fbpx

Consumer Goods/Lifestyle

Medical homegrowers are supplying the illicit market. Here’s why more policing isn’t the answer

The Consumer Choice Center’s David Clement explains how easing cannabis regulations could help personal growers enter the legal space

In less than two years, cannabis has gone from an illegal product to an essential service during a pandemic. But despite reports of increased sales as consumers stockpile for COVID-19 lockdowns, Canada’s cannabis market is struggling.

We kicked off this year with declining stock prices for licensed cultviators,
stagnant sales and rumours of a pending insolvency crisis for many mediumsized companies. The current coronavirus crisis could make this trend worse as global markets plummet.

There are a lot of reasons why Canada’s cannabis industry stumbled out of
the gate. Poor retail access, specifically Ontario; over-regulation and high tax rates. And establishing brand awareness in a market that prevents even the most modest forms of advertising and branding is challenging.

But there’s an additional factor at play: The program for growing medical
cannabis for personal use is undermining the legal market and fueling the
illicit market. Far more cannabis is being grown than medical cannabis consumers require — and some of that cannabis is being sold on the illicit
market. I’d like to propose a few potential solutions.

Breaking down the numbers

As a result of several Supreme Court rulings, medical cannabis consumers
have the constitutional right to grow their own medicine and can apply to do so through Health Canada.

The latest figures show that there are 28,869 Canadians who have their determined by Health Canada. Medical consumers are generally authorized
to consume between five and 60 grams of cannabis per day.

We don’t have national data, but general trends can be extrapolated from
provincial data. Via an access to information request, the average permit holder in Manitoba is authorized to consume 18 g/day, which entitles them to grow 88 indoor plants per year.

Quebec’s data is nearly double that of Manitoba: A 30 g/day average entitles
a medical consumer to grow 146 indoor cannabis plants each year. If we take provincial figures and forecast them on a national scale, permit
holders are growing a staggering amount of cannabis. Each indoor plant can produce between 250-600 grams per harvest, of which there are usually
three per year. One outdoor plant, with only one harvest, can yield as much
as 1.8 kg/year. A conservative estimate? The average Manitoba permit
holder could grow up to 66,000 grams (or 66 kg) of cannabis annually.

Rather than trying to arrest their way out of the problem, the government should focus on transitioning permit holder growers into the legal market

Applying that math to all Canadian permit holders would mean that in 2019, they grew an estimated 1.9 million kilograms of cannabis — approximately 158,000 kg — per month. Compare that to the legal recreational industry’s output: In August of 2019, the total amount of all legal recreational cannabis available for sale was 61,000 kg. Medical permit growers in Canada could be growing 2.5 times more cannabis than is legally available for sale in the recreational market. If Quebec’s figures are more representative of the national average, these growers would be growing 4.5 times more cannabis than is legally available.

Permit holders are growing more than then they need for personal
consumption. At 18 grams per day, a permit holder would need 6,570 grams
annually, while being permitted to produce more than 66,000 grams a year.
So where does most of the excess cannabis end up? The illicit market: York
Region Police’s recent bust showed that criminal networks were abusing the Health Canada permit process. The same thing happened
recently in Alberta, where a biker gang bust showed that illicit cannabis was grown by a Health Canada permit holder.

Either organized crime is taking advantage of Health Canada’s process, or
permit holders are enticed to sell their excess cannabis to criminals so it can be resold. This is part of the reason why the legal recreational market hasn’t truly materialized.

Increased policing isn’t the answer

But the government shouldn’t target legitimate permit holders. Doing so
would violate their constitutional rights, and would be exceptionally cruel
given how marginalized this group has historically been. Rather than trying
to arrest their way out of the problem, the government should focus on
transitioning permit holder growers into the legal market. A first step for this transition would be to restructure the regulations for growing cannabis.

Right now, licensed producers (LPs) have to comply with nearly pharmagrade regulations. Instead, they should more closely resemble food grade production standards. This would give medical permit-holders a realistic shot at earning a micro-cultivator licence and entering the legal market. It would also benefit existing producers by reducing compliance costs.

There are a few onerous barriers permit holders have to jump over that could be eased to help transition them into the legal space: The security clearance process is one, but we could also be easing facility regulations, reducing licensing fees, reducing the batch test minimum of 100 g/batch, or fast tracking the licensing and renovation amendment timelines. This would clear a path for these growers to enter the legal market and incentivize them away from the illicit market.

To say Canada’s legalization process thus far has been messy would be an
understatement. At almost every turn the government has over-regulated
the legal market, which is what keeps the illicit market thriving. Easing these heavy-handed regulations could bring more growers into the legal sphere and make for a more consumer-friendly market all around.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Inside Sources Logo

War on Plastic Makes the Virus Worse

Despite the rapid spread of COVID-19, New York City is still waging its war on water bottles and plastic bags. Early last month NYC’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, signed an executive order banning the sale of water bottles at city facilities. On top of that, NYC moved to ban plastic bags at the end of February.

The first major flaw in continuing the war on plastic is that it undoubtedly makes the COVID-19 pandemic worse. For weeks, residents have been using these publicly owned facilities without the option of being able to purchase a water bottle, and have been shopping without the option of getting a plastic bag.

Both reusable bottles and reusable tote bags present a huge risk in terms of COVID-19 because eliminating them exponentially increases the number of source points for virus exposure. An exposed filling station at a community facility could rapidly spread the virus to hundreds, while it is already known that reusable bags carry significant risks for cross-contamination.

These bans are also misguided when we evaluate them in terms of environmental effect. First off, water bottles are 100 percent recyclable. All the city has to do to ensure that these bottles are disposed of properly is not wave the white flag and give up. It doesn’t make any sense to try to curb the sale of products that can be fully recycled, especially when the city has a recycling program in place.

In regards to plastic bags, conventional thinking suggests that banning plastic bags will result in people using reusable bags and that this reduction in plastic use will have a positive effect on the environment. Research from Denmark’s Ministry of the Environment actually challenged that conventional wisdom when it sought to compare the total effect of plastic bags to their reusable counterparts.

The Danish government found that alternatives to plastic bags came with significant negative environmental effects. For example, common paper bag replacements need to be reused 43 times to have the same total impact as a plastic bag. A conventional cotton bag alternative needs to be used more than 7,100 times to equal a plastic bag, while an organic cotton bag has to be reused more than 20,000 times.

We know from consumer usage patterns that the likelihood of paper or cotton alternatives being used in such a way is incredibly unlikely. These results were also confirmed with the United Kingdom’s own life-cycle assessment, which concluded that these alternatives have a significantly higher total effect on the environment.

On top of all that, these bans will ultimately do little to solve the serious problem of plastic waste in the world’s oceans and rivers. The United States as a whole contributes less than 1 percent of the world’s mismanaged plastic waste. Up to 95 percent of all plastic found in the world’s oceans comes from just 10 source rivers, which are all in the developing world.

In contrast, countries like Indonesia and the Philippines contribute 10.1 percent and 5.9 percent of the world’s mismanaged plastic. China, the world’s largest plastics polluter, accounts for 27.7 percent of the world’s mismanaged plastic.

Plastic bans might sound productive to stem plastic pollution, but the evidence doesn’t suggest that the United States is a significant contributor for mismanaged plastic, which means that a New York City ban will do little to actually reduce plastic pollution.

Good public policy should be measured on its outcomes. Banning water bottles and plastic bags makes COVID-19 exposure worse in the middle of a global pandemic, promotes alternatives that have serious negative environmental externalities, and does little to solve the issue of mismanaged plastic.

For the sake of everyone involved, Mayor de Blasio should end his war on plastics.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Embracing free trade during a pandemic

Whether we will be able to get back on track on globalisation and economic liberalisation will be one of the most important tests for the post-coronavirus world. While lockdowns introduced by some governments are hopefully not going to stay there indefinitely, the perception of the role of international cooperation is likely to undergo some substantial shifts in the long run. International trade as a key instrument of promoting peace and prosperity will be a first casualty.

The EU-Mercosur agreement and the UK government’s ambition to become a global champion of free trade have become some of the most recent exciting developments. Despite a popular belief that free trade has been in decline for a couple of years, the number of new interventions implemented each year globally has sharply dropped. On the other hand, It would, of course, be desirable to see more liberalising policies instead but sometimes the absence of damaging action is sufficiently good in itself.

The outbreak of COVID19 which has shattered the very roots of international cooperation also threatens this dynamic. One after another, countries have turned inwards to deal with the pandemic and shut themselves down from the rest of the world. Lockdowns are a timely reminder that in spite of globalisation – or even hyper globalisation in case of the EU – nation-states remain the driving force of global order. Where does this leave international trade?

International trade has lifted billions out of poverty and benefited consumers of all nations, races, and genders. More importantly, it has encouraged states to look beyond their borders to improve things at home through an increase in choice and lower prices as well as more export opportunities. By facilitating and sustaining integrated supply chains, the success of international trade made states mutually dependent. For better or worse, the concept of the all-producing nation-state was dissolved in international trading relationships.

Trade protectionism originated as an aspiration to achieve self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on foreign supplies. At the outset of trade interventionism, uncontrollable factors such as the possibility of crop failure in other countries were used to justify import restrictions and the subsidising of domestic agriculture. The inconsistency of such a worldview was that countries that promoted self-reliance were in no way immune to bad harvests themselves and hence had to turn to others in their hour of need. 

China is currently being affected by 6490 harmful trade interventions, the highest in the world. Ironically, the origin of COVID19 also comes from the city of Wuhan in China. President Trump – known for his extremely hostile attitude to trade with China – even called it the “Chinese virus”. It sounds like an excellent excuse to introduce more tariffs in the future, doesn’t it?

The idea of national self-sufficiency sounds great on paper but it is very hard to achieve now that we have progressed so far with globalisation. From iPhones to agriculture and vital drugs, we are dependent on other countries, and especially on China. 

Even in the EU, lockdowns and travel restrictions imposed on national levels have resulted in new border checks causing traffic jams and supply delays. “All our food is getting to the warehouses — with delays — but it’s getting there,” said Bart Vandewaetere, vice president for government relations at Nestlé. In the worst-case scenario, we would be left without food on our shelves. Hence why the first thing governments should do before imposing emergency measures is ensuring the unrestricted and smooth flow of goods. 

We will wake up to a totally different world once the pandemic is over. More countries will likely want to move the needle away from globalisation and mutual dependency to avoid the spread of new viruses in the future. Though trade cannot halt the pandemic, it can help us get through it by ensuring that essentials make it to us thus mitigating some of its consequences. At all times, we need more trade, not less.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

No crisis unused: Eurocare argues for a ban on alcohol sponsorship in sports

While the world is battling the Coronavirus crisis, the European Alcohol Policy Alliance (EUROCARE) is facing a different goliath: alcohol sponsorship… in sports? A head-scratcher of sorts, especially given that the sports industry will fall on hard times this year if COVID-19 drags on. With cancelled events and games, cutting the sports industry off from vital sponsorship income is cruel at best.

In the press release from EUROCARE, the group says:

“Millions of people – including children and young people – are exposed to alcohol sponsorship. The evidence is clear that alcohol marketing exposure is a cause of binge drinking and drinking onset among young people. It also influences their attitudes and increases their likelihood of developing problems with alcohol later in life.”

Naturally, these activists are not referring to specific evidence that points to this phenomenon. With children at a young age picking up smoking, including cannabis – both not advertised in any way – points to the conclusion that sponsorship is hardly the origin of substance abuse.

In fact, when we look at this problem we quickly figure out that it is not sponsorship in sports, or sponsorship altogether that is the problem for these groups, but alcohol in itself. They are the new prohibitionists, unable to halt until they have banned every last drop of fun. 

Ultimately, what sponsorship cannot be seen by children? Be it public advertisement in public transport or bus stops, or any TV channel or radio show: children can technically hear and see all advertising that adults have access to. The channels that are children-only already don’t feature these ads, and online portals such as YouTube allow for parental control that blocks all age-inappropriate pop-ups.

We should also stress that it should first and foremost be the obligations of parents to protect their children from harm, by educating them about appropriate and safe alcohol use. Delegating this responsibility to government agencies will culminate in an avalanche of bureaucracy that is not in the interest of consumer choice.

Banning ads in the name of protecting children is a backdoor to blatant bans on advertising for products altogether. Other vices are also at risk, as the press release also reveals:

“This research comes at a time when the place of gambling in sport has been called into question and we need to consider the propriety of linking any addictive and health-harming product with sport.”

The reality is this: consumers want products, and they want to enjoy vices such as alcohol. We should aim for responsible and educated consumers, as opposed to blatant patronising bans. Substance abuse is a real problem, yet we need to recognise that there are underlying problems that explain it, going beyond mere sponsorship. 

Whether or not alcohol is advertised has no impact on unemployment or any other personal hardship that leads to excesses in alcohol use. These problems need solving through different educational and social institutions, and most importantly through improved personal relationships. We as a society have responsibility to our friends and family, more than any governmental institution may proclaim to own.

Advertising plays an important role for consumers: it informs them about new and better products and allows for competition. Advertising is the extended arm of consumer choice, and ought to be protected.

COVID-19 and craft beer: Normally only 12 states allow delivery of all alcohol. Why is that?

COVID-19 has exposed many holes in America’s state alcohol laws. Maryland just suspended its shortsighted craft beer carryout purchase limits because it only legally allowed one case per customer. The likes of Colorado, California and even Texas are allowing bars and restaurants now to sell alcohol to-go, which is not normally legal, and now the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is allowing distilled spirits permittees to produce hand sanitizer. Let freedom ring.

But without the current COVID-19 crisis this would normally not happen. Do you know how many states normally allow alcohol delivery legally? According to Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), in a recent press release:

“Consumers can order thousands of household products and food from the internet, but prohibitions on shipping alcohol remain on the books. Instead of emergency laws allowing home delivery of alcohol for a short period of time, states should immediately move to make these laws permanent to increase consumer choice for every American. At present, 12 states allow for some method of delivery of all alcohol, and 31 states allow wine and beer to be purchased and shipped to consumers’ homes. Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Rhode Island, and Deleware currently bar alcohol deliveries to personal residences.

“Allowing for alcohol delivery will help consumers during the Covid-19 outbreak in the short term, but will also help boost economic activity and increase competition and options for consumers in the long term,” said Ossowski. “There are dozens of innovative apps and online services like Drizly and Thirstie that are beginning to offer alcohol delivery in real-time, but the legal status is uncertain.”

States should allow alcohol delivery and to-go purchases beyond this crisis

If you’re reading this, you’re probably sitting at home right now — just like millions of other Americans in the face of COVID-19. State alcohol restrictions are being temporarily lifted via emergency declarations issued by state legislators to help support restaurants and small businesses that will not normally be allowed to deliver alcohol to people’s homes or sell them to-go. Feels like now is a good time to make that permanent.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

When we’re back to normal: Free up spirits sales

Prince Edward Island made an international stir on Thursday by closing its liquor and cannabis stores on the grounds they were not providing essential services and therefore should be shuttered in the face of the pandemic. That may well have been the right decision. But it likely caused millions of people to reflect that, while binge-viewing their favourite streaming service or relaxing after a day of Monopoly with the kids, it would be more than nice to relax with a glass of their favourite beverage or ingestive. No one favours substance abuse. But responsible enjoyment of their relaxant of choice is something adults should be free to choose to do.

Except that in many places in Canada, governments have not made that choice very easy. Ontario historically has been such a place. But in the 2018 provincial election now-Premier Doug Ford made a commitment to expand retail access and consumer choice for the 11.6 million Ontarians who consume alcohol. So far, Ford’s main push has been to expand retail sales by allowing alcohol to be sold at convenience stores. When his government announced this change in May 2019, most long-suffering Ontario alcohol consumers rejoiced. Unfortunately, prospects for their liberation soon dimmed because of a legal battle with The Beer Store. For obvious reasons, the whole question of market structures for alcohol sales is on the far back burner. But eventually this political struggle will resume. Here’s how spirits could help break the logjam.

As a foreign-owned corporate entity with a near-monopoly on the sale of beer, The Beer Store is a powerful force in the province. After Ford’s announcement, it threatened the government with a $1-billion lawsuit for breach of contract if the “Master Framework Agreement” was terminated. That agreement prohibits Ontario from allowing increased beer retail beyond 450 approved grocery stores until after 2025.

Although pro-consumer organizations have urged the government to call The Beer Store’s bluff, arguing that its legal position is weaker than its PR suggests, the premier seems unwilling to proceed without first negotiating with The Beer Store. That’s a decidedly un-populist win for corporatism at the expense of Ontario consumers.

Yet the Ford government isn’t entirely handcuffed by the agreement Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals signed onto in 2015. If Ford wants to show his commitment to increasing consumer access in Ontario, but without ripping up the Master Framework Agreement, he should simply expand product variety at the 450 approved grocery stores provincewide. With the stroke of a pen, the province could allow approved grocery stores to sell spirits alongside the beer and wine they already sell. Nothing in the agreement prohibits this, and it would make an immediate impact for Ontario consumers.

Such a move would clearly demonstrate the Ford government’s commitment to greater choice for alcohol consumers and would let The Beer Store know the province is serious about liberalizing markets for alcohol.

Allowing spirits to be sold in grocery stores would also create a fairer marketplace for consumers, retailers and producers. As it currently stands, spirits can’t be sold in grocery stores. This obviously disadvantages both the consumers who prefer spirits, and the stores that would willingly sell these products. It also seriously disadvantages local Ontario distillers, as their products are prohibited from being sold alongside beer and wine. Frankly, it is silly that foreign-made wine and beer can be sold at grocery stores, but Ontario-made spirits, made with Ontario grains, can’t be.

Beyond expanding consumer choice and market equity, giving spirits the green light would help prepare the province for a full-scale rollout once convenience stores are brought into the retail market. Letting grocery stores sell spirits would pave the way for convenience stores to do the same, and that would be a significant boon to consumers who at the moment can only choose between a government monopoly or a government-protected corporate one.

For the moment, Doug Ford’s hands may be tied by past agreements and negotiations with The Beer Store. Luckily for lovers of spirits, there is an easy policy change that could expand access while avoiding a costly legal battle. For the sake of everyone who enjoys a cold drink in Ontario, let’s hope Ford follows through and values consumers over corporatism.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

countrepoints

Merci la science! Un guide d’auto-assistance pour le coronavirus

Comment répondre à nos besoins en période de confinement ? Voici un guide des innovations qui nous permettent de passer ce désagréable moment.

Les deux dernières semaines ont probablement été les moments les plus étranges de la plupart de nos vies. Peu d’entre nous ont connu une restriction aussi massive de leurs voyages et de leur vie sociale avant l’apparition du coronavirus. Même en tant que passionné d’aviation et grand voyageur, je n’ai même pas vu l’immobilisation au sol de flottes entières d’avions au lendemain du 11 septembre 2001.

Les réunions d’affaires, conférences ou événements sportifs semblent être suspendus pendant au moins les six à huit semaines à venir. Ce n’est probablement qu’une question de temps avant que la plupart des pays ne ferme les salles de sport et les pubs.

Ce sera un défi non seulement pour l’économie, mais aussi pour notre vie sociale. Il sera important de garder le moral et la santé mentale. Il s’avère que des conversations vidéo régulières, mais très informelles avec des amis et des collègues, autour d’un verre, peuvent beaucoup aider à soulager l’anxiété accumulée par l’hystérie médiatique et le sentiment de ne pas être maître de la situation, impuissant.

Alors que nous essayons tous de nous adapter à une nouvelle réalité pour les 6 à 10 prochaines semaines, il y a aussi des raisons pour lesquelles je suis très heureux que cette crise survienne en 2020 et non en 2000. Beaucoup d’innovations se sont produites dans ce nouveau millénaire dont nous devrions être extrêmement reconnaissants.

Avant tout, nous devrions bien sûr être reconnaissants envers toutes les infirmières et tous les médecins qui ont aidé les patients en première ligne de l’épidémie. Ce seront des mois difficiles pour tous les professionnels de la santé et ils devraient recevoir tout le soutien nécessaire.

Et avant de nous plonger dans l’innovation médicale et la recherche d’un vaccin, regardons qui d’autre nous aide à prendre de la distance sociale, à nous isoler et à aplatir la courbe.

BESOIN DE TRAVAILLER ?

Les outils de travail à distance tels que Zoom, Asana ou les outils de Google ont déjà révolutionné le monde du travail. La plupart des réunions peuvent être converties en appel vidéo.

Ainsi, l’économie du savoir ou les emplois de défense des droits, comme ceux de mon organisation, peuvent au moins continuer à être productifs. Mais il est évident qu’il y a aussi la vie au-delà du travail et qu’il faut s’en occuper, y compris la garde des enfants.

BESOIN DE NOURRITURE ?

Grâce à des services de livraison de produits alimentaires tels qu’AmazonFresh et Ocado, j’ai pu constituer une bonne quantité de réserves de conserves, de produits secs et de produits pour la salle de bains, sans même avoir à me battre pour les derniers produits dans certains supermarchés presque vides. Au cours des prochaines semaines, nous aurons des livraisons régulières de produits frais, vu que je ne me contenterai pas de pâtes tant que corona ne sera pas vaincu. 

Les services de livraison de nourriture permettent de travailler encore plus facilement à domicile, tout en créant de la valeur, et d’être nourri par Papa John’s, Nando’s ou notre restaurant indien local. Domino’s Pizza est allé encore plus loin et vient de m’envoyer un courriel annonçant « Contact Free Delivery » au Royaume-Uni et en Irlande (j’habite à Londres) :

« En introduisant la livraison sans contact, nous pensons que nous donnerons à nos clients la tranquillité d’esprit lorsqu’ils commandent un Domino’s, tout en protégeant nos livreurs.

Vous pouvez sélectionner une livraison sans contact lors du passage de votre commande sur notre application ou notre site web. Votre chauffeur vous appellera à son arrivée pour convenir de l’endroit où vous souhaitez que votre nourriture soit laissée. Une fois la commande passée à l’endroit convenu, le chauffeur se tiendra à au moins deux mètres de vous pendant que vous irez chercher votre commande. Pour que le service soit vraiment sans contact, toutes les commandes de livraison sans contact doivent être prépayées en ligne ou par téléphone ».

Après m’être occupé de toute la pizza et du papier toilette dont j’ai besoin dans un avenir proche, il est maintenant temps d’examiner quels seront les besoins en matière de divertissement.

BESOIN DE DIVERTISSEMENT ?

Netflix et Amazon arrivent directement dans ma vie et, comme l’a fait remarquer ma collègue Maria, « c’est un fléau avec le WiFi ». Il n’est donc pas nécessaire d’aller dans le magasin de location de vidéos qui a fermé ses portes, mais vous pouvez diffuser en continu toutes les saisons de Buffy, et si cela dure plus longtemps que prévu, même Angel, directement chez vous.

Ma salle de sport vient de m’envoyer un e-mail m’informant qu’ils avaient un cas de COVID-19 et qu’ils sont actuellement fermés pour un nettoyage en profondeur. C’est bien que Kelli et Daniel de Fitness Blender aient plus de 500 vidéos d’entraînement gratuites sur YouTube. Sortez vos tapis de yoga !

Mais Buffy et HIIT ne sont pas disponibles en quantité suffisante pour une journée. Heureusement, les jeux vidéo (auxquels je n’ai pas prêté attention depuis longtemps) sont maintenant surtout diffusés en streaming ou téléchargés. Mes amis des médias sociaux m’ont recommandé Red Dead Redemption 2, The Witcher 3 et Europa Universalis IV (probablement trop compliqué pour moi). Je pense donc que nous sommes tous prêts ici aussi !

BESOIN DE MÉDICAMENTS ?

Passons maintenant à l’une des plus grandes inventions de ces dernières décennies : les pharmacies en ligne ! Venant d’Allemagne et ayant travaillé dans le domaine de la politique de santé, je suis toujours perplexe quant à l’ampleur de la lutte contre les pharmacies en ligne et les ordonnances électroniques. En ces temps d’isolement et de distanciation sociale, ces deux mots sonnent comme de la musique à mes oreilles. 

J’ai pu commander et stocker toutes sortes de médicaments délivrés uniquement sur ordonnance, tels que des médicaments contre l’asthme, des inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons et des antibiotiques, sans même quitter mon appartement ; et tout cela LÉGALEMENT (avertissement : je souffre d’asthme) ! Il vous suffit de consulter un médecin en ligne ou de répondre à un quiz et de recevoir une ordonnance électronique.

C’est un soulagement énorme pour le système de santé, déjà mis à rude épreuve, car les patients n’inondent pas les cliniques juste pour demander des ordonnances et les pharmaciens peuvent se concentrer sur la production d’un plus grand nombre de désinfectants.

RÉJOUISSONS-NOUS DE CES INNOVATIONS

La plupart de ces services et entreprises mentionnés ci-dessus n’existaient même pas il y a vingt ans. Grâce à l’innovation et à la concurrence, les entrepreneurs ont mis au point ces nouvelles façons de servir les clients. C’est étonnant et, même si ce n’était peut-être qu’un simple gadget il y a quelques semaines, tout, de la vidéoconférence aux prescriptions électroniques, rend cette crise beaucoup plus gérable. Nous devrions nous en réjouir !

Il est évident qu’il existe des groupes vulnérables et que de nombreuses personnes souffriront lourdement du virus. C’est pourquoi nous avons besoin de plus d’innovation. Il y a déjà une course au premier vaccin et d’autres sociétés pharmaceutiques travaillent à la réorientation des antiviraux utilisés par exemple pour lutter contre le virus Ebola.

Certaines études suggèrent que certains médicaments contre le paludisme pourraient être utiles pour renforcer le système immunitaire des patients gravement malades atteints de coronaropathie. Il s’agit souvent de médicaments récemment découverts dont le développement nécessite beaucoup de temps et de capitaux. 

Nous devrions être reconnaissants pour l’innovation en médecine et admettre que ces percées ne sont possibles que grâce à des chercheurs enthousiastes et à l’appétit d’innovation risqué du secteur privé.

C’est pourquoi, à l’Agence pour le choix du consommateur (Consumer Choice Center), nous continuons à nous battre (depuis nos ordinateurs portables) pour le choix, l’innovation et l’élaboration de politiques pro-science. Nous en tirerons profit lors de la prochaine crise (un robot de garde d’enfants inclus) !

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

In times of Coronavirus: policy-makers won’t stop legislating your consumer choice away

Disclaimer: Independently of my arguments in this blog post, it remains very important that sanitise your hands regularly, avoid physical contact with other people, and reduce your social interactions to the necessary levels. Particularly avoid contact with elderly people, and those with underlying health conditions. Consult your local government health websites for more information, particularly on detecting symptoms. 

As the world is paralysed by the Coronavirus crisis, many people have altered schedules. Working from home, different commute, restrictions on crossing borders and severely impacted air travel: for a while, our lives will look very different. While healthcare workers and medical researchers are working around the clock to provide life-saving help and discover possible cures, our media attention is shifting away from our day-to-day worries to the well-being of our friends and family.

Meanwhile, policy-makers are not on a break. In the United States Senate, the re-authorisation of the Patriot Act was passed, giving warrantless collection of personal data an extension of 77 days. The French National Assembly is currently suspended, yet set to resume next week with a debate on nuclear deterrence, as President Macron has been criticised for not keeping his word on the reduction of nuclear weapons capabilities. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin changed the constitution on March 14, allowing him to run for yet another two terms. Just last week, the UK Parliament narrowly voted down an amendment that would have banned the Chinese telecommunications operator Huawei, under considerable flack for not guaranteeing consumer privacy, from engaging in the UK market. 

What we’re also experiencing is a number of media stories on harm-reduction tools such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products being dangerous in times of the virus, leading the way to further restrictions from governments. As consumers are paying attention to their own health and that of their families, authorities have an easier time passing otherwise unpopular decisions. Thus, consumers remain forced to consider their own attention as a valuable resource: the fight for consumer choice doesn’t rest.

Note that as a follower of the work of the Consumer Choice Center, you can send in tips through this website, making us and our volunteers aware of current events in the realm of consumer choice. Your local municipal council or government might be in the midst of trying to pass certain measures unnoticed, as news outlets are focused on this pandemic. Consumers will know that it is always a bigger struggle to repeal active legislation, than it is to stop those rules that are in the process of being made.

Some bans limiting consumer choice hurt especially in times of self-isolation: Home deliveries of alcohol, bans on online pharmacies, and limited opening hours of supermarkets are things you really don’t need right now.

Ultimately, legislators and regulators should give consumers a break, not only because people have more important things to do, but also because from a democratic standpoint, new restrictions ought to be carefully weighed and debated, before they pass the houses of parliament on the same day as people see their loved ones transported into emergency rooms. There are smart rules and relief for consumers that are being passed as we speak, and they should be applauded, but reductions in consumer choice need their fair share of input before they go to a vote.

For the sake of the standards we expect governments to abide by, let’s give consumers a break on new taxes, new bans, new infringements on their personal privacy, and new paternalistic policies. 

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

N.C. ABC stores remain open throughout state; liquor delivery not an option

N.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control stores remain open throughout the state, although many staff members within the ABC system are working from home.

The stores have established new protocols to minimize direct contact between the public and staff working on site, Jeff Strickland, ABC spokesman, said in an email.

“Our goal is to protect the safety and well-being of our staff and the public, while ensuring we can still meet the needs of the public,” he said. “We do not believe that service to the public will be diminished from our efforts.” 

The ABC, he said, continues to follow guidance from the governor, Office of State Human Resources, and Department of Health and Human Services.

The ABC Commission is separate from the more than 400 stores, which are managed by 170 independent boards around the state. The boards would decide whether to close or adjust their hours or operations, Strickland said.

“At this time, the ABC Commission is not aware of any ABC boards that have closed their stores or plan to.” 

North Carolina residents can’t order spirits online, nor have them delivered, but people can order beer and wine for delivery if the entity performing the delivery has the appropriate permit. The General Assembly would have to change state law for liquor delivery, and that won’t happen anytime soon.

Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah ban all alcohol shipments to consumers, the Consumer Choice Center says in a news release. Only Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, and New Hampshire allow consumers to buy alcohol online and have it shipped to their residences.

“Social distancing is here and millions of people are staying home to avoid spreading coronavirus,” says Yaël Ossowski, Consumer Choice Center deputy director.

“But if you’re unlucky enough to live in a state with strict alcohol laws, you won’t be able to ship a bottle of wine, a six-pack, or your favorite bourbon to your address. And that’s beyond ridiculous.

“Bans on shipping alcohol are leftover policies from Prohibition that deprive us of choice. These bans will only exacerbate the economic damage caused by coronavirus. In the 21st century, we should no longer have antiquated alcohol laws that restrict our choices, reduce commerce, and treat adults more like children.” Ossowski says.

North Carolina presents a unique case. It’s one of 17 control states — state-run systems — but the only state with a system of independent boards and local control, which dates to the late 1930s.

Residents, Ossowski says, are becoming increasingly aware of North Carolina’s paternalistic laws surrounding alcohol. 

“We can easily have food and groceries delivered, but those options are slim when it comes to alcoholic beverages,” he said in an email. “Due to strict N.C. alcohol laws, online merchants such as Amazon can’t stock your favorite wines, craft beers or liquors unless they follow a very strict line of regulations. No one can receive an alcohol shipment from out of state unless they’re a licensed wholesaler. Wineries looking to ship bottles must be located in state and can’t send you more than two cases per month. Breweries and distilleries face the same restrictions. At least until we change these regulations, North Carolina will remain behind when it comes to innovation and alcohol.”

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Libra : Facebook va revoir sa copie sur sa monnaie virtuelle

Pour ne pas froisser les États et les banques, Facebook va changer la stratégie du Libra et proposer une solution de paiement global à l’image de PayPal. Le réseau social ne compte pas pour autant abandonner les principes fondamentaux de sa cryptomonnaie.

Lors de la présentation de sa cryptomonnaie Libra en juin dernier, tout s’annonçait pourtant bien pour Facebook. Gérée par une fondation suisse et épaulée par de grands noms de la finance, tels PayPal, Visa et Mastercard, le développement de la monnaie a très rapidement été freiné par des tirs de barrage provenant des États. La France, en premier lieu, considère illégale la création d’une telle monnaie par une société privée. La crainte de l’utilisation de la devise universelle pour réaliser du blanchiment d’argent a aussi pesé beaucoup sur la remise en question du Libra. Au final, les partenaires qui pesaient le plus lourd ont quitté le projet.

Le côté réglementaire a donc eu raison des premières intentions de la cryptomonnaie de Facebook. Pour le coup, le réseau social est actuellement en train de revoir sa copie. Selon les sources du site The Conversation, Facebook et les partenaires qui n’ont pas quitté le navire, comptent refonder totalement le projet.

Pour adoucir le courroux des États, plutôt que de créer une monnaie indépendante, la firme devrait plutôt proposer des déclinaisons numériques des devises, comme l’Euro, ou le dollar. Au final, pour se conformer à la législation, Libra pourrait tout simplement être assimilé à une plateforme de paiement de type PayPal.

Mais attention, Facebook ne compte pas pour autant mettre au rebut les principes de base du Libra. Il se donne juste du temps pour imaginer comment introduire cette cryptomonnaie. C’est pourquoi, la sortie de l’application Calibra, le portefeuille numérique du Libra, est décalée en octobre. De même, Facebook va restreindre cette application aux seuls États ayant émis des cryptomonnaies.

Pourquoi Libra est critiquée avant même son lancement ?

Comme prévu, Facebook a officiellement lancé sa monnaie virtuelle qui pourra être utilisée via Messenger et WhatsApp. Mais déjà, des voix s’élèvent contre cette cryptomonnaie accusée de faire le jeu du blanchiment d’argent ou de concurrencer les monnaies d’État.

Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Vodafone, Free ou encore Uber et Lyft… Des dizaines de géants de la high-tech et du système bancaire, mais aussi des ONG, épaulent Facebook pour le lancement de Libra, une cryptomonnaie destinée aux utilisateurs de Facebook et de WhatsApp, soit plus de deux milliards d’internautes !

L’idée est simple : bénéficier d’un porte-monnaie virtuel pour acheter et vendre des biens, via la messagerie instantanée, sans passer par une banque. Le tout avec une devise équilibrée dont la valeur est indexée sur plusieurs monnaies en vigueur pour éviter toute spéculation. Date de lancement ? Début 2020.

La France et les États-Unis y sont opposés

Le projet est très ambitieux mais il s’attire déjà les foudres des administrations. En France, le ministre de l’Économie, Bruno Le Maire, a rappelé qu’une entreprise privée ne pouvait pas créer une monnaie, concurrente des devises d’État. Du côté des États-Unis, où Facebook est sous le coup d’une enquête judiciaire pour la collecte et l’exploitation des données personnelles de ses membres, une parlementaire, qui dirige la Commission des Services financiers, exige que Facebook se présente devant le Congrès pour répondre aux inquiétudes et aux questions des représentants.

D’autres craignent que ce ne soit le moyen idéal pour blanchir de l’argent. Réponse de David Marcus, qui dirige cette nouvelle entité, au micro de France Info : « Si un réseau tel que celui-ci émerge avec beaucoup plus de transactions numériques, beaucoup plus de traçabilité, je pense qu’on va grandement améliorer l’efficacité des programmes anti-blanchiment et notamment à travers les porte-monnaie numériques qui seront régulés sur ce nouveau réseau. »

Au consommateur de décider si c’est un bon système ou pas?

Du côté des consommateurs, Consumer Choice Center, équivalent de Que-Choisir à travers le monde, regrette que les législateurs réclament la suspension du projet : « Contrôler la réglementation sur Internet et les sociétés financières est important, mais la mentalité de “légiférer d’abord, d’innover plus tard”, qui est apparue en réponse à Libra, devrait mettre tous les internautes en pause. Si chaque nouvelle innovation Internet est désormais soumise à l’approbation du Congrès, ce serait un dangereux précédent pour l’avenir du choix du consommateur en ligne », a déclaré Yaël Ossowski, dirigeant de cette association de défense du consommateur. Les consommateurs ont le droit de choisir s’ils souhaitent utiliser des crypto-monnaies ou des réseaux sociaux, et sont conscients des risques et des avantages considérables qui en découlent. Les utilisateurs recherchent une alternative et s’intéressent aux nouveaux outils numériques en ligne. C’est pourquoi, il y a un tel intérêt. »

La cryptomonnaie de Facebook arrive le 18 juin

Une dirigeante de Facebook a confirmé l’arrivée prochaine de la monnaie virtuelle de Facebook. Elle sera indexée sur plusieurs monnaies pour éviter les fluctuations et parmi les différents objectifs du réseau social, il y a l’idée de mettre en place un authentique réseau de distribution semblable à celui des distributeurs de billets actuels. 

Différentes sources s’accordent sur la date de lancement officielle de la nouvelle cryptomonnaie de Facebook, qui porte le nom de code Libra, et ce serait pour le 18 juin. L’information a notamment été confirmée par Laura McCracken, à la tête des services financiers et des partenariats pour les paiements de Facebook pour l’Europe du Nord, dans une interview accordée au journal allemand WirtschaftsWoche.

Pensant l’information déjà publique, Laura McCracken a indiqué que Facebook publiera à cette date un livre blanc détaillant le fonctionnement de la cryptomonnaie, et a confirmé qu’elle serait liée à plusieurs devises différentes, plutôt que le dollar seul, afin d’éviter les fluctuations.

Des transferts d’argent sans frais

La cryptomonnaie est prévue pour passer outre les frontières géopolitiques et pourra être transférée sans frais via ses applications Messenger et WhatsApp partout dans le monde. La firme compte notamment en faire la promotion dans les pays en voie de développement, où elle pourrait constituer une alternative stable aux monnaies locales volatiles.

Selon The Information, la firme compte aussi encourager son utilisation dans le monde physique, en installant notamment des machines similaires aux distributeurs de billets, qui permettront d’échanger des devises contre des jetons de sa cryptomonnaie. Facebook compte également proposer des bonus à l’inscription, en partenariat avec des marchands qui accepteront cette nouvelle monnaie.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN