Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC

I usually cite a 2009 EU parliament vote in reference to the EU’s intentions on tobacco. If I’ve heard of this before, it certainly didn’t register until today. From Bill Gibson on Facebook:

eu_recommendation
And here is the recommendation in full, with its ominous title:

Prevention of smoking

This Recommendation is intended to encourage the Member States to improve tobacco control, with particular emphasis on stepping up the prevention of smoking among children and adolescents.

ACT

Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC of 2 December 2002 on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control [Official Journal L 22 of 25.1.2003].

SUMMARY

In accordance with Article 152 of the EC Treaty, the Community strives to ensure a high level of public health protection by complementing national policies. Smoking remains the biggest cause of avoidable death in Europe. The advertising, marketing and promotion strategies of the tobacco industry foster tobacco consumption and help to increase the mortality and morbidity associated with tobacco products. Some of these strategies are aimed more particularly at young people of school age. Studies have shown that 60 % of smokers have their first cigarette before the age of 13, and 90 % start smoking before the age of 18. The Recommendation accordingly focuses more closely on the prevention of smoking among children and adolescents.

The measures advocated are additional to the provisions of the Directive on tobacco products adopted in 2001, and those of the Directive on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products adopted in May 2003. Europe’s legislators have, moreover, ensured that these measures are consistent with the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO), which, at the time of adoption of the Recommendation, was still being negotiated.

Reducing the supply of tobacco products to children and adolescents

The Recommendation urges the Member States to adopt legislative and/or administrative measures designed to prevent the sale of tobacco products to children and adolescents, e.g. by:

requiring vendors of tobacco products to establish that purchasers are old enough, according to the age limit set by national law;

removing tobacco products from self-service displays;

restricting access to vending machines;

restricting distance sales, e.g. via the Internet;

prohibiting the sale of sweets and toys intended for children and manufactured with the intention that the product and/or packaging has the appearance of a tobacco product;

prohibiting the sale of cigarettes individually or in packets of fewer than 19 cigarettes.

Restricting the advertising and promotion of tobacco products

The Recommendation urges the Member States to adopt measures aimed at prohibiting the following forms of advertising and promotion:

the use of tobacco brand names on non-tobacco products or services;

the use of promotional items (ashtrays, lighters, parasols, etc.) and tobacco samples;

the use and communication of sales promotions, such as discounts, free gifts, premiums or opportunities to participate in promotional contests or games;

the use of billboards, posters and other indoor or outdoor advertising techniques (such as advertising on cigarette vending machines);

the use of advertising in cinemas.

Measures targeting manufacturers of tobacco products

The Member States are urged to take steps to require manufacturers of tobacco products to declare the expenditure they incur on advertising, marketing, sponsorship and promotional campaigns.

Protection against passive smoking

The Member States are urged to implement legislation providing suitable protection from the effects of passive smoking at workplaces, in enclosed public places, and on public transport. In particular, it is recommended that priority consideration be given to educational establishments, health-care facilities and places providing services to children.

Other measures

The Recommendation calls on the Member States to strengthen programmes aimed at both discouraging the initial use of tobacco products and overcoming tobacco addiction. They are urged also to adopt and implement appropriate measures for the pricing of tobacco products so as to discourage tobacco consumption.

Monitoring

Every two years, the Member States should inform the Commission of the action taken in response to the Recommendation. No later than one year after receipt of this information from the Member States, the Commission is to report on the implementation of the proposed measures and to consider the need for further action.

According to Wikipedia:

Recommendations are without legal force but are negotiated and voted on according to the appropriate procedure. Recommendations differ from regulations, directives and decisions, in that they are not binding for Member States. Though without legal force, they do have a political weight. The Recommendation is an instrument of indirect action aiming at preparation of legislation in Member States, differing from the Directive only by the absence of obligatory power.

However, the monitoring clause above would seem to indicate that member states were expected to act on the recommendation, and report what they had done to the Council.

And in fact, within a year, there began to be calls for a public smoking ban in the UK as well as in other EU member states.

In this manner a social culture was destroyed.

But with luck the EU itself won’t survive very much longer. Sun:

Far from standing united — one for all, and all for one — it is every country for itself.

This is the price we and the refugees are paying for the inexcusable incompetence of Europe’s so-called statesmen.

The immigration crisis has been brewing all year, with millions on the move across Africa, the Middle East and beyond. The EU sat on its hands and then panicked.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    The move toward global smoking prohibition is based on lies and manipulation. The EU bans need to be reversed, but this is a global movement so it needs to be stopped everywhere. The flooding article from New Zealand discusses the Australian anti-smoking movement. It also contains a poll on banning outdoor smoking areas. Article and poll found at http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/72286929/smokefree-areas-a-natural-step-towards-becoming-a-truly-smokefree-country

  2. slugbop007 says:

    It is time to fight back because they are out of control. Time to blitz their email servers and twitter accounts in the thousands, all at once. An organized plan of attack is vital. There are links aplenty, we just need some coordination. The Republican Party in the USA is damn good at it. Tobacco Control is damn good at it. Time for us to get good at it.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      What we need is professional hackers since the enemy has them for sure.

    • Barry Homan says:

      We won’t get any sort of coordination unless someone hits on some aspect of being a smoker that brings about a unification – a strong solidarity-movement of some sorts, that we can wave in people’s faces, outside of the quiet, contained confines of occasional blog-activities.

      The problem is, the very act of smoking a cigarette carries no special significance, no special statement of one’s self, it’s just too simple of an act – it’s just smoking a cigarette, and that’s all. There’s no big-wow to it. This has been our problem from early on. Smoking a cig is as humdrum as taking a walk out to the mailbox – how do we make it into something “bigger” than it is?

      If we could, we’d have something tangible to work with – a real playable card in our decks.

      • nisakiman says:

        Yes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there Barry. Despite TC’s efforts to the contrary, smoking persists in being very normal, so there really is no rallying point. And because TC have adopted a ‘salami slice’ approach to their pogrom, smokers have (for the most part, present company excepted) hardly noticed their liberties being stolen from them, so nowadays, smokers consider it both normal and acceptable to be ‘exiled to the outdoors’. The younger ones especially don’t even know that there is an alternative.

        As you say, we need a focal point that all smokers can relate to and which impinges negatively on them. Something which when they read about it, they naturally think “Yeah, fuckin’ right!”

        The exposure of the whole SHS scam would do it, but when you have the MSM in collusion with the liars of TC, it’s a nigh on impossible aspiration.

        • roobeedoo2 says:

          I’ve had somebody, who definitely does not want smoking back in pubs, agree with me that SHS is hokey science. But they don’t like the smell, see? This person will not see what a rotten premise to fuck people and businesses lives up, as not liking the smell of tobacco smoke, until they too have something dear to them taken away, subject to the same hokey science and state propaganda.

          Shouldn’t be long now ;)

      • roobeedoo2 says:

        We do actually, the Tobacco Template. We should make more of the use of that as it’s being implemented to attack normalcy everywhere… Plant food in a trace amount is ‘killing the earth’ so we must all now pay for carrier bags. Lorries soon won’t be able to turn left in London because cyclists are so full of their self worth for doing something noble and healthy they demand the right of way. Sugar, alcohol, what you do with the internet is all potential bad to someone, somewhere at sometime, so ‘action has to be taken’. What do we do? How does Anti Tobacco get what it wants… ah The Template…

        It started with a cig…

  3. slugbop007 says:

    https://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/staff/simon-capewell/
    He states that he discovered Public Health. The gravy train. Another failed epidemiologist.

  4. nisakiman says:

    Heh! Off topic, but a great example of how the pharmaceutical companies work:

    The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company’s decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%.

    Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.

    After Turing’s acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750.

    The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution, which have increased dramatically in recent years.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34320413

    “The pill costs about $1 to produce…” So marketing and distribution of a pill and the profit margin add up to $749? I wonder what the split between marketing and distribution and the margins is? My guess would be that the administrative costs per pill add up to maybe another dollar.

    Nice work if you can get it…

  5. Pingback: What Are ‘European Values’? | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s