How public consultations work in Ireland
Monday, January 14, 2013 at 12:12 If you thought our consultation process was dodgy, read on.
On Thursday December 20, five days before Christmas, the Department of Health in Ireland launched a Public Consultation on a proposal for an EU Directive on the Tobacco Products Directive.
According to the Government:
The Department of Health wishes to have as many views as possible from the public and stakeholders with an interest in the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products ...
To inform Ireland’s position, the Department would welcome the views of the public and interested parties on any aspect of the draft proposal including:
- Ingredients and emissions
- Labelling and packaging
- Traceability and security features
- Tobacco for oral use
- Cross border distance sales of tobacco
- Novel tobacco products
- Nicotine containing products
Closing date for submissions: Wednesday, January 16, 2013.
That's right, the Irish Government launched a four-week consultation with half the consultation period falling over Christmas and the New Year!!
Moreover, how public is this "public" consultation? Well, this morning I Googled 'public consultation, ireland, tobacco products directive' and not a single news report came up.
But don't worry, the tobacco control lobby knows all about it. The Irish Heart Foundation, for example, has drafted an email and is encouraging supporters to send it to the Department of Heath in Dublin. (See Tell the Department what you think.)
And the reason this is important? Well, for the first half of 2013 Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of European Union. The Irish Government is therefore is a strong position to support the Directive which includes proposals to:
- increase the size of health warnings so that they cover at least 75 per cent of the front and back of the packet
- ban cigarettes and other tobacco products (roll your own tobacco and smokeless tobacco) that contain "characterising flavours" such as menthol, and
- ban smokeless and nicotine containing products, including electronic cigarettes, unless authorised as medicinal products (like nicotine replacement therapies).
If you're interested you'll find details of the consultation here.
PS. I wonder if the Australian Government will be making a submission? Perhaps, at this very moment, a civil servant in Canberra is drafting a request for an extension to the closing date.
Reader Comments (2)
I sent a submission.
You may be tempted to disregard this submission as it is from a foreign country, but if you do you will need to disregard all other foreign submissions on the same grounds.
There is no evidence that flavourings enhance any risk to a tobacco user. Controlling flavours would set a dangerous precedent in that it could be applied to any product that found disfavour e.g. sweets or soft drinks or, most likely alcoholic drinks. It would also represent a gross violation of the rights of choice of consumers.
There are no dangers of emissions - which presumably means environmental tobacco smoke. There have been no studies which cam any where near to showing a statistically significant level of relative risk.
Again there is no evidence that tobacco packaging causes people to start smoking, and none to show that it is likely to make them stop. The more morbid and pornographic the warnings the more they are ignored. Packaging interference breaches the rights of the manufacturer. It is nothing but a further attempt to denormalise decent ordinary folk who happen to smoke.
Traceability and security features: essentially an admission that plain pack tobacco will be easy to counterfeit.
Restrictions on oral use tobacco and "nicotine containing products" amount to an admission that harm reduction is not on the agenda. Harm reduction should be on the agenda. There is no evidence against electronic cigarettes, and on oral tobacco the evidence points to it being 100 times less harmful than smoking. Nicotine replacement therapy, the only products supported by the tobacco control industry have a 98.4% failure rate, although these pharmaceutical products are advertised free of charge by the tobacco control industry.
Cross border sales of tobacco only go to show that excise rates are far to high.
Tobacco is legal. It follows that novel tobacco products, whatever they are supposed to be will also be legal. If you don't like it simply ban tobacco products and take the hit on the revenue they generate.
George.
You forgot to say that only psychopaths could dream up such excuses as SHS harm to children in cars to forbid smoking in cars. I am serious. A 'psychopath' is a person who will use any and every excuse to get his own way, and has no regard for his fellow men, and cares nothing about the consequences of his actions and has no feelings of guilt about these consequences, if they turn out to be damaging.
Since there is no known damage to children subjected to smoking in cars, then anyone who claims that there is such damage and demands legislation must be psychopathic.
Psychopaths are mentally ill.