Thailand is the latest to join the ranks of countries becoming increasingly stringent with anti-smoking policy. The goals of the new regulations approved by the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand on Thursday are in line with those of the Thailand Ministry of Health to reduce new smokers, old smokers in rural areas and threats of second-hand smoke.

Similar priorities in anti-smoking policies were exercised by the European Union (EU) Parliament earlier this year, when an anti-tobacco law was passed, requiring an increase from 30 percent to 65 percent in graphic labelling of cigarette packaging surface area by manufacturers.

The High Court of Australia also saw through a rigid enforcement of the ban of brand logos in favour of graphic warning images of smoking on cigarette packaging. 

The new Thai regulation requires the 85 percent of the packaging surface area of all cigarettes sold to be covered with graphic health warnings. There are 10 such variations of warning messages such as “smoking causes lung cancer” and “smoking kills children.” 

The increased potency of discretionary labelling is in response to the results of new Thai surveys showing more new adult as well as child smokers on a yearly basis. An estimated 50,000 Thai patients were treated or died from cigarette-related ailments, paid for by 52,200 baht – 0.5 percent of Thailand’s total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – in government expenditure over two years.

While a host of other nations have moved forward with demanding anti-smoking policy, there is still debate over the constitutionality of such laws in the United States (US). The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was initially in favour of graphic warning labels on cigarettes in March 2012, under certain clauses of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA).

Later that year, however, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against graphic labelling. It was deemed a vehement extension of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) statutory authority, as well as insidious subversion of the economic autonomy held by tobacco companies.