Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Clear The Air

Should The Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Updated on Jan 30, 2009 – SCMP

Non-smoker Callan Anderson (Talkback, January 23) states that current laws are forcing smokers onto the footpaths. He argues (as would tobacco company spokesmen) for certain establishments to apply for exemptions “so that those who want to smoke can, and those who do not smoke do not have to go in”.

He avoids the point that anti-smoking laws are enacted to protect the workers in all workplace premises and they are legally entitled to a safe working environment.

Because the government granted qualified establishment exemptions under political pressure, Hong Kong smokers now consume 38.2 million more duty-paid cigarettes per month than in pre-ban 2006 while the number of people smoking has actually gone down.

Studies from Duke University [in the US] show that pictures of people smoking stimulate the cravings of people to smoke even when they are trying to quit.

More than 1,300 people die from passive smoking in Hong Kong per year.

Mr Anderson mentions the financial impact of the smoking ban and suggests “full implementation be delayed or amended to help the catering and entertainment industry”.

Again, these are words spouted worldwide by tobacco companies trying to maintain their business by forecasting doom and gloom.

In fact Hong Kong restaurant trade takings were up 30.2 per cent in the third quarter of 2008 compared with the third quarter of pre-ban 2006.

It is strange to read a stated non-smoker quoting Big Tobacco mantras.

He states, relating to the history of opium and tobacco in Hong Kong, that “governments were all too happy to propagate [them] for tax-raising reasons until very recently”.

The treatment of smoking-related illnesses and loss of productivity costs Hong Kong HK$5.3 billion per year versus only HK$3.06 billion collected in tobacco taxation. When loss of life is included, the annual cost of smoking to Hong Kong is HK$73.32 billion.

In the Legislative Council 18 months ago a motion was raised to ban smoking on the street within a set distance of building entrances and this was put on the shelf. It is time it was raised again along with tobacco taxation.

James Middleton, chairman, anti-tobacco committee, Clear the Air

Clear The Air: Cost of Tobacco In Hong Kong

Clear the Air says:

There is a misconception in Hong Kong that the Government wants people to continue to smoke so they can receive billions in excise tax dollars on tobacco products.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In 2007 Hong Kong Government collected 2.834 billion in tobacco tax. Meanwhile the cost to society for health care and lost productivity was HK$ 5.366 billion.

Adding the cost of lives lost attributable to tobacco related diseases the annual cost to Hong Kong society is HK$ 73.32 billion of which HK$ 16.86 billion is attributable to the costs of passive smoking.

To save lives and health care costs the Administration mandates selt belts in vehicles, crash helmts for motorcyles and scooters, safety boots , harnesses and helmets for construction sites and non smoking workplaces for our protection.

Tobacco Excise duty : Year 2007 sales in ()

(a)

For each 1 000 cigarettes

HK$804 (3495.73 million)

(b)

Cigars

HK$1035/kg (20,254 kg)

(c)

Chinese prepared tobacco

HK$197/kg (4,014 kg)

(d)

All other manufactured tobacco except tobacco intended for the manufacture of cigarettes

HK$974  (1,818 kg)

Excise Tax received (HK$)

a) 2,810,566,920

b) 20,962,890

c) 790,758

d) 1,770,732

Total excise duty received in 2007 by HK Government

HK$ 2,834,091,300

Tobacco Control 2006;15:125-130; doi:10.1136/tc.2005.013292
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

(more…)

Should The Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 14, 2009 – SCMP

I refer to the letter by P.A. Crush (Talkback, January 10).

Your correspondent said: “Smokers are not `compelled’ by their addiction to continue smoking as Clear the Air suggests.”

Why is it then that so many people try to quit, but cannot. Throwing in a recent statistic, why is it that a smoker needs to try to give up smoking 10 times before managing to quit? Smoking is clearly an addiction, much like crack cocaine, which has in fact been said to be easier to give up than smoking.

In terms of your correspondent’s reference to polluting vehicles on the road, most private vehicles do not run on diesel fuel and therefore do not spew out particulate matter (PM-2.5), which can travel directly into our lungs when we breathe, much like tobacco smoke or the smoke that escapes from coal-fired power plants.

This pollution from buses and goods trucks is therefore the most harmful to public health and should be targeted first, before private vehicles, especially given the high number of buses concentrated around the most (roadside) polluted areas.

Besides that, Hong Kong has become the dumping ground for vehicles from Japan, South Korea and elsewhere due to the fact that the Hong Kong government has not enforced any emission standards on diesel vehicles, of which many have exceeded their normal operating lifespan.

Rather than offering a subsidy to convert or replace the 49,161 pre-Euro and 25,206 Euro I diesel vehicles (which will create 74 per cent and 38 per cent less vehicle emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides) to stricter emission standards, the government should set a deadline for these to be implemented and, if they are not, fines or emission taxes should be promptly put in place.

Michael Pieper, Discovery Bay

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 10, 2009 – SCMP

A. J. Hedley, Clear the Air and Dr Judith Mackay continue to mislead Hong Kong residents about the comparative dangers of second-hand smoke.

Anti-tobacco crusaders, some of whom depend on promoting these views for their living, love dusting off long-forgotten files to extract meaningless statistics. Did you know for instance that someone once concluded that 67 per cent of all statistics are wrong?

But coming back to Professor Hedley’s “40 tonnes of highly poisonous chemicals” spewed out by Hong Kong’s smokers (Talkback January 8), most of this smoke with its poison never reaches the outside air you and I have to breathe.

It gets deposited in the lungs of smokers or clings to the walls as a yellow filth inside smoking premises. This is the legitimate choice of those who smoke, enter or permit smoking premises.

Smokers are not “compelled” by their addiction to continue smoking as Clear the Air suggests. If this were the case, how is it that thousands of smokers successfully quit each year? Clear the Air has to accept people choose not to give up smoking and this is their right.

I challenge every person who has condemned smokers in these columns to verify that they never travel in a private car in Hong Kong. Since your correspondents are so beholden to statistics, here are some for them.

The University of Tennessee’s Centre for Energy, Transportation and Environment, after years of research, concludes the “personal automobile is the single greatest polluter” and “driving a private car is a typical citizen’s most polluting activity”.

The Calor Gas Company of Britain goes even further and states that by just walking about in the streets of Oxford, for instance, one of Britain’s most traffic-congested and vehicle-emission-polluted cities, you will inhale in one day the equivalent of smoking 60 cigarettes.

So let’s get things into perspective. It is outside air quality that Clear the Air and company should be concerned with, not a few guys who wish to enjoy a cigarette at their own risk in a smoky bar.

Clear the Air has in the past consistently rejected requests to add private cars to the list of polluters. Its committee prefers to attack smokers and “polluting” buses, which provide seating accommodation for 150 passengers.

P. A. Crush, Sha Tin

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Updated on Jan 07, 2009 – SCMP

Andy Boulton (Talkback, January 1) exercises his personal choice to smoke and to make comments on anti-smoking campaigners.

He misguidedly compares smoking to alcohol use, where moderate consumption of red wine is proven to prevent heart disease. Alcoholics harm themselves but do not force their drink down the noses and throats of others, as is the case with sidestream smoke, which kills people.

He says: “The tax from tobacco is still a major revenue earner for the Hong Kong government and I believe more than covers the cost to the government of smoking-related illnesses.”

In 2007 the Hong Kong government received HK$2.8 billion in tobacco taxes. The government states that the annual cost of tobacco to Hong Kong’s economy is HK$5.3 billion in health care and loss of productivity. The cost when value of life is included is HK$73.3 billion annually, of which 19 per cent, HK$13.93 billion, is attributable to passive smoking.

Work it out. The government is massively subventing the costs of tobacco on Hong Kong society, and the money could be better used suing Big Tobacco to recover the treatment costs, which has happened elsewhere.

The government mandates the use of seat belts in vehicles, crash helmets on motorcyclists and helmets and safety harnesses on construction sites. It has occupational safety laws for the workplace. Likewise anti-smoking laws are introduced to protect people in the workplace. Mr Boulton ridicules peer-reviewed studies from world experts on the dangers of passive smoking, which even the tobacco companies admit to on their websites.

Smoking kills six times more people in Britain than road traffic accidents, other accidents, poisonings and overdoses, murder and manslaughter, alcoholism, suicide and HIV/Aids. In Hong Kong 7,000 people a year die from smoking-related illness and, of those, more than 1,300 deaths are from passive smoking.

This “personal choice” nicotine addiction takes 14 years off a normal lifetime and kills others besides its addicts. The smoking exemption will end on June 30. People opposed to its cessation must live with it.

James Middleton, chairman, anti-tobacco committee, Clear the Air

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 05, 2009 – SCMP

I write in support of Markus Shaw (Talkback December 29) and in response to Anthony Hedley (Talkback Dec 31), and James Middleton (Talkback December 30). I take exception to Professor Hedley’s description of Mr Shaw as “a self-styled environmentalist”.

As the head of the WWF in Hong Kong, Mr Shaw has a long and distinguished, and indeed successful, record as a defender of our environment.

The same cannot be said in my view of the Clear the Air lobby, which apparently includes Professor Hedley and Mr Middleton. These self-appointed guardians of clean air in Hong Kong have failed us. Hong Kong air is filthy and gets worse daily. No doubt the inevitable reply to this letter will be full of backslapping, self-congratulatory statistics, but just look out of the window. Perhaps it is time for new guardians?

Instead, certain members of the Clear the Air lobby have concentrated their efforts on imposing their will upon people’s lifestyle choices relating to smoking. I agree that those who do not want to eat, drink or travel with smokers should not be bound to do so.

This has now been achieved. But I also agree with Mr Shaw when he says “enough already”. It is time to move on to the issues that are really destroying our environment and to address the interests of those who do smoke.

Mr Middleton says that “less than 12 per cent of Hongkongers are daily smokers”. That is a very significant number of people. Their choices should be provided for, and allowing smoking bars has gone some small way to achieving this.

Mr Middleton further says that “there is no right to smoke in the Basic Law”. There are numerous legal activities for which no “right” is provided in the Basic Law – for example, the right to own and drive private motor vehicles, which quite apart from noise pollution and physical danger, overwhelmingly pollute the atmosphere far more than tobacco smoke.

I would invite members of the Clear the Air lobby to assure the public, through these columns, that they no longer intend to drive or travel in these polluting private motor vehicles but will instead take public transport and thus by their example begin to eradicate vehicular pollution.

However, I rather doubt that the lobby members would be prepared to do this. That would be to interfere with their freedom of choice.

Robert Whitehead, Stanley

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 31, 2008 – SCMP

I am 84 and Annelise Connell is my daughter. Her advocacy of Clear The Air’s views on smoking in bars was reviled by K. Stanton (Talkback, December 29), whose own mother is 80 and still smokes. When I was young, I promised my father that I would not smoke until I was 21.

He died of Parkinson’s disease when I was 12 and the day I turned 21, I began smoking a pack of cigarettes every couple of days. I would like to explain to your correspondent that nicotine is an addictive drug and people do not “choose” to smoke once addicted.

I know, because I smoked for more than 20 years. I have a photo of me, when we lived in Hong Kong in the late 1960s, smiling while I held a lighted cigarette near my youngest daughter’s face while she opened a present on Christmas morning.

At the time, being addicted, yet ignorant of the fact, I thought nothing of it. It was only when my older children became teenagers that I realised the poor example I was setting them and quit. But the craving did not go away for a long time.

It was years later before I learned that nicotine was addictive.

If K. Stanton’s 80-year-old mother has no health problems from her smoking, such as a chronic cough or trouble breathing, then I ask them both to remember those who are now dead because they did not understand that nicotine is an addictive drug, not a “choice”. I wish when I was 12 my father had known that nicotine was addictive and had advised me never to smoke.

Mae Pedersen, Carmichael, California

Should The Smoking Ban Be Extended Further?

Dec 30, 2008 – SCMP

The current law must be extended to work vehicles. Buses and taxis are already smoke-free, as are government vehicles. Work vehicles are mobile workplaces, and the enclosed cabins create an intense toxic atmosphere with tobacco smoke.

Smoking in private cars with children under 18 present should be outlawed immediately. Some countries already have such a law. There is no right to smoke in the Basic Law.

In many locations it is an offence to smoke within 10 metres of a building; bar and restaurant entrances and exits in Hong Kong should be made to follow suit.

Smoking should be banned in all outdoor areas, or patios of bars and restaurants, or other food premises.

The government should follow recommendations made in other countries and demand tobacco products be sold only by licensed retailers under the counter and not displayed, and that the packaging should be plain and bland-coloured to prevent flashy styling attracting young smokers.

In the next budget, the tobacco tax must be at least doubled from its current HK$16 a pack. This is the best way to prevent youths from taking up smoking and to stop current smokers continuing their addiction. Imposing increased taxation is also mandatory under the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty, ratified by China in October 2005.

Less than 12 per cent of Hongkongers are daily smokers, and smokers should not be permitted to inconvenience and harm the majority that does not smoke.

James Middleton, chairman, Clear the Air anti-tobacco committee

Up In Smoke

HK-magazine.com – December 26th, 2008

In six months, the government will lay down the final piece in its smoking-ban puzzle. The staggered anti-smoking legislation—first all indoor workplaces and eateries in January 2007, all bars and nightclubs in July 2009—has caused nothing but confusion and chaos since its passing in 2006. And now comes another problem: do we change tack in light of the financial crisis? Persistent rumors have been saying that the government is going to delay the complete ban, or create other loopholes such as “smoking rooms.”

What with our shrinking economy, many bar owners have said that the complete ban would be disastrous to their business (though they declined to speak to us on record), and several of them have put forward suggestions for either delaying the remainder of the ban or providing the option of smoking rooms. The government’s response was clear: “The concerned industries have been given almost three years for making the transition. [We have] no plans to amend the concerned provisions in the ordinance,” said Li Wan-in, assistant secretary for the Food and Health Bureau. “[We have] not reached any conclusion on the feasibility of smoking rooms,” adding that they expect to complete that study in the first quarter of 2009.

Still, many bar owners insist that they will be disproportionately hurt when the complete ban comes into effect July 1, 2009. But experts believe they are just trying to take advantage of a chaotic situation. “The ban is long overdue,” says Dr. Judith Mackay, director of the Asian consultancy on tobacco control. “A full ban should’ve been introduced from the beginning to create a level playing field. The exemptions have just created confusion, and now some bar owners are taking advantage of that.”

What’s there to take advantage of? It’s hard to tell what kind of logic the bar owners are using: both local and international statistics have proven that they wouldn’t lose out financially. For one thing, a ban would mean immediate savings on fire insurance, property damage and time off for sick workers. And if the exemption has given us one thing, it’s valid receipts: restaurant revenues for the first quarter of 2008 were 30 percent higher than that of the same period in a pre-ban 2006.

Others disagree. The Legco representative for the catering industry, Tommy Cheung, feels that the numbers don’t give an accurate picture. The economy was at a high point in the beginning of 2008, and he says we should look at numbers from the dire last two quarters of this year instead. Because of that fact, he feels strongly that not only should there be an exemption, but that the full ban should be permanently delayed until the crisis is over. “Right now is not the time to do anything drastic or create any hardship for the public,” says Cheung.

Of course, many don’t feel Cheung’s thoughts are in keeping with public opinion, and that his viewpoint has been clouded by financial concerns and missing the real point: public health. When asked how he suggests restaurant and bar workers deal with the unwanted effects of secondhand smoke, he replies simply: “Workers have a choice.” Obviously not everyone agrees.

“How can anyone charged with representing the catering industry press for bar staff to work in a toxic atmosphere?” asks James Middleton, chairman of the anti-tobacco committee of Clear the Air. “Health must always come before business interests.” Facts illustrating the debilitating effects of secondhand smoke are everywhere, but even those in the industry believe the situation is out of hand. “There’s no reason anyone should be subjected to losing their lung capacity because they were working in a bar,” says Mark Joyce, manager of the Pickled Pelican bar on Wyndham Street. “They’re not the highest paid people, so why should they put up with additional health problems?”

And there’s also the law. Hong Kong’s Occupational Health Law specifically states that “every employer must…ensure the safety and health at work of all their employees.” Mackay puts things in an interesting perspective: “If a factory in Kwun Tong had chemical poison in the air, under the government’s laws, there’s a responsibility to shut it down. This is no different.”

So what other option is left for desperate pro-smoking bar owners but a smoking room? Despite the fact that these rooms seem scantly beneficial in terms of health (experiments have proven that it would take tornado-speed winds to remove the carcinogens in one of these rooms), and that they don’t make sense in the current economic crisis (since they will be extremely expensive to install), the government has agreed to conduct a feasibility study on installing the rooms, which is scheduled to be finished sometime in the first quarter of 2009. Even if that study were to suggest the provision of smoking rooms, it’s a hugely expensive option. “You practically have to strip down a building to install a fully ventilated smoking room,” says Mackay.

So expect the ban to kick in fully in 2009. But there is one more problem. Few figures show that smoking has actually declined in the city since the partial ban took effect earlier this year. In fact, the Customs and Excise Department recorded a total of 3.756 billion sticks of duty-paid cigarettes between October 2007 and September 2008, which is an increase of 9.1 percent when compared to the same time period between 2006 and 2007. Many health experts feel that this only points to one thing: follow the lead of the US and UK and raise cigarette taxes.

As part of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Hong Kong is mandated to increase taxes on a regular basis, says Middleton. It hasn’t increased from its current 50 percent of the retail price for eight years. “In the UK, the average tax per pack is £4.33, or 77 percent of the retail price. They also instituted a complete ban in bars and restaurants, and in its first year, 400,000 people quit smoking and sales reduced remarkably.”

As for that option, a feasibility study on raising tobacco taxes has not even begun. Let’s hope the government sees sense and helps us kick the habit once and for all.

by Pavan Shamdasani.

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

SCMP – Updated on Dec 23, 2008

Peter Crush (Talkback, December 17) continues to make unsubstantiated statements on smoking which need correction.

He says: “Licensed bars and entertainment places are private premises to which customers are invited at a manager’s discretion and are not public places with right of access.”

Bars are only licensed if they possess a general, marine or light refreshment licence and are premises to which the public has access whether paid or by right.

No smoking is allowed in any licensed restaurant unless the premises obtained (farcical) qualified-establishment status.

Mr Crush says: “Nobody disputes that nicotine is an addictive drug and smoking kills, but like it or not, hundreds of millions of people worldwide still choose to smoke.”

This is correct. It is unfortunate he does not realise people smoke because they are addicted to nicotine (see reference), which acts on the brain’s dopamine receptors in the exact same way as heroin and cocaine and hence “choice” is not the main reason. Under occupational health laws, employers must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure safety and health.

A failure to maintain the workplace in a condition that is safe and without risks to health is an offence. By his own admission smoking (and passive smoking) kills and these bars are unhealthy when smoke is present.

Mr Crush says that governments do not outlaw tobacco, because they do not want to lose tax dollars. However, in 2007 the government received HK$2.8 billion in tobacco taxes.

The actual annual cost of tobacco to Hong Kong’s economy at 1998 rates was HK$5.3 billion in health care and loss of productivity. The cost, when value of life is included, is annually HK$73.32 billion, of which 23 per cent is attributable to passive smoking.

Mr Crush claims that the anti-tobacco lobby is not doing too well. In 1982 there were 23.3 per cent daily smokers here whereas by 2007 it had dropped to 11.8 per cent of the population.

Sadly, due to smoking exemptions, smokers consume 36.5 million more cigarettes per month than in pre-ban 2005-06.

James Middleton, chairman, anti-tobacco committee, Clear the Air

(more…)