class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>
Hans Stöckli is pretty pissed off right now. During its last session last autumn, the former SP Council of Bern witnessed how a middle-class majority in the small chamber disrupted one of its genuine concerns. Stöckli was the initiator of the popular initiative “Children and young people without tobacco advertising”, which was approved by voters in 2022. The initiators’ goal was that young people no longer come into contact with advertising for cigarettes or other tobacco products.
According to Stöckli, what the majority of the Council of States has now decided has little or nothing to do with the will of the people. “Some points raised by citizens against the will of the Federal Council are clearly unconstitutional,” says the health politician. “This is indecent and not appropriate for our parliament.”
This article was first published in the paid offer of beobachter.ch. Blick+ users have exclusive access as part of their subscription. You can find more exciting articles at www.beobachter.ch.
This article was first published in the paid offer of beobachter.ch. Blick+ users have exclusive access as part of their subscription. You can find more exciting articles at www.beobachter.ch.
The law is not yet clear; the National Council will probably consider it during the spring session. Because there were voices after the debate in the Council of States that the changes introduced were not legal, the responsible health committee of the National Council requested legal advice from the Federal Offices for Health (BAG) and Justice (BJ).
And the Council of States is not doing well in that area. The Federal Council wanted to ban tobacco products from being offered “by mobile sales staff in publicly accessible places that could be visited by minors”. But the Council of States decided to delete this passage in the autumn session.
Federal agencies criticize the Council of States
The conclusion from the BAG and BJ report: “not constitutional”. The constitutional article adopted by the people stipulates that any form of advertising that reaches minors is prohibited. The report says: “That’s why it’s falling […] Sales by mobile sellers in publicly accessible places also fall under this advertising ban.
The Council of States has also severely limited a proposed ban on sponsorship. The Federal Council wanted tobacco companies not to sponsor events that could be attended by minors. The Council of States added a small addition to this passage: “… unless appropriate measures ensure that the advertising on site is neither visible nor accessible to minors.”
Sponsor an event – and remain invisible?
Simply put: anyone who sponsors an event just wants to be seen and promote their products. The idea that an event sponsor would only present its advertising in a closed area where young people are not allowed to enter is downright absurd. BAG and BJ explain in their report that sponsorship is also a form of advertising. Their conclusion: this article of law proposed by the Council of States is also incompatible with the Constitution.
The chairman of the Health Committee of the Council of States, the Lucerne FDP man Damian Müller, does not want to comment on the report. The focus of the discussions was on the initiative’s desire to “protect children and young people from tobacco advertising, but continue to make this possible for adults as well. The majority of the Commission has opted for a proposal that meets these different interests and is consistent with the constitutional text. The Council of States has slightly adjusted the Commission’s proposal.”
Almost identical sounding wording
How did the passage that effectively undermines the sponsorship ban end up in the bill? A search for clues tells us: From the answers of the consultation process, at least three participants came up with an almost identical-sounding amendment proposal: “The prohibited […] do not apply if appropriate measures ensure that advertising on the site is not visible or accessible to minors.” Authors: the Swiss Cigarette Association and the tobacco multinationals Japan Tobacco International and British American Tobacco.
The question arises: Did “Big Tobacco” actively write the law and bring a passage it liked into committee through a Council of States that was sympathetic to it? It is “understandably not common” for committee members to explain where their suggestions for adjustments come from, says former State Councilor Stöckli in a sibylline manner. It is probably no coincidence that the wording of the Council of States sounds almost the same as the tobacco industry’s proposal. Stöckli does not want to mention names. Committee secrecy also applies after dismissal.
“That is normal”
Commission President Müller explains: “It is normal that suggestions from NGOs, interest groups, associations or organizations are taken up by the Commission and included in a draft law.” He did not respond to the question whether the Commission has made it clear who is proposing to weaken the sponsorship ban.
Moreover, the Health Committee of the National Council was not impressed by the report of the federal agencies: it wants to adhere to the changes. Even if they are unconstitutional.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
