Restricting access will do exactly what restricting access to any drug has ever done. It punishes those who are suffering a medical addiction, encourages a black market, takes money from legitimate businesses and gives that money and power to criminals.
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(93, 93, 93); font-family: Georgia, "ITC Century W01 Light"; font-size: 17px;">A smoker’s need for nicotine transcends tribe, county, level of education and the amount of money each one has in their wallet at that point of need; that is why you will find total strangers lighting one another’s cigarettes on the streets or at designated smoking points. They are not suspicious of a fellow smoker that suddenly stops before them in the street, hand outstretched, holding a cigarette.</span> </div>
At least 77 national governments now impose graphic health warnings—images of diseased lungs, cancerous mouths, and such—on cigarette packs and other tobacco packaging.The United States is the major holdout, but that may be changing.In2012,a federal district court struck down a 2011 regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that would have mandated graphic health warnings. Anti-tobacco groups are now suing the FDA to force it to try graphic warnings again.
Could the near future bring a branding ban for craft beers and graphic health warnings on Cadbury’s Dairy Milk? Don’t rule it out. Alcohol companies already face heavy restrictions in the way they advertise. In December Public Health England called for the extension of plain packaging rules to booze and the government is already pressing ahead with the ‘sugar tax’ on fizzy drinks, which will come into force next April.<br />
<a href="http://tctactics.org">TCTactics</a> aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it.<br />
The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science.
MANILA, Philippines – Smokers may soon be limited to the privacy of their homes for their fix as Cabinet officials announced the signing by President Rodrigo Duterte of an Executive Order banning smoking in all public places nationwide this week.
Pressure is growing for alcohol to follow tobacco and be subject to plain packaging regulations.
Will we look at the new evidence for long enough to at least consider whether we’ve gone too far? In the early 2000s, anti-smoking advocates seized on one study to fight for expanding smoking bans to bars and restaurants in jurisdictions across the country.<br />
<br />
On 22nd February 2017 Dr Neil McKeganey, director of the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow, summarised the results of the CSUR study ‘The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Confirmed Smokers’ which was funded by the smokers’ group Forest.
In withdrawing federal protection for transgendered students, the Trump administration paid tribute to our federalist system. “The president believes that this is a states’ rights issue,” said White House spokesman Sean Spicer, “We are a states’ rights party. The president in a lot of issues believes that these issues are states’ rights issues.”<br />
<br />
Yet, hours later, the administration had little use for federalism in announcing that it would “punish” states that legalized marijuana. According to Spicer, we should expect to see “greater enforcement” of federal marijuana laws, regardless of states’ marijuana laws.