Good Parenting Skills?

Being a parent is a great thing. I would not swap it for the world. However, there are always challenges and it is always a steep learning curve. There is always that realisation that you cannot always get everything right all of the time.

Yet, as some of these photos highlight, there are some things that just should not be done, particularly in this day and age of technology where our world is becoming increasingly smaller and better connected.

Just a few photos found while surfing the internet today...

Smoking Gets Even Tougher in New York City...

I guess I am having an unhealthy night...

New York City under the guidance of Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public indoor areas way back in 2002 (has he been in the big seat that long already?). This caused a little bit of a public outcry about the trampling of smoker's rights. However, that has seemingly passed. Nevertheless, it has taken the Bloomberg administration a very long time to become emboldened enough to take the next step and ban smoking in open public spaces.

Bloomberg has signed a law that bans smoking in all city parks, beaches, public plazas and boardwalks. If you get caught smoking in any of these places once the law comes into full force and effect, in about 90 days, there is a USD 50 fine. I am a non-smoker, so in the big scheme of things a ban of this nature bothers me nought. Yet, the reasoning for the ban is to protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking. Now, I am sure most people can appreciate that passive smoking or being forced to suck-up the second-hand smoke from a smoker's cigarette in a confined space like a bar or restaurant is considerably different from smoking in a large open space like a beach.

I am no scientist, or chemist for that matter, but is second-hand smoke in a large public place a serious threat to non-smokers? On a slightly different tangent. Where are smokers going to be able to light up their cancer sticks and take the years off their collective lives?

After all, if I am not mistaken, tobacco is a legal product and those who wish to indulge in the habit are, and must be, allowed to do so. So, I wonder, where does Mayor Bloomberg and his health-conscious pencil-pushing tobacco banners proposing that cigarette smokers go to feed their nicotine cravings? Is the expectation that smoking becomes an exclusively home-based activity? Then again, perhaps the next smoking law will ban smoking in all private homes where their are children present.

I have always been intrigued by the argument that smoking is a human right and that restricting where it can occur is tantamount to violating the civil liberties of smokers. I am not quite sure where the balance is for those who do not smoke. So, do the human rights of smokers trump the human rights of non-smokers?

Considering, the ongoing onslaught against smokers to reduce the places where they can indulge, perhaps the answer is to take the plunge and go the whole nine yards; make smoking illegal, make tobacco illegal.

Smoking and Human Rights...

Is smoking a human right? The argument that bans prohibiting smoking violate the basic human rights of smokers or that they violate constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens are arguments that have been tried and failed in a number of jurisdictions. The latest jurisdiction to have a crack at the "smoking bans violates my human rights" argument is about to unfold in Jakarta, Indonesia.

I am a non-smoker. And, to be honest, I am in favour of banning smoking in public places. If smokers want to smoke, then I believe that they have a right to do that. However, that right does not extinguish (no pun intended) my right to be in a smoke-free public place.

A smoking ban generally applies to public places, including bars and restaurants. The United Kingdom has had bans in place for some time. These bans have been challenged through the courts and failed. The courts have tended to hold that even the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Articles 8 and 14 with regard to private life, family and discrimination, does not protect smoking as a recognised human right. The US is not immune to the drive to clean-up public areas from cigarette smoke. Although, the rate of success in this jurisdiction has been less than in some others.

Australia, for example has had a prohibition in place for some time. In fact, it is now illegal for people to smoke in cars where children are passengers.

The People's Rights Advocacy Team (TAHR) is set to argue that Gubernatorial Regulation No. 75 of 2005 as amended by No. 88 of 2010 discriminates against smokers. The TAHR argument states that the regulation criminalises a basic human rights and makes criminals of smokers who are partaking in a legal product. The TAHR lawyer, Habiburokhman has indicated that TAHR has submitted a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court and made a request of the President to review the regulation. However, these petitions have been submitted on behalf of other parties by TAHR.

Not content to pursue these petitions on their merit, TAHR have suggested that those in favour of the gubernatorial regulations, and those who pushed the regulations through the legislative process, were only doing so because they were the recipients of funds from foreign organisations. Strangely enough, TAHR, when pressed, were not so forthcoming in saying exactly who accepted what and where, or who, it was accepted from.

In essence, the same arguments in reverse are going to be lumped on TAHR and anyone in support of the petitions as being the puppets of big tobacco who are covertly funding these petitions. But, in a similar vein, the proof of who is funding what and where and when in this regard remains to be seen.

This might be a case that I follow as there are some interesting legal arguments to be made and precedents to be established.

But as an aside to the human rights of smokers, an interesting aspect of smoking bans is what impact they will have on employment levels at tobacco companies. Of particular interest is whether the ban will see a reduction in smoker numbers or demand for cigarettes. Any decline in demand is likely to see tobacco companies look to reduce staffing levels. So, I wonder who is looking out for the rights of employees to find suitable and sustainable employment. Is the government going to pick up the slack and provide for those employees who find themselves the victim of retrenchment? Perhaps this is an issue for a different blogpost.

Has Obama Quit Smoking?

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, has said he has not seen the "Boss" on the cancer sticks for some nine months. However, he knows that the smoking habit (or addiction) is one that the President struggles with on a  daily basis. Yet, there has been some suggestion that Obama has gone "cold turkey" and no longer smokes. Let's face it, if the man was not smoking, he would surely be drinking, right?

But, in all seriousness, good luck to the man. He will be much better for it, if he has indeed pulled the plug and ceased to ingest the toxins that are cigarettes.

I am wondering whether the commander-in-chief quitting the smoking habit is going to have any direct impact on others? Will people take the Obama worship stuff to the level that they will quit too? Conversely, will Republican and Tea Party types start smoking just to prove how anti-Obama they really are?

The mind boggles.

I have never been a smoker. But, I am in support of laws and regulations that restrict where the habit can occur in public places. If smokers want to smoke and kill themselves in the process,then I am fine with that. If they want to argue that they have a human right to kill themselves with tobacco,then I am fine with that. But, if they want to invade my space with nasty cancer-causing fumes, then they are invading and violating my basic human right to life, and that is something they must be restricted from doing.

However, if I am stupid enough to go to a place where smoking is still permitted, legally, such as just about anywhere in Indonesia (although there are regulations in place to protect public facilities, but enforcement is slack), and ingest those nasty fumes then that is a personal choice of mine and the consequences are ones that I must live with.

So, what does the 'big man' say? Well, Obama acknowledges that it is a struggle and that it is one where he has fallen off the wagon on occasion. But, he is not a daily smoker. Giving credit where credit is due. That, sir, is a good start.

The images, if you are wondering, are pulled from the internet. Speaking of which, it would seem that the first two images are mirror reversed and one of them has been photoshopped. Iwill leave it to the experts to work out which one! The last one is really just to suggest that smoking is really like rolling up your own cash and burning it...priceless or pointless?

Indonesia: Import Duties on Goods

It is obvious that since leaving hukumonline.com I have been pretty slack at keeping up-to-date with Indonesian legal developments outside of the specific areas that interest me most. As a result, I missed a Minister of Finance Regulation dated 29 October 2010 (in Indonesian). This regulation deals with the duties payable on goods over a certain value that are brought into Indonesia.

What is interesting about this regulation is that it seems to be targeting passengers and getting them to declare all goods on entry. Yet, the last time I traveled to Indonesia I am sure that I had to fill in a Customs declaration form that listed what I could and could not bring into Indonesia and what values they could be before I had to declare them and pay any duties that were payable on these goods.

Is this a case of gaining on the merry-go-round and then losing on the swing? The government will soon be facing a rather large financial black hole when the Fiscal Tax that Indonesians and other permanent residents paid for leaving Indonesia shores is removed. Is this regulation really a not-so-subtle attempt to fill that hole?

The basic framework for the regulation, No. 188/PMK.04/2010, are Articles 10B(5), 13(2) and 25(3) of the Customs Law (Law No. 10/1995 as amended by Law No. 17/2006) If you contact hukumonline.com they might forward you Indonesian Legal Briefs and Indonesian Law Digests that I wrote on this area many years ago. Generally, ministerial regulations are used to facilitate implementation of provisions in superior laws.

The regulation distinguishes between personal effects and commercial goods. This is done with a view to establishing what duties are payable. Personal effects are defined as any personal goods that do not satisfy the elements of being commercial goods.

In essence, anyone that must declare personal effects or commercial goods that they are importing / bringing into Indonesia are to do so. They have up to 30 days prior to the date of arrival or 60 days from the date of arrival to do so. There are some variations in specific circumstances for these time limits. For passengers of an airline this can be done on the day of arrival.

The regulation stipulates in Article 8 that the duty free limits are USD 250 for individuals and USD 1000 for families. For any value over these limits duty is payable. Additionally, it is permissible to import 200 cigarettes, 25 cigars, 100 grams of tobacco and 1 litre of alcohol. As I recall, this is pretty much as it was when I last landed in Jakarta. The duty free limits for cabin crew and airline staff, presumably on official duties, are less than for other individuals.

The system is continues to be a red line (declaring goods) and green line (nothing to declare). The regulation lists in Article 13 all the goods that must be declared irrespective of value and sets a limit on cash that may be carried. The cash limit is IDR 100 million or the equivalent in foreign currency. Where a Customs Officer has any suspicions about a passenger, then that Customs Officer is entitled to conduct a physical inspection of the passengers personal effects. In the event the physical inspection uncovers goods that have not been declared, then the passenger / owner of those goods is required to pay the duty that is due. Receipts for any duties paid must be provided to the passenger paying them.

As far as I can tell the regulation does not expressly provide exceptions for goods that have been owned for more than 12 months. I will need to go and check associated regulations to determine this (I have not downloaded them onto my current laptop). However, off the top of my head I recall that there exceptions applied to goods that had been owned for more than 12 months.

For example, if you were an Indonesian student going to study in a foreign university and took your laptop with you. When you returned in 12, 18, 24, or 36 months time with the same laptop there was no need to declare this as a personal effect that was subject to duty.

An article from Kompas (in Indonesian) that includes some comments from the Director General of Customs at the Ministry of Finance does not provide any insight on this front. The example provided only suggests that a camera that is valued at USD 300 will be subject to duty on the USD 50 that exceeds the USD 250 duty free limit. Unfortunately, the Director General does not note any exception for second-hand goods or goods that have been owned for more than 12 months.

If I find anything relevant to a better understanding of what is subject to duty, outside of what I have noted here, I will post it as a postscript.

The regulation comes into force on 1 January 2011.

Free Days...

For anyone wondering what to do on your "free" days:

Via twitpic.

Obesity vs. Tobacco -- The Biggest Killer Is ...

Tobacco!

However, recent research and the expert opinions of some medical practitioners suggest that this might not be the case for too much longer. It seems that obesity is set to take over as the leading cause of premature death and illness in Australia. In a completely anecdotal sense this is pretty easy to accept. Just take a walk around the streets of Sydney on any day of the week and, if you are so inclined, you will notice that Australia is certainly becoming a much heavier nation.

Personally, I could just look in the mirror to see the proof of an enlarged Australia in comparison to my parents generation. I am guessing this is not what Kevin Rudd had in mind when he was talking about a big Australia. I am also guessing that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are not referring to obesity when they state that they are not aiming for a big Australia!

This has led for calls for the government to go after obesity in the same aggressive manner it has done with tobacco. In the big scheme of things it makes sense to spend a little bit more now to avoid the big health spending costs down the track. Although, the government will probably argue that weight, and specifically weight control, is an individual matter. However, a small policy change with a little amended legislation could up the ante on rebates and the like for those who join gyms and other health-related organisations.

It is thought that spending on weight-related health care has already ballooned to in excess of AUD 60 billion a year. This figure leaves the spending on tobacco-related problems for dead (no pun intended).

Now, the really scary part in this article are the numbers. It is stated that more than 60% of the adult population is overweight or obese. Simply, when you stand around with 4 of your mates, 3 of you, at least statistically, are considered to be what is affectionately known as porkers! Or if you are with me and my mates, then just 'fat bastards'.

Ho hum...

No apologies for the lack of political correctness. If you are offended by terms like 'fat bastards' or 'porkers' then get over it. This is a serious problem and sometimes the direct and blunt approach might be more effective in the long run.

Kretek Cigarettes, the US, and the WTO...

The Indonesian kretek export sector is destined to take a big hit as the ban imposed on flavoured tobacco products by the US kicks in. The ban is going to significantly, and adversely, effect sales and foreign reserve income from the export of clove flavoured cigarettes between Indonesia and the US.

For the Government of Indonesia, the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is going to see about USD 6.5 million in foreign reserves income dry up almost instantly. Therefore, the government has determined that the US Act is in breach of US obligations under WTO agreements and is seeking WTO assistance in resolving the dispute. The essence of the Indonesian claim is that the US is illegally discriminating against Indonesian products (kretek cigarettes). The legal issues will be interesting to watch as they unravel before the WTO Dispute Settlement body in Geneva.

I am not a smoker. I would be happy if smoking was banned on a global scale. That said, I do appreciate that some people may claim to be happy smokers and content with their addiction and any harm that it might be doing to them and those around them. I also appreciate that tobacco is big business and employs a lot of people. This is most definitely the case in Indonesia where labour is cheap and labour laws are not always enforced as they have been enacted (even with the creation of a labour court). The cold hard reality is that many Indonesian workers, and mostly women, will be likely to become redundant now that the US market for clove cigarettes is to all intents and purposes closed for business.

An unfortunate consequence of the enactment of this US Act is not that smoking companies will not be making any money, but rather that this will be used to downsize and make redundant workers who can least afford to become redundant. In the big scheme of things this legislation is going to have noticeable social and economic impacts in the small communities that roll these clove cigarettes for the US market.

I am not confident that the cigarette companies or the Indonesian government will be able to mitigate the hardships that some workers will be forced to endure as a result. With a little bit of help to re-train and re-skill  many of these soon to be redundant workers could remain valuable contributors to a brighter economic future for Indonesia.

Marijuana -- Coffee Shops In Holland

You really have to give it up for the Dutch. The masters of the loophole but not the masters of the European Cup in 2008!

European Union law requires that member states put in place legislation that bans tobacco smoking in bars, pubs, and clubs, as well as restaurants. The Dutch have finally gotten around to this and as of 1 July 2008 they will become one of the last member states to put into effect this ban.

However, here is the loophole and the catch. The ban covers tobacco and not marijuana. Therefore, any coffee shop (aka marijuana-selling place) can continue to do what they have always done without breaking the law.

So, blogging colleagues, anyone wanting to make a trip to the Netherlands to explore this loophole, go for it and happy smoking to ya!