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: 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!