Smoke at home

[Touches]

I find this big stick heavy handed ting real dread...I am not a smoker...but if I were one I woulda dig a real horrors. Also lower down you will see a section about sale, advertising of tobacco products...dat effectively wiping out a sector of hemp men, and parlour vendors who hustle for a living.


Smoke at home
Narace's update on Tobacco Bill...
Aabida Allaham aabida.allaham@trinidadexpress.com

Tuesday, November 17th 2009


   
LOOSE CIGARETTE: A smoker pulls a single retail cigarette from a vendor's receptacle in Port of Spain yesterday. If Government gets its way and passes the Tobacco Bill it will be illegal for vendors to sell single cigarettes. -Photos: CURTIS CHASE

SMOKERS will only able to enjoy their cigarettes in the comfort of their own home.

This according to Minister of Health Jerry Narace during a press briefing to update the public about the amendment to the 2009 Tobacco Bill at the Ministry’s Park Street head office in Port of Spain yesterday.

’People can smoke in their private residences if they wish to, except when the house is used for the purposes of manufacturing, distribution, or trade,’ he said.

It will, however, still be an offence for any person to smoke or hold a lighted tobacco product in any enclosed public place such as public transportation terminals, workplaces, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, clubs, cinemas, and sports facilities or any enclosed workplace.

When asked why bars were also included as no smoking zones, chairman of the Trinidad and Tobago Cancer Society, George Laquis said ’second hand smoke kills’ and since a lot of people who don’t smoke go to bars, it was simply a matter of protecting them.

Narace said there was no provision to protect children from smoking parents in the home since that clause had to be removed in order to get support for the legislation.

As for prohibiting the sale of individual cigarettes, tobacco products through any self-service means, including the mail, the Internet or automatic vending machines, Narace insisted that it was all ’for the children’.

’Evidence tells us that 90 per cent of persons begin smoking before 20 years of age, thus the probability of initiation after the adolescence age is very low. In essence, if the tobacco companies can’t target them when they are young, you allow them to reach 20, 21 years and not be smokers,’ he said.

The amended bill, which will be debated in the Senate today, also prohibits persons from importing, manufacturing, selling, displaying for sale, distributing or supplying, any sweets, snacks, toys or other non-tobacco items or objects in the form of tobacco products.

But even with this large scale of proposed bans, Narace insisted that all the clauses in the Bill were constitutionally sound.

’The Attorney General has assured us that there is no issue with the constitutionality of the Bill and he will speak to that tomorrow (today),’ he said.

[Bakes]

Again Touches... exactly what is yuh complaint?

Is about time Trinidad come into step with the rest of the developing world.  The way companies get away with targeting children with all kinda harmful products in TnT is ridiculous... but 'we like it so', and any attempt to change does result in all kinda nonsense protest.  Look you cyah even self articulate why yuh have ah problem with it... other than yuh find it "heavy-handed". 

When dem people and dem develop lung cancer is who have to foot the bill for their medical expenses... not an already overburdened healthcare system?  Think what you will of that system but is the tax-paying public footing the bill for that.  Public health measures like this are both legitimate and necessary but unless people change dey vaille-qui-vaille mentality then the country ent go get nowhere.

[elan]

I see real people complaining about this, all on FB they hitting the government.

I remember as a yuteman when my dad send me to buy 2 cigarettes, I will buy 3 or 4 and keep the other 2 for me and my buddies to smoke later (glad I never took to it). Now if m dad could not buy 2 cigs, then if I took 2 out the pack he would have known, but with the ability to buy loose cigs, I had a ready made opportunity to try smoking. Not that I could not find any other means, but it was so easy.

[Touches]

Bakes I find all these new laws are just "smoke screens" from the real issues at hand.

Maybe the good powers that be want to help curb the little things so that the big things will get ironed out eventually.(Guilliani tactic)

But I just find that it is being unfair to some in society.

It is hard to argue for smoking and drinking...it is a lost cause. But I find to an extent that people's choices are now infringed on to a degree, it is as if their constitutional rights are being targeted...(doh play lawyer and say when a man smoking in yuh face or bounce yuh drunk that your rights ent infringed yadda yadda)

Also I do not think this and the breathalyzer will be enforced properly...especially this smoking act and it will be difficult for the police.

To me it seems the govnt and law makers and police have more important things to do...i.e chase criminals...instead of punishing a man for taking a smoke.

Also too it would take the entire police force and it still would not be enough...to try and stop people from smoking.

The populace has to "buy in" and get into this smoking law...and I feel it cyar happen....same way the drink and drive ent happening anytime soon...e.g look at the seatbelt law.

I may be wrong in my thinking and view of my country...but T&T is third world and we will remain third world (at least in my lifetime).

No amount of money or buildings could help the mentality and mindset of people down here.

Maybe I am adding to the problem by this post, but I am sharing a perspective for you to appreciate.

 

 

[Touches]

Elan,

Doh blame what yuh father do wrong to come with support for the loose cigarette thing.   

a) He shoulda never send you to buy them in the first place.

b) He shoulda know the price of a cigarette and give you exact change, so yuh couldnt get no extra ones 

Plus it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors in T&T. This law already exists.

At the end of the day people will do what they want to do...smoking and drink included and yuh cyar stop them.
 

[elan]

Bakes I find all these new laws are just "smoke screens" from the real issues at hand.

Maybe the good powers that be want to help curb the little things so that the big things will get ironed out eventually.(Guilliani tactic)

But I just find that it is being unfair to some in society.

It is hard to argue for smoking and drinking...it is a lost cause. But I find to an extent that people's choices are now infringed on to a degree, it is as if their constitutional rights are being targeted...(doh play lawyer and say when a man smoking in yuh face or bounce yuh drunk that your rights ent infringed yadda yadda)

Also I do not think this and the breathalyzer will be enforced properly...especially this smoking act and it will be difficult for the police.

To me it seems the govnt and law makers and police have more important things to do...i.e chase criminals...instead of punishing a man for taking a smoke.

Also too it would take the entire police force and it still would not be enough...to try and stop people from smoking.

The populace has to "buy in" and get into this smoking law...and I feel it cyar happen....same way the drink and drive ent happening anytime soon...e.g look at the seatbelt law.

I may be wrong in my thinking and view of my country...but T&T is third world and we will remain third world (at least in my lifetime).

No amount of money or buildings could help the mentality and mindset of people down here.
Maybe I am adding to the problem by this post, but I am sharing a perspective for you to appreciate.

 

Question touches. You really don't think the mentality of the people could change? When a man go to a bar and could leave without smelling smoky, you don't think that might help? Or when people travelling no one lighting up? I think the mentality of the people could change by putting things into place. I think in Nashville they instituted the ban on smoking at bars and real people complain, cause it have rel smokers here (never seen so many in my life). People said it will never work, but it's been working somewhat.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/14212654/detail.html
http://www.wsmv.com/news/15460620/detail.html


I agree though with you about the enforcement of the laws.

[Touches]

No I dont think it could change...because it is  lifestyle, habit forming, addictive goods we talking about.

Society in TT is centered around a lime and smoke or drink is usually involved.

Lemme get ridiculous here...when yuh go church and the alter boy swinging the incense...yuh does dig a horrors with the smoke?

Ent that giving yuh second hand smoke inhalation too?

[Bakes]

Bakes I find all these new laws are just "smoke screens" from the real issues at hand.

So until "the real issues at hand" can be addressed NOTHING ELSE should be addressed then?  I could never understand that mentality.  "it have bigger fish tuh fry, so doh fry no fish until dem season and in de oil".

Maybe the good powers that be want to help curb the little things so that the big things will get ironed out eventually.(Guilliani tactic)

This ent even about dem "quality of life" tactics... each Ministry has it's own mandate.  Narace cyah do nutten about National Security and if he was to sit on he ass and wait for Martin Joseph and Manning and them to get that right then people would be up he ass with all kinda complaints

But I just find that it is being unfair to some in society.

It is hard to argue for smoking and drinking...it is a lost cause. But I find to an extent that people's choices are now infringed on to a degree, it is as if their constitutional rights are being targeted...(doh play lawyer and say when a man smoking in yuh face or bounce yuh drunk that your rights ent infringed yadda yadda)

Individual "rights" are often secondary to the collective interests of society on the whoe... that is the way it's always been in any civilized society.  Why is this news?  If yuh want to drink then drink all yuh want... yuh juss doh have a right to drink and get behind the wheel.  Where in the TnT constitution it say you have a right to drink and drive?  Same with smoking, smoke and kill you and yuh chirren inside yuh house all yuh want... other people doh need to be exposed tuh dat nasty shit if dey doh want to.

Look, I grow up in ah house where my mother was a smoker.  Thank God she wasn't no heavy smoker, not that I coulda tell anyways, to me she smoked too much, but the most she did was buy ah 10-pack ah duMaurier a week.  She used to give me de cigarette to go light on the stove fuh she... and I wasn't more than 7 or 8.  One time me and my older sis tief one and run behind de house tuh smoke it.  I realize quick that smoking wasn't fuh me.  Thankfully my mother eventually stopped, but not until I was done in college... and not until after it contribute tuh her having heart disease from angina.  I understand all about individual rights, but sometimes I find it acceptable for government to make it difficult for people to harm themselves... AND OTHERS.  When such government 'interference' is both limited and REASONABLE, I have no complaints.

Also I do not think this and the breathalyzer will be enforced properly...especially this smoking act and it will be difficult for the police.

To me it seems the govnt and law makers and police have more important things to do...i.e chase criminals...instead of punishing a man for taking a smoke.

Also too it would take the entire police force and it still would not be enough...to try and stop people from smoking.

The populace has to "buy in" and get into this smoking law...and I feel it cyar happen....same way the drink and drive ent happening anytime soon...e.g look at the seatbelt law.

I may be wrong in my thinking and view of my country...but T&T is third world and we will remain third world (at least in my lifetime).

No amount of money or buildings could help the mentality and mindset of people down here.

Maybe I am adding to the problem by this post, but I am sharing a perspective for you to appreciate.

 

I have no problem with you sharing yuh perspective... and yes, I appreciate it.  But I will critique and respond to that perspective as part of the discussion.  It kinda sad that you don't think the mentality of the people won't change, but that aside, it doesn't mean gov't shoudn't try and change that mentality.

[Bakes]

No I dont think it could change...because it is  lifestyle, habit forming, addictive goods we talking about.

Society in TT is centered around a lime and smoke or drink is usually involved.

Lemme get ridiculous here...when yuh go church and the alter boy swinging the incense...yuh does dig a horrors with the smoke?

Ent that giving yuh second hand smoke inhalation too?

There are carcinogens in tobacco smoke... no carcinogens in incense from what I know.  That attitude that you just cite is ingrained and could similarly be 'out'grained with time.  Yuh have to start someplace.  That liming mentality is good but should be kept in it's proper perspective.  We shouldn't adopt and celebrate that as some part of we national culture to the extent that it pervades in everything.

[Brownsugar]

Bakes, my grandfather was the smoker in the house and yes out of sheer curiousity I take a pull one day and I find the thing nasty, stink and digusting.  Ah couldn't for the life of me understand what so enjoyable about that....right then and there I decide....that eh for me.

As for banning it in public places.  We cyar want to aspire for first world status and doh want to adapt to first world behaviours.  The problem is there might be a disconnect between the aspirations of government and the ordinary man on the street.  The gap might close with generations to come.  The other problem is enforcement....I waiting to see which policeman going and pull over he "batch" for drunk driving and for smoking in public.....

Overall, I support the move.  1. I doh smoke and 2. it kills.  If you want to smoke and kill yuh self fine.  But doh kill me too....

[NYtriniwhiteboy..]

pressure for all the smokers in de stadium...wah BM gonna do now!

[Bakes]

Bakes, my grandfather was the smoker in the house and yes out of sheer curiousity I take a pull one day and I find the thing nasty, stink and digusting.  Ah couldn't for the life of me understand what so enjoyable about that....right then and there I decide....that eh for me.

As for banning it in public places.  We cyar want to aspire for first world status and doh want to adapt to first world behaviours.  The problem is there might be a disconnect between the aspirations of government and the ordinary man on the street.  The gap might close with generations to come.  The other problem is enforcement....I waiting to see which policeman going and pull over he "batch" for drunk driving and for smoking in public.....

Overall, I support the move.  1. I doh smoke and 2. it kills.  If you want to smoke and kill yuh self fine.  But doh kill me too....

That is precisely de issue as I see it... ordinary man probably find we getting too "Americanized".  First world aspirations with third world mentality.

[g]

Ah like the level of discussion in this post

On this road to developed status.

Apart from all the big building and infrastructure that looks nice.

The government MUST and I repeat MUST also aspire to create a shift in the ideologies of its people, they cannot force me and you to change but they can create a legal and enforcement framework to harbour that change. We look at these developed societies out there, they surely took a lot longer than our 47 years of sovereignty to reach where they are now and in the modern age, we surely won't take the length of of a United States or Europe to get things right but appreciate the transitionary position we currently find ourselves in.  

As with everything else in life, we are a creatures of habit and the reaction to change is almost always received negatively cause now we have to change our habits. A responsible goverment MUST in my opinion have the necessary political will to impress upon its people change for the ultimate good. Opposition forces simply galvanize their supporters based on emotional rhetoric and cause a stir, gotta love democracy cause it's their right to do so even for self righteous reasons.

And yes the government surely doesn't and will never get everything right, they have failed in terms of creating understanding with the people on the changes in taxation, health and safety laws but again, in a developing society such as ours these things will happen. The enforcement factor i mentioned previously is a major failing because part of that ideological shift is a population understanding that there are harsh penalties for operating outside of this new framework. One of the actual benefits of this global economic crisis is the slight hedging of the brain drain where nationals are returning home due to contracting economies abroad. The ability to bring fresh ideas to the table is just as key to our development.

A simple question for all of us. Do we really want to be a developed society? Part of enjoying a first world existance is self regulation. It's easy for us who may already have the mindset and unfortunatley it may take a generation or two before its actually realized, for these changes are not for us but our children and a better society for tommorow.

[ribbit]

why it is that in the so-called "first world", the issue is one of public health (like the article starting this thread states), but in the so-called "third world" is really a challenge to the collossal ignorance of the population? <insert steups icon here>

nah nah. this is about public health plain and simple.

[Controversial]

good law, almost similar to what we have in north america

[Controversial]

Bakes I find all these new laws are just "smoke screens" from the real issues at hand.

So until "the real issues at hand" can be addressed NOTHING ELSE should be addressed then?  I could never understand that mentality.  "it have bigger fish tuh fry, so doh fry no fish until dem season and in de oil".

Maybe the good powers that be want to help curb the little things so that the big things will get ironed out eventually.(Guilliani tactic)

This ent even about dem "quality of life" tactics... each Ministry has it's own mandate.  Narace cyah do nutten about National Security and if he was to sit on he ass and wait for Martin Joseph and Manning and them to get that right then people would be up he ass with all kinda complaints

But I just find that it is being unfair to some in society.

It is hard to argue for smoking and drinking...it is a lost cause. But I find to an extent that people's choices are now infringed on to a degree, it is as if their constitutional rights are being targeted...(doh play lawyer and say when a man smoking in yuh face or bounce yuh drunk that your rights ent infringed yadda yadda)

Individual "rights" are often secondary to the collective interests of society on the whoe... that is the way it's always been in any civilized society.  Why is this news?  If yuh want to drink then drink all yuh want... yuh juss doh have a right to drink and get behind the wheel.  Where in the TnT constitution it say you have a right to drink and drive?  Same with smoking, smoke and kill you and yuh chirren inside yuh house all yuh want... other people doh need to be exposed tuh dat nasty shit if dey doh want to.

Look, I grow up in ah house where my mother was a smoker.  Thank God she wasn't no heavy smoker, not that I coulda tell anyways, to me she smoked too much, but the most she did was buy ah 10-pack ah duMaurier a week.  She used to give me de cigarette to go light on the stove fuh she... and I wasn't more than 7 or 8.  One time me and my older sis tief one and run behind de house tuh smoke it.  I realize quick that smoking wasn't fuh me.  Thankfully my mother eventually stopped, but not until I was done in college... and not until after it contribute tuh her having heart disease from angina.  I understand all about individual rights, but sometimes I find it acceptable for government to make it difficult for people to harm themselves... AND OTHERS.  When such government 'interference' is both limited and REASONABLE, I have no complaints.

Also I do not think this and the breathalyzer will be enforced properly...especially this smoking act and it will be difficult for the police.

To me it seems the govnt and law makers and police have more important things to do...i.e chase criminals...instead of punishing a man for taking a smoke.

Also too it would take the entire police force and it still would not be enough...to try and stop people from smoking.

The populace has to "buy in" and get into this smoking law...and I feel it cyar happen....same way the drink and drive ent happening anytime soon...e.g look at the seatbelt law.

I may be wrong in my thinking and view of my country...but T&T is third world and we will remain third world (at least in my lifetime).

No amount of money or buildings could help the mentality and mindset of people down here.

Maybe I am adding to the problem by this post, but I am sharing a perspective for you to appreciate.

 

I have no problem with you sharing yuh perspective... and yes, I appreciate it.  But I will critique and respond to that perspective as part of the discussion.  It kinda sad that you don't think the mentality of the people won't change, but that aside, it doesn't mean gov't shoudn't try and change that mentality.

for the record, even though me and bakes dont see eye to eye on certain issues, i strongly support his opinion, which is progressive and supports a better tt, touches i understand your point of view but something must be done, drastic decisons must be made.

[fishs]

Again Touches... exactly what is yuh complaint?

Is about time Trinidad come into step with the rest of the developing world.  The way companies get away with targeting children with all kinda harmful products in TnT is ridiculous... but 'we like it so', and any attempt to change does result in all kinda nonsense protest.  Look you cyah even self articulate why yuh have ah problem with it... other than yuh find it "heavy-handed". 

When dem people and dem develop lung cancer is who have to foot the bill for their medical expenses... not an already overburdened healthcare system?  Think what you will of that system but is the tax-paying public footing the bill for that.  Public health measures like this are both legitimate and necessary but unless people change dey vaille-qui-vaille mentality then the country ent go get nowhere.

I'm a smoker and if they want they could make smoking illegal in total but until they do that  eff off with this stupid law and requirements because is just BS.

[fishs]

good law, almost similar to what we have in north america

Therein lies the fundamental problem with you.

[fishs]

Again Touches... exactly what is yuh complaint?

Is about time Trinidad come into step with the rest of the developing world.  The way companies get away with targeting children with all kinda harmful products in TnT is ridiculous... but 'we like it so', and any attempt to change does result in all kinda nonsense protest.  Look you cyah even self articulate why yuh have ah problem with it... other than yuh find it "heavy-handed". 

When dem people and dem develop lung cancer is who have to foot the bill for their medical expenses... not an already overburdened healthcare system?  Think what you will of that system but is the tax-paying public footing the bill for that.  Public health measures like this are both legitimate and necessary but unless people change dey vaille-qui-vaille mentality then the country ent go get nowhere.

Obesity and bad eating habits cause more death than smoking so they should pass laws against fat people also.
Sometimes you need to look past your lofty ideals and check the gas guzzling monster.

[Controversial]

good law, almost similar to what we have in north america

Therein lies the fundamental problem with you.

why because i want the betterment of our nation? some laws up here would make a big difference in society in tt and improve the nation, i dont promote slackness over progress, especially people's health and cancer

[Bakes]

Obesity and bad eating habits cause more death than smoking so they should pass laws against fat people also.
Sometimes you need to look past your lofty ideals and check the gas guzzling monster.

1) Yuh know anybody dead from "second-hand obesity"?
2) In more progressive nations (read into that what you will) government is starting to mandate (and consumers as well) that food manufacturers be more responsible in making their products more healthy.

"Lofty" is relative and depends on the perspective of the observer.  Maybe yuh should elevate yuh posture and then the ideals presented wouldn't seem quite as lofty as you make them out to be.

[g]

Again Touches... exactly what is yuh complaint?

Is about time Trinidad come into step with the rest of the developing world.  The way companies get away with targeting children with all kinda harmful products in TnT is ridiculous... but 'we like it so', and any attempt to change does result in all kinda nonsense protest.  Look you cyah even self articulate why yuh have ah problem with it... other than yuh find it "heavy-handed". 

When dem people and dem develop lung cancer is who have to foot the bill for their medical expenses... not an already overburdened healthcare system?  Think what you will of that system but is the tax-paying public footing the bill for that.  Public health measures like this are both legitimate and necessary but unless people change dey vaille-qui-vaille mentality then the country ent go get nowhere.

Obesity and bad eating habits cause more death than smoking so they should pass laws against fat people also.
Sometimes you need to look past your lofty ideals and check the gas guzzling monster.

I agree that Obesity is just as deadly as smoking but in fairness you have to look at both objectively and make a proper assesment before determining what actions should be taken in each case

All a goverment can do is put in place is a legal framework for us to operate in and enforcement to ensure we remain within that legal framework. Take the fast food and restaurant industry as an example, in a recent visit to the US all I saw were big numbers next to menu items itemizing the calorie levels for each menu option available. This was never in place, now if we CHOOSE to recognize that, combined with UNDERSTANDING what is a healthy calorie intake we can REGULATE ourselves. You simply cannot ban food as we need to nourish ourselves within the confines of our individual circumstances.

The person who CHOOSES to smoke cigarettes can do so at their discretion, what the government is trying to implement is a system where exposure to second hand smoke is limited to the point that ONLY the person who has accepted the choice to smoke is exposed to the risk of such habits.

[Bakes]

From my perspective obesity is a definite factor that we need to tackle but when we're talking about government intervention that intervention must both be necessary and reasonable within scope.  There's no arguing the necessity of intervening on the issue of obesity... but how does government do that in a 'reasonable' fashion?  Can they tell people what to eat in the privacy of their homes?  Can they do so in restaurants and fast food outlets?  Clearly the answer is no. 

There's no analogy here to the smoking situation because ultimately the individuals affected are only the obese individuals themselves, and perhaps their families peripherally.  With smoking everyone within range of the smoker is affected... which we may be tempted to downplay, except second-hand smoke is a verified threat.  Dana Reeves (wife of Christopher Reeves) died of lung cancer having not smoked a day in her life. Does this mean that everyone will similarly suffer her fate, no... but it expresses the idea that the threat is real... using her as an example.  Public space is not your own, there are certain acts which in the best interest of society have been proscribed... this will just be added to the list.

[Tallman]

Up in smoke: Govt pulls back on harsh cigarette penalties
By Ria Taitt (T&T Express)

Faced with strong opposition to the draconian measures contained in the Tobacco Control Bill, Government yesterday relaxed some of the prohibitions and rolled back some of the harsher penalties.

Health Minister Jerry Narace in winding up in debate in the Senate yesterday said he was backing down with regret and that it bothered him to have to concede on some of the points.

He said the domestic worker was being put at risk as the children in the homes, in conceding that home could not be defined as a workplace, except where it is used for the purpose of ’manufacture, distribution and trade’ of tobacco products.

He said the amendments came in the interest of getting the legislation passed.

Government also removed the ban on sale of single cigarettes which would be affected small vendors and the low income smoker.

It also slashed the penalties-for a number of offences-prohibition on sales by minors, on public displays of tobacco products and on the sales of tobacco products in certain places.

The penalty for these offences, on summary conviction, was reduced from a fine of $100,000 to $50,000 for the first offence; from $200,000 to $100,000 for the second offence and $300,000 to $100,000 and imprisonment for nine months for the third offence.

Upon conviction on indictment (in the High Court), the fine has been reduced from $500,000 and $200,000 and imprisonment of one year.

However, Government proceeded with the legislation and its basic offences despite the complaints of Independent Senators.

Attorney General John Jeremie in defending the legislation, said there were ’very powerful interests at work’ in the tobacco industry.

Referring to this lobby as the ’tobacco complex’, he said years before the Tobacco Amendment bill came to Parliament, there were interest groups preparing to oppose it.

’This complex is as powerful as the complex which drives the war machines in certain parts of the world,’ he said, adding that he was not saying this lightly.

Jeremie, who taught at the University of the West Indies, said one of his students ended up in a tobacco company.

’And her primary purpose-and this was a directive given to her by her superiors-was to monitor and track what was going on in terms of domestic legislative activity ... and she wanted to know what was going on in terms of anti-tobacco legislation,’ he said, adding that she knew he was Attorney General.

Independent Senator Gail Merhair noted that while the consent age for sex was 16, the age for smoking was 18.

’Is Government saying it is okay to have consensual sex, but not to smoke?’ she asked.

Merhair, who noted that her office is situated next to a Montessori school and behind the El Socorro taxi stand, wanted to know how the clause which forbids smoking within 15 metres of a school would be enforced.

Noting that many times persons waiting for a taxi smoked right in front of her driveway, she asked whether she would be liable as defined in Clause 12 (3) which states that the manager or owner or lessess of the place where the contravention takes place who ’authorised or acquiesced in the act’, was personally liable. She also stated that she was against imprisonment as a penalty.

Her colleague Basharat Ali, noting the ban on self-service displays and on public displays, said whereas condoms were at one time the ’under the counter item’, this would now be tobacco products.

He said Government should not deprive old people in homes of the right to smoke ’in the last years’.

’Are you trying to save their lives?’ he asked.

He added that the same relaxation of any ban should apply to Death Row prisoners as is done in other jurisdictions.

Members of the Senate were up to press time still in committee stage trying to have the bill passed.

[Bakes]

Up in smoke: Govt pulls back on harsh cigarette penalties
By Ria Taitt (T&T Express)


Independent Senator Gail Merhair noted that while the consent age for sex was 16, the age for smoking was 18.

’Is Government saying it is okay to have consensual sex, but not to smoke?’ she asked.

Merhair, who noted that her office is situated next to a Montessori school and behind the El Socorro taxi stand, wanted to know how the clause which forbids smoking within 15 metres of a school would be enforced.

Noting that many times persons waiting for a taxi smoked right in front of her driveway, she asked whether she would be liable as defined in Clause 12 (3) which states that the manager or owner or lessess of the place where the contravention takes place who ’authorised or acquiesced in the act’, was personally liable. She also stated that she was against imprisonment as a penalty.

Her colleague Basharat Ali, noting the ban on self-service displays and on public displays, said whereas condoms were at one time the ’under the counter item’, this would now be tobacco products.

He said Government should not deprive old people in homes of the right to smoke ’in the last years’.
’Are you trying to save their lives?’ he asked.

He added that the same relaxation of any ban should apply to Death Row prisoners as is done in other jurisdictions.

Members of the Senate were up to press time still in committee stage trying to have the bill passed.

Is what kinda dotish f**king people allyuh have in government in Trinidad??

[Jah Gol]

If they wanted to past this they could.

[kounty]

Up in smoke: Govt pulls back on harsh cigarette penalties
By Ria Taitt (T&T Express)


Independent Senator Gail Merhair noted that while the consent age for sex was 16, the age for smoking was 18.

’Is Government saying it is okay to have consensual sex, but not to smoke?’ she asked.

Merhair, who noted that her office is situated next to a Montessori school and behind the El Socorro taxi stand, wanted to know how the clause which forbids smoking within 15 metres of a school would be enforced.

Noting that many times persons waiting for a taxi smoked right in front of her driveway, she asked whether she would be liable as defined in Clause 12 (3) which states that the manager or owner or lessess of the place where the contravention takes place who ’authorised or acquiesced in the act’, was personally liable. She also stated that she was against imprisonment as a penalty.

Her colleague Basharat Ali, noting the ban on self-service displays and on public displays, said whereas condoms were at one time the ’under the counter item’, this would now be tobacco products.

He said Government should not deprive old people in homes of the right to smoke ’in the last years’.
’Are you trying to save their lives?’ he asked.

He added that the same relaxation of any ban should apply to Death Row prisoners as is done in other jurisdictions.

Members of the Senate were up to press time still in committee stage trying to have the bill passed.

Is what kinda dotish f**king people allyuh have in government in Trinidad??

saddis yuh real f**kin annoyin boy!! jah!!!!!!!!! daiz my (independent senator) 'government' soldier.  okay the 1st thing yuh bold - the man talk lil shit, but oh gosh man...we know in your country is sense right tru talkin in all houses 24/7  ,  so low mines sometimes nah.  if you like, the larger picture is when you add together all the factors of enforcing etc, is there any way we could take out parts of the law that will be unnecessarily onerous.

[Bakes]

saddis yuh real f**kin annoyin boy!! jah!!!!!!!!! daiz my (independent senator) 'government' soldier.  okay the 1st thing yuh bold - the man talk lil shit, but oh gosh man...we know in your country is sense right tru talkin in all houses 24/7  ,  so low mines sometimes nah.  if you like, the larger picture is when you add together all the factors of enforcing etc, is there any way we could take out parts of the law that will be unnecessarily onerous.

I annoying?  Look f**k you, f**k yuh "indedpendent senator" and f**k de f**king horse yuh ride in on.  You living in f**king New Mexico, not so?  So what de f**k you talking about?  And even if yuh not, if you proud of that dotishness dem two fools talk about den is no wonder Trinidad going down de drain because is dotish people electing dotish people to run de country.

[triniairman]

Up in smoke: Govt pulls back on harsh cigarette penalties
By Ria Taitt (T&T Express)


Independent Senator Gail Merhair noted that while the consent age for sex was 16, the age for smoking was 18.

’Is Government saying it is okay to have consensual sex, but not to smoke?’ she asked.

Merhair, who noted that her office is situated next to a Montessori school and behind the El Socorro taxi stand, wanted to know how the clause which forbids smoking within 15 metres of a school would be enforced.

Noting that many times persons waiting for a taxi smoked right in front of her driveway, she asked whether she would be liable as defined in Clause 12 (3) which states that the manager or owner or lessess of the place where the contravention takes place who ’authorised or acquiesced in the act’, was personally liable. She also stated that she was against imprisonment as a penalty.

Her colleague Basharat Ali, noting the ban on self-service displays and on public displays, said whereas condoms were at one time the ’under the counter item’, this would now be tobacco products.

He said Government should not deprive old people in homes of the right to smoke ’in the last years’.
’Are you trying to save their lives?’ he asked.

He added that the same relaxation of any ban should apply to Death Row prisoners as is done in other jurisdictions.

Members of the Senate were up to press time still in committee stage trying to have the bill passed.

Is what kinda dotish f**king people allyuh have in government in Trinidad??

They F@*king spineless!!!!