frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
WHO FCTC
frank_davis4
frank_davis
I first heard about the prospect of the smoking ban early in November 2004 when Sir Charles George, head of the BMA and BHF, called on the government to introduce a comprehensive ban. A few weeks later,

On 16 November 2004 a Public Health white paper proposed a smoking ban in almost all public places in England. Smoking restrictions would be phased in, with a ban on smoking in NHS and government buildings by 2006, in enclosed public places by 2007, and pubs, bars and restaurants (except pubs not serving food) by the end of 2008

At the time I was completely unaware that, a few months earlier, on 16 June 2004, Britain became a signatory to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A few weeks later, on 16 November 2004, Britain ratified this binding treaty, which committed Britain to a variety of tobacco control measures, including price and tax measures to reduce the demand for tobacco, measures to protect against exposure to tobacco smoke, regulation of contents, packaging, labelling, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products, and education and training about tobacco.

Britain was by no means the only signatory. Most countries in the world signed up to it, as may be seen from the map below.

FCTC map
FCTC map
Green: countries that have signed and ratified. Green-speckled: countries which have acceded. Pink: countries which have signed but not ratified. Grey: countries which have neither signed nor ratified.
The foreword of this Orwellian document reads:

The WHO FCTC was developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic.

This is NewSpeak that twists the very meaning of words. For there can be no such thing as a tobacco "epidemic". Tobacco is a plant, not a disease.

I'd like to draw attention to one innocuous-seeming article in the Convention.

5.3. In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.

A further WHO publication (dug up by Rose) provides guidelines on article 5.3, which include the following Guiding Principle:

Principle 1: There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.

13. The tobacco industry produces and promotes a product that has been proven
scientifically to be addictive, to cause disease and death and to give rise to a variety of social ills, including increased poverty. Therefore, Parties should protect the formulation and implementation of public health policies for tobacco control from the tobacco industry to the greatest extent possible.

I'm not sure which scientific papers "proved" that tobacco is addictive. It's more often claimed about nicotine, one of the components of tobacco. Nor am I sure, after weeks of debate on this blog, whether tobacco causes disease and death. And I entirely fail to see how tobacco gives rise to poverty.

What does seem clear, however, is that this guiding principle could have tobacco crossed out and replaced with more or less anything else. For example, whisky, chocolate, butter. After all, in the case of whisky, people can drink themselves to death far more quickly than they can smoke themselves to death. And alcoholism has long been recognised as an addiction. And people can spend all their money on whisky, and impoverish themselves in the process.

But that's an unimportant aside. The guidelines also state that parties “need to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts and the need to be informed of activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control efforts”. and that “in setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”. And in point 11 they state:

The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.

What all this means is that the legislation cannot be allowed to be "subverted" or "interfered with" by not just the tobacco industry, but organisations or individuals who further the interests of the tobacco industry.

And "individuals" means me. Or anybody else who objects to smoking bans. Because obviously, while any lifting such bans would obviously further the interests of smokers, it would also further the interests of the tobacco companies whose products they consume.

As I understand it, what this means is that any representations made by anybody in opposition to any of the provisions of the Convention cannot be allowed to influence, or "subvert" or "interfere with" its provisions.

All protest must be ignored. The treaty requires it.

And perhaps this explains why the British government simply won't consider any relaxation of the ban. They are bound by treaty not to do so. Which was maybe why Nick Clegg said that any amendment of the ban was about as likely as bringing back the death penalty.

It may also explain why tobacco retailers were completely ignored when display bans were publicly discussed.

It's how things are done these days. Some minister obviously scuttled off to Geneva to sign the Convention, much in the way that Gordon Brown scurried to Lisbon to sign the new European Constitution, also known as the Lisbon Treaty. There's probably another equally binding agreement about climate change. And all of them discussed and agreed and signed and ratified in semi-secrecy. And none of the peoples to whom they apply consulted about any of it.

There are some chinks of light, though. The USA has not ratified the treaty, and so it is not bound by its provisions. Nor has Switzerland and the Czech republic. And Andorra and Liechtenstein and Monaco are not even signatories. And article 31 of the Convention allows withdrawal from it.

Perhaps the last word should be left to a Spanish blog a day or so back:

"Las leyes injustas simplemente han de ser infringidas. Una sociedad virtuosa a punta de pistola, solo es una sociedad de borregos y esclavos."

which means: "Unjust laws simply must be broken. A society made virtuous at the point of a gun is just a society of sheep and slaves."
Tags:

Frank,

The FCTC reflects long-held views by the WHO. This is a comment by George Godber (Chairman, Expert Committee on Smoking and Health, World Health Organization) in his opening address at the WHO-sponsored World Health Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975.

“Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

The [eugenics] view is that smoking is anti-social and a habit that nonsmokers should not have to endure. And no-one should be permitted to suggest otherwise.

Some other comments by George (a WHO rep) at the same conference. Bear in mind that these comments (which were summarized as policy) is 6 years before the first study on secondhand smoke – a severely flawed study conducted by another rabid, conference-attending antismoker, Hirayama (1981) – and 17 years before the later discredited EPA, 1992/3, i.e., this smoking-eradication policy was set well before the questionable idea of “secondhand smoke danger”:

“In 1969, the World Health Organization Regional Committee for Europe and the Americas had passed resolutions calling attention to the dangers of smoking and deciding that smoking would not be allowed during their meetings.”

“None of us can be really satisfied with what we find anywhere. Yet there has been progress sufficient to make one feel that THIS world conference will have an even clearer message for the world and will be able to endorse and amplify the views expressed at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last month.”

“I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

“First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deterioration of age.”

“Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

“…..described the way in which education against smoking was to be incorporated into the general programme of health education which is so well presented in the USSR.”

Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect….. There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.”

A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nub2aa00/pdf


Magnetic

The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while,

I can't help but think that, when the Book of Common Prayer was imposed on all churches in England in 1549, the new Protestant authorities were quite sure that "the Catholicism addicts would be petulant for a while," but would eventually "get used to it".

Frank

Eugenics was mainstream in the USA late-1800s to post-WWII. Antismoking figured highly. Eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) was financed/supported by mega-wealth, e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Kellogg. Organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, the American Lung Association, were Rockefeller creations during this eugenics mainstream. Eugenics was mainstream in Nazi Germany. Antismoking figured highly. Nazi eugenics was supported by the same American mega-wealth.

Post-WWII, the United Nations was formed. Rockefeller (the lineage has long been committed to eugenics) donated the land for the UN building in NY. Two major agencies of the UN – the World Health Organization and UNESCO – were formed. George Brock Chisholm, a Canadian Army MD (psychiatrist) and eugenicist, headed the World Health Organization; Julian Huxley, biologist/zoologist and a eugenicist, headed UNESCO. These eugenicists defined a eugenics foundation for these organizations.

The current antismoking crusade was set in motion by George Godber, a WHO representative, the World Health Organization, and the American Cancer Society. Godber depicts those that smoke as just addicts, dismissed as “persons of no consequence”. The superficiality (biological reductionism), contempt and “remediation” are standard eugenics-speak. A self-installed “elite” declares that it knows how the world functions (and how it should function) and there is no place for tobacco use in the eugenics-defined “utopia”.

In the last 50 years the particular agencies of the WHO and UNESCO have infiltrated most countries on earth with all manner of [eugenic] “strategies”, “programs”, and “initiatives”, primarily through Public Health. The medical establishment (including front groups such as cancer societies, heart foundations) has direct access to federal, state, and local governments worldwide. The UN is a monumental beast with tentacles everywhere. Its only goal is centralized control.

Julian Huxley
Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975), one of the outstanding biologists of the 20th century, was a Life Fellow of the Eugenics Society from 1925, its President 1959-62, and is the only person ever to have given two Galton Lectures, in 1936 and 1962. He was also, at various times, Professor of Zoology at King’s College, London, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and the first Director-General of UNESCO. Huxley also founded the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9912/julian_huxley.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9477
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/julian-huxleys-enviro-eugenics-agenda-exposed-on-tv-during-great-global-warming-swindle-debate/

Brock Chisholm
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/chisholm.htm

Magnetic

Eugenics is obsessed with the body (biological reductionism, materialism). It has two aspects:- a reproductive aspect (heredity, genetics) and a behavioral/environmental aspect (diet, exercise). Eugenics is antismoking and anti-alcohol. These are viewed as racial/body poisons. Ideas such as mind, soul, spirit, God, freedom, do not figure in the eugenics framework.

The public seems to be familiar with the reproductive (and reproductive sterilization) aspect of eugenics, but not the behavioral/environmental aspect. A greater understanding has been made even more difficult due to crypto-eugenics. Post-WWII, the eugenicists stopped using the “E”[eugenics] word given its horrific connotations from the Nazi experience. Eugenicists (and antismokers) rarely, if ever, acknowledge any wrongdoing. It’s part of the mental derangement. Eugenicists believed that the problem with Nazism was that Hitler went too far, rather than any fundamental problem with the eugenics framework. The intent was to proceed with eugenics in crypto-terms. With “heredity trees” shown-up as flawed, these were replaced by genetics/genetic engineering. Given that this pursuit was still in its infancy, the eugenics emphasis shifted to the behavioral/environmental branch of eugenics. But, again, it did not go by the name of “eugenics”. Post-WWII, it has gone by a variety of names, e.g., healthism, radical behaviorism, humanism, population control, environmentalism.

The overriding theme is that health is an entirely biological phenomenon: Only the physical state matters. Individuals are duty-bound to the State to be [physically] “healthy” in the national interest. This was an important aspect of Nazi eugenics. It is critical to note that eugenics is socialist and fascistic in ideo-political terms. The State is not a servant of the people, but the people are servants/slaves of the State.

Antismoking cannot be viewed in isolation. In this case, it is an over-arching eugenics framework that “legitimizes” antismoking. Smoking/smokers are considered as a “burden” to the State, an activity that must be eradicated. Rather than undergoing reproductive sterilization, through “denormalization”, smokers undergo social sterilization. The eugenics goal is to R-rate smoking, relegating the “vile, anti-social act” to the private domain where it cannot “corrupt” the “pure ones” and particularly the minors (i.e., The Children).

Medical practitioners are trained in the medical model (biological reductionism). Public Health courses are dominated by biological reductionism. Also taught is that these reductionists should be agents for change, i.e., social engineering. This is clearly a eugenics framework. Yet most within the Public Health infrastructure - "Health Professionals" - would not see themselves as eugenicists. Unfortunately, this is part of the great fraud. Those with this reductionist/social-engineering mindset dominate government health bureaucracies and Public Health generally the world over. These are not overly bright people; they are trained in a dangerously superficial framework and recognize no problem. It is this global eugenics infrastructure that is already well entrenched that poses one of the great dangers of the time. Troubling is that most – even in academia and the media – do not recognize, are blind to, the eugenics language/conduct.

Let as many know as possible that the cultic obsession with the body, with physical fitness, with antismoking, at the expense of all else, and where these are ideals that should be met by all IS EUGENICS. It is a destructive mentality. It is extraordinary that it is one-time relatively-free societies (e.g., the English-speaking west) that are leading the eugenics deterioration: It should be disturbing how one-time relatively-free societies are being transformed – through stealth – into socialist States.

Magnetic

Eugenics is obsessed with the body (biological reductionism, materialism). It has two aspects:- a reproductive aspect (heredity, genetics) and a behavioral/environmental aspect (diet, exercise). Eugenics is antismoking and anti-alcohol. These are viewed as racial/body poisons. Ideas such as mind, soul, spirit, God, freedom, do not figure in the eugenics framework.

In this respect, eugenic thinking is (or purports to be) 'modern scientific' thinking. It's closely tied to Darwinism and 'the survival of the fittest'. And to neo-Darwinism of the Richard Dawkins variety.

But, somehow or other, despite all its 'scientific' claims, it always strikes me as pseudoscientific - perhaps mostly because, despite its supposed reductionism and materialism, there's no physics in it.

Idle Theory, by contrast, rests upon a simple physical model of life, which is arguably even more reductionist and materialist than any eugenic notion of life. But Idle Theory, at the same time, has a very clear idea of freedom, and perhaps also also one of God (in the abstract sense of deus otiosus). Which is perhaps a bit paradoxical.

I've been wondering today whether the only way to kill off reductionist eugenic thinking is with an even more reductionist idea. An idea so reductionist as to incorporate everything excluded by most reductionism.

Physics is highly reductionist. But rather than diminishing the world, the reductionism of physics opens up entire new possibilities, entire new worlds (e.g. space travel). It restricts understanding in order to expand understanding. What might be termed 'vulgar' reductionism simply restricts understanding, and only serves to diminish the world and everything in it.

Frank

The Kessler-Koop Kommissiion

(Anonymous)
In 1997, then President Clinton assembled an Advisory Committee on The Tobacco Epidemic, headed by then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and then FDA head David Kessler, and peopled by every anti-smoking nut those two could dredge up.

I subtitled their subsequent report "The Final Solution to the Smoker Problem." It included recommendations for national indoor and outdoor smoking bans, bans in private homes with children and such chilling ideas as mandatory anti-tobacco "education"-- not only in schools and hospitals but in homes ("All aspects of society need reeducation") and fostered "research into subliminal messages in early childhood" and the establishment of "in patient nicotine dependence centers." Further, "political surveillance at all levels of government to expose tobacco campaign contributions, tobacco lobbying, and ethically compromised legislators."

That, just for openers.

Full report at: http://ash.org/report2.html

Though not (yet) having gone as far as this report recommended, nevertheless, with or without ratifying the Treaty, the US has generally followed the WHO's WTF recommendations.

from Ashtrayhead:-



'Tobacco is a plant, not a disease.'


Nailed it!!



Sad to say, though Switzerland is not a signatory, the government is acting like it is. We have a smoking ban here in Vaud canton.

There is no total smoking ban in canton Zurich and smokers are provided for. Sort of. In the airport one can easily find a ?hermetically sealed GLASS CAGE furnished with plastic seats and tables - which some of the staff enter wearing a surgical mask.
The anti-smoker scaremongering propaganda has it's effect on the gullible.

"Antismoking cannot be viewed in isolation. In this case, it is an over-arching eugenics framework that “legitimizes” antismoking. Smoking/smokers are considered as a “burden” to the State, an activity that must be eradicated. Rather than undergoing reproductive sterilization, through “denormalization”, smokers undergo social sterilization. The eugenics goal is to R-rate smoking, relegating the “vile, anti-social act” to the private domain where it cannot “corrupt” the “pure ones” and particularly the minors (i.e., The Children)."

I would have liked to provide several links with respect to the origin of this 'de-normalisation campaign' which I came across when looking for more detailed information on encountering rabid anti-smokers. The texts are no longer to be found. Curious.

Thanks for this Frank, I hadn't realised the reach of FCTC was quite so sweeping!

Thanks should go to Rose rather than me.

Frank

WHO ?

(Anonymous)
That will be the same WHO which banned the use of DDT as an insecticide in Africa condeming 100,000's to an agonising death from Malaria then.

http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/01/learning-about-framework-convention-on.html

I can't help wondering if at least some MPs don't yet know about all this.

Otherwise Mr Nuttall wouldn't have presented his Early Day Motion


David Nuttall MP calls for end to pub smoking ban

"Landlords should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking in their pubs, a Greater Manchester MP has said.

David Nuttall, the new Conservative MP for Bury North, wants to overturn the smoking ban by introducing a Commons Early Day Motion next week."

Mr Nuttall said the legislation was partly responsible for the closure of dozens of pubs in his constituency.

"It's not just smokers, everybody loses out," he said.

Mr Nuttall's bill would exempt pubs and social clubs from the ban, allowing landlords and licensees to have dedicated smoking lounges for drinkers complete with smoke filters."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11509805

I heard a rumour that the Labour Whips were out, hardly surprising under the circumstances.
Perhaps someone should inform Mr Nuttall why.

Rose

WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT - 1999

"The WHO European Partnership Project on Tobacco Dependence is being set up with the objective of reducing tobacco related death and disease among smokers. The Partnership Project, which is open to both private, non-commercial and public sector partners, will support implementation of the key strategic goals of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative.

The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health. The Project provides a model which can provide a basis for future partnerships with the private sector in other important health areas."
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html



A Framework Convention on Alcohol Control - 2007

"For alcohol-control measures to be taken more seriously by governments, an international treaty modelled on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is needed. One of WHO's greatest achievements, the FCTC aims to counter the increase in tobacco consumption by making it a legal requirement for countries to introduce certain tobacco-control strategies."

"From its initial inception, the FCTC took 10 years to become a reality. The road to an FCAC is likely to be similarly long. Next year's World Health Assembly provides a crucial opportunity for WHO and member states to make those first steps towards a global treaty to reduce alcohol-related harm."
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2961486-X/fulltext


APHA Approves Framework Convention on Alcohol Control
http://www.apha.org/membergroups/newsletters/sectionnewsletters/alcohol/winter07/alcoholcontrol.htm

WHO considers global war on alcohol abuse - 2008

"BILLIONS of people the world over drink alcohol to overcome shyness and animate their social lives - as people have done for millennia.
For most drinkers, alcohol is associated above all with relaxation and conviviality, and people forget about its darker side.

Yet doctors, governments and healthcare agencies are becoming so concerned about the effects of alcohol abuse that in January the executive board of the World Health Organization agreed a plan to develop a global strategy to combat the damage alcohol can do.

The harm drinkers are doing to themselves, such as liver and brain damage, is only part of the problem. The plan has been given extra momentum by a growing recognition of the number of people who, while not themselves drunk, suffer as a result of the reckless or aggressive behaviour of those who are."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826524.200-who-considers-global-war-on-alcohol-abuse.html

2010
"We recognise that there is an urgent need to take action to reduce alcohol-related harm and redress the excessively pro-alcohol social norms in the UK."

International cooperation on alcohol control

The UK Governments should:
• lobby for, and support the WHO in developing and implementing a legally binding international treaty on alcohol control in the form of a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control."
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/alcohol/alcoholbmaworking.jsp

Time to start laying down a cellar.

Rose

I did wonder why Anti tobacco kept mixing up the hospitality industry with the tobacco companies.

"Big tobacco knew it couldn't counter the ban arguments itself - so it financed others to do its dirty work instead.

Researchers writing in the June 2002 issue of the medical journal Tobacco Control reveal tobacco manufacturers gave donations to hospitality groups - which the tobacco industry describes as "our greatest potential ally" - as part of an "aggressive and effective worldwide campaign to recruit hospitality associations" in the USA and Europe.

Tobacco industry targets including groups dedicated to lobbying the European Commission.

The 2002 Tobacco Control paper concludes: "Through the myth of lost profits, the tobacco industry has fooled the hospitality industry into embracing expensive ventilation equipment, while in reality 100 per cent smoke-free laws have been shown to have no effect on business revenues, or even to improve them."
http://www.hazards.org/smoking/smokescreen.htm

The bans they describe are not bans at all, they are non-smoking areas, so naturally , there is no loss of business.


Perhaps someone should tell the publicans not to bother bashing their heads against the Government's brick wall any more.


Rose

How many tanks does the WHO have? Don't be defeatist. The Dutch will be smoking in pubs for the forseeable future. I agree with the Spanish blogger.

What I mean is, the usual avenues of discussion with government is closed to us,so the normal route of petitions and letters to MPs is a complete waste of time and a source of false hope.

The government should have at least had the decency to say so, but they probably were too embarassed to come clean.

It also explains the silence of the formerly crusading papers and the BBC.

Subject to official denial,at least now we know where we are.

Rose

what to do about it?

(Anonymous)
Then what do you suggest we do about it Rose??

Charles

Frankly Charles, I have no idea.

I'm still reeling at the thought that any British government could do this.

Though the last 13 years should have given me a clue.


Rose


In America that means the treaty OUTLAWED THE 1ST AMENDMENT,meaning the senate can never affirm the treaty as the treaty is unconstitutional in itself and stops america from
even considering it until those unconstitutional parts are removed.

But on another note,The WHO treaty also blackmailed signitory countries to sign on or lose world bank loans etc.....

I will have to dig that up,but its what they did!

Trying to find which weasel signed the thing for Britain and failing miserably -

It appears that George Bush signed the treaty in 2004 but didn't send it to the Senate.


2008
"The United States is a conspicuous absentee from the WHO’s war against smoking. The tobacco treaty is one of many instruments of international law that America helped to design, only to hold off from ratifying it because of stiff opposition on Capitol Hill.

For example, Richard Burr, a senator from North Carolina, calls the treaty a surrender of sovereignty which would punish the United States by forcing it to fund the lion’s share of a global anti-tobacco drive with no corresponding rise in influence.

Moreover, he says, the drafters of the treaty refused to listen to the “producers of tobacco”—a sure sign that their purpose was not “to bring a safer product to market” but to eliminate the production of tobacco altogether.

On the last point, at least, tobacco’s sternest foes might concur with the senator. However, some American legislators have taken a different view.
In 2005 a group of 11 senators wrote to George Bush urging him to send over the tobacco treaty for consideration; they noted that tobacco claims more than 400,000 American lives a year.

One of the signatories was a senator whose appealingly husky voice may owe something to his own weakness for the weed—Barack Obama."
http://www.economist.com/node/12678335


2003
In a last minute turnabout, the United States and Germany both said they would back a global anti-tobacco treaty—thus leaving no obstacle to its final adoption on 21 May at the World Health Organization's assembly."

"Germany said its constitution prevented it from introducing the comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship foreseen in the treaty.

But on Monday a German official in Geneva said that Berlin had decided not to challenge the agreement.

“We've agreed to support the treaty,” said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The European Union acts in unison, and the rest of the union had supported the treaty, but a challenge from just one country would have been enough to force the rest to oppose it, which in effect would have undermined the whole treaty."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC514032/


Rose

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
?

Log in

No account? Create an account