ...

provides that if preventing the use of trade marks on packaging of products is contrary to section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, the trade marks can be used, but only in accordance with restrictions (for example, on size and placement) that would be imposed by the regulations”. So far we don’t know what the regulations say.

But the clear intent of the provision is if the High Court recognises plain packaging is the acquisition of a value of a trademark logo they can be used in a restrictive fashion without annulling the rest of the Act.

It's the government's long-winded way of saying "oops".

But despite this admission concerns that plain packaging may violate Australia’s obligations under the World Trade Organisation remain. WTO intellectual property rules require trademarks not be “unjustifiably encumbered [such as] use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”.

The rules also afford a public health exception “provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this agreement”. But by limiting the use of trademark logos the government may not be “consistent”. Especially since justifiability may require strong evidence of the plan's efficacy. If you judge them on their words the government claims they are convinced. But if you judge them on their actions reportedly they last year commissioned a two-year $600K+ plus study to look at the impact of plain packaging on smoking rates.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show that Australia’s intellectual property agency, IP Australia, has found there are around 3,000 trademarks for tobacco and tobacco products of which “a short study shows approximately 1/3 include logos”. Publicly IP Australia has been wary of opposing the government's plain packaging plan but their internal discussions are telling.

One version of a briefing note states “IP Australia considers that plain packaging may not be consistent with Australia’s intellectual property obligations ... [and whether it] would constitute an acquisition of property is debateable”.

Emails between IP Australia trademark officials show that arguing Australia’s international IP obligations would not be violated by plain packaging “is a long bow”. Interestingly IP Australia continues to highlight that “requiring plain packaging would make it easier for counterfeit products to be produced".

Since Australia is the first country to actually legislate for plain packaging the legal risks are significant. And tobacco companies have already made clear their fighting intentions. To date Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Lithuania have previously considered plain packaging and rejected it predominantly on intellectual property grounds. Many countries are now watching what happens in Australia before they decide how they will progress.

There are mixed legal views about whether it violates IP rights and only the High Court and a WTO dispute settlement panel will ultimately decide who’s right. But treading with caution is wise. The same FOI documents show IP Australia was only advised of the government’s announcement days before it was public.

At the time the rushed announcement appeared to be a smokescreen to distract the public from the political hammering the government was taking from dropping its emissions trading scheme. In light of recent polls perhaps not much has changed. The only difference is this time the government appears to have acknowledged the very real risks that plain packaging poses to property rights and our international obligations. This honesty is welcome.

Will you even be allowed to smoke in your own home?

''The thing the government really should be looking at now is suing the tobacco companies because they have caused such horrendous damage to the health of Australians and continue to do so, and it's the taxpayers who pay for it, let alone the smokers who pay for it with their lives,'' Professor Moodie told The Sunday Age.

In the US, President Barack Obama has asked the Supreme Court to allow the government to sue the tobacco industry for $US300 billion ($A338 billion). Similar lawsuits are under way in several Canadian provinces.

If Australia follows, it will enhance its reputation as a world leader in tobacco reform, having been one of the first to introduce mass media anti-smoking campaigns and health warnings on cigarette packets.

In Victoria, smoking is now banned in bars, restaurants, government schools, cars carrying children, covered train and tram stops, gambling outlets and most public buildings and workplaces.

From January next year, cigarettes will have to be kept either under the counter or behind a closed cabinet in all outlets except specialist tobacconists.

But Vic Zurek, head of Australian Smokers Rights, said aggressive health lobbying had left smokers feeling like ''second-class citizens'' who are being demonised for a legal habit.
He said some doctors were starting to refuse smokers' medical treatment despite his assertion that smokers essentially fund their own healthcare through high cigarette taxes.

''I agree with helping people to quit if they want to and to try and stop kids taking up the habit, but I don't agree, in a free country, in forcing people,'' Mr Zurek said.

''Working people don't have much in life, a beer and a cigarette are just a couple of small pleasures, and we can't even do that any more.''

Tough legislation, coupled with pioneering Quit campaigns, has helped reduce Australia's adult smoking rates from 34 per cent in 1980 to between 17 and 19 per cent today. The preventative health taskforce has set a target of 10 per cent by 2020.

But despite the gains, Quit executive director Fiona Sharkie said there was more to be done.
''Unfortunately we still have 750,000 adults smoking in Victoria and it's still killing 4000 Victorians a year,'' Ms Sharkie said.

Among reforms Quit will push for are laws that would mean cigarettes can be sold only through a limited number of outlets licensed by the state government. Quit is also studying developments in California where local authorities are increasingly mandating that developers build smoke-free properties.

''We get lots of calls from apartment dwellers saying, 'I hate the way the neighbours smoke and the smoke comes into my house when I've got the front door or the window open. What can I do about it?' Consumers are saying that they'd prefer to have a smoke-free building, so we will be looking at that,'' Ms Sharkie said.

A pilot scheme starting in September that will ban smoking in three busy Frankston shopping streets may also be expanded to other areas as Quit has joined with the Heart Foundation in a project to encourage Victoria's 79 local councils to go smoke-free.

A ban on smoking at beaches, campuses and beer gardens, the eradication of cigarette vending machines and a push to have nicotine patches available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are further measures in Quit's long-term strategy.

David Hill, director of the Cancer Council Victoria, said public health experts are now debating whether they have achieved all they can in getting smokers to kick the habit.

''Some people believe we're now left with a hardcore group who would still smoke if there was no promotion, no legal sales and the whole thing was banned,'' Professor Hill said.

''The question is when you've reached that point, then you might consider whether you continue the downward pressure.

''But when you look at the data you see it is by far the biggest avoidable cause of cancer death, so we simply can't afford to neglect it.''

Did you ever smoke in a non smoking hotel room?

 

Did you ever smoke in a hotel that had no smoking signs...

Many hotels now charge over $200 if you are caught smoking in designated Non-smoking rooms.,

Did you ever do it?
Did you get away with hanging out the window for a cig?
Did you get caught?

What happened?

 

Post your comments here.

Question re smoking vs non-smoking rooms?

Question found on an online chat site...

Q: I was wondering what is difference between smoking and non smoking rooms? anyone know?

The answer.........

One smells like an old dirty ashtray mixed with sweat and fear, the other does not. I'll let you figure out which is which :-)

Find Smoke Free Australian Accommodation with Metro Hotels

No Smoking Fees may be a surprise

If you’re caught smoking in a non smoking area of your hotel, even outdoors, it may cost you.

 

Hotels are levying stiff fees on patrons who smoke where they shouldn't.

 

http://www.ontravel.com/?powerpress_pinw=1918-podcast

Non-smoking Hotels have been a breath of fresh air - Metro Hotels

Five years on and the decision to adopt a 100% Non-smoking policy in all of its 14 hotels, motels, resorts and serviced apartments around Australia has proven to be an extremely positve move by Metro Hotels.

The initial move to adopt the smoke free policy came about in 2006 following increased demand for non-smoking rooms from corporate and government clients. 

"At the time we envisaged the change would be well received by our clients as the decision to become non-smoking basically came from them," explained Metro Hotels Chief Operating Officer, George Bedwani. "And the initial decision has proven to be a very good one", he said.
  
Metro Hotels has experienced no negative impact on their business. "To the contrary, we have received numerous positive comments from our guests and we have even secured new business from specific organisations in the health industry because we guarantee all rooms are non-smoking." noted Mr Bedwani.
 
There is still no official regulations requiring a total smoke-free environment in Hotels, Motels and other short term accommodation properties however Metro Hotels has made it an official requirement for all of their properties.

View original Article at Metro Hotels News

Metro breathes fresh air into Sydney Hotel - 15 May, 2006

The 4 star Metro Hotel on Pitt, Sydney is set to make a fresh start to the new financial year by becoming a 100% smoke-free hotel.
"The move has come about following increased demand for non-smoking rooms from our corporate and government clients," said Metro Hotels Group General Manager, Rajeev Dani of the 115 room hotel.
"We envisage the change will be well received by our clients as the decision to become non-smoking has predominantly come from them," he explained.
 
This is not the first Metro Hotels property that is totally non-smoking. In 2005, the Metro Apartments on Sussex, also located in Sydney's CBD and overlooking Darling Harbour, changed to a smoke-free property with no negative effect on occupancy, average or yield.
 
"There have been numerous studies undertaken by hotels which clearly show that the preference for the majority of guests is for a smoke-free hotel," Mr Dani said.
"The feedback we have received from our clients and our positive experience at Metro Apartments on Sussex certainly reinforces this."

Read Full Article at Metro Hotels News