SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes
NBC News and the Providence Journal report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a rule which will classify cigars, chewing tobacco and nicotine-containing fluid for electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Under the rule, sale of those items to people under 18 years of age is to be prohibited. The electronic parts of electronic cigarettes are not covered by the rule. According to NBC News, the rule "will be open for public comment before it becomes final." The FDA regulates cigarettes and loose tobacco for smoking.
[Continues...]
Courts in EU, India Uphold Anti-tobacco Laws
On 4 May the European Court of Justice turned down challenges to the 2014 revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. The law entails enlargement of warnings, prohibition of menthol cigarettes, prohibition of packages holding fewer than 20 cigarettes, restrictions on advertising of electronic cigarettes, and limits on the nicotine content of fluid for electronic cigarettes. It enables EU countries to require plain packaging. The court said the regulations were necessary to comply with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Also on 4 May, India's Supreme Court declined to further delay the implementation of a requirement for larger warning messages on cigarette packages. Several cigarette manufacturers including ITC Ltd. have shut down their factories. The chairman of ITC decried the requirement, saying:
Behind this is vested interests... where money is given into the hands of so-called NGOs, who are being influenced to kill local brands knowing fully well that smuggled cigarettes of some other industry are going to be used here.
Golden Tobacco in Gujarat has been following the rule, which had originally been intended to take effect 1 April 2016, "from April 2015 [sic]."
coverage:
- Irish Times (EU)
- Belfast Telegraph (EU)
- Live Mint (statement from ITC chairman)
- Voice of America (government-sponsored; covers India)
- Nikkei Asian Review (shut-downs in India)
- Reuters (India)
- Christian Science Monitor (both EU and India)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- Reuters (about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about EU)
- Quartz India (India, Golden Tobacco)
- The New York Times (EU, India)
further information:
- 2014 Tobacco Products Directive (PDF)
- press release from cigarette manufacturer JTI regarding EU ruling
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:30AM
Seriously, can anyone give me one reason why tobacco and any form of cigarettes should be legal? They serve no legitimate purpose, cause lung cancer and diseases like popcorn lung, and have no redeeming qualities. Why shouldn't they be banned completely?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:53AM
For the same reason soda, religion, nutrition-free fast food, holier-than-thou condescension, and alcohol are legal, I guess. I have no idea otherwise.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Informative) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:35AM
> ...reason soda... nutrition-free fast food...
At least those don't negatively affect people around you when you consume them, unlike most tobacco products.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:50AM
So your main problem is when people smoke around you, rather than with the products themselves. Well, it's not necessary for someone to smoke around others when they are using the products. You can't blame the products themselves just because the users do bad things.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:43AM
Yes I can. How are you supposed to consume cigarettes and the like away from other people, when they are so addictive and you cannot always control your location? Some workplaces are difficult to enter without walking past a group of smokers... but where are they supposed to go? Are you saying tobacco isn't the cause?
Along those lines, it's sad to see parents smoking in a car with their children in the back, but it happens all the time. What gives people the right to harm others like that? You would think there's nobody you would care for more than your own children, but apparently the cravings are just too great to control. Either that, or those people are just complete scum.
It would be great to have laws that said smoking around other people who are under age or have not provided consent was illegal, but even if that was always possible, how could you enforce it? Are family members going to call the cops because a parent was smoking at the dinner table?
So I believe tobacco products need to be phased out, and of course that's a very difficult challenge. The best way to do it is to make it socially unacceptable. More public locations need to be illegal to smoke in such as building entrances, train, tram and bus stops - which will help make smoking additions impractical for many. More advertising restrictions and warnings on the packaging and around where they are sold are needed, so the summary suggests we're moving in the right direction. There should also be heavy restrictions around advertising through sponsorships. I'd also like to see these items taxed so much that heavy addition to tobacco products are simply unaffordable to most, which could also help fund public hospitals. But that's just me.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:39AM
Yes I can.
Alright, you can; it's just foolish. It's the fault of the user in the end, not of the inanimate object which has no sentience whatsoever.
How are you supposed to consume cigarettes and the like away from other people, when they are so addictive and you cannot always control your location?
Not smoke, that's how. Oh, that's uncomfortable? Too bad. They're the ones who chose to get addicted to the garbage.
If the private property owners don't like smokers standing around and smoking, they can kick them off the property. If they tolerate them, then take up the issue with the property owners.
Are you saying tobacco isn't the cause?
Existing is also a cause. If people didn't exist, this wouldn't be a problem. Blame everything but the people actually doing the bad thing.
So I believe tobacco products need to be phased out, and of course that's a very difficult challenge.
Stopping X from being abused is difficult, so ban X entirely. I don't find that to be just. Our rights shouldn't vanish merely so the government's job is easier.
It's not just difficult, but even more difficult and disastrous than asking people not to smoke around others without their consent, not to mention a violation of people's rights. Haven't you learned anything from prohibition and the drug war, or is your only issue with them that they aren't/didn't work well? Because I am opposed to violating people's fundamental right to control their own bodies, which is a principled stance against prohibition that isn't based on how effective the bans are.
More advertising restrictions
At least in the US, I can't see how that could possibly exist in harmony with the first amendment. The current advertising restrictions have the same problem, even if the courts, which often do not obey the constitution, do not recognize it.
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:50PM
No, I'm not saying we should move towards making smoking illegal, just as I think Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. There are too many problems associated with doing that, and I don't feel I have the right to push for that either.
As I understand it (from the perspective of someone who has never been to the US), Cannabis is legal in some states of the US but there are very tight laws around it, often restricting where it can be smoked, how much you can possess at a time, and very little protection from people such as employers discriminating against you for using it. Simply put, it is allowed but very clearly socially unacceptable, and probably well enough controlled that it should help prevent addiction. If Tobacco ended up the same way in my country, I'd likely find that quite acceptable - so long as it was implemented along with sufficient child protection laws to come down hard on users subjecting children to passive smoking.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:08AM
Because instead of being a twit, you might have spent some time investigating other attempts at banning tobacco. Surprise- every single one failed.
Now, can you give me one reason why such a hopeless endeavor should be tried yet again?
Here's a clue- banning a substance is uniformly, across the board, with out a doubt, is a complete waste of resources, and more often than not compounds problems than simply leaving people to their own devises as over 40 years of the drug war can attest to.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:53AM
It's also a complete violation of people's fundamental right to control their own bodies, which is a much more important consideration than whether or not the prohibition would be successful. It's odd how so few seem to care about that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:08PM
It's also a complete violation of people's fundamental right to control their own bodies
True, smoking is a complete violation of my right to not have to inhale a carcinogenic substance which makes me cough violently for minutes afterwards. It should be banned in all public spaces, including sidewalks.
Oh wait, you're arguing against banning tobacco. All right then, carry on. I'll just keep convulsing every time I pass a smoker on the street and notice him too late to keep my breath for a minute.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:55PM
I'm glad I quit smoking years ago. I like to think I'm not as oblivious as that dip in the theater, but still I must have been incredibly inconsiderate to others. I bet my neighbors weren't too fond of me.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 08 2016, @10:50AM
True, smoking is a complete violation of my right to not have to inhale a carcinogenic substance which makes me cough violently for minutes afterwards.
That could only be true when and if that event takes place. The mere act of smoking does not necessitate that you breathe it into your lungs, similar to how merely possessing a knife does not mean you will go out and murder someone with it.
(Score: 1) by quintessence on Sunday May 08 2016, @12:15AM
While you are absolutely correct in some respects, there is very little that is absolute.
Especially in matters concerning public health, do you have the right to refuse vaccinations? Do you have the right to use antibiotics in a manner that leads to drug resistance? It is your body. Can you carry enough insurance to cover the ramifications of your actions if you start another plague?
Drug addiction is a supremely gray area, where on the one hand it is generally agreed that it should be treated as a health issue, yet at the same time denying the psychological aspect that goes with addiction and attending to someone going through withdrawal. Not to mention pound of prevention and all that.
Still, prohibition hasn't proven to be effective at all.
This should by no means be construed as justifying the smoking Nazis who have conniptions about smokers while driving off into the sunset. That's just pure hypocrisy posing as concern.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 08 2016, @10:56AM
Especially in matters concerning public health, do you have the right to refuse vaccinations? Do you have the right to use antibiotics in a manner that leads to drug resistance?
I think so, but I also think it's a terrible idea to do those things.
Drug addiction is a supremely gray area, where on the one hand it is generally agreed that it should be treated as a health issue, yet at the same time denying the psychological aspect that goes with addiction and attending to someone going through withdrawal. Not to mention pound of prevention and all that.
It is? Recreational drug use is even less of a gray area to me, because it doesn't involve bacteria becoming resistant to drugs or possibly decreasing herd immunity. At most, the effects on other people would have to be extremely indirect (i.e. drug use might cost taxpayers a bit of money), but that is easily tolerable in the name of freedom.
(Score: 1) by quintessence on Sunday May 08 2016, @11:42PM
It is?
Someone going through alcohol withdrawal to where you have to give them ativan to keep them from convulsing, while at the same time keeping them from drinking could be construed as an obvious violation of the person's right to keep drinking, and you are introducing a drug they didn't ask for into their body as a precaution. And then there is the treatment that follows. All standard medical practice, and all a gross violation of the person's rights by your measure.
It is supremely gray.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 09 2016, @02:13PM
All standard medical practice, and all a gross violation of the person's rights by your measure.
What? How is that a violation of a person's rights by my measure? Speak for yourself. If you're talking about forcing them, then yes, that is a violation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:09AM
Cigarettes do have redeeming qualities, as do cigars and such. The short increase in attention, the increase in blood pressure (the rush), the enjoyable social component, and yes, the taste, are reasons why some smoke.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:10AM
Because banning them completely would start another unnecessary Prohibition/Drug War. Tobacco use is falling among teens (idk about adults) as vaping picks up popularity. Vaping seems to have rewritten the rulebook in terms of social acceptability. Smoking has fallen out of favor in a big way, and vaping is much less obnoxious and pungent.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by CaTfiSh on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:31AM
Because it would allow the state to create yet another victimless crime in which to feed the for-profit prison system. Additionally, the greater the penalties, the stronger the blackmarket which would evolve.
Just get an old straight-grained Charatan and load a bowl of virginian with a touch of burley. Absolute heaven.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:22AM
Because in some countries the extra taxes grudgingly but willingly paid by the smokers help to subsidize non-smokers :).
For example in the UK the tobacco taxes per year is higher than the extra cost of smokers on the NHS. And while smokers die earlier, they tend to die AFTER their most productive years. In contrast the longer-lived non-smokers don't conveniently die after they get older and stop contributing as much, instead go on to use healthcare and other services for decades and a fair number eventually get stuff that is about as expensive to treat as what smokers get (various types of cancer, etc).
So if _adults_ are willing to pay extra for some enjoyment while harming mostly themselves why go out of your way to stop them? We should of course stop people from doing so before they are legally considered adults.
As for secondhand smoke, ban smoking in hospitals and similar places, then have extra licenses/fee/permits for places that want to allow smoking (maybe limited number per area/zone and put it up for bidding with minimum bid). Give people a choice. As a non-smoker I don't like the smell of most cigarette smoke (some pipe tobacco and vape scents are OK) but once in a while I might be OK with putting up with it if my smoking friends want to go some smoke-filled place. While it may be a health risk, I suspect it's not really greater than being driven around by some of my friends ;)...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:48AM
There is no documented instance of cigarettes or e-cigs causing popcorn lung.
They are stress relief, and a moderate cognitive enhancer.
Nicotine is one of the few (and by far the least expensive) substance that can relieve the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
Smoking is probably the worst possible way to use it, followed by American chewing tobacco (as opposed to snus).
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:29AM
Because it's none of your business, you fucking lung-nazi.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.