THEY thought out of the cigarette box to hide their ill-gotten wares. Illegal cigarette peddlers have tried to throw the authorities off their tracks in a variety of unusual ways. Take this device: It’s painted grey, made of metal and comes with a lock. Just like any other electrical meter box. But when Singapore Customs officers came across the box last year while out on one of their regular patrols in Geylang, they did a double take. What they discovered when they opened the box wasn’t wires but a trove of illegal cigarettes.

The electrical meter box – placed next to a real meter box – was a storage space for 190 packets of such fags.

In another case, officers had first arrested a peddler selling contraband cigarettes at the staircase landing outside his Toa Payoh flat.

In a follow-up raid at his unit, more than 90 packets of cigarettes were found in plastic bags hung onto two bamboo poles outside his kitchen window.

Another peddler decided to hang his stash on a tree branch.

Officers on one of their rounds in Admiralty sighted a suspicious-looking bag hanging from a branch.

When they opened the bag, they found 100 packets of contraband cigarettes.

More peddlers have also taken to modifying common objects like flower pots to hide their illegal puffs.

They would put soil and plants in a cardboard container, place it in a flower pot and leave it beside awalkway.

The peddler would then signal to potential customers to ask if they would like to buy the cigarettes, and retrieve the cigarettes to make the sale.

An empty flower pot can hold up to 50 loose packets of contraband cigarettes.

Peddlers have also modified concrete kerbs on pavements to hide their illegal stash within the kerbs’ hollow interior.

Drains, outdoor incense burners, rubbish chutes and public toilets are other unusual spots peddlers have used to stow away their illicit stash.

The Asia division of tobacco producer Philip Morris International Ltd. has begun multibillion-dollar arbitration proceedings against the Australian government over legislation passed Friday that requires tobacco products to be sold without company branding. In addition, the new law also requires the packaging to be dull brown except for a full-color health warning.

The best cigarettes you can order at famous tobacco shop: camel, marlboro, pall mall, vogue.

Philip Morris, which makes leading cigarette brands including Marlboro and Virginia Slims, said the new law breaches two articles of a 1993 Australia-Hong Kong bilateral investment treaty, alleging that the law fails to protect the company’s intellectual property and amounts to unfair treatment. The legal action follows a mandatory three-month negotiation period after the company first raised its concerns in June.

Allens Arthur Robinson is representing Philip Morris, but did not respond to a request for details. The firm previously represented the company in its defense of Australia’s first class action, filed in 1999. David Bernick is Philip Morris’ general counsel. The Australian government did not supply the names of its legal advisers.

Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia Ltd. has a subsidiary in Australia under which it makes and distributes tobacco products. The company is seeking suspension of the legislation and damages amounting to “billions of dollars,” according to its statement.

Philip Morris said it prefers arbitration under UNCITRAL rules — the preferred dispute resolution method stated in the treaty — and will recommend Singapore as the forum for the dispute, which it estimates will take two to three years. It also plans to pursue domestic litigation in Australia’s High Court, it added.

“We are left with no option,” said Philip Morris spokeswoman Anne Edwards in a statement about its legal action. “The Government has passed this legislation despite being unable to demonstrate that it will be effective at reducing smoking and has ignored the widespread concerns raised in Australia and internationally regarding the serious legal issues associated with plain packaging.”

Australia’s health minister, Nicola Roxon, said in an emailed statement: “Big tobacco is ignoring the will of the Australian Parliament and is prioritising their profits over the lives of everyday Australians with this action.”

She added: “[The] Government has received comprehensive legal advice about this matter and are confident with our position.”

Philip Morris is also among tobacco companies that claim the plain-packaging legislation will encourage counterfeiting when it comes into force in December 2012, since it believes the new packages will be easy to copy.

Roxon claimed in a press conference in Canberra Monday that those objections were based on inaccurate figures.

Philip Morris International is the result of a 2008 spin-off from Altria Group Inc. Altria continues to own Philip Morris USA, which is distinct from the spun-off company.

The Australian government has pushed through the world’s first plain packaging anti-smoking laws but will have to defend them in both foreign and local legal arenas. In the same day the laws were passed, cigarette maker Philip Morris announced it had launched legal action against the Australian government. The tobacco giant’s Hong Kong office says the law breaks a trade deal between the Chinese territory and Australia.

You can buy discount cigarettes online at cheapest tobacco shop: http://www.cigarettesmall.net/. There are all cigarettes brands.

The laws mean from December 2012, cigarettes will be sold in plain olive wrappers dominated by big graphic health warnings.
ROTHWELL: Philip Morris has been referring to this possible legal avenue now for about four or five months. Previously the difficulty was that there was in my view no real legal case because the legislation hadn’t been enacted. But as you’ve just noted, the legislation has now passed through parliament and it now appears clear that Philip Morris has sought to argue that under the bilateral investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia that there is taking place with this legislation an unlawful expropriation of Philip Morris’s investment into the Australian market as a result of the barring of Philip Morris being able to use its brand and product details on the packaging of its tobacco products.

LAM: And where will the legal action take place? In both Hong Kong and here in Australia?

ROTHWELL: Well there is a 90 day cooling off period that’s required under the bilateral investment treaty, which basically gives both sides the opportunity to try to resolve or settle their dispute. However if that proves to be unsuccessful then the matter would most likely be sent to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington.

LAM: Well Philip Morris also said that it served a notice of arbitration with the UN Commission on International Trade law. What does this mean?

ROTHWELL: Well I think this just highlights that Philip Morris is pursuing multiple different legal avenues. So they’re also looking at this being a measure which is inconsistent with international trade law under the World Trade Organisation. They’ve also highlighted the potential for exploring options under what’s called the TRIPS Agreement, which is the trade related agreement on aspects of intellectual property rights. So Philip Morris at the moment is undertaking apparently a multi-pronged approach to address these issues both in international forums, plus as you’ve identified also possibly before the High Court of Australia.

LAM: So essentially what is Philip Morris looking for? What is it seeking?

ROTHWELL: Well ultimately one would think that they’re seeking to have the Australian government back down and reverse this law, which doesn’t take effect until December 2012. The alternative to that would be very significant amounts of compensation, and there are press reports that today in Australia of course indicating that Philip Morris would be seeking billions of dollars. Now they haven’t quantified that precisely, but ultimately they’re saying that the acquisition of the intellectual property that’s commonly associated with their trade marks and their product packaging would in their view cost them very significant amounts in terms of their income generated from sales.

LAM: Australia’s Health Minister Nicola Roxon has criticised Philip Morris for what she calls its addiction to legal action, and the federal government said that it had good legal advice before it pushed the laws through. Do you agree with that assessment that the Australian government will successfully defend this case?

ROTHWELL: Look there are strengths and weaknesses for both sides of the argument. The key questions being whether what Australia is doing is seeking to acquire property by the imposition of these rules, and if so what are the consequences that flow on from that legally. On the other side of the case, Australia would no doubt argue that these are legitimate public health measures which are being applied on a non-discriminatory basis to all tobacco retailers in Australia. So it will ultimately come down to those pivotal legal questions, and to that end it’ll be quite an interesting area of law to investigate because of the growing recognition of the legitimacy of public health measures of this type.

LAM: And just briefly Don Rothwell, are we looking at a long drawn battle here, or is there a timeframe for this legal case?

ROTHWELL: Well if the matter is to go to the High Court of Australia it would probably take up to a year to probably work its way through the courts there. International litigation would also possibly take the same period of time. So we may well be looking well into 2012 before we see a final resolution.

Cigarette packs could get a lot uglier in America very soon, depending on the results of a lawsuit filed against the FDA. A group of five companies have teamed up to try and delay the implementation of a plan to slap warnings on cigarette packages advising consumers of some of the major health risks associated with smoking, BBC News reports.

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires that warnings take up a full fifty percent of the face of the package. The parent companies for brands like Camel, Winston, Newport, and True are all part of the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges the warnings will leave customers feeling “depressed, discouraged and afraid” of buying packs of cigarettes.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for the cigarette companies, sent out a statement on the case, saying, “The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can’t require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government’s anti-smoking campaign.” He also implied the labels would violate the companies’ first amendment rights.

The Canadian government already has a similar law in place. Passed in 2000, the law makes advertisements gracing the cover of cigarette packages mandatory, with warnings against the cancerous effects cigarettes can have, or other negative side effects of smoking. Here’s what you can expect to appear on your pack of smokes in September 2012, when the U.S. law is currently scheduled to take effect.

Brazil is considering raising taxes on cigarettes to partially compensate for a $16 billion package of measures announced yesterday to help manufacturers hurt by the real’s rally. “There are discussions about a tax increase on cigarettes,” Deputy Finance Minister Nelson Barbosa told reporters yesterday in Brasilia. He declined to elaborate. Levies on some goods may be raised to prevent a budget deficit of 2.19 percent of gross domestic product from widening after President Dilma Rousseff announced a 25 billion reais ($16 billion) tax cut over the next two years to boost local production.

Souza Cruz SA (CRUZ3), Brazil’s largest tobacco company, dropped to a three-month low yesterday after a government official who had asked not to be identified said the Finance Ministry may raise taxes on cigarettes. The official spoke before Barbosa’s comment.
Souza Cruz fell 2.8 percent to 17.74 reais at the close of Sao Paulo trading at 4:15 p.m. New York time, the lowest since May 4. The Brazilian unit of British American Tobacco Plc (BATS) earlier dropped as much as 3.8 percent.
“Taxes on cigarettes are still low in Brazil when compared to other countries,” Caue Pinheiro, an analyst at SLW Corretora in Sao Paulo, said in a telephone interview. “It’s reasonable to assume that taxes will eventually go up. Of course, that would be bad for Souza Cruz, as the company would probably increase prices to offset the higher taxes, which would affect sales.”
Spending Reduction
Barbosa said the government may cut spending to offset part of the tax cuts. The increase of a tax on consumer credit in April also raised tax collection, giving room to the government to offer tax breaks to exporters, he said.
Brazil doubled a tax on consumer loans on April 7 to slow demand and inflation.
The government also may take steps to curb vehicle imports in an effort to protect manufacturers from foreign competition, the government official who asked not to be identified said.
Brazil is also considering adjusting the terms of a 1 percent tax on derivatives to ensure that exporters hedging against currency losses aren’t hurt by it, said the official. The government created the tax last week to discourage bets against the U.S. dollar after the real hit a 12-year high.
An official at Souza Cruz who asked not to be identified due to internal policy said the company wouldn’t comment on the issue because a final decision hasn’t yet been made.

The graphic cigarette pack warnings unveiled last week mark the latest attempt to encourage smokers to quit. Indeed, here’s to our smoking friends’ health. But smokers have one habit that we nonsmokers might do well to emulate: The smoke break. Stand outside an office building on any weekday midmorning and watch the pleasantry. People are standing around, talking and laughing. They are enjoying social interactions. They are reducing their stress. They are basking in sunshine.

Granted, they are also smoking. Still, the rest of it looks awfully healthy, not to mention extremely pleasant. Can’t the rest of us get in on the action?

I sometimes have, tagging along with smoking friends as they headed outside for their break. Sneaking out of a boring meeting and into a beautiful day, momentarily exiting work mode — it was great.

Guilt-free, too. No one looked askance as we skedaddled. The smoke break is an accepted part of the business world.

Of course, the social permission doesn’t extend to nonsmokers like me. Still, who was going to know whether I really lit up? When I got back, was someone going to smell my breath or check my purse for cigarettes? The possibility of getting busted for not smoking was slim, and it only added to the outing’s charm. It was like a reverse image of a smoker’s high school experience: I was sneaking out to not smoke.

I found that I returned to the work at hand refreshed and refocused. My friends might have been aided by the nicotine, but the break was enough for me.

I’m not the only smoke-break mooch, according to smoke-break regulars outside the Thompson Center.

“I have friends who don’t smoke who will come out and take a break with me,” said Athena Pozdol.

“It’s like a social thing,” said Gwen Saddler.

“Everyone comes out at the same time,” said Brenda Wilson.

They have met people they would not have known otherwise. And age is irrelevant; Pozdol, 21, was smoking with Marcus DeLeon, 58.

With time temporarily suspended as they smoke and talk, they chat freely.

“Life. Kids,” Wilson said.

“Grandkids. The dog,” said Saddler.

Of course, it is possible to take a break that has nothing to do with smoking. You can always simply walk outside with a few friends and stand there as if you were smoking.

But you would have to have a pretty dedicated group to make it a regular happening. Moreover, part of the charm of the smoke break is getting to know people outside your circle. Standing outside office buildings and striking up conversations with strangers may not endear you to passers-by.

There is always that classic workday pick-me-up, the coffee break. But it takes a dedicated group to make it a consistent outing, and again, you are unlikely to make new friends.

You can skip a coffee date or eliminate it as a social event by drinking coffee at your desk. An addiction that can only be sated outdoors, however, makes for a guaranteed regular outing. Smokers have to smoke. Thus, the regular outdoor party, even in winter, though the folks huddling in subzero temperatures don’t seem to be having quite as much fun.

Alas, no matter how much you like outdoor chitchat and the company of friends who smoke, these breaks have a seriously unfun aspect: smoking.

Though I got distracted by the breaks’ social aspects, I had stopped by the Thompson Center to get their thoughts about the new warnings (their answers: the warnings will make no difference because they already know the dangers, they need cigarettes to manage stress, they are addicted, you have to die of something, they will quit when they are ready).

It’s hard for nonsmokers to fully enjoy an activity that is harming the people they are enjoying talking with. Moreover, the social pleasure comes with close-up exposure to secondhand smoke.

And so, a proposal: What if there were such a thing as smoking breaks without smoking?

Imagine universal acceptance of regular, brief breaks for people to go outside. Once a day, at staggered times, we would troop outdoors, stand around and talk. We would stretch our chair-weakened backs, breathe fresh air, clear our heads and return to work invigorated.

The breaks would become a natural part of people’s workdays. No one would think it odd or rude if you stepped out for a nonsmoke.

An addiction that kills thousands of Americans each year is under fire. And now, the government is stepping up to help people quit smoking. We first told you about the Food and Drug Administration’s new graphic warning labels earlier this week. It’s the first warning change to a cigarette box in some 20 years. Now, we are learning about the effect it could have in western Colorado. Convenience stores are packed with them and cigarette sales are steady. But, come next year, customers will have something else to think about.

“I don’t think it will affect us much anyway due to the simple fact that the ones who smoke here buy cigarettes already,” Paul Campbell, a clerk at a Western Convenience store in Grand Junction, said.
In October of 2012, at least half of every pack of cigarettes will be covered with pictures showing the dangers of smoking. Nine new graphics will be randomly printed on the packaging. And, it’s a message meant for at least 20% of Americans.
“Prevention and education efforts are key,” Karen Martsolf with the Mesa County Health Department said.
In Mesa County, a little bit more than 21% of adults smoke. Local groups hope to lower that number to 12% with the help of these new labels.
Similar warnings are working in 40 other countries across the globe. Those labels are even more graphic abroad. Some depict dead fetuses and foot Gangrene.
But, just because it works in other parts of the world, does that mean it’ll work here? The FDA sure thinks so.
“People need to be aware of the risks associated with their behavior,” Martsolf said. “Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of premature death in the United States.”
So we asked some smokers what their opinion is. Many say they know what they are getting themselves into.
“I’ve seen pictures of Cirrhosis of the liver and I’ve seen pictures of a bad lung and it hasn’t stopped me,” Jason Turner explained. “I mean, I want to quit. It’s addictive. I’ll quit when I have the will power to do so.”
Christopher Casto who has smoked for 22 years feels the same way. “A picture on a cigarette box ain’t going to do crap.”
These men think that the government can spend its money in better ways. But, some people have personal reasons they’re rooting for the campaign. “I think it’s a good idea. Maybe it will get people to quit spending money on that,” Sharon Guzman said. “My mom died of cancer, so I don’t like cigarettes.”
Some people, though, fear these labels will become more of a collectible than a deterrent.

British American Tobacco Plc (BATS)’s Australian unit won an appeals court hearing in a bid to force the government to turn over documents relating to a plan to restrict cigarette sales to plain packages.
The Full Federal Court of Australia agreed to hear the request, according to a letter from Judge Shane Marshall, provided by British American Tobacco. No date has been set for the hearing, the company said.

Parliament is set to vote on the law in the Australian winter to limit cigarette packaging to plain dark-olive coloring with pictorial health warnings instead of company logos, Health Minister Nicola Roxon said last month. British American Tobacco has sought the legal advice the government received on the plan under Australia’s Freedom of Information Act and has been denied, the company said.

British American Tobacco “suspects that Minister Roxon hasn’t released the legal advice because it’s likely to demonstrate her plain packaging laws are flawed,” the company said in today’s statement.
Health Ministry officials didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment.
The Australian proposal is the first in the world aimed at banning logos and color variations on cigarette packages. New Zealand, Canada and the U.K. had considered the move but dropped it out of concern it would be illegal, British American Tobacco said. The Australian proposal may infringe international trademark and intellectual property laws, the tobacco company said.

The name of the cigarette brand would be printed in a uniform font at the bottom of the package. The legislation, if passed in parliament, will take effect Jan. 1.
The government plans to spend more than A$10 million ($10.7 million) on legal fees fighting opposition to the proposal, British American Tobacco said, citing documents obtained through the FOI process.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 prohibited, among other things, the manufacture of firearm magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds of ammunition. I suppose lawmakers determined magazines carrying 11 rounds are, somehow, far more dangerous than those carrying only 10. The AWB expired 10 years later in 2004 with no documented instances that banning large capacity magazines stopped any shootings or reduced violent gun crime. Even the decidedly anti-gun Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the AWB and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

Now, after the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, new calls for banning high-capacity magazines have surfaced in the halls of Congress and elsewhere. If that ban didn’t work in the 10 years between 1994 and 2004, then it won’t work now. In fact, there is some evidence the use of high capacity magazines by the Tucson shooter may have actually reduced the number of people killed and injured.

Thirty-plus-round-capacity magazines are not made by reputable handgun manufacturers such as Glock; rather, they are produced by after-market companies and such magazines tend to malfunction.

This is exactly what happened in the Tucson shooting. The killer’s gun jammed, and, as he attempted to change magazines, bystanders had time to wrestle him to the ground and hold him for police.

There are numerous other reasons why limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds is a meretricious approach to reducing violent gun death and injury, but, just for an exercise in logic, let’s assume limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds really is a valid way to reduce gun homicides.

There are over 15 times as many deaths from lung cancer as from gun homicides. Therefore, if smaller capacity magazines reduce gun homicides, then smaller cigarette packs must, necessarily, reduce lung cancer deaths.

Consequently, we can save over 15 times the lives by limiting cigarette packs to 10 cigarettes. Currently, in the United States, cigarette packs must contain at least 20 cigarettes. Something is wrong with this picture.

Similarly, we can dramatically reduce drunken driving deaths by limiting gas tank capacity to 10 gallons, beer can capacity to 6 ounces, and prohibiting beer to be sold in anything larger than three-packs.

Of course, such approaches to reducing lung cancer and drunken driving deaths are ludicrous.

Likewise, limiting firearm magazine capacity to 10 rounds to reduce murders with firearms is equally ludicrous and was proved so with the failed 1994 to 2004 Assault Weapons Ban experiment.