Cancer Victims Go After 7-11

[george]

Cancer victims go after 7-11

BANGKOK: -- The 7-Eleven retail chain's refusal to abide by the new ban on cigarette displays has prompted a group of independent lawyers and a group of cancer sufferers to file a complaint with police seeking action against the convenience-store operator.

Although neither group named CP Seven Eleven Plc, which operates the chain, they alleged that as many as 130 of the stores reportedly flouting the cigarette display ban were 7-Elevens. There were another five stores reported to be ignoring the ban- none of which was owned by the CP Group - said Sumpun Sermcheep, the president of the lawyers' group, which is calling itself the "Lawyers for Society Club".

The two groups yesterday filed a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division, seeking action to enforce the law. The new law has been in effect since September 24.

CP Seven Eleven has previously argued the ban, issued by the Public Health Ministry under the 1992 Tobacco Product Control Act, is unconstitutional and is awaiting a ruling by the Office of Council of State.

Thongchai Nilnampetch, who represents the Laryngectomees Association in Thailand, said his group wanted to protect future generations against the harmful effects of cigarettes.

--The Nation 2005-10-05

[OZONE]

Cancer victims go after 7-11

BANGKOK: -- The 7-Eleven retail chain's refusal to abide by the new ban on cigarette displays has prompted a group of independent lawyers and a group of cancer sufferers to file a complaint with police seeking action against the convenience-store operator.

Although neither group named CP Seven Eleven Plc, which operates the chain, they alleged that as many as 130 of the stores reportedly flouting the cigarette display ban were 7-Elevens. There were another five stores reported to be ignoring the ban- none of which was owned by the CP Group - said Sumpun Sermcheep, the president of the lawyers' group, which is calling itself the "Lawyers for Society Club".

The two groups yesterday filed a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division, seeking action to enforce the law. The new law has been in effect since September 24.

CP Seven Eleven has previously argued the ban, issued by the Public Health Ministry under the 1992 Tobacco Product Control Act, is unconstitutional and is awaiting a ruling by the Office of Council of State.

Thongchai Nilnampetch, who represents the Laryngectomees Association in Thailand, said his group wanted to protect future generations against the harmful effects of cigarettes.

--The Nation 2005-10-05

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Lawyer for society club"? is there such a thing?

[thailien8]

Is anyone else out there boycotting 7-11 for this brazen disregard for a law that actually makes sense? The Family Mart chain of convenience stores is obeying the law. Or how about giving a little of your business back to the mom-and-pop stores that are suffering from the influx of the mighty retail giants.

[cclub75]

Is anyone else out there boycotting 7-11 for this brazen disregard for a law that actually makes sense?  The Family Mart chain of convenience stores is obeying the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too easy... There is real legal issue about the "law" you speak about, regarding the ban of "display" of cigarettes. It's not as clear as you may think (and some of thai ministers too).

-First question : the display is it a form of advertising ?

-Question number 2 : can the administration impose a "fine" ?

As usal, thai administration speaks first, and thinks after.

7/11 is absolutly right to fight back. Because, they have lawyers, because it's a big company.

The companies who are wrong are all the small shops who were afraid and ran like dogs in order to obey an "injonction" from "officials", basically a threat, but without solid legal ground. Yet.

[thailien8]

It's not a "law", it's a law. The answer to both of your questions is YES. Of course 7-11 is in position to disobey the law because indeed they have lawyers, a plague of lawyers, and CP Group is, I believe, the biggest company in Thailand, with many powerful friends. Thaksin and his Shin Corp. are pretty big and well-connected too. Does that make it Ok for him to "fight back" with multiple lawsuits and try to kill the messengers in the media who are trying to keep the public informed and protect some pretty basic democratic rights like freedom of speech and of the press?

[ZZZ]

Of course they can fight the law but they have to abide by the law until the law is changed.

You can not just break a law because you don't like it and keep breaking it while you are trying to have the law changed.

[cclub75]

It's not a "law", it's a law.  The answer to both of your questions is YES.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are misinformed.

The law is edicted by politics. And then, the law can be... detailed, modified or... outlawed by judges (constitutional). Hopefully !

It's a basic principle in democracy.

So before to eat your pack of cigarettes, just wait for the judges.

As for the moral issue, I should add that everybody can understand that this "regulation", at least the interpretation of it made by the administration, is totally dumb.

The aim of the law was to prevent advertising of tobaco. Can you really say that a shop that present its product inside is "advertising" ?

Don't you laugh when you go inside a Family Mart and see the big white "cover", in front of the cigarettes ? And when you ask for a pack, the cashier open all the cases, trying to find the right brand ?

As for the efficiency issue, who can believe that this will curb the tobaco consumption ?

I guess you believe that "law" is sufficient by itself.

Law = a rule + means to implement it + a target to achieve.

**********

All the informations about the fight :

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/thailand/

And info about the Tobacco Product Control Act, 1992

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/who/thailand.htm

Edited October 11, 2005 by cclub75