Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Australia's highest court has dismissed a challenge by the tobacco giants to a law requiring all cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging. The government hailed the ruling as a "watershed moment" in the global fight to cut deaths from smoking.
The ruling – in a case closely watched by the UK and others considering similar legislation – means that from 1 December, companies will be barred from displaying their logos and brand designs on cigarette packets. All packs will be a drab olive colour, showing only the brand name and graphic health warnings.
The decision was welcomed by health groups, which said the laws, aimed at removing smoking's glamorous image, would discourage young people from taking up the habit. Australia's Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, said it should act as a "clarion call to every country grappling with the costs and harm of tobacco".
"This is a watershed moment for tobacco control around the world," said Ms Roxon, whose father, a smoker, died of cancer when she was 10. "The message to the rest of the world is big tobacco can be taken on and beaten." Companies had claimed the law was unconstitutional because it effectively extinguished their intellectual property rights.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments