Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 7:19:03 GMT
Which is being judged in the Federal Supreme Court, the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) proposes that an interpretation be given in accordance with the Constitution to article 7, XV, of Law 9,782/99, so that the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) only acts concretely (and not by issuing a prohibitive abstract rule) in the face of any situation causing damage to public health and, consequently, for the unconstitutionality to be declared due to the dragging of its Collegiate Board Resolution 14/2012, which had prohibited the use of flavoring and flavoring additives in different smoking products [2] .
It is known that additives are substances used to Buy Phone Number List make the product — the best known is cigarettes — pleasant and, consequently, more pleasant to the taste, especially for children and adolescents. Under discussion, in this case, directly, is the possibility or not, in accordance with the constitutional text in force, for the regulatory agency in question to develop rules that contain this content. As an argument to support the unconstitutionality of the rule, the industry defends its potential to make the maintenance of the economic sector unfeasible.
Also under discussion in this case, in a subliminal and underlying way, is the old debate about the possibility or not of the State intervening in human freedom to discourage smoking. Let's start with the second aspect of the discussion and which, in the end, always leads to the entire interpretation of the problems involving the topic of smoking. It is important to remember, in this regard, what several studies seem to indicate: i) smoking would not merely be a matter of individual decision and exercise of human freedom. Either because once smoking begins, the impaired will prevents the full exercise of the right to choose, or because the empirical study of the conditions under which smoking initiation takes place points to clear elements of the absence of free will (we will elaborate further below) and ; ii) the consumption of cigarettes is not an act that only interests the smoker and his/hers (or their passive smokers).
It is known that additives are substances used to Buy Phone Number List make the product — the best known is cigarettes — pleasant and, consequently, more pleasant to the taste, especially for children and adolescents. Under discussion, in this case, directly, is the possibility or not, in accordance with the constitutional text in force, for the regulatory agency in question to develop rules that contain this content. As an argument to support the unconstitutionality of the rule, the industry defends its potential to make the maintenance of the economic sector unfeasible.
Also under discussion in this case, in a subliminal and underlying way, is the old debate about the possibility or not of the State intervening in human freedom to discourage smoking. Let's start with the second aspect of the discussion and which, in the end, always leads to the entire interpretation of the problems involving the topic of smoking. It is important to remember, in this regard, what several studies seem to indicate: i) smoking would not merely be a matter of individual decision and exercise of human freedom. Either because once smoking begins, the impaired will prevents the full exercise of the right to choose, or because the empirical study of the conditions under which smoking initiation takes place points to clear elements of the absence of free will (we will elaborate further below) and ; ii) the consumption of cigarettes is not an act that only interests the smoker and his/hers (or their passive smokers).