Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop Trade Protections for Big Tobacco (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  indoor smoking bans are fine and perfectly (0+ / 0-)

    lawful under trade rules.

    •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

      Depends on if a tobacco co. can find a trade hook to support a challenge, and then on the particular ruling by a trade appellate body.  In any case, to be completely explicit: Regulations like indoor smoking bans have contributed to a drop in smoking rates in the U.S> and other countries.  At the same time, tobacco co.s are ramping up sales and marketing elsewhere. A WTO panel did find against the U.S. ban on clove cigarettes. Companies and governments have filed challenges to plain packaging measures in Australia and Uruguay.
      .

      •  the clove ban was discriminatory. (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        ershaffer

        the ruling wasn't surprising in light of the Antigua gambling case.  like I said, the only way a complainant could win is if we only banned, say, smoking imported Canadian cigarettes indoors.

        frankly, I found your invocation of smoking bans to be disingenuous, and am only saying as much now because its perfectly clear you have no idea how they could be challenged.  

        •  focus on the real threat here (0+ / 0-)

          It is a common but wrong perception that trade charges are valid only if they directly and centrally involve action against a product identifiably "from" another country.  Current cases involving cigarette plain packaging, e.g., pose no such link.  The plain packaging rules apply uniformly to all products, regardless of origin.  The tobacco industry just filed charges from an office outside of the country in question.  

          The Antigua case is interesting for several reasons, including that it caused the US to remove gambling from sectors covered by trade agreements; and the original ban clearly had nothing to do with cross-border  trade (how do you characterize an industry that operates largely in the US, with a corporate office in the Caribbean?).  Looks like the US may go the same route on the cloves case - arrange a penalty, and keep the ban. Most other countries don't have the clout or treasure chest to go that route; they must think carefully to avoid being chilled from regulating at all.

          Regarding your close reading of my own text: tobacco industry lawyers do not need advice from Daily Kos on how to craft a trade charge.  I raised the smoking bans here to point out that they are among myriad popular regulations that have successfully reduced tobacco use and sales in the US, motivating the industry to look to trade charges as a tactic.  It is not their only route - they oppose regulations based on jurisdiction at the local and federal levels too. But trade charges are particularly insidious and irrelevant in the case of tobacco, and the US should acquiesce to growing international consensus that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is the right guiding document on these issues.

          •  You've been here 4 years, you should know better. (0+ / 0-)

            Your HR on johnny wurster's comment was doubly abusive:

            You're not supposed to HR people you're in the middle of an argument with;

            You're not supposed to HR people in your own diary.

            Please remove your HR.

            "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

            by Brecht on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:01:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site