Saturday, June 2, 2012

Smoking,Food,Display Bans and Apparently Size Does Matter

Not much besides links I'm afraid.
But considering I'm not a great writer that's probably a very good thing.

Nicotine Addiction~said to be gold ?

I have always had a soft spot for smokers. They are on the frontline of the battle between puritanical wowsers and "live for the moment" hedonists. My real concern is that once the smokers have been wiped out they'll come after us boozers. I used to enjoy sitting in the smoking section of aeroplanes because smokers tend to be drinkers so when I raised my hand for a refill it was one in a sea of raised hands.
The air hostesses would provide a top-up with an indulgent smile. I felt comfortable in the company of fellow hedonists. It also meant I was less likely to be pestered by a fellow passenger intent on sharing his love of the Lord or the latest Amway scheme. Smokers were too busy puffing and guzzling the free grog to bother anyone.

Supreme Court documents show the Zurich-based Nuance Group, the owner of Downtown Duty Free - which eventually pleaded guilty to breaking the law - said section 16 of the act did not apply on constitutional grounds. Section 16 states a person ''must not, in New South Wales … display a tobacco advertisement''.
The company argued the store was not in NSW for regulatory purposes and should therefore be regulated by the Commonwealth Tobacco Act. Its compliance officer believed that under that law tobacco could be displayed in a certain format and remain within the law. Photos taken by a health inspector, Michael Cassidy, show the store placed health warnings above the displays.

The Mayor believes that government has a duty to educate its citizens and even to "nudge" them in the right direction, as the fashionable behaviorial economists like to say. But the real lesson here is that a government that pays most health-care bills will soon be dictating the everyday behavior of its people. An America that needs government to protect its citizens from 20-ounce sodas has bigger problems than obesity.

Because the cases are all about tobacco. 
The way our court system works, the outcome of each of these cases has serious implications for food policy, so it’s critical that advocates concerned about obesity and advertising to children pay attention and maybe even get involved.
In a “common law” system like ours, the decision of one court on one topic area may influence—or even bind—a later court interpreting a similar legal provision. So a court interpreting the First Amendment in a cigarette marketing case could be deciding not just what goes for tobacco but what goes for any product that any company wants to advertise.

No comments:

Post a Comment