Contrairement à la consommation de tabac, celle d’alcool peine à baisser chez les jeunes. Quels sont les risques ? Comment sensibiliser les ados ? Que penser de l’émergence des premix ? Fortement impliqué dans la lutte contre les dangers de l’alcool, le Dr Philippe Batel, chef du service d’addictologie de l’hôpital Beaujon à Clichy, nous en dit plus.

Avant 17 ans, les ivresses ponctuelles sont plus fréquentes que les consommations régulières. Ces comportements sont-ils pour autant dénués de risques ?
Dr Philippe Batel : La consommation excessive ponctuelle et festive n’expose pas aux mêmes dangers que la consommation régulière d’alcool. La perte de contrôle, les comportements violents et impulsifs peuvent se révéler dangereux pour les autres mais également pour soi. Au-delà des accidents de la route ou de sport, le jeune éméché devient la victime idéale de rixes, de manipulations et de violences physiques, morales ou sexuelles. Nombre de rapports sexuels non protégés sont dus à ces ivresses. Enfin, les conséquences sont souvent importantes sur le parcours scolaire ou professionnel. Ces effets sont majorés lorsqu’ils s’accompagnent de la consommation d’autres psychotropes (cannabis, cocaïne, ecstasy…).
La consommation chronique aura sur le long terme des conséquences diverses sur l’organisme : cancers, maladies du foie et du pancréas, maladies du système nerveux et troubles psychiques, problèmes cardiovasculaires…La dépendance à l’alcool est-elle fréquente chez les jeunes ? Dr Philippe Batel : Peu d’ados sont véritablement dépendants à l’alcool, même si depuis peu nos consultations accueillent de jeunes adultes d’à peine 20 ans dans ce cas. La consommation d’alcool connaît généralement un pic de fréquence entre 15 et 20 ans ; puis les conduites d’alcoolisation se “normalisent“ à l’entrée dans l’âge adulte. Des contraintes familiales, scolaires ou professionnelles suffisent alors à mettre fin aux comportements à risque avec les produits psychotropes (alcool, cannabis, etc.). Mais pour certains irréductibles, la consommation perdure et les risques de dépendance augmentent. On sait aujourd’hui que ces excès précoces augmentent le risque d’évolution ultérieur vers une dépendance à l’âge adulte. Mais attention, le message de prévention basé sur la dépendance est à double sens…Selon vous, parler uniquement de dépendance alcoolique serait trop réducteur…Dr Philippe Batel : Il subsiste encore l’idée fausse que la dangerosité de l’alcool se bornerait à la dépendance qu’elle peut susciter. Ainsi, certains consommateurs se rassurent en se disant, “je ne suis pas dépendant, j’arrive à ne pas boire pendant x jours“. La belle affaire ! L’image d’Epinal du poivrot mi-clochard qui boit trois litres par jour ne concerne même pas 1 % de la population. Les décès liés à l’alcool sont principalement liés à des comportements dangereux avec l’alcool : des accidents de la route, du travail, des suicides (l’alcool est un puissant facteur de passage à l’acte), des conséquences de l’hypertension artérielle liée à l’alcool, etc.Comment sensibiliser les jeunes aux dangers de l’alcool ? Dr Philippe Batel : Il existe très souvent des expériences négatives au sein des groupes ; des jeunes qui ont dérapé, des expériences malheureuses ou des histoires tragiques. Ces événements sont autant de messages forts pour leurs pairs. Ainsi, contrairement à ce qu’on a cru un temps, la prévention marche très bien chez les jeunes. A condition de ne pas adopter un ton moralisateur et sans nier l’existence de risques délibérément pris. Lorsque le Ministre de l’intérieur déclare que “la réduction des risques, c’est aucun risque“, c’est plus un positionnement virtuel, démagogique et politique que la prise en compte d’une réalité physiologique : les adolescents recherchent, au cours de leur maturation vers l’âge adulte, leurs limites. L’utilisation de produits psychotropes leur permet de les éprouver et souvent de les trouver. Le justifier serait dangereux car les risques encourus sont souvent importants mais le nier est une aberration. Depuis quelques années, on entend beaucoup parler des premix. Que pensez-vous de l’influence de ces boissons chez les jeunes ?
Dr Philippe Batel : Les adolescents n’ont certainement pas attendu l’émergence des premix pour boire de l’alcool. Le principal reproche fait à ces produits est qu’ils avancent masqués. Aussi sucrés que des sodas, leur composition et leur image savamment orchestrée par un marketing ciblé ne font pas penser à de l’alcool.
Mais il est difficile de connaître l’influence de ces produits sur la consommation globale d’alcool. Selon les chiffres des ventes, on peut supposer qu’elle est minime, grâce notamment à certaines dispositions législatives qui les ont surtaxés. On aurait simplement aimé que les parlementaires témoignent d’autant de volonté vis-à-vis du vin ou des bières, qui contrairement à la majorité des premix, sont fabriqués en France…Depuis plusieurs années, la consommation d’alcool stagne. Contrairement à la lutte anti-tabac, le combat contre les dangers de l’alcool marque le pas…Dr Philippe Batel : Il est également clair que l’engagement politique est bien moins clair vis-à-vis de l’alcool. On a récemment pu voir le poids du lobby viticole lors de la remise en cause de la loi Evin. S’il est justifié que l’on lutte fermement contre le tabac ou le cannabis, on semble oublier que la première cause de mortalité entre 14 et 30 ans reste l’alcool. Oscillant entre hypocrisie et cécité majeure, la volonté politique de lutte contre les dangers de l’alcool n’est absolument pas à la hauteur de ce problème de santé publique.Une étude de l’Observatoire français des drogues et toxicomanies semble trouver une corrélation entre la consommation des adultes et des jeunes dans certaines régions (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, grand Sud Ouest, Bretagne…). Comment expliquer ce parallèle ?
Dr Philippe Batel : Il est difficile d’avancer une explication certaine de ces phénomènes. On peut tout au plus avancer quelques hypothèses. La première serait la reproduction de comportements adultes, chez lesquels la consommation d’alcool est banalisée. Mais on sait qu’il existe également des attitudes d’opposition : des enfants de parents alcooliques qui ne consomment pas ou très peu. La seconde serait liée à la présence des mêmes causes sociales d’une consommation excessive : le désoeuvrement, le chômage, l’échec scolaire ou professionnel… Même si cette seconde explication a a priori ma préférence, des analyses plus fines sont nécessaires pour pouvoir interpréter ces données.
Propos recueillis par David Bême, le 11 juillet 2005
* Consommations de produits psychoactifs a la fin de l’adolescence : une approche régionale – rapport de l’OFDT – 7 juillet 2005 disponible en ligne : http://www.ofdt.fr/.
********************************************
Publicité pour le vin : la loi Evin préservée ?
Début janvier 2005, le Sénat terminait l’étude du projet de loi sur le développement des territoires ruraux, qui avait déclenché les foudres de différentes associations. Ce texte prévoyait en effet une modification de la loi Evin en libérant la publicité pour le vin de toute contrainte. Mais suite à différentes discussions entre le Ministre de la santé et les associations, le Sénat a finalement adopté à l’unanimité un amendement gouvernemental “de compromis“. Le nouvel article 4A publié dans la loi du 25 février prévoit ainsi que la publicité pour le vin “peut comporter des références relatives aux terroirs d’origine (…) ou aux indications géographiques (…). Elle peut également comporter des références objectives relatives à la couleur et aux caractéristiques olfactives et gustatives du produit“.
Cet amendement défendu par Philippe Douste-Blazy, alors Ministre de la santé, a permis de contenter les partisans de la sobriété qui limitent la casse et le lobby viticole qui ne renonce pas à obtenir une distinction entre son produit et les alcools forts.
Mais il est encore trop tôt pour sabrer le champagne, le bras de fer risque de continuer… Dès l’adoption de cet amendement, les associations et en particulier l’Association Nationale de Prévention en Alcoologie et Addictologie (A.N.P.A.A.), à l’origine des poursuites judiciaires engagées contre plusieurs campagnes publicitaires promues par des interprofessions, mettent en garde ceux qui seraient tentés de donner une interprétation abusive à ce nouveau texte.
Sources :
Texte du projet de loi relatif au développement des territoires ruraux (www.senat.fr)Communiqué de l’ANPAA

Taliban attacks on Afghan forces were high in the first three months of the year even with a one-week reduction in violence ahead of the Trump administration signing a withdrawal deal with the insurgents, a U.S. government watchdog said Tuesday.

“The United States and Taliban agreed to a one-week reduction in violence prior to the signing of the agreement, but Taliban violence during the quarter overall was high,” acting Pentagon Inspector General Sean O’Donnell wrote in the introduction to the latest quarterly lead inspector general report on Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.

“According to senior U.S. officials, the Taliban significantly decreased its attacks during the negotiated week of reduced violence that preceded the signing of the agreement,” the report added. “However, both during the reduction in violence and after the signing of the agreement, the Taliban continued attacks against Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Citing the State Department, the report also said “during those seven days, the Taliban largely ceased attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, but continued a wide range of smaller, harassing attacks against the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”

The Trump administration signed a deal with the Taliban at the end of February that committed the U.S. military to drawing down to 8,600 troops by mid-July. The agreement also lays out a full U.S. withdrawal within 14 months after its signing if the Taliban honors its counterterrorism commitments.

As a confidence-building measure, all sides agreed to a reduction in violence in the week leading up to the deal’s signing. U.S. officials deemed that week largely successful.

Days after the deal was signed, the Taliban announced it would no longer adhere to the reduction in violence and picked up attacks against Afghan forces.

As with another watchdog overseeing the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. military would not provide Operation Freedom’s Sentinel lead inspector general with data on the number of enemy-initiated attacks this quarter because, the military told the inspector general, that information is “now a critical part of deliberative interagency discussions regarding ongoing political negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

But, citing media reports, the inspector general said the Taliban launched attacks more than 300 times in the last two weeks of March alone.

Tuesday’s report is the latest evidence of increasing violence in Afghanistan despite the U.S.-Taliban deal. U.S. officials have said they expect the Taliban to reduce violence, but the deal does not explicitly commit the insurgents to ending attacks on Afghan forces.

Also Tuesday, the United Nations’s mission in Afghanistan released preliminary civilian casualty figures for April showing a spike in casualties compared to last year. The Taliban were responsible for 208 civilian casualties in April, an increase of 25 percent over April 2019, while Afghan forces were responsible for 172 civilian casualties, an increase of 38 percent over last year, according to the U.N.

“I call for a halt to the fighting and for parties to respect humanitarian law that is there to protect civilians,” Deborah Lyons, the U.N. secretary-general’s special representative for Afghanistan, said in a statement Tuesday. “Parties have committed to finding a peaceful solution and should protect the lives of all Afghans and not jeopardise people’s hope for an end to the war.”

War-weary Afghanistan was also shaken by a horrific attack last week on a maternity hospital in Kabul that killed at least 24 people, including two infants.

No group has taken credit for the attack, and the Taliban have denied responsibility. U.S. officials have blamed ISIS for the attack.

But following the hospital attack, as well as an ISIS-claimed attack the same day on a funeral in Nangarhar province, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani ordered his country’s forces to move into an offensive posture against the Taliban. Afghan forces had maintained a defensive posture since the U.S.-Taliban signing.

Following Ghani’s order, fighting has raged, including a Taliban assault Tuesday on the city of Kunduz. In their efforts to repel the attack, Afghan forces reportedly bombed a clinic that treats Taliban fighters.

U.S. officials have said the drawdown to 8,600 troops is on track despite the uptick in violence. On Monday, pushing back on a Wall Street Journal editorial, President TrumpDonald John TrumpPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE argued that “we never really fought to win” in Afghanistan.

U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who negotiated the deal with the Taliban, is in Doha, Qatar, this week in an effort to get the peace process back on track.

U.S. officials are hopeful of reinvigorating the process after Ghani and his chief rival, Abdullah Abdullah, reached a power-sharing deal over the weekend. Their dispute had been a key hurdle in starting Afghan government negotiations with the Taliban.

In Doha, Khalilzad is expected to meet with Taliban officials to “discuss implementation of the U.S.-Taliban agreement and press for steps necessary to commence intra-Afghan negotiations, including a significant reduction of violence,” according to a Monday statement from the State Department.

After Doha, Khalilzad will travel to Afghanistan to “meet with senior government officials to explore steps the Afghan government needs to take to make intra-Afghan negotiations begin as soon as possible,” the statement added.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad WolfChad WolfTrump administration finalizes indefinite extension of coronavirus border restrictions   US-Mexico border restrictions extended to June 22 Democrats call on DHS to allow free calls at ICE detention centers MORE announced Tuesday afternoon that border restrictions will continue between the U.S. and Mexico amid the coronavirus pandemic.  

Wolf announced that nonessential travel between the two countries will be restricted until June 22.

The secretary’s announcement comes the same day restrictions were set to expire between the United States and its neighbors —  Mexico and Canada. The restrictions allow trade but significantly reducing cross-border traffic. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“We have been in contact with our Canadian and Mexican counterparts and they also agree that extending these restrictions is prudent at this time,” Wolf said in a statement. “We appreciate our partnership with Mexico and Canada in ensuring that North America is working together to combat the ongoing global pandemic.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin TrudeauJustin Pierre James TrudeauUS-Mexico border restrictions extended to June 22 US and Canada extend border restrictions to June 21 Who is ‘us’? Thinking like North Americans in our pandemic response MORE announced Tuesday morning that U.S.-Canada border restrictions would be extended for another 30 days. 

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership

As of Tuesday, Mexico has reported 51,633 cases of coronavirus and 5,332 deaths, though the country has acknowledged that a lack of testing could mean those numbers are much higher.

The U.S. has confirmed 1.54 million cases and recorded 90,694 deaths.

The administration is reportedly working to unveil a new order that would indefinitely extend border restrictions amid the coronavirus outbreak, according to The New York Times. 

The move, which is reportedly being reviewed by several government agencies, would keep legal points of entry shuttered and restrict nonessential travel through Mexico and Canada until the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the coronavirus no longer poses a threat to public health.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump slams Fox after hydroxychloroquine warning: ‘Looking for a new outlet’ Trump threatens permanent freeze on WHO funding without ‘major’ reforms within 30 days Schumer: Trump’s statements on hydroxychloroquine ‘is reckless, reckless, reckless’ MORE on Monday said he fired the State Department inspector general at the request of Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoTop Democrat to introduce bill to limit Trump’s ability to fire IG’s Schumer on Trump IG firing: What is GOP going to do about it? Senate Republicans demand answers from Trump on IG firing MORE, but appeared unfamiliar with any of the investigations the inspector general was said to be conducting into Pompeo at the time of his ouster.

Click Here: cd universidad catolica

A reporter told Trump of the two investigations Inspector General Steve Linick was carrying out at the time of his ouster after Trump said he knew nothing about it. When the president learned that one involved concerns that Pompeo had a State Department staffer performing personal errands, such as walking his dog, Trump didn’t see the issue.

“Here’s a man supposed to be negotiating war and peace with major, major countries with weaponry like the world has never seen before, and the Democrats and the fake news media they’re interested in a man who’s walking their dog,” Trump said. “And maybe he’s busy. And maybe he’s negotiating with Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnOvernight Defense: State Dept. watchdog was investigating emergency Saudi arms sales before ouster | Pompeo says he requested watchdog be fired for ‘undermining’ department | Pensacola naval base shooter had ‘significant ties’ to al Qaeda, Barr says Trump says investigation into Pompeo shows ‘screwed up’ priorities New book reminds us: Trump got played — bigly — by North Korea MORE, OK, about nuclear weapons. So that he’d say please could you walk my dog?”

ADVERTISEMENT

The president added that he’d rather have Pompeo “on the phone with some world leader than have him wash dishes because maybe his wife isn’t there, or his kids aren’t there.”

“I don’t know,” Trump continued. “I think this country has a long way to go. The priorities are really screwed up when I read this.”

When the reporter explained another investigation was looking into the administration’s use of an emergency declaration to sell billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia and other allies, Trump saw no issue and called Pompeo a “high quality guy.”

“If somebody wants to give us billions of dollars to buy an airplane or a number of airplanes and missiles and all of the other things that we make better than anybody in the world, we should take the money, we should make the deals fast,” Trump said.

Trump late Friday announced his intention to dismiss Linick, the State Department inspector general since 2013. The decision drew swift rebuke from Democrats who accused the administration of political retaliation, saying the inspector general was investigating Pompeo’s possible misuse of taxpayer funds.

Rep. Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelTop Democrat to introduce bill to limit Trump’s ability to fire IG’s Senate Republicans demand answers from Trump on IG firing Overnight Defense: State Dept. watchdog was investigating emergency Saudi arms sales before ouster | Pompeo says he requested watchdog be fired for ‘undermining’ department | Pensacola naval base shooter had ‘significant ties’ to al Qaeda, Barr says MORE (D-N.Y.), along with Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezBipartisan Senate group offers new help to state, local governments NJ Democrat apologizes for making homophobic remarks about gay mayor Democrats warn against pausing WHO aid: Coronavirus not time to ‘upend our relationship’ MORE (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have launched an investigation into the circumstances of Linick’s dismissal.

The Trump administration is urging states to proceed with “extreme caution” in reopening nursing homes, advising them to relax restrictions at the facilities much later than those on other businesses in the surrounding communities.

The new guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) outlines three separate phases that build off the White House guidelines for state reopenings, but recommends that no nursing home in any state should start to reopen or relax any restrictions until all residents and staff have received a base-line negative test.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma told reporters that residents should be tested for COVID-19 weekly, but all residents and staff should be screened daily. The guidance says no visitors should be allowed into a facility until every resident has tested negative for four weeks straight.

ADVERTISEMENT

The agency guidance comes more than two months after the administration ordered nursing homes across the country to ban visitors.  

Click Here: camisetas de futbol baratas

“It’s clear this virus will continue to be a threat to nursing homes,” Verma said, citing the vulnerable nature of nursing home residents. “We are urging nursing homes and states to exercise extreme caution.”

States and the Trump administration have said reopening plans need to protect the most vulnerable populations, and nursing homes have been hit hardest by the coronavirus. 

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of publicly reported data, nursing homes and other assisted-living facilities account for 41 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the country. The figures vary by state, with some as high as 80 percent of deaths, but not every state is reporting. 

A new administration rule that took effect on Sunday requires nursing homes to report to CMS their numbers of coronavirus infections and deaths, as well as staff shortages and access to personal protective equipment (PPE). The information will be made available to the public at the end of May.

ADVERTISEMENT

The guidance recommends that even when a community begins to relax restrictions for other businesses, nursing homes should be among the last to reopen within the community. 

The guidance recommends that a nursing home’s reopening should lag behind the general community’s reopening by 14 days, and visits should not resume until every resident and staff member has tested negative for 28 days. 

The guidance also recommends states should take into account the level of infections in the community.

The administration’s guidance is just a recommendation, and ultimately the decisions on nursing homes are up to individual governors. While the suggestion is tied to the administration’s Opening Up America guidance, it recommends a much higher bar for states.

While many states have begun to reopen despite not meeting the administration’s reopening guidelines, with the urging of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump slams Fox after hydroxychloroquine warning: ‘Looking for a new outlet’ Trump threatens permanent freeze on WHO funding without ‘major’ reforms within 30 days Schumer: Trump’s statements on hydroxychloroquine ‘is reckless, reckless, reckless’ MORE, Verma said she thinks governors will proceed with caution and will do what’s best for families. 

However, Verma said it will be up to the state to ensure nursing homes have enough tests and PPE for staff. She said governors told her they feel they have enough testing capacity.

New York, for example, has already mandated nursing homes test staff twice a week, and Gov. Andrew CuomoAndrew CuomoTrump administration advises ‘extreme caution’ in reopening nursing homes 12 things to know today about coronavirus De Blasio: Swimmers at New York City beaches will be ‘taken right out of the water’ MORE (D) said the state will be sending 320,000 testing kits to homes across the state. More than 5,500 people have died in New York long-term care facilities. 

The Oregon Supreme Court overruled a judge’s order stopping the governor’s statewide coronavirus restrictions late Monday.

State Supreme Court Presiding Justice Thomas A. Balmer granted the state’s emergency motion to hold the lower court’s injunction designating the state coronavirus restrictions “null and void,” Oregon Live reported. Balmer ruled the hold will remain in place until the higher court reviews the state’s petition to dismiss the lower judge’s ruling. 

The Supreme Court presiding justice instructed the plaintiffs to submit any responses for the court to consider by Friday and indicated no specific timeline for the decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Following swift action by the Oregon Supreme Court, my emergency orders to protect the health and safety of Oregonians will remain in effect statewide while the court hears arguments in this lawsuit,” Brown said in a statement. ”From the beginning of this crisis, I have worked within my authority, using science and data as my guide, heeding the advice of medical experts.”

Earlier Monday, Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff declared Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s (D) coronavirus restrictions as no longer valid after 10 churches and 21 individuals sued the governor. 

Shirtcliff ruled Monday that the order violated the plaintiff’s free exercise of religion, as he said places of worship could implement social distancing guidelines for their gatherings, like the ones used in grocery stores and other essential businesses. 

The state responded with an emergency order requesting the hold granted by Balmer, saying Shirtcliff overstepped his authority boundaries, and his legal argument was flawed, according to Oregon Live. 

Ray D. Hacke, an attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute that represents the churches, said he was “discouraged” by the state Supreme Court’s decision, according to Oregon Live.

“I think it defeats the whole point of the injunction but that’s the call,” he said.

Click Here: camisetas de futbol baratas

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonGraham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election READ: Susan Rice’s email discussing Michael Flynn and Russia Grenell declassifies Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day MORE (R-Wis.) is asking Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrGraham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election Downturn in the economy, uptick in exploitation Grenell declassifies Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day MORE to declassify a 2017 email that former national security adviser Susan Rice sent about an Oval Office meeting in which the Russia investigation was discussed.

Johnson, in a letter to Barr, urged him to “fully declassify” the email, which Rice sent to herself, about the Jan. 5, 2017, meeting, which has become a growing focus of GOP lawmakers who are investigating the handling of the investigation into Russian election interference and the Trump campaign.

“The significance of that meeting is becoming increasingly apparent as more and more information is declassified. For these reasons, it is essential that Congress and the American people understand what occurred during that January 5, 2017, meeting and how it was later characterized by administration officials. The declassification of Ambassador Rice’s email, in whole, will assist these efforts,” Johnson wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 2017 meeting included former President Obama, former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE and Justice Department and national security officials, including Rice. CNN reported in 2018 that administration officials were looking for guidance on any national security concerns connected to sharing information with the incoming administration. 

But the meeting has reemerged as a topic of interest among Republicans in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop its case against President TrumpDonald John TrumpPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE‘s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Some Republicans, including Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyGrenell declassifies Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day GOP chairman asks Barr to declassify Susan Rice email The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Trump taking malaria drug; mayor eyes DC reopening MORE (R-Iowa), have questioned how closely Obama was involved in the Flynn investigation, and Republicans are hoping the Rice email will help shed new light on the probe.

In an unclassified portion of the email, Rice wrote that “Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.”

“The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book,” Rice wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

She also noted that Obama “asked [former FBI Director James] Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”

Johnson’s new letter comes after acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell provided Johnson and Grassley with a list of dozens of Obama administration officials who they say asked for documents that led to the identity of Flynn being “unmasked” from intelligence reports between the 2016 election and Trump’s inauguration.

Johnson and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election White House withdraws ATF nominee after GOP pushback McConnell embraces subpoena of Obama-era officials MORE (R-S.C.) have vowed to investigate the Flynn case.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE said Tuesday that his administration is considering placing travel restrictions on Brazil as the South American nation struggles under an increasing number of coronavirus cases.

“We are considering it. We hope that we’re not going to have a problem,” Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday afternoon, specifically citing concerns about Brazilians going to Florida.

“Brazil has gone more or less herd,” Trump said, adding, “They’re having problems.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Brazil currently has the third-most coronavirus cases of any country globally, behind the United States and Russia, according to official statistics. The country has reported more than 260,000 cases of the novel coronavirus and has recorded more than 17,500 deaths related to COVID-19.

Brazil’s hospitals, particularly in the country’s largest city of São Paulo, are said to be overwhelmed by the surge in cases. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, meanwhile, has been seen joining demonstrations protesting stay-at-home orders.

Trump on Tuesday said he was concerned about infected individuals coming into the U.S. from Brazil and vice versa.

“I worry about everything. I don’t want people coming in here and infecting our people. I don’t want people over there sick either. We’re helping Brazil with ventilators,” the president told reporters. “Brazil is having some trouble, no question about it.”

Trump has already placed travel restrictions on China and most of Europe and has restricted travel across the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. The U.S. and Canada agreed to extend the border restrictions another 30 days on Tuesday. Trump has not offered a date on when he expects to lift other travel restrictions.

His remarks Tuesday come as various states are implementing plans to loosen restrictions meant to curb the spread of the virus so businesses can reopen. The coronavirus outbreak, which has sickened more than 1.5 million people in the U.S., has had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy, pushing the unemployment rate to 14.7 percent last month.

Click Here: los jaguares argentina

A couple filed a lawsuit against Celebrity Cruises alleging negligence after one of them contracted coronavirus and was hospitalized.

Fred and Marlene Kantrow of Long Island, N.Y., sued the cruise line after Fred Kantrow was sickened with coronavirus days after leaving the Celebrity Eclipse. The couple said the cruise line “negligently exposed” them and “thousands of passengers aboard the Eclipse to COVID-19.”

The lawsuit alleges Celebrity Cruises knew that someone with symptoms “consistent with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis” at the beginning of the voyage that started Feb. 29. But the couple said the cruise line continued with a “full schedule of entertainment activities and dining options,” including buffets. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Kantrows argue in the suit that the cruise line’s “egregious failure to protect its passengers” has caused at least 45 passengers and crew to test positive and at least two deaths associated with coronavirus.

“There are likely significantly more positive COVID-19 cases and/or deaths related to the subject cruise given that there was limited and/or non-existent testing performed aboard the vessel and immediately thereafter when passengers disembarked the vessel without proper screening before returning to their home states/countries,” the Kantrows’s attorney Michael Winkleman said in a statement.

The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a no-sail order during their trip, but the couple said they didn’t know anything was wrong until the next day when the ship started heading to San Diego after it could not dock in Chile.

The lawsuit says shipboard management personnel held a gathering of passengers and crew to celebrate the health care workers fighting the pandemic. The cruise line also ran a “Mexican Fiesta” in a crowded buffet on the second-to-last day on the ship, the Kantrows said, according to ABC News.

Fred Kantrow began running a fever that “just didn’t feel right” one or two days after disembarking the ship on March 30, a month after boarding, ABC News reported.

At the time the Eclipse was boarded, Celebrity Cruises had banned those who traveled in China, Hong Kong or Macau in the past 15 days from boarding. Those with passports issued by those countries had to face “extra screenings.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Employees of the cruise line filed a lawsuit against Celebrity Cruises last month, alleging it did not adequately protect workers from the coronavirus. In response to that suit, the cruise line said it “does not comment on pending litigation,” ABC News reported.

Celebrity Cruises did not immediately return a request for comment. 

The CDC reported in late March that coronavirus outbreaks on three cruise ships caused more than 800 confirmed cases in the U.S. among passengers and crew and 10 deaths. The agency has said its no-sail order would last at least until late July. 

— Updated at 6:16 p.m.

Click Here: Putters

An executive order signed by President TrumpDonald John TrumpPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE Tuesday directs agencies to consider what sort of deregulatory action they might take that could spur economic growth.

The order directs agency heads to “identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery,” highlighting that regulations could be permanently or temporarily lifted.

“Just as we continue to battle COVID-19 itself, so too must we now join together to overcome the effects the virus has had on our economy,” the order states.

Click Here: Putters

ADVERTISEMENT

“Agencies should address this economic emergency by rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery.”

The order comes as more than 35 million Americans have applied for unemployment benefits amid the economic fallout stemming from the coronavirus.

Trump announced the executive order at a cabinet meeting at the White House, telling Transportation Secretary Elaine ChaoElaine Lan ChaoDemocrats to probe Trump’s replacement of top Transportation Dept. watchdog OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Trump orders cuts in regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ | Green group calls for Energy secretary to step down over ‘redlining’ comment | Daily carbon emissions drop 17 percent Trump orders agencies to cut regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ MORE the order “gives you tremendous power to cut regulation.”

“And we want to leave it that way,” he said. “In some cases we won’t be able to but in other cases we will.”

The executive order is the latest deregulatory effort from an administration that in its easiest days required agencies to revoke two regulations for every new rule they want to issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some agencies have already loosened requirements amid the pandemic.

A March memo from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alerted industry it would suspend enforcement of environmental laws that require companies to monitor their pollution.

EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Trump orders cuts in regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ | Green group calls for Energy secretary to step down over ‘redlining’ comment | Daily carbon emissions drop 17 percent EPA effort to limit guidance could undermine past administration policy Trump orders agencies to cut regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ MORE said the agency issued the policy as “COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements.”

The agency is now facing lawsuits from both states and environmental groups over the change, but said it would review other regulations as requested by the president.

“EPA is continuing to do its part to address COVID-19 while moving forward with a regulatory reform agenda. We will review the final EO and work to assess which EPA regulations might be available to streamline in order to achieve the goals outlined in the EO,” an agency spokesperson told The Hill in an email, using the abbreviation for executive order.

Congress has already taken extraordinary measures to alleviate the economic damage from the coronavirus, expanding unemployment benefits, and passing a $2 trillion stimulus package offering relief to businesses. Another $3 trillion package was passed by the House last week.

But Republicans seized on the idea that deregulation would be necessary to boost the economy.

Such action would be cross cutting, and could range from financial regulations, environmental protections, agricultural guidelines that affect the supply chain, or virtually any regulation from the numerous government agencies that promulgate rules.

“Every regulation that was waived during this crisis should remain waived and we should begin repealing the most costly of the major regulations that have accumulated over the past decade,” Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzTrump orders agencies to cut regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ Bill Pullman responds after Trump’s ‘Independence Day’ tweet Trump tweets clip of ‘Independence Day’ with himself, allies edited in MORE (R-Texas) said on Twitter.

But some Democrats were quick to criticize the president’s move, arguing that it will allow the government to get rid of important protections.

“Step one: Remove the Inspectors General who keep an eye on wrongdoing at our federal agencies. Step two: Tell the agencies that it’s open season on measures that keep workers, consumers, and the environment safe,” Rep. Bonnie Watson ColemanBonnie Watson ColemanTrump orders agencies to cut regulations that ‘inhibit economic recovery’ Federal employees push for COVID-19 protections in ‘dangerous’ workplaces NY, NJ lawmakers call for more aid to help fight coronavirus MORE (D-N.J.) tweeted.

And conservationists warned that the move could put measures aimed at helping the environment at risk.

Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that Trump is “using the pandemic to slash lifesaving protections for our air, water and wildlife when these safeguards have never been more important.”