Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

air pollution

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Updated on Jan 03, 2009 – SCMP

I totally object to any delay of the full smoking ban.

Pollution in Hong Kong and globally has reached alarming levels, and smoking contributes to that pollution.

This problem threatens the tourism industry and, more importantly, people’s health. And of course, smoking itself can cause a number of illnesses and non-smokers are affected by second-hand smoking.

Perhaps the ban could encourage some people to give up. The sooner they stop smoking, the sooner their lung function will improve.

I appreciate that the high cigarette tax earns revenue for the government.

However, the health of our citizens is more important.

If we get more tourists because they feel the air is cleaner and they will not have to endure second-hand smoke, this will be good for the economy.

The government could do more in the area of education, so that people are made fully aware of the dangers of smoking.

Hui Hong-kiu, Tsuen Wan

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Updated on Jan 03, 2009 – SCMP

Anti-smoking activists have a problem. Despite advertising bans, high duties and ample health warnings, including warnings that cigarette smoking can become addictive, some people still choose to smoke.

That is their right, as smoking is not illegal. Many pleasures in life carry associated risks. If people are warned about them and make an informed choice, that is their affair, provided that what they do remains legal.

Similarly, people should be left to choose whether to frequent or work in bars and restaurants that permit smoking.

Other bars and restaurants may ban smoking altogether and that is up to them.

People will “vote” on the issue based on which bars and restaurants they choose to frequent.

Nothing could be simpler or fairer. But faced with a situation in which people continue to make the “wrong” choice, anti-smoking activists react by advocating policies that encroach on a person’s right to choose and which, incidentally, are causing bars and restaurants to lose business and close down.

I have a choice whether to walk into a bar or restaurant and have a drink or a meal.

I may not have a choice to walk through a shopping mall or other enclosed public space – therefore smoking is already banned in these areas and that is fine.

Anthony Hedley (Talkback, December 31) states that “the majority in the hospitality industry” considers the present system of smoking and non-smoking areas to be unfair competition.

First, I would like to see the evidence of “majority”.

Second, I would venture to suggest that the majority in the hospitality industry has views similar to my own.

Third, it is more natural to equate competition with choice.

On a final note, I must reject those (including Professor Hedley) who claim that smoking is an environmental issue. The issue of smoking does not belong in the same debate as air pollution or climate change.

Markus Shaw, Central

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 02, 2009 – SCMP

You see a lot of Hong Kong people smoking on the street beside rubbish bins now that they can no longer smoke in indoor public places.

I see this as a social problem that has to be solved.

There should not be any delay in the implementation of the full smoking ban.

Cigarettes are bad for smokers’ health and the smoke creates pollutants that are harmful to all of us.

Non-smokers are affected by second-hand smoke.

I think the sight of so many people standing around a rubbish bin smoking creates a bad impression for tourists and they might tell friends about this when they return home, which would not be good for the tourism industry.

I also feel that with these people congregating outside to smoke, it cannot help our poor air quality.

This is an added pollutant we do not need.

Sometimes you have to take a strong stand against something. I think, for example, about the upright Qing dynasty official Lin Zexu who destroyed large quantities of opium because it ruined people’s lives.

There is nothing good to say about smoking, and the full smoking ban should be implemented without delay.

Fung Wing-tung, Tsuen Wan

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 31 2008 – SCMP

All of us know that smoking is harmful and there is nothing more important than our health. Therefore, why would the government wish to delay implementation of the full smoking ban?

Smokers may complain that if the full ban is introduced, they will have nowhere to smoke and that cigarettes help them relax. However, they should not have to rely on tobacco to help relieve their stress. Smokers should look on the full smoking ban as an opportunity. It offers them a chance to kick a bad habit.

It is not only good for the smokers. Non-smokers will also benefit as they no longer have to breathe in second-hand smoke. As the number of smokers decreases, so Hong Kong’s air quality will improve.

We will have a better chance of seeing our beautiful blue skies again and this can give a boost to our tourist industry. This is very important given that we need tourism to help our economy to recover. For these reasons, the full smoking ban should be implemented as soon as possible.

Tong Pui-ying, Yau Tong

Should The Full Ban On Smoking Be Delayed?

SCMP – Updated on Dec 27, 2008

I refer to the letter by Deepak Nagrani (Talkback, December 22).

He claims that people are smoking more because of all the restrictions imposed by the government. Judging by official statistics and from my own observations, I would have to disagree.

In fact, I know many people who are smoking less because it is not convenient for them to light up when and where they like. These smokers actually welcome the restrictions because they know that they are doing themselves less harm.

Mr Nagrani’s opinions are selfish and he has not made a single practical alternative to the restrictions put forward by the government.

He describes an office, a bar and a restaurant as more controlled environments. For whom is it more controlled? Does he think it is more restrictive for restaurant and bar staff and the public to be at the mercy of smokers?

On the other hand, while introducing tobacco controls, the government has, at the same time, openly offered support to help smokers quit.

He wonders if the smoking rooms at the airport are the government’s idea of a silent death sentence.

Well, those who choose to contribute to the “gas chamber” environment in the first place have to deal with it.

Moreover, just to put things into perspective, I would like to ask how long Mr Nagrani actually spends in the smoking rooms at the airport, even if he travels a lot. It would be considerably less than the time a non-smoker has to endure during a meal at locations where smoking is still allowed.

I would like to remind Mr Nagrani that smoking itself is a slow “death sentence” so why take along the non-smokers?

Where cigarettes are for sale, it is up to consumers to use them responsibly.

Laws are put in place to protect the “positive” beneficial interests of the public, be they the majority or minority.

H. Harania, Mid-Levels

Should Smoking Rooms Be Allowed?

SCMP – Updated on Dec 27, 2008

I do not support the idea of setting up smoking rooms.

For those who think we should be slightly lenient to smokers in Hong Kong, please take a look at our “new” eating environment.

It is now so common to see people eat and hold cigarettes outside cha chaan tengs [tea cafes] which prohibit indoor smoking. When we walk past, it is difficult to breathe. Smoking rooms will only lead to a deterioration of the already bad air quality.

Without a proper ventilation system, things will only get worse and it is the non-smokers who are made to suffer.

Even if the ventilation system is so well designed that no smoke can escape, these rooms would be very tempting to ex-smokers or to those who are trying to quit this vice. It is likely that the number of smokers would rise again as a result of this hasty decision by the government.

Though many countries, including Germany and Italy, allow smoking rooms, Hong Kong, with seriously suffocating air from vehicles and [the smoke from] Chinese restaurants, should not follow blindly. We have to consider our own situation wisely.

We must not be lured into granting something when it has already been decided that we should get rid of it.

Leung Yuen-lung, Sham Shui Po

Documents Offer Look At Big Tobacco’s Asia Tactics

Associated Press By MICHAEL CASEY – Dec 23, 2008

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Two of the world’s largest tobacco companies, seeking to expand sales into Asia, worked to undermine anti-smoking policies in Thailand and China by infiltrating one research institute and funding another, researchers said Tuesday.

The allegations — highlighted in two separate studies — come as tobacco companies are aggressively marketing cigarettes in the developing world as lawsuits and anti-smoking laws hit revenues in the West.

“As the high income countries put more and more obstacles in the path of the cigarette companies, they have to look for new markets,” said Edouard Tursan d’Espaignet, epidemiologist with the WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative.

Critics said tobacco companies are trying to drum up sales by minimizing the dangers of smoking.

In Thailand, Philip Morris, the world largest cigarette maker, planted a scientist in Chulabhorn Research Institute in Bangkok in a bid to get researchers to shift their attention away from secondhand smoking and toward other forms of air pollution, according to one study. Public health researchers from the University of Sydney and the University of Edinburgh produced the study by analyzing internal industry documents made public following litigation in the United States.

A separate study alleges that British American Tobacco, the world’s second-largest firm, provided funding in China for the Beijing Liver Foundation in a campaign to shift focus away from links between smoking and ailments such as liver disease.

Both companies denied the charges presented online in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal. The two studies were partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in the U.S.

However, longtime anti-smoking advocate Stanton Glanz said the tactics are “part of long-running and continuing tactics by the tobacco industry all over the world,” and he called on the two Asian institutions to end their ties with the industry.

Anti-smoking groups say big tobacco for years has sought to covertly influence western government’s smoking policies and squash scientific findings highlighting hazards of smoking.

Now, some charge, the tobacco countries are taking these time-tested tactics to the Asia, Africa and Latin America where the WHO estimates 80 percent of the 8 million tobacco-related deaths will occur by 2030.

The University of Sydney’s Ross MacKenzie, who co-authored the Thai study, said that in Asia, tobacco companies have fought successfully to prevent the publication of ingredients used in their products in Thailand and worked in Cambodia to undermine advertising bans.

“They have shown they are willing to take advantage of economic situations and lax legislation in many Southeast Asian countries to aggressively market their products,” MacKenzie said, citing previously released company documents.

In the Thai study, MacKenzie and University of Edinburgh’s Jeff Collin allege that Philip Morris scientist Roger Walk lectured and organized conferences at the government-funded Chulabhorn from the early 1990s through 2006.

The researchers say this allowed Philip Morris to develop relationships with key officials and scientists in efforts to discount the threat of secondhand smoke.

Spokeswoman Marija Sepic of Switzerland-based Philip Morris International — which was spun off by the Altria Group in the United States earlier this year — dismissed the documents as outdated and said the company never hid its affiliation with Walk.

Walk, who now works for Altria’s Philip Morris USA unit, could not be reached for comment.

Chulabhorn Associate Vice President Jutamaad Satayavivad said the institute was not aware Walk worked for Philip Morris until about a decade into his tenure. After seeing the study, institute officials plan to bar him because he was “not straightforward in sharing with us,” she said.

The other study alleges that London-based British American Tobacco used the Beijing Liver Foundation to lobby China’s Health Ministry in a campaign to forestall smoke-free legislation.

The company also provided training for industry, public officials and the media to spread its message that secondhand smoke was an insignificant source of pollution, it said.

“Despite the tobacco industry’s public efforts to appear socially responsible … there is a fundamental conflict between the interests of tobacco companies and public health,” said the Mayo Clinic’s Monique E. Muggli, who conducted the study with four other researchers.

China’s Health Ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.

British American Tobacco spokeswoman Catherine Armstrong said it was illogical to suggest that any link the company has to a medical charity “was an attempt to divert attention away from smoking related disease.”

However, Glanz, a University of California San Fransico professor who has led research into secondhand smoke, said he’s not surprised to hear the studies’ results.

Asia is particularly attractive to tobacco companies because “understanding of the effects of smoking and passive smoking is low,” Glanz said

Should The Smoking Ban Be Extended Further?

SCMP – Dec 20, 2008

Although the law prohibiting smoking in indoor public places, including restaurants, is in force, non-smokers are still affected by people lighting up.

You can still smell stale smoke when you are walking around Hong Kong. People are still allowed to smoke outside on the city’s streets. As a pedestrian, you often have to walk past groups of smokers. Given that problems still exist, it is clear that the smoking ban must be extended, because this problem is still adversely affecting the majority of Hong Kong citizens who do not smoke.

I think it would be reasonable to extend a smoking ban to all public areas.

Kaza Chu, Lai Chi Kok

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Updated on Dec 18, 2008

Lam Kwok-tung’s claim (Talkback, December 13) that the University of Hong Kong’s study of second-hand smoke lacks validity is classic tobacco-industry-style misinformation.

Our full report, to be published in a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, does demonstrate clear evidence for a causal relationship between workplace air quality and respiratory health (“Stick by full smoke ban, urge academics”, December 10).

Higher levels of particulates, wherever they occurred, were associated with greater reductions in lung function.

Your correspondent’s implausible explanation for this is that the most vulnerable workers, with previous respiratory problems, somehow selectively occupied jobs in the most polluted workplaces during the two years since the smoking ban legislation.

His shroud waving is baseless. For example, why does he claim that “thousands are no longer employed” given that government statistics since 2006 show the catering business has increased by 30 per cent and bars were exempted from the ban?

The only “competing interest” in this issue is the tobacco industry and a small section of the hospitality trade which says it cannot make a profit in Hong Kong without serving food and drink in filthy air.

Independent economic analyses in other jurisdictions show no negative impact of smoke-free policies, except on tobacco sales.

Despite Mr Lam’s denial, your readers can be sure that smoke-free legislation has led to dramatic improvements in the health of bar workers and the general population, measured as inflammation, respiratory symptoms, lung function or hospital admissions for heart disease. That includes the Scottish workers study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and reports from New York, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, and two from Italy.

Mr Lam accuses us of prejudice, but our only bias is the identification of serious occupational health risks. He admits that Hong Kong’s outdoor pollution is a major problem, but wants to create workplace contamination four times this level.

This cynical trade-off does not “pale into insignificance”, and the increased risks of heart attack, stroke and cancer will be unacceptable to anyone who is properly informed.

The suggestion that our catering industry is either willing or able to advise on these hazards is ludicrous.

Anthony J. Hedley, school of public health, University of Hong Kong

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 18 2008 – SCMP

There has been a great deal of discussion about the issue of the smoking ban in Hong Kong. I think we have no option but to bring in the full smoking ban, not just because it is bad for your health, but because of the effect it has on the environment.

Just look at the survey which showed that the lung function of non-smoking workers in smoke-free restaurants was much more efficient than those in exempted bars (“Stick by full smoking ban, urge academics”, December 10).

It makes no sense that people continue to light up, knowing the effect on their lungs.

The full ban is opposed by nightclubs, bars and mahjong parlours which have enjoyed an exemption. They say the ban would be catastrophic, especially given the state of the economy.

However, given that their workers’ health is at risk, their objections are not reasonable.

These bar owners have a responsibility to help the environment and ensure their staff are not put at risk.

Jason Chu Hung-shing, Lai Chi Kok