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: 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.