• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Russia starts ambitious smoking ban

Crankinit

Crankinit

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
6,177
Russia's ambitious smoking ban, which aims to cut the number of smokers in half and improve public health, has gone into effect amid doubts that its measures can be fully enforced.

The first stage of the so-called anti-tobacco ban makes it illegal to smoke on buses, trams and other municipal transport, at railway stations and airports, on lifts and bus stations, near metro and rail stations, in administrative buildings and at education and health facilities.

From June 1, 2014, the ban will be stepped up to also include ships, long-distance trains, train platforms, hotels, cafes and restaurants - places where Russians still smoke plentifully.

Cigarette advertising and sales will also be curbed significantly.
Advertisement

The Kremlin initiated the public health initiative last year in a bid to halve the country's smokers.

An estimated 44 million Russians use nicotine on a daily basis.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said last year that smoking-related diseases killed an estimated 400,000 people in Russia every year, and that increasingly younger people were picking up the habit.

According to a survey carried out by Levada Centre last year, 81 per cent of the Russians polled were in favour of banning smoking in public places.

However, doubts have been cast about the authorities' ability to enforce the law, and many people have said that the government should focus more on helping people kick the habit rather than adopting repressive measures.

Smokers have also launched a country-wide movement to fight for their rights.

"The government's policies often turn the fight against smoking into the fight against smokers," the All-Russia Movement For The Rights of Smokers said on its website.

The Duma last month passed in an initial reading the bill, setting up fines for violating the law, which start from 1000 rubles ($A32.25) for smoking in forbidden areas and go up as high as 500,000 rubles ($A16,650) for illegal tobacco advertising.

According to the World Health Organisation, Russia in 2010 had the fourth most smokers of any country in the world, accounting for 4.4 per cent of the world's smokers.

However, it was still well behind China, which accounted for 28 per cent of the world's smokers.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/wor...smoking-ban-20130601-2nilv.html#ixzz2V6dsTcTa
Click to expand...

44m smokers with 400000 dead every year... that's pretty messed up. Hopefully these new measures help save some lives.
 
If they crack down too quickly then black market trade will just skyrocket.
 
basically the best you can do is prevent new smokers from becoming full smokers or prevent someone from smoking in the first place. For the rest of the smokers, you're most likely going to have to put up a hell of a fight to get them to stop.
 
what a load of horwe shit itr aint gonna change anything, absolutno nichevo ne pomeniaet hahaha
 
^ Yeah we have most of those restrictions in place here already, if not all of them. Other things we have here are massive increases in the price of tobacco products, plain packaging (no brands, colours, fonts etc) and not for view in places that sell them, as in they have to be hidden in cupboards and such and increased advertising on anti smoking or quit initiatives.
 
poledriver said:
plain packaging (no brands, colours, fonts etc) and not for view in places that sell them, as in they have to be hidden in cupboards
Click to expand...

We don't have that here yet, and won't any time soon, God willing.
 
Keeping cigarettes out of plain view in shops in New York was proposed but I don't know if that law is in place. I only read about it though and I'm sure it was on this forum. I was having a discussion with my dad about this when Starbuck's came out last week announcing they will not allow people to smoke within 25 feet outside of their locations. I think smokers can deal with that, though it might be inconvenient.

But what's troublesome is corporations that besides drug testing, test potential employees for nicotine. What people do while they're not at work should be their own business. Probably alcohol is next, then pork products and sugar because they don't want to hire fat people either. I always thought my dad was paranoid but he's right when he said we're not living in a free country anymore. Russia's just catching on.

Quoting Jimi Hendrix "I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die. So let me live my life the way I want to."
 
^ Companies test for nicotine? Really? And test 'potential' employees at that.. Shit. Can't keep it hidden then hey.

Yeah I think me or maybe someone else posted about the law changes here (in Aus) in this forum regarding plain packaging, the packs aren't totally plain, they are all plastered with those horrible anti smoking ads, with some dude dying or the inside of a cancerous throat or whatever. But the packs are all the same general colour, olive green, all with the same font saying what they are in small letters. so and so brand 25's or 30's or whatever but 3/4 of the pack is covered in that anti smoking stuff.
 
Yeah I nearly choked since I'm planning on relocating to another state. The major healthcare hospital provider in Southeastern Michigan - McLaren Healthcare has a notice on their website that they test for nicotine and are a tobacco-free employer. Damn, it's one thing to ask employees not to smoke while they're working but I feel this is a bit unfair. Big brother is here to stay I'm afraid.

The way things are going, people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, previous health conditions and any risk factors will be excluded from getting employment.
 
Tobacco free employer? How is this even constitutional?
Click to expand...

How is not constitutional? Private businesses can do what they want, the government has no business interfering. What isn't constitutional (but by much bullshit with the abominably vague commerce clause) are the provisions of the civil rights act that let the federal government tell private businesses that they have to hire or allow certain persons on their property. Not to say I morally disagree with federal anti-discrimination laws, I just think an amendment needs to be passed to allow them, or individual states need to do it on their own.
 
weekend addiction said:
^Tobacco free employer? How is this even constitutional?
Click to expand...

In a right-to-work state employers don't need a reason to fire you. They can basically just let you go if they feel like it. They can make pretty much any stupid company policy aside from permitting sexual harassment and don't need a reason to fire you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top