Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064

    U.S. court strikes down graphic warnings on cigarettes

    A United States appeals court on Friday struck down a law that requires tobacco companies to use graphic health warnings

    The 2-1 decision by the court in Washington, D.C., contradicts another appeals court's ruling in a similar case earlier this year, setting up the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the dispute.

    The court's majority in the latest ruling found the label requirement from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration violated corporate speech rights.

    "This case raises novel questions about the scope of the government's authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest -- in this case, by making 'every single pack of cigarettes in the country mini billboard' for the government's anti-smoking message," wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    The FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" showing that the graphic labels would reduce smoking", Brown added.

    Click here for whole article



    This makes me wonder. First, if in a couple of years time, no evidence exists that plain packet cigarettes reduce the number of smokers in Australia, then would the tobacco companies have a defence to bring back their right to IP?

    And secondly, if the government decided a ban or tax on nicotine imports, would they need to provide evidence that nicotine concentrations used by vapers is hazardous to health, or at least more hazardous than alcohol or caffeine?

    Who has the burden of proof when introducing taxes or bans on certain substances? Or can the Australian government do as they like, when they like?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Central Vic,up near the Murray
    Posts
    17,897
    Quote Originally Posted by mavinry4 View Post
    Who has the burden of proof when introducing taxes or bans on certain substances? Or can the Australian government do as they like, when they like?
    I think you only need look at how nicotine was rescheduled on the poison shedule to find out the answer to that
    ( as/when they like )
    EPM V2-18490 (X2 ),GP Spheroid V2.5 and GP Piccolo V2.5 ,BBCB, Provari mini's, REO mini V2.1, 18490 REO , Jazz Carto Pipes ( fitted with GA tank and churchwarden stem Totally Evil!!! ), Meerschaum pipe ,e-holly35W,Phideas, AIOS,Taifun atties, PC Pipe mods.PC Squonker, Svapiamo squonker, GP Paps Heron combo.

    Vaping since 2007 totally smoke free since 2011


    AVF Rules , Read and understand them

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central qld
    Posts
    505
    Yeah, in australia the governments do as they like when they like.


    Ecigs: Halo G6-->Ego 650mAh-->Apex Ultra-->Smoketech VMAX-->Smoketech VMAX SS-->Smoketech Gripper VV-->Gus G22-18350-->Gus Telescopic-->Diablo Hybrid-->Caravela!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    How is it that the Attorney General, a member of the legislative branch of government, becomes the head of the both the Executive Branch of Government (ASIO, AFP etc), and also takes part in appointing judges in the Judicial Branch of Government?

    I don't see how there is really a separation of powers here.

    In my opinion, the person at the top of the Executive branch should not be an elected official, but someone who made his or her way to the top starting at the bottom as a Constable. What the hell would Nicola Roxon know about administrating law? Also, someone at the top of the Judicial Branch should have started from the bottom as some lawyer's assistant, and those in legislative government shouldn't have any say in who appointed.

    It really does seem like we live in a mob ruled country where by two wolves and one sheep argue over what they will be eating for dinner, especially when the attorney general of the majority legislative government is given so much oversight over the other two branches.

    It makes me sick. Someone please provide me with some correction to this so that I can maintain a little hope and faith in our Nation.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:40 PM.