www.bewet.fora.pl

salelaioga

Li Qing (Youth Times): China really needs to increase its anti-tobacco efforts and strictly forbid tobacco advertising. However, I believe that a tobacco company, like any other individual or company, should enjoy the right and be encouraged to donate to charitable causes. Education in underdeveloped areas is in need of financial support from big companies.
Thus banning economically strong tobacco companies from building Hope primary schools will cause losses to local education. What we are concerned about is not tobacco companies donating schools, but the forms of their donations. The introduction of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control defines “tobacco sponsorship” as “any form of contribution to any event,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], activity or individual with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or use either directly or indirectly.”
As far as I understand,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], as long as the donation of a tobacco company does not directly or indirectly promote the use of tobacco products, we should not ban this charity. We should not enlarge the scope of “tobacco sponsorship” and cling to the prejudice that we cannot accept any donation from tobacco companies. Tobacco companies may have hoped to make the most of the sponsorship of education to improve their image and eventually promote their products, as tobacco control activists have pointed out. But this problem can be solved.
For example, we can welcome a tobacco company’s offer to build a school,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but the school should be named by local education authorities after discussing it thoroughly and soliciting opinions from the public. The company would not be allowed to name the school, let alone display offensive promotional boards on campus. In any case, a simple ban on tobacco sponsorship is the worst choice.
When I catch health secretary Andy Burnham on his way to yesterday’s cabinet meeting, he is full of talk about “going with the grain of human behaviour”, avoiding the invasion of people’s private space, and assuring smokers that if they want to carry on blitzing their lungs and arteries and pouring money into the pockets of both the tobacco companies and the Treasury, it’s their choice – though help is available, and more accessible than ever.
The essential point, he claims, is to go for policy that’s “heavily targeted on the new flow of smokers coming in, rather than restricting the liberties of smokers who are already there. If they look at where I was focusing my efforts yesterday, I hope they’ll see that.” “At times,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],” he tells me, “we’ve allowed ourselves to have this ‘nanny state’ tag thrown at us, by not being clear about the limits of where it’s right to go.
We’ve got to be more cautious and precise in our language.” He is,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], he tells me, instinctively opposed to outlawing smoking in cars (even with children on board). But, like a good New Labourite,cheap-marlborocigarettes.com, neither is he opposed to “having a debate”. When I ask him about the so-called “doorway ban”,newport cigarettes, by contrast he sounds altogether more certain. “A doorway is part of a building, essentially,” he says. “So where people are coming through, and there’s lots of smoke around the entrance, and it gets wafted into the building – well,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], that’s not an ideal situation, and it’s not consistent with the ban.”