Tobacco: Some Facts

I agree with much of the editorial on the new rules of smoking , but I can not agree with some points. Editorial justification for the taking of further restrictions on smoking in public places sound, but uses the absurd reduction ad technique to make the law appears unworkable. He claims that 10 million are generally designed to prevent toxic cloud of smoke drifting in the building phalanx smokers gathered at the entrance, it would work only if smokers were forced to carry the tape. One could also say that there should be no alcohol limit for drivers, if all equipped with breathalyzer. It ignores common sense. Most people know that there is a limit to how many drinks they can have if they want to move. In addition, most people know the difference between 10 cm and 10 meters. The law recognizes the essential difference between compliance and blatant disrespect. In addition, some centers have already implemented a rule, setting pointers 10m away from the entrance, saying that there is no smoking at this point. The case for plain packaging is also strong. Its purpose is to protect young people from starting. Studies show that young people "as" the regular updates and to find a simple package "boring." The package as a status symbol is more important for young people than for adults. Plain packaging will also remove the ability of cigarette companies falsely suggest that some brands, such as "light" and "low-tar" are less harmful than regular cigarettes. Arguments that tobacco is a legal or that South African court will come to a different conclusion from those in Australia do not carry any weight. Slavery and apartheid were legal, but that does not make them right. Tobacco can be legal, but it is also deadly, and it should be adjusted depending on the amount of damage it does. The law does not confer immunity from regulation. Finally, there is little doubt; a South African court will uphold the constitutionality of the just-packaging rules. In June, rejecting the call to British American Tobacco SA ban on advertising of tobacco products, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein ruled: "There can be no doubt that the Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from the devastating effects of tobacco," and that "a ban on advertising and promotion of tobacco is reasonable and justified. " The Constitutional Court upheld the decision. Both the Australian and South African courts have come to the same conclusion: that the measures proposed for the regulation of tobacco sound, reasonable and based on evidence.