BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
Stray Guns in Baghdad
For McCain, Another Problem FundraiserTOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
U.S. On the Sidelines As Nations Meet to Advance Global Tobacco Treaty
Email
Print
ShareJuly 03, 2007 7:58 PM
The U.S. is on the sidelines as public health officials from around the world meet in Bangkok this week to put into action a global treaty to curb death and disease caused by tobacco use. More than 190 countries unanimously adopted the treaty in 2003. Since then, 148 countries have moved to ratified it, but not the US. The World Health Organization estimates that the broad implementation of the treaty could save up to 200 million lives by 2050.
"The US is completely losing stature as a leader on tobacco control because of our lack of action on the global tobacco treaty," says Patty Lynn of Corporate Accountability International, a corporate watchdog group that has monitored the treaty's development.
The treaty commits ratifying countries to adopting measures to reduce tobacco use such as stronger warning labels, advertising restrictions in accordance with the each nation's laws and constitution, higher tobacco taxes, and protections against second-hand smoke.
When the US signed the treaty three years ago, officials praised it for encouraging other nations to adopt tobacco control standards similar to those in place in the US.
Public health advocates say the Bush administration has stalled the ratification process, and is putting the United States behind the rest of world. "The only message we are sending is that we care more about protecting American tobacco companies than we do in preventing deaths from the use of tobacco," says Matt Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, a leading U.S. anti-tobacco group.
In the United States, the treaty would require the regulation of the tobacco industry on the federal level, where it is now largely unregulated. A spokeswoman for Altria, the parent company of Phillip Morris USA, the largest US tobacco company, told ABC News that that the company supports the treaty's ratification, and federal regulation of tobacco. "We continue to fully support strong regulation of tobacco products in every country where our companies do business," according to a company statement.
Philip Morris' main US competitor, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, did not respond to requests for comment, though it has publicly stated concern that provisions restricting advertising and requiring federal regulation of tobacco would hurt its ability to compete with other cigarette makers.
Tobacco industry critics say that Philip Morris' position is motivated by profits, because it would solidify its number one position in the market.
A State Department spokesman told ABC News that the treaty "remains actively under consideration within the administration," and would not comment further on the status of the treaty. The White House did not respond to ABC News request for comment.
Myers says the administration has never offered a reason for why it has not moved to ratify the treaty. "Formal and informal requests to the White House have always received the same answer: 'we're studying it.' You could be reading disabled and have finished studying it by now," says Myers.
This post has been revised.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
July 3, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8)
Big Daddy Governments protecting people from harmful things they so love to do, which was the basic idea of Communism and the horrible dictatorships it created, has failed and collapsed spectacularly, ruining nations and killing millions of people in the process.
Eradicating the naive busybodies constantly trying to tell everybody else what to do is apparently a tougher problem. I suggest a treaty to allow people to think for themselves, and if they so choose, teach their kids not to do harm to themselves. But wait! This idea has already been discovered: it is called FREEDOM!
Posted by: Andy Jozan | Jul 4, 2007 9:20:00 AM
Government action when there are immoral acts are fine, but here these people are knowingly taking actions that adversely affect themselves, and themselves only. This is not something government should be involved in. The world's leaving us behind? Good. I wouldn't want to join the socialist club of forcing people to live healthily.
Posted by: Stoic Patriot | Jul 4, 2007 6:54:52 PM
I'm a smoker...being unsupervised and desperate to be "cool", I started my 33yr habit when I was 10. I wish we would move forward with the treaty, even tho' nobody is saying what that means. Other than the extreme tax hikes, which has to be helping "low-cost" cigarrette sales...rambling, sorry. Anyway, I believe smoking is mostly a mental habit. I have a mind of my own...yet I believe if smoking were more inconvenient, it would be harder and harder to justify. I feel real stupid paying $5 a pack. Which by the way is probably why my greedy gov. has only gone so far as to raise tax on their sales. Will someone enlighten me as to what else the treaty implements?
Maybe I'll quit out of defiance, and finally experience freedom from a life-long crutch. How is the treaty working in the other countries? Oh, and our gov. only protects us from harmful things they can't tax or won't recieve funding for backing. Just knowing somewhere down the line my habit probably paid for some fat fella's hooker, makes me wanna choke on my smoke! Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Donna | Jul 4, 2007 7:14:25 PM
Tobacco prohibition laws, extreme taxes, never-ending propaganda campaigns meant to demonize and persecute smokers, and wild, misleading junk science claims about second hand smoke are not about "health" at all, but instead are all about money, power, expanding government, and increasing the regulation of even the most personal aspects of how individuals choose to live. In other words, total social control. It's all a blatant disregard of personal freedoms, the rights of property and business owners, and an insult to scientific integrity. Ban tobacco enough, raise taxes beyond a certain point, and all that will be achieved is disrespect for the law, a thriving black market, and crime. I don't smoke much, but the nastier the antismokers get, the more tobacco looks to me like a symbol of liberty and defiance. It may take a generation or two, but in the long run the prudes and the puritans will lose. Getting rid of tobacco would be like getting rid of coffee or alcohol. Good luck.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2007 1:46:03 AM
First cigarettes were FDA approved and I recall commercials showing certain brands were 'doctor recommended' for good health.
Alot has changed since those days, but now the US wants to PUNISH the smokers instead of the PRODUCERS since they got as much from the manufacturers as they think they can. Now its time to punish the USER hu?
Sure looks like smokers got set up via the usual 'addiction' route big pharms use with meds like Oxycotin to me. Lie and say its healthy or non-addictive, then BANG new info, oh guess what its both harmful and addictive. Financial slaps to the makers, then daily financial punishment to the users while still keeping the product available to help relieve withdrawl symptoms in those they have now addicted.
Would seem a bit more fair if the gov would use the money they took from the manufacturers and invested that into whatever method is most effective for treating the addiction and harm caused by the product. As we all know though that money just evaporates into the pockets of criminal politicians so to justify tax hike after tax hike on the product the user wishes they didnt crave to begin with. WHAT A CROCK!
Posted by: Jennifer | Jul 5, 2007 4:28:43 PM
Well if smoking is so good and so fun and many want to do it, then, WHY the addictive substances added? I'm not for tax hikes so I suggest that those that smoke pay no taxes on the product and of course you pay for your own health insurance!
Posted by: richard g. root | Jul 8, 2007 1:52:29 PM
As a smoker Im offended by Fat people eating next to me! It makes me not want to eat. Also I dont want Fat teachers teaching my child.They are urging my kids to eat like pigs. And of course our Govt should all be healthy to look at.What other thing can we tax or outlaw in our society. I can sit here for hours writing down what offends me about people. I for one dont think The Govt "like the National Socialists" should control every aspect of your lifw.
Posted by: Ftec | Jul 10, 2007 12:02:23 PM
I too am becoming more and more angry at others telling me how to live. I'm not going to defend smoking, but rail against "big brother" telling us how to live our lifes. Especially when it comes from the goody two shoes who like to meddle with others lives. I am not supposed to smoke because it offends others. Well, their dog sitting next to me while I dine al fresco (and sometimes in stores, restaurants,public transportation, etc.) drooling all over my space is offensive. Somehow, I'm supposed to be in love with their bling-bling on a leash. As one person stated, I have decided to keep on smoking in defiance. They will deal with me on my own terms, not theirs.
Posted by: dino kane | Jul 10, 2007 7:04:07 PM
Post a comment
