Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

January, 2009:

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?

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

Beijing – Supermarket Tobacco Ban

Updated on Jan 02, 2009 – SCMP

A new national regulation prohibits foreign-invested supermarkets, including Wal-Mart and Carrefour, from selling tobacco products on the mainland, the Beijing Youth Daily reports. The regulation, which took effect yesterday, also bans foreign-invested businesses and self-employed individuals from any involvement in the retail or wholesale tobacco industry.

PHILIP MORRIS LIMITED’S SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL PREVENTATIVE HEALTH TASKFORCE CONSULTATION

Download (PDF, 1.51MB)

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 02, 2009 – SCMP

I do not think the implementation of the full smoking ban should be delayed.

It is necessary to ban smoking in public areas, not just because it affects the health of people who are not smoking, but also because it is not good for the image of Hong Kong.

It is inconsiderate of smokers to light up in public places.

The best way to control this problem is to implement the full ban.

Most of us hate the smell of tobacco and non-smokers are at risk if they are exposed to second-hand smoke.

This problem will persist if the government delays the ban.

The sooner the full ban is implemented, the sooner smokers will learn to adapt.

I think the government should be willing to help those smokers who want to give up.

Li Ka-kei, Tsuen Wan

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?

Jan 02, 2009 – SCMP

I think we must be firm in refusing to allow an extension of the scheme that allows exemptions to the smoking ban in public places.

As a non-smoker I have waited most of my life to see a full smoking ban implemented. This ban is long overdue.

It was delayed thanks mainly to the action of a number of legislators who are fortunately no longer in Legco.

Early in my working career I had to work in an office filled with chain-smoking colleagues. I needed the job, so I had no choice but to put up with it. My health certainly suffered as a result.

The recent study [by University of Hong Kong researchers] showed just how dangerous passive smoking is. We must stand firm and implement the full ban on the scheduled date.

It is a pity that smoking cannot be banned completely in Hong Kong.

After all, it is really just another dangerous drug.

W. Y. Li, Wan Chai

Breaking The Habit

Mark O’Neill, SCMP – Updated on Jan 01, 2009

Beijing has committed itself to the WHO convention on tobacco control, but the powerful influence of the industry means efforts to enforce it are half-hearted

From today, cigarette packets on the mainland are supposed to change radically – with a warning of a specific disease and a picture that leaves the smoker in no doubt about the possible consequence of his choice.

The change is a result of Beijing having signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which came into force on January 1, 2006 and mandated that packaging regulations be implemented after three years.

Mainland China is the world’s largest tobacco producer consumer, with 350 million smokers, one-third of the global total. One million people die each year from smoking-related diseases, while 540 million suffer the effects of others’ smoking, with 100,000 dying annually from illnesses caused by passive smoking, according to Ministry of Health figures.

Article 11 of the FCTC sets out the rules for the packaging of cigarettes. It provides that packaging must ensure that “the truth of the effects of tobacco use be properly reflected in the packaging and labelling of tobacco products, including the use of picture warnings that even the least literate members of society can readily understand”.

It prescribes that 30 per cent to 50 per cent of the main display area be covered with a warning, including a picture.

But, when mainland smokers buy their cigarettes today, they will find no disturbing picture or image and just this anodyne wording, in Chinese and English: “Smoking damages health and to quit smoking can reduce the risk to health.”

There is no reference to lung cancer or any specific disease.

The packaging was designed by the State Tobacco Monopoly (STM), the official government regulator which also happens to be the world’s biggest producer of cigarettes.

Mainland public health campaigners say the new packaging contravenes the FCTC regulations and should be changed.

“It is absurd to put the STM in charge of the packaging,” said Yang Gonghuan, deputy director of the Chinese Disease Prevention Centre at the Ministry of Health.

“This should be decided by the Ministry of Health, as it is in other countries. The warning should specify which disease the smoker may contract.

“It is like asking the arsonists to put out a fire.”

Dr Yang pointed out that packets of cigarettes for export carried the requisite photograph and specific warning. “There is a different rule for Chinese and foreigners,” she said. “The STM cares for the lives of foreigners but not those of Chinese.”

The row over the packaging is the latest battle in a long-running war between supporters and opponents of the tobacco industry within the central government and the wider society.

On one side is the STM, the mainland’s single biggest taxpayer – in 2007, it contributed 388 billion yuan (HK$441 billion) to state coffers, 9 per cent of national revenue – and the 10 million farmers, processors, workers and distributors who work for the industry. China is one of only two countries – the other is North Korea – to have a monopoly producer of tobacco that is also the industry regulator.

Production is increasing. Output in 2007 was 2.14 trillion cigarettes, an increase of 14 per cent from three years earlier.

And the prestige enjoyed by the STM is far higher than that of cigarette producers in any other major country, where it is often a case of overcoming serious image problems.

Last month, the Ministry of Civil Affairs awarded the STM the “China Charity Award” for being the country’s most generous firm. Four other cigarette producers were among the 140 domestic and foreign firms cited.

The award gave the tobacco firms some welcome exposure at a time when they are banned from direct advertising. Fighting the influence of the STM are doctors, health workers and civic groups who argue that the tax revenue it provides is less than the cost of treating those with smoking-related illnesses and their lost productivity, not to mention the distress caused to their families.

It was only after years of lobbying that the central government ratified the FCTC in 2005.

Dr Yang’s office has just eight full-time staff and an annual budget of less than 10 million yuan.

Studies show that a majority of mainlanders have a limited understanding of the health risks associated with smoking, because the STM has been successful in limiting discussion in the mass media.

These stark contradictions were in public view at an international conference on smoking held in Durban, South Africa, at the end of November.

The Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was attended by 600 delegates from more than 100 countries. The convention has 168 signatory countries in total, a record for a UN treaty.

Beijing sent a delegation of 17, including two from the STM, as well as officials of the foreign, finance and health ministries.

The STM delegates expressed their opposition to clauses of the treaty, saying that it was unsuitable to conditions on the mainland. They, along with the Japanese delegation, opposed Article 11, the provision dealing with health warnings on packets.

The delegates pointed out that Chinese packaging showed famous geographic and cultural sites and to put ugly pictures over them “would insult and be disrespectful to the public”, in the words of one delegate.

The STM response to domestic and international pressure is to argue that the anti-smoking movements of the west were inappropriate for the mainland.

“We have 350 million smokers and the number is likely to increase over the next 30 years,” said Zhu Zunquan, a member of the China Academy of Engineering, who is working with the STM.

“A total ban is not suitable to conditions in China. While the government is implementing the FCTC, it is fully utilising the developments of science.

“With the principle of man as the base, this is good for the nation and the people.”

He said that, while mainland gross domestic product had been rising rapidly each year, the percentage of tobacco tax as a share of national tax revenue remained about 9 per cent.

“We must also take into account the 10 million workers and farmers who make their livelihood in the industry,” Mr Zhu said. “To protect the health of the hundreds of millions of people who do not want to stop smoking and the national interest, the only option for the stable development of the tobacco industry is less-harmful cigarettes.”

Mr Zhu is involved in a research project, in which the STM is investing hundreds of millions of yuan, to produce a “China-style cigarette” that causes little or no harm to the smoker.

He said that the tar content of a mainland cigarette had fallen from 40 milligrams in the 1960s to 30 in the 1970s and 13.2 now. It would drop to 12 by 2010, he added.

The research is being carried out by scientists and laboratories, to which the government has awarded five patents.

Two well-known brands have already produced 77,384 cases of these low-tar cigarettes, known to many as “the responsible cigarette”, and they have been well received by the market.

Another important provision of the FCTC that was discussed in Durban is Article 13, which mandates a ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products nationally and across borders.

In light of this clause, it was wrong of the central government to give STM a charity award, campaigners said.

“While tobacco is not classified as a poison, smoking harms the health and life of those who use it and is very similar to a poison,” Li Dun, a member of the China Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in China News Weekly.

“Worse than that, it threatens the health and life of other people, the passive smokers.

“The large profits and donations made by the tobacco companies come from this base.

“What basis did the ministry use for its decision?” he asked.

According to government figures, the STM ranked second in 2006 to Altria – the parent company of Philip Morris – in sales revenue among global cigarette producers, while its US$76.59 billion in assets is more than double that of Altria.

Tobacco Control in Turkey

Download (PDF, 1.88MB)