Recent Media

Vape penyelesaian bagi penghisap rokok?

“SAYA seorang perokok lebih daripada 20 tahun. Saya cuba pelbagai cara untuk berhenti merokok tetapi tidak berjaya sehingga saya cuba menghisap vape. Dalam tempoh tiga minggu, ini saya berjaya berhenti merokok,” kata Fairuz yang merupakan pengguna vape atau rokok elektronik.

Daripada pengalamannya itu, Fairuz yakin bahawa dengan menghisap vape boleh membantu perokok mengatasi sindrom ketagihan nikotin dalam tubuh mereka.

Katanya, sebotol cecair perisa (flavour) iaitu bahan utama yang digunakan dalam dalam rokok elektronik itu boleh bertahan selama tiga minggu dengan harga RM24, berbanding rokok berjenama terkenal berharga RM17 yang hanya mampu bertahan selama dua hari.

Menteri Kewangan, Senator Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz pada Belanjawan 2021 mengumumkan duti eksais akan dikenakan terhadap semua jenis peranti rokok elektronik dan bukan eletronik termasuk vape sebanyak 10 peratus mulai 1 Januari 2021.

Cecair perisa juga akan dikenakan duti eksais sebanyak 40 sen per milimeter. Bagi banyak pihak, pengumuman itu adalah satu langkah positif bagi industri tembakau tempatan kerana pengenalan cukai itu bermakna produk vape akan dikawal selia. Di Malaysia, jumlah perokok sedia ada telah merosot sedikit iaitu sebanyak 1.5 peratus kepada 21.3 peratus pada tahun 2019, menurut Tinjauan Kebangsaan Kesihatan dan Morbiditi (NHMS) 2019 anjuran Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia (KKM).

Tidak jelas sama ada pengurangan bilangan perokok tembakau disebabkan oleh pertukaran kepada vape, memandangkan laporan sama menunjukkan sebanyak lima peratus rakyat Malaysia menggunakan produk vape termasuk Fairuz.

Bagaimanapun, kajian mendapati ada hubung kait positif antara pengurangan bilangan perokok tembakau dan penggunaan vape sejak ia diperkenalkan.

Dalam laporan bertajuk Vaping and the Gateway Myth oleh Consumer Choice Center, satu kajian telah dilaksanakan untuk menentukan sama ada penggunaan vape membantu perokok bertukar daripada produk tembakau.

Laporan tersebut mendapati penggunaan vape terbukti 95 peratus kurang berbahaya daripada merokok, malah produk vape diiktiraf oleh pelbagai badan kesihatan antarabangsa sebagai alternatif yang lebih selamat.

Laporan yang sama menambah bahawa produk vape telah direka untuk menawarkan cara yang lebih selamat kepada perokok untuk menggunakan nikotin, dengan perokok dewasa sebagai pasaran sasaran.

Menurut Perkhidmatan Kesihatan British, nikotin secara tersendiri tidak berbahaya. Menurutnya lagi, “Hampir semua kemudaratan merokok berpunca daripada beribu-ribu bahan kimia lain dalam asap tembakau, yang kebanyakannya toksik.”

Laporan tersebut juga menyebut satu kajian kendalian University College London pada tahun 2019 yang menganalisis data lebih daripada 50,000 perokok dari tahun 2006 hingga 2017.

Positif

Kajian mendapati bahawa penggunaan produk vape untuk berhenti merokok dikaitkan secara positif dengan kadar kejayaan berhenti merokok, dengan peningkatan 1 peratus penggunaan produk vape menghasilkan peningkatan 0.06 peratus dalam kejayaan berhenti merokok.

Penggunaan vape juga diiktiraf oleh Joachim Schüz, Ketua Alam Sekitar dan Radiasi di agensi penyelidikan kanser WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer dalam ucapannya di Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Parlimen Eropah pada Februari 2020.

Dalam laporannya, Joachim Schüz berkata, vape ‘sama sekali tidak’ sebahaya rokok tembakau dan boleh membantu perokok tegar berhenti merokok.

Keberkesanan vape sebagai alat berhenti merokok tidak boleh dinafikan kerana yang disasarkan adalah perokok dan bukan golongan yang tidak merokok.

Sebarang dakwaan yang menggambarkan penggunaan vape sebagai pembuka laluan kepada merokok adalah tidak berasas.

Cuma yang menjadi kebimbangan pengguna vape seperti Fairuz ialah kos yang semakin meningkat mulai tahun hadapan.

Originally published here.

Consumer Group Suggests Ways to Lower Youth Vaping

The Consumer Choice Center has released a new report that considers existing age restrictions on the sale of vaping products and then suggests several policies to reverse low enforcement rates of current rules.

To reduce the rate of vaping by youth, the Consumer Choice Center report recommends four actions:

  • Enforce strict age restrictions on vaping devices and liquids at the point of sale.
  • Use modern age-verification technology for online sales.
  • Learn from other industries such as alcohol and fireworks on how to improve compliance rates.
  • Retail and industry should be encouraged to be more proactive with the enforcement of rules.
  • Don’t punish legal adult vapers for the lack of enforcement of age restrictions.

Fred Roeder, health economist and author of the report, stated in an email that most countries have already drawn a line of when it is legal to vape (enacted age-to-purchase laws).

“We don’t face a lack of legislation but a lack of compliance with existing rules and regulations. We looked at similarly regulated industries such as alcohol and gambling and found that these tend to have smarter enforcement mechanisms,” he wrote “There are many innovative tools out there to ensure only adult customers can buy vaping products. Digital ID checks and industry initiatives to ID customers that look young are better ways to solve the problem than additional laws such as flavor bans.”

Originally published here.

Stopping targeted advertising cuts off industries and dumbs down tech

The European Parliament’s vote to phase out the practice threatens to reduce consumer choice and stifle what is one of Europe’s most innovative sectors, writes the Consumer Choice Center’s Yaël Ossowski.

hen we hear gripes about social media, one of the top concerns is targeted advertising.

On any given day, this type of segmented advertising is used by the local hair salon searching for new clients, an environmental group asking for signatures on a petition, and a political candidate seeking your vote. These are all important and vital for our civil societies in Europe.

These groups pay to get your attention on social media because it achieves something essential: to generate business, to advocate for social causes, or win elections. This is facilitated by the unique platforms where we post and share information.

And because social media is usually free, accepting this advertising allows platforms to grow and scale to continue providing value to users. That is the balance that most of us understand. Some people are mildly annoyed, but others prefer advertising that caters to their interests.

Unfortunately, that distinction has given fodder to activists and politicians who want to ban this style of advertising to limit the ability to spread information on social media.

In October, MEPs in the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of severely restricting and eventually phasing out targeted ads. The proposal was an amendment to the annual competition report, aimed at overhauling the Digital Services Act. It remains non-binding until such regulation is issued by the European Commission.

Using his Twitter account, Dutch MEP Paul Tang categorised the vote as a “win” against large tech companies, further adding that “We see that big tech continues to expand their market power by considering personal data as a commodity. In addition to interfering with our privacy, such a revenue model is unhealthy and sickening for the internet.”

In this case, politicians in Brussels get it wrong. These policy remedies would end up being harmful to both consumers and small businesses, and dumb down the greatly innovative tech sector that provides value to users across Europe.

Social media platforms have grown to be popular because they empower users to speak their minds and profitable because they enable small businesses and groups to find current and future customers. That is a win-win for our societies.

If targeted advertising is dismantled online as some hope, it would severely restrict the options for entrepreneurs and social groups to find supporters and clients. That may sound good in theory, but in practice, it means stopping advertising options for environmental groups, restaurants hoping to deliver food during continued lockdowns, and more.

Regulating innovative technology because of serious legal and health concerns is warranted but stopping information and unique algorithms that give us what we want is a step too far.

We must face the fact that social media has become the new marketplace where we seek information. If we legislate and ban specific methods of sharing information on products and services online, this reduces consumer choice and chokes off entire industries. This harms everyone.

“If we legislate and ban specific methods of sharing information on products and services online, this reduces consumer choice and chokes off entire industries. This harms everyone”

More than harmful, it is also based on the false assumption that adults are not intelligent enough to understand or interpret advertising. This is both paternalistic and wrong.

Of course, ads are annoying for those who do not want them. And, luckily, the same technology that created targeted micro-advertising has also spawned ad-blocking browser plugins, Virtual Private Networks, and private browsing modes that are simple and easy to use for those who want them.

Thanks to technology, everything we do online has gotten more efficient, more effective, and less costly. It has empowered non-profits like mine, given a voice to millions of entrepreneurs, and offered untold value to users around the world.

As advocates for a free and open Internet, we must continue to uphold innovation and ensure it is protected from those that wish to limit its potential. The European Union needs to find ways to foster, rather than choke off, the innovation that every citizen on the continent deserves.

Originally published here.

Halting targeted advertising kills industries and dumbs down tech

When we hear gripes about social media, one of the top concerns is targeted advertising.

On any given day, this type of segmented advertising is used by the local hair salon searching for new clients, an environmental group asking for signatures on a petition and a city council candidate seeking your vote. These are all important and vital for our civil society.

These groups pay to get your attention on social media because it achieves something essential: to generate business, to advocate for social causes or win elections. This is facilitated by the unique platforms where we post and share information.

And because social media is usually free, accepting this advertising allows platforms to grow and scale to continue providing value to users. That is the balance that most of us understand. Some people are mildly annoyed, but others prefer advertising that caters to their interests.

Unfortunately, that distinction has given fodder to activists and politicians who want to ban this style of advertising to limit the ability to spread information on social media.

The latest scandal du jour, as one can guess, revolves around the 2020 elections and how political forces targeted would-be voters on social media.

Using Twitter and Facebook proved effective for both the Biden and Trump campaigns, up until both platforms halted political advertising. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and tens of millions of voters were reached.

In a hearing on Tuesday, senators on the Judiciary Committee excoriated Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their proprietary algorithms that drive engagement and sell ads.

Senators took turns grinding their axes, lodging complaints about content moderation, targeted advertising and market power.

The policy remedies discussed have so far been two-pronged, either using antitrust laws to break up the social media firms or rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that currently treats online outlets as platforms rather than publishers, not making them liable for the content shared on their pages.

In either case, politicians in Washington get it wrong.

Action in either direction would end up being harmful to both consumers and small businesses, and dumb down the great innovative tech sector that is the world’s envy.

Social media platforms have grown to be popular because they empower users to speak their minds and be profitable because they enable small businesses and groups to find current and future customers. That is a win-win for society.

If targeted advertising is dismantled online as some hope, it would severely restrict the options for entrepreneurs and social groups to find supporters and clients.

That may sound good in theory, but in practice it means stopping advertising options for environmental groups, restaurants hoping to deliver food during continued lockdowns and more.

Regulating innovative technology because of serious legal and health concerns is warranted but stopping information and unique algorithms that give us what we want is a step too far.

We must face the fact that social media has become the new marketplace where we seek information. If we legislate and ban specific methods of sharing information on products and services online, this reduces consumer choice and chokes off entire industries.

This harms everyone.

More than harmful, it is also based on the false assumption that adults are not intelligent enough to understand or interpret advertising. This is both paternalistic and wrong.

Of course, ads are annoying for those who do not want them. And, luckily, the same technology that created targeted micro-advertising has also spawned ad-blocking browser plugins, Virtual Private Networks, and private browsing modes that are simple and easy to use for those who want them.

Thanks to technology, everything we do online has gotten more efficient, more effective and less costly. It has empowered nonprofits like mine, given a voice to millions of entrepreneurs and offered untold value to users around the world.

As advocates for a free and open internet, we must continue to uphold innovation and ensure it is protected from those who wish to limit its potential.

Originally published here.

Biden Has an Opportunity to Improve Trade With Europe

The Europeans killed a potential deal during the Obama years, but the world is a different place now.

Trade relationships with Europe have been painstakingly petty for the last four years. In 2019, the U.S ended the WTO’s appellate body by refusing to appoint new members, which meant that the world’s arbiter on trade had had a more difficult time opposing new tariffs—and new tariffs there have been. The ongoing trade war has targeted a wide range of products on both sides, from Harley-Davidson motorcycles to French wine and Kentucky bourbon. Whenever Trump would target a new product, the EU would reciprocate with new tariff implementations or hikes.

What ended up targeting American blue jeans-lovers in Estonia and Bordeaux wine connoisseurs in New York began as a much less symbolic tariff on steel and aluminum. In Donald Trump’s protectionist mindset, he believed he was doing U.S manufacturing a favor, but in reality he punished those businesses that rely on imported industrial goods for their production. During his administration, many Republicans who had held dear the principle of free trade seem to have forgotten their own position. Perhaps his upcoming departure from the White House will allow them to remember it.

Under the Obama administration, the U.S had pushed for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The free trade agreement would have created one of the largest trade zones, with the (then) 28 member states of the European Union and the United States. The EU’s executive body, the European Commission, said that TTIP would boost the EU’s economy by $142 billion, the U.S economy by over $100 billion and the rest of the world by $118 billion.

Despite strong American advocacy in Europe for the agreement, the European Union itself stalled and then walked away. Environmentalists held massive demonstrations throughout the EU, claiming that TTIP would undermine European food standards and distort the marketplace by reducing prices. They made a safe bet on the skepticism of Europeans toward American food, and on consumer nationalism. The Anglo-Saxon approach to business does not play well in countries like France, where labor regulations thoroughly protect workers, and the flexibility and entrepreneurship of Americans is seen as obsessively commercial. This played right into the hands of those industries that considered American competition as a scourge.

When Barack Obama left office, TTIP negotiations were not just at a standstill—they were unofficially dead. The election of Donald Trump worsened trade relationships with Europe, but TTIP had been killed by Europeans, not Trump.

That said, political institutions in Europe currently have every reason to be warmer toward trade relations with the U.S. The trade war has been difficult for everyone, and Europe understands that it leads nowhere. After four years of Donald Trump, Joe Biden should present a real alternative based on free trade, not just case-by-case mini-agreements (such as a recently signed deal on free lobster trade). Crucially, if the U.S reaches a comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom (which officially leaves the European Union’s single market at the end of this year), then the EU has no choice but to prevent a loss of its competitive edge. 

Unfortunately, Joe Biden has not quite grasped this window of opportunity but has supported the European Union on the issue of Brexit. Meddling in European affairs, Biden claims that he will not sign any FTA with the U.K. unless Boris Johnson’s government respects the withdrawal agreement’s so-called Northern Ireland protocol. In essence, if the U.K. reestablishes a border (or something resembling a border) between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, then the U.S will not be a willing trading partner. Both the U.K. and the EU have struggled to find an agreement that allows for the U.K. to leave the EU and make its own internal market decisions, while avoiding cross-border checks on goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ended most of the violence of the Troubles (between those loyal to the United Kingdom and those who wanted to unite the country with the Republic of Ireland), by promising not to establish hard border infrastructure. To separatists, this signaled a willingness to align the island more closely with the Republic, while loyalists remained under the laws of the United Kingdom. The UK’s exit from the EU might threaten this agreement, and Joe Biden has taken the side of the EU.

Outside of supporting an odd sense of Irish-American pride, how exactly does such a move benefit the United States? While it certainly upsets the British, it would be mistaken to believe that continental Europeans in Paris and Berlin will suddenly jump out of their seats to hand American businesses access to European consumers just because we’ve turned our backs on trade with the U.K.

TTIP would have allowed mutual access to public markets, slashed tariffs, and reduced bureaucratic regulations on everything from clothes to medicine and cosmetics. Many customs duties on products between the U.S and Europe are so high that it effectively kills any trading relationships. For Americans wanting to observe this phenomenon in real time: Follow a European entering an American supermarket for the first time. Choices!

There are also tariff differences depending on goods and destinations. For instance, EU tariffs on American cars are high, while American tariffs on European cars are relatively low. Meanwhile, certain types of peanut tariffs are so high (at a rate of 138 percent) that they never find their way on the European market. In essence, U.S-EU trade is a jungle of tariff distinctions that pile an avalanche of red tape on any type of producer. TTIP intended to scrap nearly all tariffs across the Atlantic, yet the will of the EU at the time was trumped by skepticism toward American agricultural products.

Many of the most political decisions in the European Union are taken because of a sense of urgent necessity. In the European Parliament, you will hear speakers claim that the EU needs to be more centralized, because despite being the largest single market in the world, it is also a declining market. If Joe Biden wanted to save Obama’s (and his own) trade policy legacy, he could do so on one hand by pressuring Europeans to understand that competition is at their doorstep, but also by showing them what the TTIP has to offer.

The more the U.S opens itself to free trade from all over the world, the more it will convince hesitant partners like the EU to drop subsidies to large industries, and allow small businesses not to put “Europe first” at a large price, but choose the best product, including from the United States.

Originally published here.

The Sun: Halting targeted advertising kills industries and dumbs down tech

When we hear gripes about social media, one of the top concerns is targeted advertising.

On any given day, this type of segmented advertising is used by the local hair salon searching for new clients, an environmental group asking for signatures on a petition and a city council candidate seeking your vote. These are all important and vital for our civil society.

These groups pay to get your attention on social media because it achieves something essential: to generate business, to advocate for social causes or win elections. This is facilitated by the unique platforms where we post and share information.

And because social media is usually free, accepting this advertising allows platforms to grow and scale to continue providing value to users. That is the balance that most of us understand. Some people are mildly annoyed, but others prefer advertising that caters to their interests.

Unfortunately, that distinction has given fodder to activists and politicians who want to ban this style of advertising to limit the ability to spread information on social media.

The latest scandal du jour, as one can guess, revolves around the 2020 elections and how political forces targeted would-be voters on social media.

Using Twitter and Facebook proved effective for both the Biden and Trump campaigns, up until both platforms halted political advertising. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and tens of millions of voters were reached.

In a hearing on Tuesday, senators on the Judiciary Committee excoriated Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their proprietary algorithms that drive engagement and sell ads.

Senators took turns grinding their axes, lodging complaints about content moderation, targeted advertising and market power.

The policy remedies discussed have so far been two-pronged, either using antitrust laws to break up the social media firms or rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that currently treats online outlets as platforms rather than publishers, not making them liable for the content shared on their pages.

In either case, politicians in Washington get it wrong.

Action in either direction would end up being harmful to both consumers and small businesses, and dumb down the great innovative tech sector that is the world’s envy.

Social media platforms have grown to be popular because they empower users to speak their minds and be profitable because they enable small businesses and groups to find current and future customers. That is a win-win for society.

If targeted advertising is dismantled online as some hope, it would severely restrict the options for entrepreneurs and social groups to find supporters and clients.

That may sound good in theory, but in practice it means stopping advertising options for environmental groups, restaurants hoping to deliver food during continued lockdowns and more.

Regulating innovative technology because of serious legal and health concerns is warranted but stopping information and unique algorithms that give us what we want is a step too far.

We must face the fact that social media has become the new marketplace where we seek information. If we legislate and ban specific methods of sharing information on products and services online, this reduces consumer choice and chokes off entire industries.

This harms everyone.

More than harmful, it is also based on the false assumption that adults are not intelligent enough to understand or interpret advertising. This is both paternalistic and wrong.

Of course, ads are annoying for those who do not want them. And, luckily, the same technology that created targeted micro-advertising has also spawned ad-blocking browser plugins, Virtual Private Networks, and private browsing modes that are simple and easy to use for those who want them.

Thanks to technology, everything we do online has gotten more efficient, more effective and less costly. It has empowered nonprofits like mine, given a voice to millions of entrepreneurs and offered untold value to users around the world.

As advocates for a free and open internet, we must continue to uphold innovation and ensure it is protected from those who wish to limit its potential.

Originally published here.

Report: Vaping is a gateway out of smoking

Contrary to what many detractors say, vaping is less harmful than smoking. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 23 — A 2020 report by an American advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center, debunks the common belief that “vaping is the gateway to smoking for adults and adolescents.”

Titled “Vaping and the Gateway Myth”, the report highlighted findings that vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking.

It also presents a viewpoint that vaping actually helps conventional smokers “divert from traditional and harmful tobacco consumption.”

The report also emphasises that vaping products were designed to offer smokers a safer way to consume nicotine, with the target being adult smokers.

The British National Health Service has already said nicotine, on its own, is relatively harmless and adds that “almost all of the harm from smoking comes from the thousands of other chemicals in tobacco smoke, many of which are toxic.”

The Consumer Choice Center report also cites a study conducted by University College London in 2019 which analysed data from over 50,000 smokers from 2006 to 2017.

It was found that vaping products were positively associated with the quit success rate; every one per cent rise in the use of vaping products associated with a 0.06 per cent increase in the quit success rate.

In a speech at the European Parliament in February this year, Joachim Schüz, head of Environment and Radiation at WHO’s cancer research agency said vaping is “no way as harmful” as smoking cigarettes and could even help heavy smokers quit.

What’s more, the Malaysian tobacco industry sees the new “vaping tax” to be introduced in 2021 on all electronic cigarette devices including vape and vaping liquids as a positive one as this means vaping products will be regulated.

In Malaysia, the number of smokers has dropped by 1.5 percentage points in 2019 according to the Ministry of Health’s National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019.

While it is unclear if this can be attributed to a switch to vaping, the same report shows five per cent of Malaysians use vaping products.

The effectiveness of vaping as a smoking cessation tool seems to be encouraging and efforts to frame vaping as a gateway to smoking do not seem to stand up to close scrutiny.

Originally published here.

Halting Targeted Advertising Kills Industries and Dumbs Down Tech

When we hear gripes about social media, one of the top concerns is targeted advertising.

On any given day, this type of segmented advertising is used by the local hair salon searching for new clients, an environmental group asking for signatures on a petition and a city council candidate seeking your vote. These are all important and vital for our civil society.

These groups pay to get your attention on social media because it achieves something essential: to generate business, to advocate for social causes or win elections. This is facilitated by the unique platforms where we post and share information.

And because social media is usually free, accepting this advertising allows platforms to grow and scale to continue providing value to users. That is the balance that most of us understand. Some people are mildly annoyed, but others prefer advertising that caters to their interests.

Unfortunately, that distinction has given fodder to activists and politicians who want to ban this style of advertising to limit the ability to spread information on social media.

The latest scandal du jour, as one can guess, revolves around the 2020 elections and how political forces targeted would-be voters on social media.

Using Twitter and Facebook proved effective for both the Biden and Trump campaigns, up until both platforms halted political advertising. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and tens of millions of voters were reached.

In a hearing on Tuesday, senators on the Judiciary Committee excoriated Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their proprietary algorithms that drive engagement and sell ads.

Senators took turns grinding their axes, lodging complaints about content moderation, targeted advertising and market power.

The policy remedies discussed have so far been two-pronged, either using antitrust laws to break up the social media firms or rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that currently treats online outlets as platforms rather than publishers, not making them liable for the content shared on their pages.

In either case, politicians in Washington get it wrong.

Action in either direction would end up being harmful to both consumers and small businesses, and dumb down the great innovative tech sector that is the world’s envy.

Social media platforms have grown to be popular because they empower users to speak their minds and be profitable because they enable small businesses and groups to find current and future customers. That is a win-win for society.

If targeted advertising is dismantled online as some hope, it would severely restrict the options for entrepreneurs and social groups to find supporters and clients.

That may sound good in theory, but in practice it means stopping advertising options for environmental groups, restaurants hoping to deliver food during continued lockdowns and more.

Regulating innovative technology because of serious legal and health concerns is warranted but stopping information and unique algorithms that give us what we want is a step too far.

We must face the fact that social media has become the new marketplace where we seek information. If we legislate and ban specific methods of sharing information on products and services online, this reduces consumer choice and chokes off entire industries.

This harms everyone.

More than harmful, it is also based on the false assumption that adults are not intelligent enough to understand or interpret advertising. This is both paternalistic and wrong.

Of course, ads are annoying for those who do not want them. And, luckily, the same technology that created targeted micro-advertising has also spawned ad-blocking browser plugins, Virtual Private Networks, and private browsing modes that are simple and easy to use for those who want them.

Thanks to technology, everything we do online has gotten more efficient, more effective and less costly. It has empowered nonprofits like mine, given a voice to millions of entrepreneurs and offered untold value to users around the world.

As advocates for a free and open internet, we must continue to uphold innovation and ensure it is protected from those that wish to limit its potential.

Originally published here.

Wielka Brytania bije kolejne rekordy w walce z nałogiem tytoniowym

Najnowsze badania YouGov zlecone przez Action on Smoking and Health w Wielkiej Brytanii dowiodły, że 58% dorosłych waperów to byli palacze a odsetek tych, którzy również są palaczami tytoniu, sukcesywnie spada i w tym roku osiągnął 38%.

Ponadto, 60% dorosłych użytkowników e-papierosów zadeklarowało, że głównym powodem, dla którego przerzucili się na vaping była troska o własne zdrowie.

Sceptycy próbują podważać badanie przedstawiając e-papierosy jako świeży produkt kierowany do konsumentów tytoniu otwierając w ten sposób nową drogę do uzależnienia.

Zupełnie innego zdania jest Maria Chaplia współpracowniczka ds. Europejskich w Consumer Choice Center, która mówi: „Tak jak substytuty cukru pomagają ludziom zmniejszyć spożycie cukru, tak e-papierosy pomagają ludziom rzucić palenie”, „Nie obwiniamy substytutów cukru za zwiększone spożycie cukru, ale zrobienie tego w przypadku e-papierosów wydaje się dopuszczalne”.

Pani Chaplia zwraca w swojej wypowiedzi na dość istotny aspekt, mianowicie zamiast skupić się na walce i ucieczce od tytoniowego uzależnienia za wszelką cenę, rozważmy zasadność stosowanych metod. Pamiętajmy, że co roku na świecie umiera 8 milionów palaczy dlatego każda szeroko rozpowszechniona metoda na zerwanie z nałogiem tytoniowym jest bardzo ważna i ma znaczenie.

Originally published here.

Piano Ue contro il cancro, il Parlamento dà spazio alla sigaretta elettronica

Pietro Fiocchi (FdI), membro della Commissione parlamentare che sta stilando un rapporto per il piano, assicura che vi sarà un paragrafo sul vaping.

Il rapporto che lo Special Committee on cancer del Parlamento europeo consegnerà alla Commissione come contributo per il Piano contro il cancro includerà un paragrafo sulla sigaretta elettronica. A rivelarlo è stato l’europarlamentare italiano Pietro Fiocchi (Fratelli d’Italia), durante un incontro organizzato questa mattina dalla sede a Bruxelles della Camera di commercio britannica, incentrato proprio sul Beating Cancer Plan dell’Unione europea. Sottotitolo dell’evento, prevenire è meglio che curare e proprio sugli strumenti e le best practice in materia di prevenzione verteva l’intervento di Fiocchi. Il parlamentare italiano, che è relatore ombra della Commissione speciale sul cancro dell’Europarlamento ha aggiunto che “è importante che il paragrafo sul vaping contenga le cose giuste”, cioè presumibilmente che tratti la sigaretta elettronica come strumento di riduzione del danno da fumo.

Lo scorso ottobre, Fiocchi aveva presentato una interrogazione alla Commissione europea, chiedendo se nel piano europeo di lotta contro il cancro si stesse prendendo in considerazione la riduzione del danno provocato dal tabacco. “Può la Commissione – si leggeva nel testo della interrogazione – riferire se sta valutando la possibilità di promuovere l’adozione di misure preventive, come ad esempio strategie di riduzione dei danni? Come intende affrontare l’importanza della riduzione dei danni nel piano di lotta contro il cancro, ad esempio raccomandando politiche che incoraggino l’uso di prodotti a base di nicotina a rischio ridotto o campagne di sensibilizzazione per un consumo responsabile di alcol? Durante il processo di consultazione pubblica, la Commissione si è rivolta a gruppi di riflessione in rappresentanza dei consumatori che hanno beneficiato di metodi di riduzione del danno, come l’uso della sigaretta elettronica?”.

Ora lo stesso europarlamentare riferisce che, almeno per quanto riguarda il contributo del Parlamento, la riduzione del danno in generale e la sigaretta elettronica in particolare avranno uno spazio. Le parole di Fiocchi hanno raccolto il plauso dell’associazione World Vapers’Alliance, che da mesi conduce a Bruxelles una battaglia su questo tema. “Ci sentiamo estremamente incoraggiati dall’impegno dell’onorevole Fiocchi – ha dichiarato il direttore Michael Landl – per includere la sigaretta elettronica nel rapporto del Parlamento sul cancro. I parlamentari europei hanno la possibilità di prevenire migliaia di casi di cancro in tutta l’Unione europea, aiutando i fumatori a passare alla sigaretta elettronica”. “Ora è fondamentale – auspica Landl – che i colleghi di Fiocchi seguano il suo esempio e sostengano il vaping”.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top