Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

December, 2008:

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 18th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

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 18th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

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

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 17th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP – Updated on Dec 17, 2008

Judith Mackay (Talkback, December 11) has a serious problem in her quest to eliminate cigarette smoking but there is absolutely no justification to target a small group of businesses that provide a service for those who wish to smoke.

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.

Smoky bars are, therefore, not places with “indoor air pollution” to which the public or even “catering workers” are forced to venture.

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.

Governments are sensible enough not to attempt to outlaw tobacco because quite apart from not wanting to lose billions of tax dollars, the memory of the attempted alcohol ban in the US in the 1920s – Prohibition – is still too fresh.

No-smoking regulations already applied to shopping centres are weakly enforced, so what hope have you of enforcing even stricter regulations for private premises?

The chairman of the Clear the Air (Talkback, December 12) group, Christian Masset, should check his facts. I am still a life member of the group.

I submitted a resignation some years ago, which was never acknowledged and the group has continued to send me members’ notices. I have also asked him as Clear the Air chairman to have a members’ general debate on the smoking issue, which was ignored.

The anti-tobacco lobby in Hong Kong and elsewhere has not been doing too well in recent years. Its weary message of doom for smokers is as stale as the lingering smell of smoke in an empty bar.

Clear the Air has unfortunately permitted itself to be hijacked by anti-smoking campaigners, seeking to reinforce their flagging message.

Most supporters believe in a far more noble cause than penalising smokers.

We believe the priority is to clean the filthy and unhealthy outside air we are compelled to breathe without choice.

This is what air pollution is really all about.

If Dr Mackay and Clear the Air get their way, they will drive smoking dens underground.

Or worse still, we will have larger groups of people hanging around on the pavements, blowing smoke into the faces of passers-by.

Leave the bars and entertainment spots alone.

P. A. Crush, Sha Tin

(more…)

Setback For Cigarette Firms

Dec 17th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP – 17 December 2008

WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court has handed a surprising defeat to tobacco companies, ruling that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “low tar” brands. The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation. AP

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 17th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Dec 17 2008 – SCMP

I continue to be perplexed by claims of those such as Lam Kwok-tung (Talkback, December 13) that there is a “right” to smoke in Hong Kong. Nicotine is a listed poison and deliberately applying poison to another person with the intent to harm is against the law.

Smokers know that second-hand smoke causes harm because in Hong Kong we usually blow the exhaled smoke as far away from our faces – and our friends’ faces – as possible.

It is also considered polite to hold a lit cigarette far away from friends’ faces – and direct it instead towards strangers.

Lam Kwok-tung is mistaken in believing that deliberately poisoning people is part of a civilised society.

It is a contravention of Chapter 212, which has the charming title of Offences Against the Person Ordinance.

His best choice, in order to stay within the law and reduce air pollution, is to quit.

Annelise Connell, Stanley

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 16th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

16 Dec 2008 – SCMP

It is quite common to see people smoking in Hong Kong.

When the government implemented the ban for indoor public places, smokers complained that they had nowhere to go now to smoke, except outside or in their own homes.

Even if they went somewhere for lunch, in many places they were not allowed to light up.

There have been differing opinions about whether or not the ban should be implemented.

However, I do not think the ban should be delayed and it should cover all premises.

The overriding reason is the health aspect. Some smokers say they light up because they are under a lot of pressure at work and it helps relieve some of the stress. However, they must be aware that they are harming themselves physically.

They should also appreciate they are being selfish when they light up in public and being inconsiderate to non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke.

They should realise that non-smokers are also at risk from the effects of second-hand smoke. Research has shown that people can contract cancer from second-hand smoke.

Non-smokers in a family where a family member smokes also face health problems.

It could lead to domestic disputes. If smokers contract health problems, the family will face a financial burden.

Smoking also affects the international image of Hong Kong. Tourism is crucial to the city’s economy.

However, our air-pollution problems are getting worse. I believe that smoking is a factor in this, especially with the number of people who smoke outdoors on our streets.

The smoking and the pollution can give many tourists a very bad impression of Hong Kong and they may decide not to return.

I think a full smoking ban should be implemented as soon as possible.

Li Chi, Tsuen Wan

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 16th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Dec 16, 2008 – SCMP

I am aware bar owners have said they want the full implementation of the smoking ban (with all exemptions ended) to be delayed. They have cited problems they are experiencing because of the economic downturn.

They either want the grace period they have enjoyed to be extended or to be allowed to put in smoking rooms.

I am not convinced that extending the grace period will necessarily be good for business.

If the economy is in bad shape and people are suffering financially, then they will avoid unnecessary expenditure such as drinking in bars and nightclubs, whether or not there is a smoking ban.

The full smoking ban must be implemented.

It is not just that smoking is bad for the health of people lighting up. It is also bad for people who are exposed to second-hand smoke in these premises.

Workers in these bars are also exposed to this smoke, and this cannot be good for their health.

We can longer ignore the side effects of smoking in bars and nightclubs.

If bars want to get more customers through their doors during the present financial crisis, then they should think about introducing discounts, such as buy three glasses of beer, get one free.

I admit we are facing tough times, but that is no reason to put people’s health at risk.

Delaying full implementation of the smoking ban is not going to solve our economic problems.

Ng Sze-Nga, Kwai Chung

China Tax Call To Cut Smoking Toll

Dec 15th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Andrew Jack in London – Financial Times – December 15 2008

Doubling taxes on cigarettes would help sharply cut China’s rising annual toll of more than 1m deaths from smoking while boosting government revenues, according to a study to be presented in Beijing today.

Increasing tobacco taxes from as little as 32 per cent currently towards the international average of 70 per cent would save significant medical costs while having a minimal impact on employment, it concludes.

The work will be launched at a conference attended by senior Chinese finance and public health officials, as internal and international pressure grows for the country to follow others in taking more aggressive measures to tackle smoking, the leading cause of death in China.

It comes at a time of continuing rapid growth in smoking in China, where 300m smokers now consume an estimated two trillion cigarettes a year, or a third of the global total, creating long-term health problems for themselves and passive inhalers.

The analysis argues that cigarettes further impoverish China’s rural poor, absorbing 10 per cent of total smoking households’ annual expenditure as well as imposing heavy medical burdens. A sharp drop in the real price of cigarettes over the past decade has turned many more Chinese into regular smokers.

The research was commissioned with funding from the $500m pledged last summer from the philanthropic activities of Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and Bill Gates, the joint founder of Microsoft, who joined forces in redoubled efforts to help low and middle income countries tackle disease by strengthening tobacco control.

It calls for China to increase cigarette taxes to 65 per cent – from current rates of 32-45 per cent – which it estimates would generate $15bn a year in revenues and help limit tobacco-related health costs which it forecasts will otherwise reach 10 per cent of healthcare costs within a few years.

Mr Bloomberg, founder of the financial news agency, launched the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use in 2005, which has supported work including efforts to assess countries’ compliance with the World Health Organisation’s recommended policies to tackle smoking, including higher taxes, a ban on advertising and health warnings.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has until now focused its health activities on fighting infectious diseases, but this year unveiled a $125m, five-year anti-smoking programme, including an initial $24m two-year grant to the Bloomberg Initiative, in recognition of other important health problems in the developing world.

Anti-smoking Legislation To Come Into Effect – Taiwan

Dec 15th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

15 Dec 2008.

A smoking ban in indoor and public areas will come into effect from 11 January 2009.

The new Tobacco Hazard Prevention Act will also ban smoking in indoor working areas with over three people. Smokers who smoke on stairs, kitchens, or restrooms will be fined. A smoking room with separate air conditioning can be installed by hotels, restaurants and malls. Smoking will also be prohibited in outdoor areas of gyms, college campuses, as well as cultural and social organisations. Violators can be fined TWD 2,000 (EUR 45) to TWD 10,000.

Chao Kun-yu, deputy director-general of the bureau of health promotion of the ministry of health, said that the bureau would place promotional leaflets on the smoking ban in four major convenience store chains beginning 1 December.

Chao said that the definition of outdoor areas would be left to local governing authorities. He also reminded that a non-smoking sign should be put up at the entrance of every smoke free place and ashtrays should not be provided. Owners who do not put up signs will be fined. (pi)

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Dec 13th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

SCMP – Updated on Dec 13, 2008

To justify some of the smoking exposure study’s findings (“Stick by full smoke ban, urge academics”, December 10), the methodology needed to include examination of detailed medical records of all participants from childhood, against a control population.

This has not been done, nor has the study accounted for any other significant variables as other possible causes of loss of lung function.

To counter stock arguments, there has been significant attrition in pubs, and a demonstrable decline in their revenue in Britain since implementation of its smoking ban.

The possibility that their health may not be affected must be a real comfort to the thousands of people who no longer have employment as a result.

A Scottish study showed that most pub employees experienced no health improvement one year after the ban.

There is no evidence that California’s decade-old indoor ban reduced alleged smoking-related health problems, as would have been expected.

The anti-smoking lobby also wanted to ban smoking in the home and already has set its sights on obesity.

Will the line be drawn at obesity? What is next?

I am a smoker, accept that it is not pleasant and have always accepted that diners in restaurants should not have to endure my smoke.

There needs to be, however, a balance between competing interests as in any reasonable, civilised society.

The anti-smoking lobby appears to have very personal prejudices about smoking, and health concerns are a convenient vehicle for those prejudices, but that does not justify prohibiting balance.

There are now thousands of facilities for non-smokers to dine in, drink in and attend (indoors and outdoors), but only very few locales that allow smokers to light up.

Non-smokers have massive choice available to them, yet anti-smokers wish to deny any choice to smokers.

Anyone involved in risk management knows that one should eliminate the largest problem first, as this will bring the most benefits.

In Hong Kong’s case, this is clearly ambient air pollution, which needs the most urgent attention in relation to its effect on health, besides which smoking pales into insignificance. Additionally, some risks may be considered to be acceptable by some people provided that they are advised of any possible risks inherent in employment.

Lam Kwok-tung, Central

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →