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: 2) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:42PM
We need far less laws and far more personal responsibility.
When you advocate "banning" something, the only thing you're actually advocating is the creation of a black market for that item and all the joy that brings with it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:10PM
the only thing you're actually advocating is the creation of a black market
Too simplistic.
Nobody is advocating for a black market.
Perhaps your implication is that a black market is the ONLY effect of banning. That also is untrue.
Banned substances are indeed in shorter supply and harder to get and more expensive.
Some things probably need banning. (I suppose that is debatable, if only we could find a quicker way to teach responsibility). The problem is we waste our time and effort banning the wrong things without any science to back up the bans.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:27PM
wisdom and youth are generally exclusive. however, corporations are using disinformation and buying off both politicians and scientists, so getting good information about what is bad for you is extremely difficult. it's nearly impossible to buy any foods that aren't engineered to be more addictive. the only real option is to grow and make your own food which is impossible for most people in first world countries.
agreed. the question is whether or not the black market is more harmful than the open distribution of the product. poor nations are not well educated and have problems with corruption, so should we just allow companies to victimize a nation's entire population?
(Score: 2) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:09PM
Well the USA is hardly a 3rd world country... yet.
My opinion is that we need to do is get rid of this "everyone is a victim" narrative. When the hell did that even take hold?
Are you a victim? My guess is no. So there is no reason to believe that "they" are either. Being a victim is not a choice you get to make, it's a thing that happens to you without your consent and with someone else's ill intent. You can stop being a victim by choice though, but that takes courage enough to move on with life and way too many people like milking their victimhood for life or longer.
People have been smoking for 500 years now. There is no excuse for anyone to play the victim card on that one at this point.
Same with booze but we've been doing that for 10,000 years. No one can claim they didn't know the effects of drinking to excess.
I figure if you're old enough to make babies and work for a living, you're old enough to make your own choices without getting a "victim card" for every bad thing that happens in your life. This is what I mean by owning your own choices and the fallout from them.
Not owning yourself is just slipping on a collar and adding links to that chain of ignorance I keep going on about.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday May 11 2016, @03:48PM
your view is callus and myopic. you have completely ignored the fact that there is active psychological warfare by corporations to get people to use their product regardless of the cost. you obviously don't comprehend what addiction is likely because you have no experience with it. when corporations stop trying to making people do things they know will harm them, then we can address your issue with people.