Breastfeeding rooms in US federal buildings: who would have thought?!

Last year the US watered down a resolution of the World Health Assembly that would have called on States to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding”, and to provide technical support to “halt inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children”.

A step too far, apparently, given the economic interests of US-domiciled formula companies.

See here for a previous post.

In June 2019, however, Congress passed a Bill requiring federal agencies to provide lactation rooms for lactating women in buildings that are open to the public.  Think federal courts, US Social Security Administration buildings, and indeed, within the US Capitol building itself.

The Bill requires the agency to provide a lactation room that is “shielded from view”, “free from intrusion”, and contains a chair, a working surface and electrical outlet.

This ensures a place for women both to breast-feed, and/or to express breast milk.  Importantly, it encourages breast-feeding, and expressing breast milk as a new normal for women with infants who are interacting or indeed working for the federal government.

The bill provides for exceptions: where it is impossible at reasonable cost to re-purpose a space as a lactation room using portable materials, or where new construction would be required to create a lactation room at a cost that is unfeasible.

The Bill is a nice example of a public health intervention that changes the environment to support a behaviour that benefits the health of both the infant, and the nursing mother.  President Trump signed it.  Who would have guessed?

And now for the hard question: Can you imagine anything similar happening in Australia, the clever country?

Click here for a quick summary of the benefits of breastfeeding: you might be surprised how significant and extensive they are.

It’s the kind of stuff the manufacturers of “toddler milk” (Nestle and all the rest) tend not to emphasise.

(By the way, for those interested in tracking US Congressional legislation that impacts global health, click here).

 

Why the media gets it wrong on obesity

“I’m not overweight”, writes columnist Katrina Grace Kelly in The Australian.  “I’m just the helpless pawn of a vicious corporate conspiracy”.

Amusing read, but it also illustrates why public health researchers are failing to cut-through with governments and the broader community on obesity.

“The ‘obesogenic environment’ is the culprit here, apparently”, Kelly writes, referring to a recently-released report from the Obesity Collective, and to recommendations from the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia.

“The creators of the obesogenic environment are government, society in general and the harbingers of all evil – corporations, specifically, companies in the food and beverage sector, now being referred to as Big Food.”

She adds: “We are fortunate to have researchers on the public payroll, so they can conduct studies to arrive at such previously unimaginable conclusions”.

 

It’s all personal responsibility, stupid

Kelly’s beliefs about obesity illustrate why the problem is so hard to tackle at a population level.

The dominant framing of obesity as purely a matter of personal responsibility seems obvious, intuitive.  No one is force feeding us, right?

But it has a downside: if you’re fat, look in the mirror, you only have yourself to blame.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of adults who are overweight or obese has increased from 56% in 1995, to 67% in 2017-18, with an additional 900,000 adults becoming overweight in the 3 years since the previous survey in 2014-15.

There is a troubling trend here, but for many people, it’s difficult to accept that the causes of the trend might be different from the causes of an individual’s obesity.

 

Personal policy, and public policy

If you are obese, having greater personal responsibility is an excellent suggestion – it’s an excellent “personal policy”.

But it turns out to be a rather silly and unproductive explanation for the trend towards population weight gain.

For one thing, personal responsibility is not a new idea; in fact, it’s a strategic failure, so urging people to have more of it is unlikely to reduce obesity rates in future.

Viewing obesity in terms of the failure of personal responsibility also means that the dramatic trend towards weight gain over the past couple of generations – affecting many millions of people in most countries of the world – is best explained in terms of an unprecedented, mass deterioration in self-control.

Who could have guessed?!

Framing obesity in terms of individual responsibility probably does little to help those who are obese, although it might make the rest of us feel smug.  It also deflects attention from both the causes of, and the solutions to, the problem at a population level.  And that’s what healthy public policy needs to be directed towards.

Are you interested in health and medical law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law, a Graduate Diploma in Health Law, and single unit enollment.  For more information, click here, or here.  For more information on what it’s like to study at the Law School, click here.

What becomes of a country that cannot protect its young?

 

March for our lives, Washington DC, 24 March 2018

 

It’s too early to say if the grassroots social movement initiated by students who survived the gun massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida will be successful in nudging America’s gun laws in the direction of rationality and evidence.

After killing 17 people with an AR-15 style semi-automatic weapon, and injuring 17 more, 19 year-old former student Nikolas Cruz left the school premises, blending in with the crowd and remaining free for an hour before arrested.

On March 24, students and gun control advocates took to the streets of Washington DC in a “March for Our Lives”.

They’re trying to start a movement.  You can join them.

“To the leaders, skeptics and cynics who told us to sit down and stay silent, wait your turn! Welcome to the revolution!” said student Cameron Kasky.

Barack Obama tweeted: “Michelle and I are so inspired by all the young people who made today’s marches happen. Keep at it. You’re leading us forward. Nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.”

In the thick of it, as usual, my friend Professor Lawrence Gostin from Georgetown University Law School, who leads the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.  You can read about the march on his twitter account here.

He writes: “From a long life’s experience on health and human rights I have found that no meaningful change happens without bottom up social mobilization.”

He’s right.  This is true of gun control, tobacco control, and much else in public health.

Is there constitutional space for rational, evidence-based gun control laws in the United States?

It’s sometimes assumed that the US Second Amendment, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, leaves little room for rational, evidence-based gun control policies and laws.

This is not so, argues Professor Gostin in a recent paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  For additional resources, click here, here, and here.

In fact, rational firearms laws are compatible with the Constitution and with recent caselaw, suggesting that the real problem is a political one.  Rational, evidence-based measures to reduce firearms deaths in the United States could include:

  • mandating a higher minimum purchasing age for firearms
  • prohibiting dangerous individuals from purchasing or owning firearms
  • requiring safe storage
  • banning weapons with especially hazardous properties such as military-style rapid-fire firearms and high capacity magazines, and
  • banning open carry of firearms (an emerging issue for college campuses, where academics receive advice about what to do in “active shooter” situations).

Young people exercising another of their constitutional rights, March for our lives, Washington DC, 24 March 2018.  (However, Rick Santorum suggests they would be better served taking CPR classes)

 

What makes bottom-up change happen?

This is a neglected but vitally important questions for public health lawyers.

Will the anger and conviction that fuels the “March for our lives” movement endure?  Will it prove capable of raising the resources that will be necessary to make a compelling case for change to the American people?

Public health advocates often focus on content: the technical content of the policies they advocate, the evidence, and the rational case for change.  And then nothing happens.

More than ever, advocates need to better understand the factors that catalyse change, the factors that make social movements successful, and enduring.

Jeremy Shiffman has written about why some global health issues attract attention while others languish: his scholarship is helpful in also analysing national public health issues.

For social constructionists like Shiffman, global health problems like HIV, polio, or non-communicable diseases do not have any inherent priority or significance.  The attention an issue receives, while not unrelated to epidemiological facts, is “always mediated by social interpretations”.

From a social constructionist perspective, the “core activity” of global health advocates is ideational: health advocates must advance truth claims about the problem and its solutions that resonate with the values and shared interpretations of political leaders and those who control resources.

On this view, global health (and the same could be said of national public health priorities) is a competitive – and brutal – process of portraying and communicating severity, neglect, tractability and benefit in ways that appeal to political leaders’ social values and concepts of reality”.

Yet increasingly, reality itself is no longer a shared experience.  Gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts might as well live in different universes.  Their sources of information are completely unrelated; the things they find persuasive utterly different.

Speaking in Sydney on a recent visit, Barack Obama said that “social and political structures had not yet worked out how to deal with rapidly changing communications technology, a world in which people no longer watched the same TV channels or read the same newspapers. The rapid pace of change was having a flow-on effect across the globe, and was likely to get faster still. Discourse was becoming increasingly fragmented, with people becoming hermetically sealed off from each other inside very different information universes.”

The triple cocktail of extreme individualism, neoliberalism, and populism have created a social landscape in which there is less and less shared ground when it comes to values and visions for a better life.

Speaking as a non-American, it seems to me that the scale of the challenge, for gun control advocates, is reflected in the reflexive tendency of the pro-gun lobby to castigate the very mention of rational gun laws, following [America’s latest semi-automatic gunfire massacre: insert details here] as exploitative – as politicizing a tragedy.

A couple of examples.  Jesse Hughes, whose band, Eagles of Death Metal, was performing at the Bataclan theatre in Paris on 13 November 2015 when terrorists stormed in and took hostages, eventually killing 89, went on an on-line rant, calling the Stoneman High School students “disgusting vile abusers of the dead”.

Another right-wing media type tweeted the following about David Hogg, one of the Florida students advocating for stricter gun laws: “I’ve been hanging out getting ready to ram a hot poker up David Hogg’s ass tomorrow.”

All because some students who survived a mass murder at their school dared express their opinion that government ought to introduce gun control laws to help make such rampages less frequent.

Like the tragedy of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the gun massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School reflects the failure of policy, the failure of politics and politicians, and ultimately, the potential failure of a society.

What becomes of a country that cannot – or will not – protect its young?

Authoritarian regimes, that fail the protect basic freedoms, or do so only partially, start to look a whole lot better.

That’s bad news for freedom, and bad news for America.

 

Professor Larry Gostin will be speaking at Sydney Law School on 19 July, as part of an evening event titled: ‘Public health and health leadership in the USA: what can Australia learn’.  Sydneyhealthlaw.com will advertise this event in due course.  Professor Gostin will be teaching the unit of study, Global Health Law on 17-20 July; for more information on this unit, click here.  For more information on Sydney Law School’s Master of Health Law, click here and here.

Upcoming events: The Food Governance Showcase

Food-Governance-Hand-berries

On Friday the 3rd of November, Sydney Health Law is co-hosting the Food Governance Showcase at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre.

The Showcase will present new research from University of Sydney researchers and affiliates, examining the role of law, regulation and policy in creating a healthy, equitable, and sustainable food system. The Showcase will feature presentations on a wide variety of topics, including food safety law in China, Australia’s Health Star Rating System, and taxes on unhealthy foods and micronutrients.

The Showcase will open with a panel event featuring three legal experts, who will speak on a specific area of law (including tax law, planning law and international trade law), and how it impacts on nutrition and diet-related health.

Later in the day, a speaker from NSW Health will discuss the Department’s new framework for healthy food and beverages in its health facilities.

Further information about the Showcase, including the program, is available here.

The event is free, but registration is essential.

Any questions about the Showcase can be directed to Belinda Reeve (the co-organiser): Belinda.reeve@sydney.edu.au

 

Enabling the angels of death?

Draft voluntary euthanasia legislation, called the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 (NSW) has been released for public comment.

Drafted by a cross-Parliamentary working group, it may be the closest contender yet for the legalisation of assistance-in-dying for people living in NSW who are suffering from a terminal disease.

A short summary of the Bill appears further below.

Australians have not had lawful access to assisted dying since 1997, when the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth) [introduced as a private member’s Bill by Kevin Andrews MP, with the assistance of the Howard government] overturned the Northern Territory’s brief, 8 month experiment with euthanasia – the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Relying on the plenary legislative power of the Commonwealth to make laws for the Territories, the Euthanasia Laws Act withdrew from the NT and ACT the power to make laws with respect to assisted dying.  The Act was a victory for conservative political forces in Australia.

Since that time, despite polls suggesting that most Australians favour legalising a right for those suffering a terminal illness to die with medical assistance, all the voluntary euthanasia Bills introduced into State Parliaments have failed.

There are various explanations for this.

The legalisation of assisted dying may suffer from the reality that although a majority of the population support it, those who oppose it are deeply committed opponents for whom the issue is a vote-changer.  This makes the passage of laws that might have majority support a net vote loser.

Another explanation is that Australians, or at least their elected representatives, are far less progressive than right-to-die advocates would like to believe.

Will the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 give legal cover to those “angels of death” who up to now have provided their assistance informally, in the “euthanasia underground”?

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 (NSW)

The Bill would authorise a 25 year-old, ordinarily present in NSW, to request their primary medical practitioner for assistance to end their life in circumstances where that person (the patient) has been informed by their primary medical practitioner that the patient is suffering from a terminal illness, and where the patient is experiencing severe pain, suffering or physical incapacity that is unacceptable to the patient (cl 4).

The request for assistance must be in writing (see below), and the patient may rescind their request at any time (cl 5).

Assistance may take the form of prescribing and preparing a (lethal) substance for self-administration by the patient, or may involve the direct administration of the substance to the patient when the patient is physically incapable of self-administering it (cl 3).

A medical practitioner may only provide assistance with substances identified in the Regulations as “authorised substances”, presumably because of their reliable euthanatic properties (cl 10).

The patient’s primary medical practitioner is not obliged to provide assistance (cl 6), and the patient may, in writing or by means of an audio-visual record, nominate a third party, who must be at least 18 years old, to provide the assistance (cl 7).

A number of requirements must be met before the assistance can be provided.

The patient must be examined by their primary medical practitioner, and by an independent, secondary medical practitioner who must be registered “in a specialty of the medical profession that is relevant to the patient’s diagnosis or treatment of the terminal illness from which the patient is suffering” (cl 14(3)(a)).  The specialist must not be “closely associated” with the primary medical practitioner, ie the former must not be a close relative, employee, or member of the same medical practice as the latter (cl 14(3)(b)).  In addition, the specialist must not be a close relative of the patient (cl 14(3)(c)).

Conflict of interest provisions also apply. A person (that is, any person) must not promise any financial benefit to the primary medical practitioner, and the primary medical practitioner must not accept any financial benefit in return for providing assistance to the patient, other than reasonable payment for medical services (cl 12).

It seems difficult for the primary medical practitioner to be a close relative of the patient, or the former would fail the conflict of interest provisions by virtue of receiving a financial benefit through inheritance (cl 11(a)).

The patient’s request for assistance must be confirmed by the patient after the primary medical practitioner has examined the patient and indicated the likely course of the patient’s illness, and treatment options, including palliative care, counselling and psychiatric support (cl 15).

Next, the patient must be examined by an independent psychiatrist or psychologist who must provide a written report to the primary medical practitioner and specialist which confirms that the patient is of sound mind and has made a free and voluntary decision (cl 16).

The primary medical practitioner must not provide assistance unless they have examined the patient and formed the medical opinion that the patient is suffering from a “terminal illness” (ie an illness that in reasonable medical judgment will cause death within 12 months) that is causing “severe pain, suffering or physical incapacity to an extent unacceptable to the patient” (cl 17).  The primary medical practitioner must also believe that there is no cure, and that the only treatment reasonably available to the patient is the relief of pain and suffering (ie palliative care).  The primary medical practitioner must also believe that the patient has considered the impact of the assisted death on the patient’s spouse or de-facto partner or family.  The specialist must also confirm these assessments in a written statement provided to the primary medical practitioner (cl 17).

A patient who requests assistance in dying must also fill out a request certificate.  The Bill envisages an initial request made by the patient, followed by a period of not less than 7 days, before the patient signs the request certificate (c. 18).

If the patient is physically unable to sign the certificate, the certificate may take the form of an audio-visual record of the patient reading the patient’s declaration in the certificate; however, the primary medical practitioner must be present during the signing and must also sign a declaration on the request certificate.  The specialist must also sign the certificate (cl 18).

A cooling off period applies after the patient requests assistance: this disentitles the primary medical practitioner from providing assistance for at least 48 hours after the request certificate was completed (cl 8).

The Bill also requires an interpreter to become involved if the patient is unable to communicate fluently, in any language, with the two medical practitioners and the psychiatrist or psychologist (cl 19).

The Bill provides a mechanism for close relatives to apply to the Supreme Court and for the Court to invalidate the request certificate if statutory requirements are not met.  Grounds for invalidating the certificate include a finding that the patient was not suffering from a terminal illness, or was not of sound mind at the time they made the initial request for assistance and signed the request certificate.  The Court may also inquire into whether or not the patient’s decision was made freely and voluntarily after due consideration, and whether or not the patient’s capacity was adversely affected by his or her state of mind (cl 21).

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, which includes its parens patriae jurisdiction, is not affected by the Bill (cl 23).

The Bill gives health care providers and any other person a right not to participate in providing the patient with assistance to end their life (cl 24).  Unlike Victoria’s abortion legislation, a medical practitioner or other person with a conscientious objection to assisted dying is not obliged to refer a patient to a medical practitioner whom they know has no such scruples, although they are required to transfer a copy of the patient’s medical records to a new medical practitioner (cl 24).

A “protected person” is not criminally or civilly liable (this includes liability in any disciplinary proceedings) for actions taken in good faith to participate in the provision of assistance to die in accordance with the Act.  This includes administering a lethal substance, selling or preparing such a substance, and being present when the assistance is given (cl 25).  A protected person means the primary medical practitioner or specialist, the psychiatrist or independent psychologist, a health care provider or nominee (cl 25).

The Bill could further confirm this protection by extending it to the person who fills a prescription or prepares or compounds the substance that is intended to be used to assist the patient to die.  The person who provides the substance may have no way of knowing whether the requirements of the Act have, in fact, been fulfilled.  The Bill is not clear about where the drugs used in the assisted dying procedure will be sourced.

Clause 25 does not refer specifically to administration or preparation of an “authorised” substance, although elsewhere the Bill requires only authorised substances to be used (cl 10).  Immunity does not extend to dealings with “unused substance” except for the purposes of destruction (cl 25(5)).

A well-worn debate?

Twenty years ago, moral opposition to the Northern Territory’s euthanasia legislation was spear-headed by the Catholic and Anglican churches, whose record on human rights has since been subjected to scrutiny by the  Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Despite this, the Bill is unlikely to escape the usual criticisms that are made of assisted dying legislation.  These include the criticism that vulnerable patients will simply engage in doctor shopping until they find medical practitioners willing to give them what they want.

Opponents argue that it would be better to improve the funding and technical capability of palliative care services, rather than authorising cheap alternatives to such care.

Advocates for assisted dying point out that if palliative care could successfully reduce suffering to levels acceptable to patients, without sedating them into permanent unconsciousness, there would be no continuing drive for euthanasia.

Opponents argue that legislation to deliver a right to die with assistance, while simultaneously protecting vulnerable people from potential abuse, is difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Opponents also worry about the slippery slope, an idea summarised by Robert Manne at the height of debate about the Northern Territory’s legislation:

For anyone who understands social processes the expansion of the circle of those who can be killed will come as no surprise. For once we agree to the principle of doctors performing voluntary euthanasia by what effort of societal will, on what rock of ethical principle, can we resist its extension to ever new categories of sufferers?  There is no such will: no such fixed and reliable principle…The slippery slope…involves a subtle transformation of ethical sensibility.  Over time we become blind to how we once thought [Robert Manne, “Life and death on the slippery slope” Quadrant, Vol 39, issue 7-8, July/Aug 1995, pp 2-3].

The debate goes round and round.

 

The fate of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill remains hard to predict.  Ultimately, however, the decision will lie with legislators – human beings voting on the basis of their conscience and sense of what is right and decent.  It is not a poll.

 

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School’s Graduate Diploma in Health Law, and Master of Health Law are open to both lawyers and non-lawyers.

Professor Cameron Stewart teaches “Death Law” within the Master of Health Law program.

Professor Roger Magnusson wrote Angels of Death: Exploring the Euthanasia Underground, published by Melbourne University Press in 2002.

The Callinan inquiry into Sydney’s lock-out laws

shutterstock_144406720

A few questions came to mind when I read that former High Court Justice Ian Callinan had been appointed to head the independent inquiry into amendments to NSW’s liquor licensing laws, including the controversial lock-out laws”.

Mr Callinan was a member of the High Court when it decided, by a 3:2 majority, that hoteliers owe no duty to use reasonable care to prevent patrons from causing harm to themselves as a result of excess drinking.  Despite the economic interest hoteliers have in encouraging patrons to drink, and to keep drinking.

The primacy of personal responsibility was clearly the over-riding value in the statement by Justice Callinan that:

Except for extraordinary cases, the law should not recognise a duty of care to protect persons from harm caused by intoxication following a deliberate and voluntary decision on their part to drink to excess [Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club [2004] HCA 29, at [121]].”

The lock-out laws that currently apply in the CBD and Kings Cross precincts of Sydney were neither an exercise in temperance by the NSW Government, nor a response to the fact that alcohol is responsible for 5% of Australia’s burden of disease (Australia’s Health 2016, p 59).

Rather, the lock-out laws were part of a package of amendments seeking to reduce the number of unprovoked alcohol-fuelled assaults by yobbos on Sydney streets.

For a short review of the “one-punch” reforms, see here.

The impact of the liquor licensing amendments on supermarkets and bottle shops was discussed here.

The death of Thomas Kelly, who was punched in the head during a night out in Kings Cross, was partly a catalyst for these changes.

In July, the Kelly family suffered a further loss with the death of another son, Ralph.

The injustice visited upon this family is heart-breaking, it is dizzying.

But it truthfully illustrates how alcohol-related harm spreads outwards – through families and beyond, like the ripples in a pond.

Much of that harm is externalised by the alcohol industry onto others.

What is the industry’s response?

Industry-funded “DrinkWise” public health messages/advertisements (can’t tell which) like this one, that build brand value for alcohol companies and associate beer brands with water sports.

Yep, that ought to work.

Watch out for the new “SmokeWise” e-cigarette advertisements – brought to you by Philip Morris….

 

Highlights from the Callinan report

In his report, Mr Callinan gave particular weight to the opinions and experience of police and the medical profession.  He said:

“The police and the medical profession, the latter of whom are financially and generally otherwise disinterested in the relevant issues, are strongly, adamantly, of the opinion that it is the Amendments in total and in combination that make them effective in reducing alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour in the [CBD and Kings Cross] Precincts”.

He concluded that the Precincts were “grossly overcrowded, violent, noisy, and in places, dirty, before the Amendments, but that after them, they were transformed into much safer, quieter and cleaner areas” (p 10).

Mr Callinan was dismissive of the assumption that the vibrancy of a city at night can only be measured by the amount of alcohol consumed or available.  However, he acknowledged that opportunities for live entertainers may have diminished, and that the amendments may have contributed to some closures of premises selling alcohol, and some reductions in employment opportunities:

“The Amendments have come at a cost which is not quantifiable but which should not be exaggerated to employment, live entertainment and the vibrancy of the Precincts” (p 11).

Mr Callinan did not accept that violence had simply been displaced to other areas.  In response to the usual suggestion that anti-social drinking should be addressed by “cultural change and education”, rather than regulation, he said: “Cultural attitudes are difficult and slow to change.  The legislature in the meantime has to deal with the situation as it exists” (p 6).

Mr Callinan pointed out that the lock-out laws had enabled more police to be deployed in detecting and preventing non-alcohol-related harm, rather than tying up resources (pp 8-9).

Mr Callinan stated that he regarded the 10 pm curfew as making “little or no contribution to violence and anti-social behaviour in the Precincts” (para 9.10), although he acknowledged it might contribute to domestic violence (para 9.11).

He recommended relaxing the hours of sale for takeaway alcohol at licensed premises to 11 pm, and home delivered alcohol until midnight (para 9.10).

Two of the more controversial liquor control measures included in Mr Callinan’s inquiry were the “lock out” and “last drinks” provision.

For a trial period of two years, Mr Callinan recommended a relaxation of the lock-out laws from 1.30 am to 2.00 pm, but only to enable patrons to enter those parts of premises offering live entertainment.  He recommended a further relaxation of the liquor sales cessation period, from 3.00 am to 3.30 am, but only in respect of patrons in the “live entertainment” parts of the premises.

The NSW Government has indicated it will respond to the Callinan report before the end of the year.

California raises the minimum purchase age for cigarettes and e-cigarettes

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Last week was a big week for those who think the law should have a role in helping to reduce the 6 million deaths caused each year by tobacco.

First, tobacco taxes

In 2013, the Rudd government announced a 12.5% increase in the tobacco excise to take effect over 4 years:  1 Dec 2013; 1 Sep 2014; 1 Sep 2015; 1 Sep 2016.

Scott Morrison’s 2016 budget will continue this increase for a further 4 years (2017-2020), taking the price of a pack of 25 cigarettes to around $41 in 2020.

These excise tax increases will be in addition to the usual, bi-annual indexation of excise in accordance with average weekly earnings.

As recognised by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which Australia has signed, tax and price measures are a powerful, cost-effective tool for reducing tobacco consumption, particularly among young people.

Secondly, more wins on tobacco plain packaging

The European Court of Justice has upheld the right of Member States of the European Union to pass plain tobacco packaging laws that exceed the requirements for the standardisation of tobacco packaging contained in the European tobacco products directive.

The Directive includes a requirement for mandatory health warnings, comprising text and colour photographs, covering 65% of the back and front of tobacco packages (Art. 10.1).

Article 24.2 of the Directive preserves the right of member states to introduce further requirements for the standardisation of tobacco packaging “where it is justified on grounds of public health, taking into account the high level of protection of human health achieved through this Directive”.

These further measures must be proportionate, and must not be a disguised form of trade restriction.

The ruling of the Court paves the way for the UK’s tobacco plain packaging legislation (the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 to become mandatory for all tobacco products on 21 May 2017.

Following Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), plain tobacco packaging has become an export industry, with Ireland also adopting legislation in 2015.

California raises the minimum purchase age for tobacco

But perhaps the most interesting development is the creeping advancement of higher tobacco purchase laws for tobacco within the United States.

On 4 May 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed 2 Bills into law that confirm California’s leadership in tobacco control.

Senate Bill No 7 prohibits the sale of tobacco products in California to persons younger than 21 years.

The Bill includes an anti-pre-emption provision giving freedom to local governments to raise the minimum purchasing age even higher.

With a republican-controlled Congress hostile to public health measures, it has fallen to local and city governments, and to States, to innovate and to protect the health of their populations.

California’s action follows the lead of Hawaii and over 125 local and city governments that have passed legislation to raise the minimum purchase age for tobacco to 21.  This trend is likely to continue, both in the United States, and possibly elsewhere.

The California Bill contains an exception for Military personnel in active duty who are aged over 18 but under 21 years.

This is not the first time U.S. legislatures have bent the rules to facilitate smoking by members of the US armed services.

California Senate Bill No. 5, also signed into law, expands the definition of the term “tobacco products” in the Business and Professions Code to include e-cigarettes, and requires retailers to pay a licence fee to sell e-cigarettes.

It requires all cartridges for e-cigarettes to be in child-resistant packaging;

It also extends the smoke-free controls applicable to cigarettes in California, to e-cigarettes – a regrettable omission in the Public Health (Tobacco) Amendment (E-cigarettes) Act 2015 (NSW).

The California Bill also prohibits selling or advertising or furnishing e-cigarettes to persons younger than 21 years.

Time to raise the minimum purchase age for tobacco in NSW?

Raising the minimum purchasing age for tobacco is a sensible next step towards a tobacco-free generation that is healthier and more productive.

Higher minimum purchasing age laws make sense, since few smokers begin smoking or become addicted to nicotine beyond the vulnerable mid to late teens and early twenties.

A 2013 study of smoking initiation rates in New Zealand confirmed that while initiation after age 24 is rare, the highest initiation rates occur among those aged 15-21 years. Over a four-year period, the rate of smoking initiation for those aged 15-17, 18-19, and 20-24 was 14.2%, 7.0%, and 3.1%, respectively.

An expert Committee of the Institute of Medicine concluded that raising the minimum purchasing age would substantially reduce smoking prevalence and smoking-related mortality, given the numerous life transitions young adults experience between 18 and 20 years.

It could also help to improve foetal, maternal and infant health, by reducing the numbers of young parents smoking.

The Tasmanian Government has released a 5-year strategic plan for health that includes raising the minimum legal smoking age to 21 or 25 as an option for consideration.

Such laws could help to reduce health inequalities.  For example, according to Tasmania’s Council of Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity, more than 33% of Tasmanian teenage pregnant women are smokers (2013 figures).

Raising the minimum purchase age for tobacco would not be costly to implement, although resources should be budgeted for its enforcement, and this includes close monitoring and evaluation of its net effects.

Think about it.  Will there be any parents, including smoking parents, who wish their child had been able to buy smokes on their 18th birthday?

Conversely, how many 30 year olds – facing the economic challenges of life, including breaking into the property market – will be thankful they missed the bullet of nicotine addiction and aren’t now making generous weekly donations to Australia’s tobacco giants?

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Graduate Diploma and a Masters degree in health law that is open to qualified applicants.  For further details, click here, and here.