Nothing to add.
Within a year of its implementation, close to 80 individuals were penalised, almost half the number having to serve a prison term. Series of online discussions ensued, some mainstream media, especially print, took a radical stand on the issue and had some groups submitting petitions to the government.Government returned with a proposal to amend about nine sections of the Act. The end result was a liberalised bill, with increased permissible import amount of tobacco and its products, and much more relaxed penalties.It was understood the new Act would not be applicable to those, who were already charged under the old one, but would stand to benefit those, whose cases were still under trial or pending.Coming to the rescue, however, was His Majesty granting royal pardon to 16 people, who were convicted under the previous Act.It was a big lesson learnt. For the lawmakers to consider a world of views before endorsing such laws, for implementing agencies to create enough awareness, and the public to learn and stay abreast of the laws affecting them.
Honesty. The implication that tobacco smoke poses a significant health risk to others outdoors is disingenuous. A university’s first mission centers around truthful discourse, and we should be teaching our students to differentiate between significant risks (such as smoking) and totally insignificant risks (such as secon hand smoke outdoors). We should be teaching our students to deconstruct misleading government and advocacy group statements, such as the claim that “these is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” By such criteria, there is no safe level of exposure to sunlight either.
Although such tricks could not be pulled off outside India – because cigarettes have to be sold in sealed packs in in Britain, the U.S. and other Western counties and vendors do not carry lighters– it does suggest that a verbal message could work better than written warnings or pictures.
That story reminded me of this.
Proctor makes no attempt to interview Feinstein (now deceased) or others who he criticizes, some of whom have tried to justify their actions elsewhere. But this is not surprising. Although Proctor, a superb historian, readily admits that science is inherently messy, it is the use of scientific data to obfuscate that he identifies as the most venal and successful strategy of the tobacco industry. There are times, he believes, that science is black and white.
So what of Proctor's challenge to his readers that they think outside the box? If an industry creates a product that is both dangerous and addictive and, ultimately, so unpleasurable that 85% of its customers want to quit, shouldn't society ban it? Maybe the tobacco industry's longtime claim that choosing to smoke is an "exercise in freedom" is a farce.
But outlawing a legal activity isn't as much of a deterrent as some might like to believe.
It just turns ordinary citizens into pariahs, "socially unacceptable" and condemned for their habit while others practice their own distasteful ― and potentially dangerous ― habits without the scorn of friends, family and even strangers.
Ever overhear a stranger ask an overweight person why his or her lunch choice is a supersized burger and fries? Probably not ― especially with so many people carrying concealed weapons these days. But criticizing a smoker, and doing so with marked disdain and self-righteousness? It's not the thing to do.
Drinking a lot of soft drinks may increase the risk for asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a new study suggests.Nearly 17,000 people aged 16 and older in South Australia were asked about their consumption of soft drinks such as Coke, flavored mineral water, lemonade, Powerade and Gatorade.More than 10 percent of the participants said they drank more than half a liter of soft drinks a day, according to the study, published in the February issue of the journal Respirology. That's a little more than two 8-ounce glasses of soft drinks.The researchers found that 13.3 percent of the participants with asthma and 15.6 percent of those with COPD consumed more than half a liter of soft drinks a day.
It wasn't enough to demonize tobacco usage and users, second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke have also become culprits. Although tobacco is still considered a legal substance, it has become regulated by the government and taxed beyond belief. One point that has been made in regards to the war on tobacco is that if we permit invasive intrusions and controls on one substance like tobacco, what will be next? So far “next” has been salt and trans-fats, and with this current administration there have been actions on school lunch menus in some areas with obesity being the big demon to conquer.
A poll of 2,000 people, conducted by One Poll on behalf of the Co-operative Pharmacy, found that one in 12 respondents now have a home smoking ban in place.
More than half (57 per cent) of smokers said they now keep their habit a secret, with 21 per cent hiding their smoking from their partner and 19.6 per cent from their children.
Edwards worries about FOREST's framing of tobacco control as an issue of freedom versus authoritarianism; he later suggests emphasizing "how tobacco control measures are pro-freedom by freeing smokers from an unwanted addiction, and by protecting our children from the risk of addiction and premature death." I can buy arguments about the conflicting freedoms of smokers and non-smokers in public spaces, but framing pure paternalism as being freedom-promoting is Orwellian.
At a minimum, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationcould remove fructose from its list of itemsGenerally Recognized as Safe. That would force food makers to seek an FDA review of products with added sugars.
This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.