"This is an unprecedented intervention by big tobacco into an election campaign and I think Mr Abbott needs to come clean on whether he's made any commitments to his friends in big tobacco to convince them to take this unprecedented step," she said.

Professor Simon Chapman, from the school of public health at the University of Sydney, says Australia would be the first country to introduce plain packaging.

"The international tobacco industries are scared stiff about this," he said.

"The international industry have been pre-occupied about this since it was announced.

"They've had international conferences about it, they've had cover stories on their trade magazines, they've bunkered down they've worked out that they really have to try and get on top of this issue in Australia.

"Because it will domino all around the world."

from Stephen Mayne .....

Lovely to hear Julia Gillard ripping into the Liberals today for accepting big tobacco donations. This would be the same Julia Gillard who yesterday visited a distribution centre owned by Woolworths, Australia's biggest pokies operator with 12,000 machines. Woolies donated $20,000 to the ALP in 2008-09, but that was just the start of Labor's pokies industry donations.

Clubs NSW gave Labor $85,000 in 2008-09 and $203,000 in 2007-08. Then you have the Australian Hotels Association which gave more than $200,000 in 2008-09 alone, not to mention the party's own Canberra Labor Club which handed over more than $1 million in the first two years of the Rudd-Gillard government.

Given Australian has the lowest smoking rate in the world and the highest gambling rate in the world, it seems hard to fathom why Labor treats these two "sin industries" so differently when it comes to political donations -

Stephen Mayne, independent anti-pokies Senate candidate

Here is the evidence of Labor's unholy dependence on pokies donations, complete with links to the AEC donations data base:

Australian Hotels Association (NSW): 4 donations worth $130,000 to NSW Labor in 2008-09

Australian Hotels Association (SA): 19 donations worth $47,000 in 2007-08 to the South Australian Labor branch and a further 16 different donations worth about $70,000 in 2008-09.

Canberra Labor Club: operates 4 pokies venues for the ALP and donated $558,000 in 2007-08 and $502,000 in 2008-09.

Clubs NSW: 13 donations worth $203,000 to NSW ALP in 2007-08 and 9 donations worth $85,000 in 2008-09.

Tabcorp: pokies duopolist in Victoria made 7 donations worth $138,000 to various ALP branches in 2007-08 and 6 donations worth $150,000 to Labor in 2008-09.

Woolworths (ALH): $20,000 donation to Queensland Labor in 2008-09.

With Woolworths, Julia Gillard doesn't seem to know what she's dealing with and should read this this account of last year's Woolies AGM before heading to another Woolies venue for a campaign stunt like she did in Sydney yesterday.

There are plenty of other smaller donations which mean that Labor has harvested more than $2 million from gambling interests ever since Kevin Rudd made this famous declaration in 2007: "I hate poker machines and I know something of their impact on families. I have spoken at length with Tim Costello on this."

So, the Labor Party bag men clearly prevailed over Kevin Rudd as the donations kept flowing, but what does Julia Gillard think about the pokies and how can she defend taking industry donations when she's attempting to shame Tony Abbott for doing the same with the tobacco industry?

Stephen Mayne is obviously quoting the donation stats from State declarations and is misleading in that it does not include those made to the Liberals and Nationals in the same period.  These sort of donations occur for big businesses to try and stay "on side" with the incumbent government and, if not declared, can reach the "bribery" proportions of the infamous US lobbyists.

Has Stephen any idea about the amounts quoted?  State Labor would be influenced by a donation of $20,000 from the US giant Woolworths?  Fair dinkum.

So Stephen, if you have an ounce of sincerity in your expose' of Labor's "donations" then you will be prepared to expose the amounts donated to the Liberals and Nationals by the very same companies in the very same states and during the very same time frame? Which as a "holier than thou" posturer, you will either be shocked or perhaps embarrassed?

And further, since your suggestion that a donor to a political party automatically makes that party a captive of the source is just plain ludicrous.

However, if you are fair dinkum, try matching ANY donations to the Federal Labor Party with those of the Foreign owned mining companies.  Especially the grotesque billionaire Palmer.  Give it a try.  NE OUBLIE.

Hi Ernest,

I think you're right but that doesn't alter the fact that both major parties are equally guilty of accepting filthy lucre from unacceptable sources.

Mayne's point remains that it is highly hypocritical for Labor to attack the Liberals for accepting campaign donations from big tobacco, whilst it accepts funds from the fleecing of ordinary awstraylens being fleeced by pokie joints.

Mayne has published plenty of detail in the past about how both sides of politics benefit from this organised crime.

The difference between the Labor Party & the Coalition is often the propensity of Labor to try & stake out the high moral ground, only to be found to have feet of clay. The Coalition simply doesn't bother trying & contents itself with heaping self-righteous indignation on Labor ... a much easier & more damaging stragety that, regrettably, works all too well, too often.

Cheers,

John.

I disagree with your analogy of Mayne's expose' John, due to the fact that he did not include the donations to the State Liberal Party as his comparison argument of Labor’s claims. 

Why? Is he trying to hide something by NOT revealing both sides of that argument?  Because he is then doing the neo-con trick of accusing your opposition of doing what you are doing yourself. Like Abbott lying about his economic credentials when he doesn’t have the guts to debate a woman on that issue.

One of the attractions of Your Democracy is the printing of two sides to any story, and I had hoped that Mr. Mayne may have the strength of his convictions to be genuinely up front and not just repeating the figures  declared by Labor itself State wise.

Perhaps he is not aware that this is a Federal election not a State one - which Howard always claimed were different – as well HE might.

He should also know that the arguments to limit the donations in both Federal and State spheres were made by Labor and opposed by the neo-cons.

Two wrongs don’t make a right but, let’s be fair dinkum and juxtapose a published piece of State Labor donations with, and for the purpose of, showing who can claim that moral ground if any of them.

Also John, I cannot agree with the Labor party always claiming the moral high ground.  It was always a policy of Menzies; Fraser; and certainly Howard to behave as the moral alternative to the Labor Union Thugs.  The latter even managed to use that claim while WorkChoices reduced the rights of workers to be represented at all with Abbott’s “Individual Contracts”.

People don’t realize that these unfair and unconstitutional contracts were forced upon the workers of Queensland in the 19th Century and thirteen of their peacefully protesting leaders were jailed by a Pommy Judge.  This is one of the reasons that the Australian Workers Union was formed and is still alive to this day, irrespective of the worst Howard and Abbott could do with that denial of natural justice.

The “done over and not answering questions” Abbott has already stated that he will bring back those individual contracts with the same jailing provisions of the 19th century.  I kid you not.

Cheers John. 

Ern.

Two new Galaxy polls reveal more people have been trying to quit smoking since the Government increased tobacco taxes in April.

The research found that in the two months after the 25 per cent tax hike, nearly 40 per cent of all smokers tried to quit.

That is 10 per cent more people than the three months before the increase.

Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon says it also found those who have continued smoking say they are smoking fewer cigarettes.

"We know that price can be a deterrent for people," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/23/3019779.htm?section=justin

see toon at top and story below it

Japan's government has imposed the biggest tax increase on cigarettes the country has ever seen.

The price of the most popular brands is rising on Friday by about 40%, from 300 yen ($3.60; £2.30) to 410 yen ($4.90; £3.70).

The aim is to encourage smokers to quit, in a country with a reputation as one of the most smoker-friendly places in the industrialised world.

But instead smokers have been busy stocking up on cigarettes.

Lighting up is still allowed in restaurants and bars in Japan, and many offices have smoking rooms.

More than one in three Japanese men smoke, although only 12% of women do.

But now the government has put up the tax on cigarettes by 40%.

The aim is to encourage smokers to give up, and surveys show that 60% are thinking of doing so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11449516

-----------------

The power of the stick... see toon at top and article below it.

DESPITE intense opposition from the international tobacco industry, Australia's plan to introduce plain-wrap cigarettes is likely to be followed by other countries, the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon says.

The tobacco industry spent a reputed $4 million during the federal election to campaign against plain packaging, criticising the Labor plan as unprecedented.

But Ms Roxon said the positive reaction of ministers from other Western countries to the policy showed that the tobacco companies' campaign was based on a false premise.

She told the Herald she had encountered ''a lot of interest'' from health ministers at an Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Paris last week.

Representatives from Ireland, Norway, the European Union and the United States had expressed interest. ''From my perspective, the broader the interest there is, the better. ''The tobacco companies have made clear they will fight this tooth and nail because they think if it gets through here it will be a precedent.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/world-set-to-follow-australian-tobacco-policy-20101014-16lww.html?from=smh_sb

A former ambassador to the World Trade Organisation has been lobbying Malaysia to oppose the Federal Government's plain cigarette packaging laws.

ABC1's Lateline can reveal former US ambassador Peter Allgeier met with a Malaysian government minister as part of his efforts to derail the plain packaging legislation.

It has also been revealed that a powerful US congressman has joined the fight against Prime Minister Julia Gillard's latest controversial plan to cut Australia's smoking rate, which is due to come into effect this year.

If the law is enforced, advertising will be replaced with dull olive green packages and large health warnings.

Mr Allgeier is the private face of the tobacco industry's campaign against plain packaging.

For eight years he served as the Bush administration's deputy trade representative, but now works at the Washington-based consultancy firm C&M International.

C&M International has a history of working with the tobacco industry. In 2000 they offered their services to British American Tobacco when the framework convention on tobacco control was being negotiated in the US.

C&M's legal firm also has a long-term relationship with the largest American tobacco company, Philip Morris.

An email sent to a Malaysian official and obtained by Lateline shows Mr Allgeier has been lobbying Malaysia to put pressure on Australia over plain packaging, and refers to a meeting he had with Malaysia's trade minister.

"There are several opportunities forthcoming for Malaysia and other like-minded governments to persuade Australia not to proceed," he said.

"One option is to raise concerns in response to Australia's notification to the WTO TBT Committee, which meets on June 15-16. A second option is to address this issue at the next WTO TRIPs Council meeting on June 7-8.

"A third option is to respond to Australia's request for comment on its draft legislation, which is open for comment until June 6."

Tobacco-Free Kids Campaign president Matthew Myers, who has been working with Republicans and Democrats in Washington to reduce tobacco use, has hit out at the revelations.

"It's infuriating that the multi-national tobacco companies are trying to use their global political muscle to intimidate countries from protecting their citizens," said Mr Myers, who has been an anti-smoking campaigner for 30 years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/26/3228286.htm?section=justin

Remember the Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR) who brought us the first salvo of anti-plain packaging ads in 2010?

These were the doozies that featured storekeepers with advanced knowledge of effective tobacco control explaining that plain packs "won't work, so why do it" and then later on, "It just doesn't make sense".

It is no secret that the AAR is funded by big tobacco, who strangely have one or two concerns of their own about a policy "that won't work" – enough to be in blind panic mode, pouring millions into their campaign to stop it. Personally, I never bother worrying about changes to my life that won't make any difference.

This week the AAR released a Deloitte report with lots of shocking numbers and findings in it about an Armageddon that will descend on Australia's corner stores because of a policy that won't work. But now we have "research" to prove it. So let's take a look at how they conducted the research.

First, Deloitte tells us that "Roy Morgan Research was engaged by the AAR to conduct a consumer survey to verify the risk of channel shift following the introduction of plain packaging". Channel shift is industry jargon for your customers switching to buying their tobacco from bigger outlets like supermarkets, which of course have been attracting small business customers for decades because of their cheaper prices on everything.

Note importantly that the survey was not designed to examine whether there was a risk in channel shift arising from plain tobacco packaging, but to "verify" it. It's a foregone conclusion, apparently. Great science.

We read that those surveyed "were presented with an overview of the proposed regulation and asked whether they thought their shopping experience at a small retailer would be affected". So they were presented with an overview that would assist in "verifying" the risk of channel shift. No chance of any push polling there, I suppose?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2783400.html

see toon at top and articles below it...

Five tobacco companies have sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a new law that would force them to place graphic health warnings on their cigarette packets.

The firms argue the plan violates their constitutional right to free speech, as it requires firms to promote the government's anti-smoking message.

The FDA has not commented on the lawsuit.

The new warnings will be required on cigarette packs from September 2012.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco said they filed their suit against the FDA late on Tuesday in an effort to delay enforcement of the new law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14553228

The demands from the tobacco company, made using the UK's Freedom of Information law, have coincided with an internet hate campaign targeted at university researchers involved in smoking studies.

One of the academics has received anonymous abusive phone calls at her home at night. She believes they are prompted by an organised campaign by the tobacco industry to discredit her work, although there is no evidence that the cigarette companies are directly responsible. Philip Morris says it has a "legitimate interest" in the information, but researchers at Stirling University say that handing over highly sensitive data would be a gross breach of confidence that could jeopardise future studies.

The researchers also believe that the requests are having a chilling effect on co-operation with other academics who fear that sharing their own unpublished data with Stirling will lead to it being handed over to the tobacco industry.

Philip Morris International made its first Freedom of Information (FOI) request anonymously through a London law firm in September 2009. However, the Information Commissioner rejected the request on the grounds that that law firm, Clifford Chance, had to name its client.

Philip Morris then put in two further FOI requests under its own name seeking all of the raw data on which Stirling's Institute for Social Marketing has based its many studies on smoking knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in children and adults.

"They wanted everything we had ever done on this," said Professor Gerard Hastings, the institute's director.

"These are confidential comments about how youngsters feel about tobacco marketing. This is the sort of research that would get a tobacco company into trouble if it did it itself." Professor Hastings added: "What is more, these kids have been reassured that only bona fide researchers will have access to their data. No way can Philip Morris fit into that definition."

The information is anonymised and cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Philip Morris told The Independent that it is not seeking private information on named individuals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-smoked-out-tobacco-giants-war-on-science-2347254.html

I could give here the name of one famous friend who died from lung cancer in his early forties about 25 years ago.... He was addicted to cigarettes and though he'd managed to shake alcoholism, he could not "live" without a ciggie for more more than one hour while awake. He did not sleep well... Without a smoke, he'd become restless, agitated, nasty, uncontrolable... He was an extreme case, I accept that. When the surgeons opened him up to "operate" (remove) his lung cancer, his chest was closed back with his lungs not being touched. He died on the slab. In the same year, three other friends, in their thirties, died from cancers attributed to smoking. Two from lung cancer, one from brain cancer. I could also name a large number of acquaintances affected by smoking (most dead, some still alive — just). Another great friend died just before her fiftieth birthday from throat cancer, a few year ago... Though some people die from other causes, such as falling under a bus, one cannot really blame the bus. Those getting cancer from cigarettes can blame the cigarettes and their addictive nature. Falling under a bus is rarely addictive.