Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

July, 2009:

The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45

http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm

BMJ No 7070 Volume 313

Robert N Proctor

Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world’s strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world’s most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.

Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, “euthanasia,” and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.(1) (2) Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.(3)

Tobacco in the Reich
One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.(4-6) Germany had the world’s strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.(1) (4)Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.(7) Hitler was the most adamant, characterising tobacco as “the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor.” At one point the Fuehrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.(8)

German smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective.(4) (5) German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti-tobacco campaign. German per capita tobacco use between 1932 and 1939 rose from 570 to 900 cigarettes a year, whereas French tobacco consumption grew from 570 to only 630 cigarettes over the same period.(9)

Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance,(4) though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a great deal of economic and political power, as they do today. German anti-tobacco activists frequently complained that their efforts were no match for the “American style” advertising campaigns waged by the tobacco industry.(10) German cigarette manufacturers neutralised early criticism-for example, from the SA(Sturm-Abteilung; stormtroops), which manufactured its own”Sturmzigaretten”-by portraying themselves as early and eager supporters of the regime.(11) The tobacco industry also launched several new journals aimed at countering anti-tobacco propaganda. In a pattern that would become familiar in the United States and elsewhere after the second world war, several of these journals tried to dismiss the anti-tobacco movement as “fanatic”and “unscientific.” One such journal featured the German word for science twice in its title (Der Tabak: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Internationalen Tabakwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, founded in 1940).

We should also realise that tobacco provided an important source of revenue for the national treasury. In 1937-8 German national income from tobacco taxes and tariffs exceeded 1 billion Reichsmarks.(12) By 1941, as a result of new taxes and the annexation of Austria and Bohemia, Germans were paying nearly twice that. According to Germany’s national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the government’s entire income.(13) Two hundred thousand Germans were said to owe their livelihood to tobacco-an argument that was reversed by those who pointed to Germany’s need for additional men in its labour force, men who could presumably be supplied from the tobacco industry.(14)

'Tobacco capital' raining down to spoil the people's health.


Culmination of the campaign: 1939-41
German anti-tobacco policies accelerated towards the end of the 1930s,and by the early war years tobacco use had begun to decline. The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did likewise. Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals, and rest homes. The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty.(15) The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Hermann Goering’s decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.(16) Sixty of Germany’s largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.(17) Smoking was banned in air raid shelters-though some shelters reserved separate rooms for smokers.(18) During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to pregnant women (and to all women below the age of 25) while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.(19) From July 1943 it was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.(20)Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himself ,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.(21) Nazi policies were heralded as marking “the beginning of the end” of tobacco use in Germany.(14)

Cover page from Reine Luft, the main journal of the German anti-tobacco movement


German tobacco epidemiology by this time was the most advanced in the world. Franz H Muller in 1939 and Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger in 1943 were the first to use case-control epidemiological methods to document the lung cancer hazard from cigarettes.(22) (23) Muller concluded that the “extraordinary rise in tobacco use” was “the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer.”(22) Heart disease was another focus and was not infrequently said to be the most serious illness brought on by smoking.(24) Late in the war nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by a surprising number of soldiers on the eastern front. A 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that all 32 young soldiers whom he had examined after death from heart attack on the front had been “enthusiastic smokers.” The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Buchner’s view that cigarettes should be considered “a coronary poison of the first order.”(25)

'Our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler drinks no alcohol and does not smoke...His performance at work is incredible...(from Auf der Wacht, 1937)


On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military “in a manner that would dissuade” soldiers from smoking.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non-smokers(for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man per month and were often unavailable-as during times of rapid advance or retreat. Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht. An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price). Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler’s defeat.(26)

Impact of the war and postwar poverty
The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. A 1944 survey of 1000 servicemen found that, whereas the proportion of soldiers smoking had increased (only 12.7% were non-smokers), the total consumption of tobacco had decreased-by just over 14%. More men were smoking (101 of those surveyed had taken up the habit during the war, whereas only seven had given it up) but the average soldier was smoking about a quarter (23.4%) less tobacco than in the immediate prewar period. The number of very heavy smokers (30 or more cigarettes daily) was down dramatically-from 4.4% to only 0.3%-and similar declines were recorded for moderately heavy smokers.(24)

German cigarette consumption in 1940-1. Germans smoked 75 billion cigarettes, or enough to form a cylindrical block 436 metres high with a base of 1000 square metres. (From Reine Luft.)


Postwar poverty further cut consumption. According to official statistics German tobacco use did not reach prewar levels again until the mid-1950s. The collapse was dramatic: German per capita consumption dropped by more than half from 1940 to 1950, whereas American consumption nearly doubled during that period.(6) (9) French consumption also rose, though during the four years of German occupation cigarette consumption declined by even more than in Germany(9)-suggesting that military conquest had a larger effect than Nazi propaganda.

After the war Germany lost its position as home to the world’s most aggressive anti-tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti-tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced. Karl Aster, head of Jena’s Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti-tobacco activist, committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme. Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as “the greatest enemy of the people’s health” and “the number one drag on the German economy”(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years, after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again returning to public service. Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, the guiding light behind Thuringia’s antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel’s anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany’s anti-tobacco movement.

The chain smoker: 'You don't smoke it, it smokes you! Chainsmoker " (from Reine Luft, Clean Air 1941)


The flip side of Fascism Smith et al were correct to emphasise the strength of the Nazi anti smoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco science.(4) The anti smoking science and policies of the era have not attracted much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was closely attached to the larger Nazi movement. That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish.

Funding: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC; Hamburger Institut fur Sozialforschung in Hamburg.

Conflict of interest: None.

Department of History,
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park,
PA 16802,
United States

Robert N Proctor, professor of the history of science

1 Proctor R N. Racial hygiene: medicine under the Nazis.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988.

2 Kater M H. Doctors under Hitler.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

3 Annas G, Grodin M. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

4 Smith G D, Strobele S A, Egger M. Smoking and death.BMJ1995;310:396.

5 Borgers D. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:1536.

6 Proctor R N. Nazi cancer research and policy. J Epidemiol Community Health (in press).

7 Bauer D. So lebt der Duce. Auf der Wacht 1937:19-20.

8 Picker H. Hitlers Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier.Bonn: Athenaum Verlag, 1951.

9 Lee PN, ed. Tobacco consumption in various countries. 4th ed. London: Tobacco Research Council, 1975.

10 Reid G. Weltanschauung, Haltung, Genussgifte.Genussgifte1939;35:64.

11 Kosmos. Bild-Dokumente unserer Zeit.Dresden: Kosmos,1933.

12 Reckert FK. Tabakwarenkunde: Der Tabak, sein Anbau undseine Verarbeitung.Berlin-Schoneberg: Max Schwabe, 1942.

13 Erkennung und Bekampfung der Tabakgefahren. DtschArztebl 1941;71:183-5.

14 Klarner W. Vom Rauchen: Eine Sucht und ihre Bekampfung.Nuremberg: Rudolf Kern, 1940.

15 Rauchverbot fur die Polizei auf Strassen und in Dienstraumen. Die Genussgifte1940;36:59.

16 Berlin: alcohol, tobacco and coffee. JAMA 1939;113:1144-5.

17 Kleine Mitteilungen. Vertrauensarzt 1941;9:196.

18 Mitteilungen. Off Gesundheitsdienst 1941;7:488.

19 Charman T. The German home front 1939-1945. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1989.

20 Fromme W. Offentlicher Gesundheitsdienst. In: Rodenwaldt E,ed. Hygiene. Part I. General hygiene. Wiesbaden: Dietrich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,1948:36.

21Informationsdienst des Hauptamtes fur Volksgesundheitder NSDAP.1944;April-June:60-1.

22 Muller F H. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom. Z Krebsforsch1939;49:57-85.

23 Schairer E, Schoniger E. Lungenkrebs und Tabakverbrauch.Z Krebsforsch1943;54:261-9.

24 Kittel W. Hygiene des Rauchens. In: Handloser S, Hoffmann W, eds.Wehrhygiene. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1944.

25 Goedel A. Kriegspathologische Beitrage. In: Zimmer A, ed.Kriegschirurgie.Vol 1. Vienna: Franz Deuticke, 1944.

26 Pritzkoleit K. Auf einer Woge von Gold: Der Triumph der Wirtschaft.Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1961.

27 Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft. Volksgesundheit und Werbung.Berlin: arl Heymanns, 1939.

28 Peto R. Smoking and death. BMJ 1995;310:396.

(Accepted 6 November 1996)

Smoking and tobacco history – how things change

1575: Mexico:
The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passed a law which prohibited smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies
1600s: World-wide
Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places.
1612: China
Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco
1617: Mongolia
Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.
1620: Japan
bans the use of tobacco
1632: America
The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places
1633: Turkey:
Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.
1634: Russia
Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.
1634: Greece
The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah..
1638: China
The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted
1639: America
Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York.
1640: Bhutan
The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings.
1647: America
People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut
1650: Italy
Pope Innocent X’s issues a decree against smoking in St Peter’s, Rome
1657: Switzerland
Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland
1674: Russia
Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking.
1683: America
First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders.
1693: England
First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament

* Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the 18th and 19th century. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for monarchs and leaders and tobacco bans were revoked. Even the Pope not to be left out opened a tobacco factory in 1779.

1719: France
Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces.

America and Prohibition

Smoking bans and restrictions found little favour in the developing Industrial world of the 19th century. However in the USA as the century drew to a close moral crusaders outraged by the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by American people began to demand action by federal and state legislators. This culminated in an amendment to the American constitution which allowed for the prohibition of alcohol in 1920.

Believing that prohibition might be “for their own good” Americans at first seemed to reluctantly accept it. However they rapidly grew disenchanted with the oppression. The rich and powerful colluded and rubbed shoulders with gangsters in efforts to maintain the flow of alcohol. Speakeasies flourished, hip flasks became a popular symbol of defiance.

Richmond tightens smoking rules

Katherine Tam – West County Times

Richmond will ban smoking in apartments and condominiums in addition to public places, making the city the toughest place in the Bay Area to light up.

City officials will require multiunit housing to go smoke-free by Jan. 1, 2011. That includes individual apartment units and common areas such as lobbies and patios, where experts say secondhand smoke can seep through cracks, vents and wall sockets. Apartment owners can designate a smoking area, but it must be at least 25 feet away from where smoking is prohibited.

Fines for violating the new ban on smoking in multiunit housing start at $100.

The new ordinance, which the City Council approved this month, is on top of additional regulations created in May that bar smoking in public places such as parks, trails and where parades, farmers markets and other public events are held. Smoking is prohibited indoors where people congregate and work — regardless of whether it’s publicly or privately owned — including restaurants, bars and conference rooms.

That’s a big change from more than a decade ago when people hoping to keep secondhand smoke at bay created smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants and airplanes.

“We’re on the right side of history,” Councilman Tom Butt said. “This idea that somehow you could bifurcate buildings and make portions of it smoking, portions of it nonsmoking, it just doesn’t work.”

Richmond now has on the books the strictest batch of secondhand smoking laws in the region, said Serena Chen, a regional director at the American Lung Association in California. Other cities have some of the same laws, but not all of them.

Secondhand smoke is listed as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

It was an F grade on an American Lung Association report card in January that spurred Richmond officials to toughen their laws. That report card graded cities on how well they discouraged smoking by developing laws that ban smoking outdoors and in multiunit housing and that regulate tobacco sales.

Most cities in the Bay Area got a D or F. No one got an A; five jurisdictions — Contra Costa County, Oakland, Berkeley, Novato and Belmont — got Bs.

Belmont made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first in the country to ban smoking in multiunit housing; that went into effect in January. Dublin followed suit in 2008 with a less-restrictive requirement that half the units in buildings with more than 16 rentals be smoke-free by 2010.

In Richmond, people can continue to smoke at home if it is a single-family house and on sidewalks and streets, but not within 25 feet of a door, window or vent that leads to a place where smoking is prohibited. Tobacco retailers are required to get a permit.

Smoke-free law supporters celebrated with hugs in the back of the City Council chamber this past week after officials passed its latest law. Smokers and apartment representatives, who were fewer in number at the meeting, were less enthused. Theresa Karr, who represents the California Apartment Association, asked the city to cushion the financial blow to apartment owners and tenants by requiring half, instead of all, the units in existing buildings be smoke-free. Evictions could be an unintended consequence, she warned.

“You are not only financially impacting owners and operators of rental properties, you’re probably going to financially impact tenants who maybe have no other bad habit other than they smoke,” Karr said.

THE NEW SMOKING BAN – what it means to Hong Kong and what still needs to happen

hkoutdoorsmoke

On other matters…

In his column (July 1) on the tobacco control movement, or “Tobacco Taleban” as he calls them, Tim Hamlett has missed the point entirely. Tobacco control “fanatics”, according to him, exist just to cause inconvenience and misery to smokers, curbing their rights and exhibiting an “arrogant intolerance for other people’s preferences”.

What about those of us who prefer to go out to public places and not have carcinogenic tobacco smoke blown in our faces and absorbed into our clothes, hair and lungs? When, until now, has our preference been taken into account?
I agree with him on one point. People are entitled to make their own decisions, and to engage in risky behaviour is an individual’s choice.

But a person who jumps off a tower with a cord tied to his ankles, or who drinks excessive amounts of alcohol, is not inflicting his choice on anyone else.

A smoker in a public place is.

Smoke-free areas are not intended to punish smokers. They exist to protect everyone, especially workers who do not choose to be exposed to the risk of developing deadly illnesses.

I am amazed how many people jump on the “freedom of choice” bandwagon and prioritise freedom for smokers above everyone else.

To say that anti-smoking campaigners do not know what makes people smoke and that “they do not care about people” is ludicrous.

The UN’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control calls for advertising bans and increased taxes because, in a nutshell, the illusion of glamour and cheap cigarettes is what encourages people to start.

Neither do these campaigners see smokers as “dumb”. Smokers are the victims of a corrupt tobacco industry whose despicable tactics are well documented, including giving free cigarettes to children in developing countries, deliberately increasing nicotine levels to increase addiction (where’s the choice in that?), paying for smoking scenes in movies and bribing scientists to manipulate findings.

All for a product that, if it was new on the market today, governments would not hesitate to ban. I would have thought that as an academic, Hamlett would be more familiar with the large body of evidence these “fanatics” have hugely in their favour.

Ellie Rampton, Sai Kung

Smoking ban working well, tobacco office says

Ng Yuk-hang, SCMP

A week after the smoking ban was extended to bars and clubs, the Tobacco Control Office has issued only three summonses, though it received 59 complaints.

Thirty-six of the complaints involved mahjong parlours, while 12 involved bars, Ronald Lam Man-kin, the head of the office, said yesterday on a morning radio programme.

The ban targeting entertainment establishments, which include massage centres and bathhouses, took effect last week – 2 1/2 years after most indoor places and public areas went smoke-free, and amid strong objections by businesses.
Dr Lam said the ban was working well and that most businesses were co-operating by putting up posters and taking away ashtrays.

His office was recruiting “anti-smoking ambassadors” to the clubs and bars to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking, he said.

It would also step up inspection and prosecution by recruiting 14 more inspectors by next March. Since 2007, the office has conducted more than 31,000 spot inspections and issued more than 13,000 summonses. Those who flout the ban can be fined up to HK$5,000.

The ban might not be bad for business, Dr Lam said. In New York, for example, it created 10,000 jobs and raised tax revenue, he said.

But Bars and Karaoke Rights Advocacy executive secretary Anita To Miu-yu disagreed, saying business dropped by 20 to 30 per cent over the weekend.

“Now that the border is open 24 hours a day, many people choose to have a drink in Shenzhen,” she said.
Chow Chun-yu, chief executive of the Licensed Massage Association, also said business had dropped by 30 to 50 per cent. Besides, customers were still smoking secretly, and staff found it hard to stop them. “We are scared that they may leave, or use foul words to scold us.”

Government statistics show more restaurants and licensed premises opened after the smoking ban was enacted here

letterstatspanelhs

West Vancouver looks to tighten outdoor smoking regulations

By Rebecca Aldous – North Shore Outlook

With the District of West Vancouver’s new bylaw, the North Shore is moving towards more stringent smoking bylaws than those introduced by the provincial government in 2009.


The North Shore may soon be butting out more outdoor smoking.

With West Vancouver leading the charge, the districts and city east of the Lions Gate Bridge, along with the help of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, aim to introduce stricter regulations on top of the provincial government’s 2008 outdoor smoking laws.

The new bylaws, which must be approved by the province’s Ministry of Health, would ban smoking on patios, swimming beaches, athletic fields and children’s playgrounds.

They will also further extend B.C.’s three- metre rule for smoking next to building entrances or air ducts to six metres. “I think essentially it will eliminate smoking on outdoor patios at restaurants,” West Vancouver Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones said.“That is the biggest thing that people will notice.”

Sailor Hagar’s Brew Pub owner Brian Riedlinger said his business will be negatively impacted financially by the move.A lot of the pub’s patrons smoke and currently use the outdoor patio. Eliminating that area will force them onto streets and into alleys, which in turn will create more work for his staff, he said.

“We’ll have to start monitoring they don’t take their drinks out there,” Riedlinger said.

Already the provincial regulations mandating smoking three metres from doorways or air ducts are not being complied throughout Greater Vancouver, he said noting the regulation just pushes people further into sideway traffic.

In B.C. less than 20 per cent of the population smokes, reports Perry Kendall, B.C.’s public health officer.

In West Vancouver this number is further reduced to 6 per cent and predicted to diminish as demographic changes occur, stated the district report.

West Vancouver has sent the bylaw to the health minister for approval. Once it returns, the bylaw will be put to a final vote by council, likely in September, said Liz Holitzki, West Vancouver’s manager of permits, inspections and bylaws.

Steve Feenstra, District of North Vancouver assistant chief of fire prevention, said the district is currently working on a new smoking bylaw that could have a far reaching effect.

One major area the bylaw would tackle would be smoking in the district’s parks and forests, he said.

“The fire chief has the ability to enforce a smoking ban any time he sees fit,” Feenstra explained but added the bylaw could outright ban smoking from parks instead.

“We haven’t quite nailed (the ban) down to six months or year round.”

Earlier in June, the DNV Fire Rescue Service reported it had fought 25 wildfires as of June 5. In 2008, district firefighters fought 62 brush or grass fires.

“It’s looking like we’ll be somewhere in the 60 to 80 (brush/grass fire) range,” deputy fire chief Victor Penman told The Outlook in June.

On Monday, City of North Vancouver council asked its staff to look into the possibility of banning smoking in multi-unit dwellings.

The decision followed a presentation by resident Sean Soper, who argued for the ban due to health concerns and fire hazard.

While Soper acknowledged that a smoking ban can be implemented by an individual building, he claimed it is a difficult process particularly if a strata is involved.

“It’s a matter of principal, I don’t think people in the city should be exposed to second-hand smoke,” Soper told The Outlook. “I think the city should try to keep citizens away from known hazards.”

Mayor Darrell Mussatto said staff have been asked to look into whether it would be legal for the city to enact such a bylaw and what options it has.

“Once we know what our legalities are we can have the discussion about what we can do about this,” Mussatto said.

Malibu posed to say yes to smoking ban

Malibu Times

The city received an “F” rating from the American Lung Association earlier this year for its smoking policies.

By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer

The Malibu City Council at its upcoming Monday night meeting will vote on whether to adopt the ordinance that would prohibit smoking in outdoor dining areas and at public events within the City of Malibu beginning July 31.

The ordinance would ban smoking within 20 feet of a public event, such as a farmers’ market. It would also ban smoking within 20 feet of outdoor dining areas on public or private property, such as hotels and supermarkets. Businesses with outdoor dining areas would be also required to conspicuously post and maintain “no smoking” signs within the area.

The council last month voted to adopt the ordinance but decided to make further revisions, which now require the implementation of smoking waste receptacles, or freestanding ashtrays, at least 24 feet from business entrances. Where this is not possible, the waste receptacles must be located at the furthest points from the entrances.

The revisions were made at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky, who last month argued that while banning smoking in dining areas and at public events would improve air quality, it would actually increase pollution. People would smoke outside the prohibited area and drop their cigarette butts on the ground when they are finished, she said. Furthermore, she said, the purpose of the city’s ban on smoking at the beach would be defeated, as littered cigarettes would ultimately end up there.

The council had listed the smoking ordinance as one of its top priorities in May, after the American Lung Association’s annual report card gave Malibu an “F” grade along with 60 percent of cities within Los Angeles County for its smoking policies.

The report assesses each state’s efforts in four key tobacco control policy areas.

When broken down into individual municipalities Malibu scored an “F” for overall tobacco control, a “D” for smokefree outdoor air, an “F” for smokefree housing and another “F” for reducing sales of tobacco products.

Those opposed to the ordinance say smoking is their individual right, while supporters applaud the ordinance not only for its health benefits, but for environmental ones as well.

The cost to implement the ordinance has not yet been determined, but will be based on the amount of public outreach and level of enforcement, a city report states.

LIVESTRONG(R) Global Cancer Campaign Spurs Major New Global Commitments to Tobacco Control

Lance Armstrong Foundation

AUSTIN, TX — 07/08/09 — Today the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) announced outstanding new commitments to control the use of tobacco in Senegal, Nepal, Argentina, China and Canada as part of the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign, an initiative to address the global cancer burden. These commitments will be highlighted at the Campaign’s landmark event, the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Summit, in Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 24-26. A map featuring these commitments, along with all commitments made to date, can be viewed at www.livestrong.org.

Tobacco use is the single greatest risk factor for cancer. Cigarette smoking alone is the second major cause of death in the world. Tobacco harms nearly every major organ of the body, as the risk of disease amplifies with prolonged exposure. Tobacco users have significantly increased risks of multiple cancers, particularly lung cancer, and are at further risk for heart disease, strokes, emphysema and many other fatal diseases. If tobacco patterns continue, half of 650 million smokers worldwide will likely be killed by tobacco-related diseases, at a rate of ten million deaths each year.

“Millions of lives have already been lost needlessly because of tobacco. These groundbreaking commitments to tobacco control will spur significant progress in reducing the world’s cancer incidences and deaths,” said Lance Armstrong, chairman and founder of the LAF.

“Tobacco control policies must be an urgent priority,” said Doug Ulman, president and CEO of the LAF. “As governments take action, cancer rates will dramatically fall and the quality of life will rise as communities work together to spread positive health messages.”

Abdoul Aziz Kasse, a surgical oncologist and epidemiologist at Accueil Université Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar, Senegal, founded PREVENIR, an organization dedicated to eradicating tobacco use in young adults. His studies show that 90 percent of Senegalese smokers begin between the ages of 18 to 24. PREVENIR will establish support programs at universities to help students quit smoking tobacco. Young adults will be educated on the connection between smoking and cancer-related diseases, empowering these future leaders of Senegal to change health policy and the public’s perception of cancer.
PREVENIR’s advocacy in recent years has worked to reduce stigma and lack of awareness associated with cancer. Kasse recalls, “The word cancer was so frightening in Senegal that people didn’t dare pronounce it.” Continuing with their commitment, PREVENIR will recruit young activists and urge government leaders to implement a national cancer plan in Senegal.

Hom Shrestha, Founder of Non-Smokers’ Rights Association of Nepal (NOSMORAN) in Kathmandu, Nepal, wrote the goal of their commitment is to facilitate early detection of lung cancers, especially in Nepal’s mountainous regions where tobacco is most prevalent. Free screenings will increase the survival rates of lung cancer patients, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men and women of Nepal.

Shtrestha’s commitment concludes that an anti-tobacco media campaign will build grassroots awareness and pressure government to establish smoke-free public places and a ban on tobacco sales to minors by 2015.

Raúl Pitarque, a professor in the Health Science School at Universidad Nacional del Centro of Buenos Aires, Argentina, sees a generation of young adults who do not understand the risks of tobacco. As CEO of Escuela Superior de Ciencias de la Salud (ESCS), a partnership of anti-tobacco universities and organizations, his commitment will unify the voices of cancer patients and families to raise awareness.

Pitarque wrote the goal of his commitment is to “achieve 100 percent smoke-free public places in the Buenos Aires province, where tobacco-related cancers claim the life of one in ten people. We hope to build partnerships with other cancer associations and create a strong community forum. Together, we will work for a higher health objective: a better future, without related tobacco diseases.”

Guihua Xu, CEO of the Chinese Association on Tobacco Control, has made a commitment to equip hospitals with the knowledge and resources to establish “anti-smoking clinics.” The organization will train nearly 8,000 doctors at 2,800 hospitals to offer interventions and programs to educate the public on the dangers of tobacco.

“Approximately 36 percent of civilians smoke in the People’s Republic of China, causing one million tobacco-related deaths each year,” reports Xu. “Providing medical services to help people quit smoking effectively will be an important initial step of action in tobacco control.”

For the first time, the Canadian Cancer Society made a commitment of $70,000 to the Framework Convention Alliance. This commitment supports the current battle to pass the Illicit Trade Protocol, the World Health Organization’s international treaty on tobacco control. If passed, the treaty will reduce tobacco contraband, in turn reducing smoking and other forms of tobacco abuse. In addition, the Canadian Cancer Society is concerned with tobacco’s role in exacerbating global poverty. Tobacco abuse causes malnutrition and premature death at the height of one’s productivity, often depriving communities of a healthy workforce.

Dan Demers, an employee at the Canadian Cancer Society, recognizes that a global challenge like cancer required a global movement. In the organization’s commitment he writes, “Because contraband crosses international borders, effective action by one country will have important benefits for many other countries in the same region and indeed worldwide.”
These advocates will join 250 attendees representing more than 60 countries around the world in an unprecedented show of solidarity against the global cancer epidemic at the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Summit in Dublin, Ireland, August 24 – 26. The Summit will make the case for urgent action to address the global cancer burden and introduce new commitments for cancer control by bringing together key stakeholders from all parts of the world. The LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Summit will ignite a unified global movement while providing attendees the opportunity to connect with other advocates, network, gain media exposure and access tools and resources to help them mobilize in their own communities. Speakers include honorary Summit chair and former Irish President Mary Robinson, Irish Cancer Chief Professor Tom Keane, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, as well as representatives from the World Health Organization and other global bodies.

In September 2008, Lance Armstrong, LAF founder and chairman, cancer survivor and champion cyclist, announced the Foundation’s commitment to making cancer a global priority at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting in New York. The LAF made this commitment after its worldwide research, conducted over 18 months, revealed widespread misconceptions, stigma and lack of awareness associated with cancer. In response, the LAF established the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign to urgently address the burden of cancer worldwide and support the 28 million people living with cancer around the globe. Cancer kills more people every year than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. It is estimated that cancer will be the leading cause of death worldwide by 2010. With such staggering statistics, the LAF recognized that a global challenge like cancer required a global movement. And so it began urging world leaders, leading cancer organizations and cancer survivors to join together by making commitments to take action in their communities to reduce the burden of cancer.

The LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign has broken new ground with successes to date in Australia, California, Mexico and, most recently, Italy, where its corporate partner Nike helped build grassroots awareness of the burden of cancer through visibility efforts including its Open Roads project, in which Hope Rides Again yellow boxes of chalk and cheer cards were given to fans who lined the tour route in support of Armstrong. The LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign will head to the Tour de France (July 4-26), the Tour of Ireland (Aug. 19-23) and the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Summit in Ireland (Aug. 24-26), as well as other locations to be announced. For more information on the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign, please visit www.LIVESTRONGblog.org.

About the Lance Armstrong Foundation
At the Lance Armstrong Foundation, we fight for the 28 million people around the world living with cancer today. There can be — and should be — life after cancer for more people. That’s why we kick in at the moment of diagnosis, giving people the resources and support they need to fight cancer head-on. We find innovative ways to raise awareness, fund research and end the stigma about cancer that many survivors face. We connect people and communities to drive social change, and we call for state, national and world leaders to help fight this disease. Anyone anywhere can join our fight against cancer. Join us at www.LIVESTRONG.org.
About Escuela Superior de Ciencias de la Salud

http://www.unicen.edu.ar/a/unidades/salud.htm

About Chinese Association on Tobacco Control

www.catcprc.org.cn

About Canadian Cancer Society

www.cancer.ca

Contact:
Rae Bazzarre
Lance Armstrong Foundation
(512) 279-8367
Email Contact