 |
|
Here you can find interesting links of videos from Youtube and other sites. These videos will show you how to use Swedish snus. You can find info about other snuff such as
Smokey Mountain Herbal Snuff
Snus Video
Click Here To Go Home Page
US: Why Big Tobacco Loves
Globalization
In late 2001, Canada's government proposed a regulation that would ban the
use of the words "light" and "mild" on tobacco advertising.
Since there was no medical proof that low-tar cigarettes were better for you than
high-tar, the feeling was that such descriptors constituted false advertising.
In response, Philip Morris complained that such a regulation would violate the
North American Free Trade Agreement. "Prohibiting the use of these descriptive
terms would effectively ban the display of trademarks containing them. If enacted,
the proposed ban would therefore expropriate and destroy the affected trademarks
and brands in Canada as well as the substantial goodwill that accompanies them
in violation of both NAFTA and TRIPS [Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property]."
Philip Morris never actually filed suit. But it didn't need to. Canada never
passed the regulation. Did the threat from Big Tobacco scare Canada off? That's
certainly one possibility, and for anti-tobacco crusaders, it's a blueprint
for the future, as the U.S. continues to sign bilateral free trade agreements
with other countries that give corporations similar (or expanded) rights to sue
governments for so-called expropriations or otherwise contest domestic public
policy. Just today, I learned from a posting to the invaluable mailing list run
by the Consumer Project on Technology on intellectual property and public health
issues that the same issue is a potential problem with a proposed U.S.-Malaysia
Free Trade Agreement.
Tobacco consumption in the developed world is flat or declining, but it is booming
worldwide, boosted by the removal of tariffs and other restrictions on trade that
have been an integral part of globalization. But, tobacco, as its critics like
to point out, is not like most other products -- it's "the only legal
consumer product that kills half of its regular users." So, naturally, governments
are wont to regulate it.
The fact that tobacco companies might use provisions of trade agreements to fight
against the imposition of such regulations, or to claim financial compensation
from governments, is one of the most glaring flaws in free trade as it is currently
practiced. Eleven years ago, NAFTA pioneered the possibility of this kind of extraterritorial
challenge to domestic sovereignty, with its inclusion of the infamous "Chapter
11" provision giving foreign investors the right to sue governments and be
judged under special tribunals if they believed that domestic court rulings or
government action was unduly interfering with their business.
As of 2005, 42 such suits have been filed in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. Six
have been dismissed, five were victories for the plaintiff, and the rest are pending
or in arbitration. The total amount of compensation forked over by governments
has added up to a relatively piddling $35 million, but the legal precedents being
set are alarming. In one notable case, Canada rescinded a ban on the gasoline
additive MMT, and ended up paying the plaintiff $13 million.
Under Chapter 11, foreign investors enjoy the rights to contest government regulations
and court decisions that domestic citizens do not. This has led to criticism in
Congress by both Republicans and Democrats, and in 2002, the White House was instructed
to ensure that it didn't make the same mistake in future trade agreements.
But a detailed analysis conducted by Public Citizen that is must reading for anyone
interested in this subject pretty conclusively demonstrates that the opposite
has occurred. If anything, the provisions built into succeeding trade agreements
extend the abilities of corporations to contest domestic government action.
One can be a supporter of the principle that greater trade between nations will
lead to greater prosperity and still argue that the way the United States has
gone about ensuring how "free trade" works has been a gross dereliction
of governmental responsibility. Big Pharma shouldn't be able to use free
trade agreements to contest domestic decisions on public health. Big Tobacco should
be given even less room to breathe.
CorpWatch : US: Why Big Tobacco Loves GlobalizationCorpWatch : TobaccoHow the World Works - Salon.comHow the World Works - Salon.comFree Articles and Content Generator for Webmasters
|
|