Dharma Bhatta, Eric Crosbie, Stella Bialous and I just published “Tobacco control in Nepal during a time of government turmoil (1960-2006)” in Tobacco Control. This paper describes early tobacco control efforts in Nepal and shows how, even in exceptionally difficult political circumstances, it is possible to make progress on tobacco control. The Nepalese advocates also made creative use of litigation to advance their efforts.
What is already known on this subject
► The tobacco industry influences tobacco control policy in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) by taking advantage of low state capacity, unstable governments and corruption.
► Most litigation on tobacco control in LMICs has been initiated by the tobacco companies to block regulation.
What this paper adds
►In Nepal, political instability or conflict, direct investment on tobacco business by royal family members and the dictatorship had significant negative effects on tobacco control.
►Involvement in international activities, such as World No Tobacco Day, created opportunities for Nepalese tobacco control advocates to press government for change.
Netflix, the smokiest of the US streaming services, is going to develop more original programs around the world.
Having already bankrolled local programming in Germany, France and the UK, Netflix will now target other international territories including the Netherlands, Argentina and Colombia, Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Screen Daily reports.
After being grilled by Congressman Elijah Cummings (5 min, worth watching) on why they were promoting an initiative to overturn e-cigarette regulation in San Francisco, including the flavor ban upheld by 68% of SF voters, Juul is intensifying its PR campaign to promote the myth that its initiative would leave the flavor ban intact. On Friday July 26, the day after the hearing, a lawyer for Juul’s campaign wrote the City Attorney and put out a press release (reproduced below) claiming that the Jull initiative did not override the flavor ban for e-cigare
Juul’s CEO, their campaign to pass their initiative, and now lawyer Kevin Ryan (financial or other connections to Juul unknown) all claim that their initiative will not undo San Francisco’s ban on flavored e-cigarettes or make it harder to enforce San Francisco’s other laws on e-cigarettes.
In particular, Ryan says, “The ballot initiative does not undo the ban on sales of flavored e-cigarettes. Nowhere in the initiative is the flavor ban even referenced, so it is disheartening for its opponents to make this claim. The flavor ban remains intact, and the initiative would add further regulation to how vaping products are sold. Furthermore, there is no legal way to undo the flavor ban. The California Supreme Court ruled in Lopez vs. Sony Electronics Inc. that a new law cannot repeal a prior law unless the two laws are irreconcilable, which they are not.”
Ryan is correct that the flavor ban is not specifically referenced in Juul’s initiative. Rather, it would be overturned by this this obscure section, buried on page 7 of Juul’s initiative:
