It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ECJ has concluded that the extensive standardisation of packaging, the future EU-wide prohibition on menthol cigarettes and the special rules for electronic cigarettes are lawful, and rejects objections raised by Poland and Romania, Philip Morris and Pillbox38 (maker of e-cigarettes) respectively.
The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) welcomes the ECJ judgement and calls for all EU and national institutions to respect the global Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to reduce the damage done by tobacco products worldwide, including 700,000 premature deaths each year in the EU.
E-cigarettes simulate smoking behaviour and can lead to further experimentation with other nicotine-containing products. Recent studies suggest that e-cigarettes are increasingly used by non-smokers and young people. For example a French study of 2013 revealed that the number of Parisian students experimenting with e-cigarettes has doubled in one year reaching 18%
The new rules will not apply to medicinal e-cigarettes (as set out in Directive 2001/83/EC) or medical devices (Directive 93/42/EEC), but will cover all consumer electronic cigarettes placed on the EU market.
Governments and society as a whole will benefit from improved public health, namely longer healthy lives. Health is a value in its own right, and a healthy population is a key factor for economic growth.
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.
I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.
Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.
None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.
"Their" reasoning however is
Health is a value in its own right,and a healthy population is a key factor for economic growth.
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.
I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.
Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.
None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.
originally posted by: Azureblue
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.
I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.
Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.
None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.
Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.
Then they can take that govt to their own private court where 3 lawyers selected from law firms who are also members or signatories to the deal will try the case and if the govt is found guilty of restraining trade they can order the govt to cease and desist or, fine them whatever they think is a good thing. The 'adjudicators' dont ever have to comment on their decision to anyone or anybody, there is no appeal.
We can see from this, that this deal effectively places corporations who are part of the TPP above sovereign states and we can also see that never again, will any govt ever pass any legislation without getting permission from the TPP first because they wont ever want to offend them. It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.
Is this the sort of world you would rather have?
And if we're going to start hiding things from people, can we please, pretty please, start with fat people at beaches. That both makes me lose my appetite and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.
Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.
It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.