Bhutan Discussions to continue next week

kuenselonline » Blog Archive » Discussions to continue next week:

NC’s legislative committee chairperson, Kinley Tshering, said that, although they did not receive NA’s amended permissible quantity, they doubled the permissible quantity of tobacco to 400 cigarettes, 60 cigars and 300 grams of chewing tobacco. “We did it after deliberation.”

While the council has agreed to about 22 amendments proposed by the assembly, the council will deliberate on section 11, 51A and 51B on Monday.

Thimphu councillor Sangay Zam said that it’s important to balance the principle of proportionality of crime and penalty with spiritual and cultural interest.

In the afternoon, NC members queried the health minister on whether the amendment of rules will curb tobacco smuggling, and whether the amended law will apply retrospectively.

Haa councillor Tshering Dorji said curbing corruption should be more serious than tobacco.  He also said that, while some people serve prison terms for the crime, some still continue to smuggle in tobacco.

Lyonpo Zangley Dukpa said it was up to the judiciary to apply the law retrospectively.  He said that people are taking the Act seriously, as people were still apprehended in December.

I need to link to the Dragon Tales Blog as they cover the Bhutan tobacco prohibition thing better than I am,I just want everything I can find in one place.

I know people wonder why I still care,it isn't just an example of injustice or what could happen to me at some point in the future,I'm upset and scared because I'm Buddhist by choice.

I wasn't born into the region and I have no ties to the people from Bhutan,but I have a kinship of sorts and it makes this feel personal to me in more ways than one.

Smoking ban in Corbin is not fair to smokers

Smoking ban in Corbin is not fair to smokers » Letters » TheTimesTribune.com, Corbin, KY:

 After this law comes into effect, the smokers will no longer have the rights that non-smokers have been given. They will not be able to enjoy a cigarette while waiting on their food. Many restaurants already didn’t allow smoking, so was it truly necessary for government to enforce that all restaurants ban smoking to all citizens in Corbin?

Also, not only is this law not completely fair to smokers, it also might cause restaurants to lose money. Some smokers only go to restaurants that allow them to enjoy cigarettes throughout their meal; therefore, some smokers might decide not to eat in Corbin, which may cost the town and restaurants money.

In conclusion, I enjoy going to restaurants and not sitting in the smoking area. However, I also believe that everyone deserves to have the same equal rights, which in this ease isn’t equal. They do not get the choice to smoke in public anymore, but yet non-smokers lose no rights in this act by government. So really, is this new law that our city has passed truly lawful and fair to all citizens?

Just something I enjoyed reading.

I like reading things that make me feel good.

With the stuff I usually read gems like this are rare.

Smoke-free laws do not hurt business | The Star Press | thestarpress.com

Smoke-free laws do not hurt business | The Star Press | thestarpress.com:

It is a misconception that smoke-free laws hurt business in rural areas like Delaware County. Bullshit
In a recently published study in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, we looked at the economic impact of smoke-free laws in rural and urban communities in Kentucky and Ohio from 2001 to 2009. Like other economic studies, we found no evidence that either rural or urban counties experienced a loss of economic activity following smoke-free legislation whether at the local or state level.
Liars