 |
|
It should be interesting at this juncture to examine what other nations are up to regarding this controversial issue, particularly with tobacco companies wielding an enormous amount of cash clout. The most relevant country in this context obviously gets to be the USA with all the big-time tobacco companies and their advertisers, as also young customers, being US-based. Also the USA happens to be strong on health issues with the public and the legal system both being strong in their opinions. To read all about these issues the Net, as always, happens to be a good source. The bit of history at the top was got from the CNN site at www.cnn.com/US/9705/tobacco/history/index.html. This page has a chronology of the spread of tobacco in the West. Initially, it was believed that tobacco was good for health. Only in 1964 was it declared in a US Surgeon General’s report that it could cause cancer, though the awareness had started gaining a little earlier. One of the interesting lawsuits mentioned on this page is that of 1983, when Rose Cipollone, a smoker dying from lung cancer, filed a suit against Liggett Group, charging that the company failed to warn her about the dangers of its products. Cipollone, who eventually died, initially won a $400,000 judgment against the company, but that was later overturned. Now, however, a notion of "strict" liability has developed; this means a defendant can be found liable whether or not they are found negligent. If a product like tobacco causes harm, the company that produced it can be held responsible, even if it wasn’t aware of the potential danger. This and more you can read on the CNN page. Another page with greater detail of tobacco history and also the law and lawsuits regarding it is www.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_History.html. A well-researched list of relevant links can be found at www.cnn.com/US/9705/tobacco/relateds/index.html. Over the past decade we have seen that money involved in the business — both for the government and the industry — plays a major role in policies, including that on taxes. An analysis of a major WHO study on this can be read on the British Medical Journal site at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7257/358. The article is titled "The economics of global tobacco control." It finds that tax increases are the single most effective intervention to reduce demand for tobacco. Tax comprises about two thirds of retail price of cigarettes in most high-income countries but is less than half of the total price on an average in lower-income countries. Improvements in the information, bans on tobacco advertising, warning labels, and restrictions on smoking in public places are effective in reducing smoking. And last, but not the least, it finds that comprehensive tobacco control policies are unlikely to harm economies. A comprehensive site for anti-tobacco laws and other issues is run by the National (US) Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion — www.cdc.gov/tobacco/index.htm. It has a link to the damning Surgeon General’s Reports that are the last word in the USA on whether tobacco is bad or not. One of its links, www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/regulate.htm, gives an account of all anti-tobacco laws and movements in the USA that can be a guide to us when we set out to make our own laws against tobacco, for it is good to learn from other’s mistakes. Some of the US laws: 1965: Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act Required package warning label "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health" 1987: Public Law 100-202 banned smoking on domestic airline flights scheduled for two hours or less 1989: Public Law 101-164 bans smoking on domestic airline flights scheduled for six hours or less 1992: Synar Amendment to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act requires all states to adopt and enforce restrictions on tobacco sales and distribution to minors. 1973: Civil Aeronautics Board requires no-smoking sections on all commercial airline flights. 1996: On August 23, 1996, President Clinton announces the nation’s first comprehensive program to prevent children and adolescents from smoking cigarettes or using smokeless tobacco. With the August 1996 publication of a final rule on tobacco in the Federal Register, the Food and Drug Administration will regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents. Not all on the Net is against smoking. The die-hards can find refuge at http://forces.org/index.htm, a pro-smoking site that counters the anti-smoking logic, says media is biased — a large cancer study reveals no decrease in lung cancer in spite of substantial reduction of smoking, but the media is silent! Now while we are at it, some of us might even want to quit pumping black smoke into our pink lungs. Such people can go to www.tobaccofree.com. This site runs a campaign against tobacco and quote several studies, other than that it has clear quitting tips. This site teaches you to quit smoking in two phases: I: quitting; and II: staying smokefree. One of the tips it has is: After the urges to smoke have become more and more infrequent, overwhelming surprise attacks are sure to come, a few weeks and months into your new smoke-free life. When these nearly out-of-control urges come, deep breathe and just HOLD ON for 5 minutes — they would completely pass. Well, lets hope the new Indian
initiatives have some of the desired effects and not just go up in
smoke. |
|
 |
 |
