fbpx

Month: October 2020

CANZUK treaty a potential economic vaccine to the Covid depression

David Clement writes that the potential CANZUK treaty would give Canada, NZ, Australia, and the UK the benefits of the EU’s common market, without the bureaucratic overreach that led to Brexit.

The toll of COVID-19 on the lives and livelihood of Canadians has been devastating. Canada’s economy has taken a huge hit, and our fiscal position is set to decline from bad to worse. To counter that, Canada needs a pro-growth strategy that boldly takes us in a new direction.

One policy that would help enable Canada’s growth and boost our nation’s morale is CANZUK. CANZUK is a proposed free movement and free trade deal that would unite Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. 

Specifically, the agreement would allow for free trade, free movement, and foreign policy coordination between the member states. In a nutshell, CANZUK represents all of the benefits of a European Union-style common market, without the negatives that drove Brexit. CANZUK would increase trade and movement through a common market, without an overreaching central government, multinational regulatory board, and the negative externalities that come from a common currency. 

Citizens of each of these nations would be able to make investments, cross borders, take up residence, study, and sell their products.

For economic growth, CANZUK would turbocharge the economy, and we know this from the European example. Prior to the creation of the EU common market in 1993, European free trade was estimated to increase GDP by 4.5-6.5 per cent. Luckily for Europeans, those projections fell short, with GDP growth from EU free trade increasing GDP growth by 8-9 per cent. And while the economy of CANZUK will be smaller than the economy of the EU, it isn’t a stretch to forecast similar GDP growth as a result of a CANZUK deal. Even at half or a quarter of that growth, CANZUK would be great for the Canadian economy. And, unlike in the EU, CANZUK doesn’t come with the regulatory barriers of a central government, like in Brussels. 

A CANZUK trading bloc wouldn’t just interconnect these four countries whose collective GDP is more than $7 trillion. A CANZUK deal would allow for these four countries to punch above their weight on the world stage, which is increasingly more important with the rise of China, and the growing desire to decouple relations with Beijing. 

Together, the CANZUK bloc could be more aggressive in their free trade push in Asia, specifically with target markets like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Together, CANZUK would allow for each country to recommit to free trade internationally, without further deepening ties with China and the Chinese Communist Party. In the post-COVID world of geoeconomic statecraft, CANZUK puts Canada on a more solid footing.

In regards to labour, CANZUK would provide immense benefits to Canadian employees, and Canadian employers, because it comes with a professional designation and licensing recognition that would connect more Canadians with opportunities around the world. 

As a result of CANZUK, Canadian professionals could freely take jobs in each of the other countries, and employers could attract talent from abroad. Take mining for example. If our mining sector was struggling, Canadian resource workers could take open positions in Australia’s large mining sector. Laid off Canadian oil and gas workers could take their experience to the UK’s resource sector in the North Sea. And of course, all of this could run the other way to the benefit of Canadian employers. 

On mobility, CANZUK would allow for hassle-free tourism between member states and would give retirees easy access to different destinations for their retirement. It would open up Canadian universities to students from abroad and would put member state universities within reach for Canadians. 

CANZUK would allow for better collaboration on foreign policy matters, providing Canada with a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance and complementing our existing agreements in NATO. Canada would continue to be a favorite nation on the world stage.

For those who aren’t familiar with CANZUK, the concept might sound far-fetched, but when over 13,000 citizens of the four countries were polled, respondents in each prospective member state overwhelmingly supported the idea of a free movement agreement. Kiwis at 83 per cent, Canadians at 76 per cent, Australians at 73 per cent, and the British at 68 per cent.

While it may be fashionable to use the pandemic as an opportunity to turn Canada inward, doing so would be poor economic policy. CANZUK gives us the opportunity to shift in the opposite direction, and recommit ourselves to a more global, and more interconnected, Canada. 

David Clement is a columnist with the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

States Ranked on Vapor Regulations

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) has published an index ranking each U.S. state on the consumer-friendliness of its vapor regulations.

Rankings are assigned based on a legislative actions, including restrictions, taxation, and online sales prohibitions.

According to the index, California is the “worst state for vaping.” New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are also among the least consumer-friendly states. Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Maryland each received “A” scores.

“The worst states … are far behind all the other states because of flavor bans, exorbitant taxation on vaping products, and restrictions on online sales,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC. “Our research indicates these states go above and beyond to deter adult smokers from switching to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” said Yaël Ossowski, who is also North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC.

“Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black-market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking. If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions.”

The report shows that 25 states allow flavored vaping products with no additional taxes and no shipping restrictions. Twenty states have previous flavor bans, some taxes and a few shipping restrictions. There are five states that have partial flavor bans, high taxes and shipping restrictions.

The center stated that the focus is on state regulation of vaping, “as it plays a big part in their availability to adult consumers who want to switch away from combustible tobacco.”

The weighted scoring system analyzes additional flavor restrictions, taxes and the ability to sell vaping products online. Regulations are assessed on stringency in addition to Food and Drug Administration regulations.

States that received between 0 and 10 points received an “F” grade, between 11 and 20 points is “C” and states with points between 21 and 30 received an “A” grade.

Originally published here.

В контрабанді ліків винні не тільки контрабандисти

В Україні, як і в багатьох інших європейських країнах, контрабанда лікарських засобів набрала нових обертів через COVID-19.

Міністерством охорони здоров’я було рекомендовано цілу низку ефективних препаратів, які допомагають полегшити перебіг хвороби, але оскільки багато засобів не є доступними в Україні, чорний ринок отримав чудову можливість підзаробити. 

Фальсифіковані та контрабандні ліки з найбільш небезпечних форм незаконної діяльності. Тут важливо розрізняти між ліками, які були сертифікованими за кордоном та нелегально ввозяться на територію України та підробками. Обидва типи є контрабандою.

Неправильно виготовлені препарати становлять особливу небезпеку для пацієнтів. Такі ліки можуть містити неправильну дозу діючого препарату або можуть мати зовсім інший компонентний склад, який може зробити препарат неефективним.

Усі види ліків можуть виготовлятися незаконно. Вони варіюються від звичайних знеболювальних препаратів до таких, які приймаються для схуднення чи ліків від онкологічних захворювань. Останні є дуже поширеними в Україні й часто є єдиним шансом для хворих протриматись довше, однак ризики для здоров’я є максимально великими.

Випадків контрабанди ліків є дуже багато, а таких, про які СБУ досі не відомо — ще більше. Так, наприклад, у липні було викрито міжнародне угруповання, яке займалося контрабандою і продажем лікарських засобів серцево-судинної, онкологічної невідомого походження. Ліки на загальну суму понад 3 млн грн передавались в Київ і Харків з території Росії та Західної Азії.

Проблема контрабанди лікарських засобів в Україні є старою і невирішеною більшою мірою через корупційні схеми, зарегульованість сфери охорони здоров’я, а також відсутність стимулу не вдаватись до кримінальної діяльності. Мисленнєвий процес в голові контрабандиста працює наступним чином: ними зважуються шанси успішного фінансового збагачення від продажу ліків і шанси загриміти у в’язницю. Якщо ймовірність збагачення більша, вони обирають цю опцію.

У країнах, де ефективно працює верховенство права, для боротьби з контрабандою принциповим є збільшення санкції за неї. В Україні, де в законі пише одне, а на практиці все по-іншому, треба більше зосередитись на виконанні  існуючих законів. Але для цього самим правоохоронним органам має стати не вигідно покривати контрабандистів. Виходить замкнуте коло корупції та різного роду схем, які доповнюють одна одну.

Щоправда, іншою важливою частиною пазлу є споживач. На кожен товар є покупець і якби на українському ринку не було попиту на незаконні ліки, які незаконно ввозяться, то відповідно не було б і резону купляти в контрабандистів. Середньостатистичний український споживач, в якого проблеми зі здоров’ям, хоче мати не тільки власне можливість придбати препарати, які йому допоможуть, але й зробити це за найменшою ціною. Коли так товари не можна знайти на легальному ринку, споживач йде на чорний ринок. Законні ліки мають бути не тільки максимально доступними в плані ціни, але їх має бути знайти та купити легше, ніж ті, що пропонуються контрабандистами.

Таким чином, ключовим компонентом боротьби з контрабандою ліків має бути лібералізація регулювання ринку лікарських засобів з гарантуванням простого, прозорого та мінімально часозатратного процесу реєстрації лікарських засобів в Україні.

Восени 2016 року набрала чинності спрощена процедура державної реєстрації лікарських засобів. За нею ліки, які вже зареєстровані у США, Швейцарії, Японії, Австралії, Канаді та ЄС, проходять експертизу в Державному Експертному Центрі МОЗ швидше. В середньому така процедура має тривати 7-10 днів, однак по факту вона займає набагато більше часу: в середньому десь рік. Враховуючи, що ми зараз проживаємо пандемію, яка досі залишається не до кінця зрозумілою і дуже непередбачуваною, рік — це ціла вічність. Ціна одного уколу, здатного врятувати життя, може злетіти й до 60 тис. грн. Крім контрабандистів, нам треба винити державу за таке абсолютно неприйнятне регулювання ринку лікарських засобів.

Відповідно до статті 3-ої Конституції України, людина, її життя і здоров’я, честь і гідність, недоторканність і безпека визнаються в Україні найвищою соціальною цінністю. Ринок незаконних ліків є прямим посяганням на наше життя та здоров’я, і чим довше уряд продовжує ігнорувати процедурну зарегульованість державної реєстрації ліків, а точніше відсутність контролю за дотриманням існуючих  законів, тим на більший ризик він наражає життя та здоров’я кожного українця.

Originally published here.

Quanto sono importanti gli aromi delle sigarette elettroniche?

Cosa succederebbe se i liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche con gusti differenti dal tabacco venissero proibiti? A rispondere a questa domanda pensa un rapporto denominato “Why vape flavors matter”, cioè “Perché gli aromi del vaping sono importanti”, che è stato da poco pubblicato dal Ccc, il Consumer Choice Center. Ebbene, secondo questo report proibire gli aromi all’interno dei liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche potrebbe innescare delle conseguenze negative a livello sociale. In particolare, due potrebbero essere gli effetti più probabili: da un lato i vapers potrebbero ricominciare a usare le sigarette tradizionali; dall’altro lato potrebbero affidarsi al mercato nero, il che sarebbe deleterio sia dal punto di vista legale che sul piano della salute.

Dove comprare gli aromi per le e-cig

Chi è alla ricerca di un aroma sigarette elettroniche oggi può fare affidamento sul catalogo di Vape in Italy, che mette a disposizione un ampio assortimento di gusti e una straordinaria varietà di marchi per andare incontro a ogni tipo di richiesta. Nelle schede tecniche, per altro, sono riportati i suggerimenti dei produttori, che permettono di godersi al massimo tutto il piacere del vaping. Gli aromi possono essere con o senza nicotina. Va ricordato, inoltre, che gli aromi delle sigarette elettroniche sono del tutto innocui per la salute: in effetti sono gli stessi che vengono adoperati in ambito alimentare, ma semplicemente sono più diluiti.

Il ruolo del vaping

Come mette in evidenza il report del Consumer Choice Center, il vaping merita di essere considerato una risorsa molto efficace a disposizione di chi ha intenzione di smettere di fumare, e in questo scenario un ruolo di primo piano è proprio quello svolto dagli aromi. Gli autori della ricerca hanno preso in esame le conseguenze di un eventuale divieto applicato ai liquidi: un tema molto attuale, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti.

La situazione negli Usa

Diversi Stati americani, infatti, hanno imposto dei divieti a proposito dei gusti nei liquidi: una decisione che è stata adottata sulla scia di ciò che è successo lo scorso anno, con un notevole incremento dei casi di patologie polmonari che è stato attribuito all’uso di cartucce con Thc illegali. Il governo Usa, con l’obiettivo di evitare la diffusione del vaping tra i più giovani, ha proibito per tutti i sistemi a cartuccia i liquidi che abbiano aromi diversi dal mentolo, dalla menta e dal tabacco. Ma la questione non è importante solo al di là dell’Oceano Atlantico: anche alle nostre latitudini ci sono Paesi che stanno puntando sulla strada proibizionista, se è vero che sia la Danimarca che i Paesi Bassi hanno reso nota l’intenzione di ridurre gli aromi all’interno dei liquidi per le sigarette elettroniche.

Cosa potrebbe succedere

Che cosa potrebbe accadere, dunque, nel caso in cui questa misura prendesse sempre più piede? In base al report menzionato in precedenza, una situazione del genere finirebbe per ridurre in misura consistente la reale utilità delle e-cig come mezzo di contenimento del danno, così che tante persone sarebbero indotte a ritornare a usare il tabacco combustibile per fumare. Come è facile capire, tutto questo rappresenterebbe un danno importante per la salute pubblica.

L’importanza degli aromi

Gli autori del rapporto hanno analizzato le ricerche condotte sul tema per comprendere quanto siano importanti gli aromi sul piano della cessazione. Ciò avviene dal momento che i fumatori desiderano un gusto gradevole, diverso da quello delle sigarette classiche. Varie ricerche scientifiche hanno messo in evidenza che gli adulti che usano le e-cig con gusti non tabaccosi smettono di fumare con più probabilità rispetto agli altri. Ecco perché gli autori del report sono convinti che se si vietassero gli aromi nei liquidi il numero di fumatori aumenterebbe: si avrebbero ben 15 milioni di fumatori in più tra l’Italia, la Polonia, la Danimarca, la Germania, i Paesi Bassi, la Spagna, la Francia, gli Stati Uniti e il Canada, vale a dire i Paesi che lo studio ha analizzato.

Originally published here.

David Clement and Yael Ossowski: Pa. can and should legalize cannabis, but do it right

If the General Assembly takes up Gov. Tom Wolf’s call, Pennsylvania could become the 12th state to legalize recreational cannabis. They should absolutely follow through. But it won’t end there.Tom Wolf wearing a suit and tie© Provided by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Legalizing cannabis is a no-brainer. Any negatives from legalization pale in comparison with the costs of prohibition. The failed war on drugs has criminalized otherwise peaceful citizens, torn minority communities apart and locked up far too many of our friends, family and neighbors. We know the cost.

But legalization in itself isn’t virtuous. State legislators must ensure that legislation does not end up causing even more problems. We need only look at other states, as well as our friendly neighbor to the north, to understand why smart cannabis legalization is necessary.

To begin, it has been suggested that Pennsylvania use its model of state retail of alcohol — namely through the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board — as a template for selling cannabis products. Though Harrisburg legislators are tempted, this would be an outright disaster.

The state should lean on the private sector and avoid treating cannabis like alcohol. It is well known that Pennsylvania’s alcohol retail market is one of the most archaic and anti-consumer markets in the country, one that artificially raises prices, causes massive inconvenience and pushes thousands of Pennsylvanians to buy alcohol out-of-state. We especially saw this during the pandemic. That’s hardly an example to emulate.

In states where it is legal, cannabis retail is offered by licensed private businesses rather than state monopolies. Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, now has only private retail storefronts and is proceeding to have a retail market where licenses are uncapped. That means there can be better competition, a more responsive market and better customer service than in a state store.

A licensed private retail market would be wise for Pennsylvanians, as it would allow the market to determine the number of stores available to consumers, rather than a bureaucracy in Harrisburg.

The legal market would be dynamic enough to respond to consumer demand, an important factor in prying consumers away from the illegal market. Stopping the black market would help raise the tax revenue Mr. Wolf intends to offer to minority communities and small businesses in need of assistance post-COVID-19.

Added to that, Pennsylvania should ensure that taxation and regulation of cannabis products are reasonable and fair.

Though Colorado and Washington have raised an impressive amount of revenue since legalization, California — with higher-than-average taxation, counties that don’t allow legal shops, and a myriad of red tape governing who can grow and sell — has one of the largest cannabis black markets in the country. Nearly 80% of cannabis consumed in the state remains in the illegal market, depriving the state treasury of much-needed revenue, but also locking out entrepreneurs who could otherwise operate successful dispensaries and contribute to their communities.

Another issue is which products will be legal to sell and use.

Canada, the largest industrialized country to legalize cannabis, mandated that only dried cannabis and oils be made legal on day one. That meant harm-reducing alternatives, such as beverages or edibles, were not available for sale until the next year. Giving the green light on product variety would benefit consumers and the retailers who are permitted to sell legal products, and would help the legal market compete against illegal alternatives.

If the General Assembly acts, there will be a lot of temptation to treat cannabis as nothing more than a cash crop for government coffers. But if legislators want to help benefit the minority communities who have been hurt by prohibition, future consumers and prospects for raising enough revenue to ease the pain caused by the pandemic, they would be wise to enact a smart cannabis policy.

David Clement and Yael Ossowski are North American affairs manager and deputy director, respectively, at the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group.


Originally published here.

Consumer advocacy group critical of California vaping regulations

FAIRFIELD — California is the “worst state for vaping.”

Typically, such a statement is followed by findings that show vaping use is high in the state, such as the report that more than 20% of high school students – more than 3 million – said they vaped in 2018, a rate twice as high as in 2017.

But the finding that California is the worst state for vaping this time comes from a report by the Consumer Choice Center, which ranks each state “based on its consumer-friendly regulatory approach to vaping products.”

“California is far behind all the other states because of its local flavor bans and its exorbitant taxation on vaping products,” David Clement, North American Affairs manager at the Consumer Choice Center, said in a statement released with the report Tuesday. He was co-author of the study. “Our research indicates California’s policies deter adult smokers from turning to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”

Korey Temple, 31, of Fairfield, smokes cigarettes, but has tried vaping, too. Temple agrees that the state’s regulations and taxes on smoking products are unfair.

“California spends all this money to get people to stop smoking, and when the numbers drop, the revenues drop, so they raise taxes, again,” Temple said.

“I think the state should just make tobacco illegal if they want people to stop, but they would have to find something else to tax to make up for the lost (revenues)” she said. “It’s just about money.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom in August signed into law a bill than bans flavored tobacco, with an exemption for hookah. Proponents argue the flavored products are just an attempt to get more people hooked on nicotine.

Health officials also disagree that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes, and point to some research that shows that people who vape are more likely to start smoking.

Solano County has a no-smoking policy for its buildings and its parks. It also offers a cessation program.

“Government surveys show the sleek devices – and multitude of copycat products – are far more popular among high school students than adults. While the legal age to buy e-cigarettes is 18 in most states – and 21 in California – the products are widely available online and not all sellers require proof of age. And vaping kits now come in the form of pens, flash drives, key fobs, even watches – making them both stylish and easy to disguise,” California Healthline stated.

California joined New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island with “F” grades, while Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Maryland each received “A” grades” for more consumer-friendly vaping regulations.

“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” Yael Ossowski, North American Affairs manager and deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, said in the statement.

“Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking,” Ossowski said. “If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions.”

The report states that 25 states allow flavored vaping products with no additional taxes and no shipping restrictions. Twenty states have previous flavor bans, some taxes and a few shipping restrictions. There are five states that have partial flavor bans, high taxes and shipping restrictions.

The center stated that the focus is on state regulation of vaping, “as it plays a big part in their availability to adult consumers who want to switch away from combustible tobacco.”

The weighted scoring system analyzes additional flavor restrictions, taxes and the ability to sell vaping products online. Regulations are assessed on stringency in addition to Food and Drug Administration regulations.

States that received between 0 and 10 points received an “F” grade, between 11 and 20 points is “C” and states with points between 21 and 30 received an “A” grade.

Look at the U.S. Vaping Index 2020 

To look at the vaping index, go to https://consumerchoicecenter.org/united-states-vaping-index/


Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN