Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

January 5th, 2009:

Schools Need Drastic Measure

Updated on Jan 05, 2009 – SCMP

I refer to the letter by Adam Liu (“Drug tests not the solution”, December 29).

I am a Form Six student and I have never doubted the importance of teenagers’ privacy and other rights.

However, I do feel that the proposed compulsory drugs tests in schools may be the best solution.

Since I was a primary school student I have listened to innumerable talks and have been asked to join activities highlighting the dangers of taking drugs, but still some young people get involved with drugs.

It is the same with smoking.

We attended many talks on the dangers of tobacco, but some of my classmates have been smoking for two or three years.

What schools, the government and other organisations can do to combat this problem, is limited.

Most of my classmates who smoke are influenced by their families especially their parents.

Perhaps drug tests are too stringent and controversial, but this is the most effective way to deal with a worsening situation.

Ricky Wu Wing-kei, Sha Tin

Should The Full Smoking Ban Be Delayed?

Jan 5 2009 – SCMP

Hong Kong is still debating whether or not to extend the smoking ban.

The medical evidence is overwhelming in proving the effects smoking has on people’s health.

It is a filthy habit and you see cigarette butts discarded everywhere – on streets, beaches, even when you go to the countryside.

The problem is that in crowded public places where people are lighting up, non-smokers must endure second-hand smoke and this can adversely affect their health. I worked in an office in Sydney with two compulsive chain-smokers in the mid-1970s and still have a cough because of it.

Chris H. H. Lim, Sydney, Australia

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