Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

July, 2011:

Passive Posion

Passive Smoking Causes Psychological Disorders

ThirdAge – Jasmine Williams – ‎16 hours ago‎

Passive smoking, when done around children, can have negative psychological effects on them. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, approximately five-and-a-half million kids live in households in which someone smokes. 

ADHD Result of Passive Smoking: Study International Business Times

Study: Secondhand smoke might be factor in ADHD WECT-TV6

Secondhand smoke and ADHD connected? Food Consumer

Passive smoking linked to DNA damage and birth defects

The Independent – Steve Connor – ‎5 hours ago‎

Passive smoking can cause genetic damage to sperm cells that may result in birth defects, miscarriages and other reproductive problems which make it difficult to father a healthy child, scientists have found. 

Passive smoking can damage the DNA of sperm, study in mice suggests The Guardian

How passive smoking can harm hearing: Tests show it takes toll on teens

Daily Mail

Scientists think passive smoking affects the blood supply to the area. The damage caused makes it harder for the person to understand speech and has been linked to poor academic performance and disruptive behaviour in school. 

New studies reveal more smoking dangers The Augusta Chronicle

Teens’ Hearing Loss Linked to Secondhand Smoke MedPage Today

Second-hand smoke may cause hearing loss in teens Scotsman

Fewer movies with tobacco, less teen smoking, study shows

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110718/arts-entertainment/Fewer-movies-with-tobacco-less-teen-smoking-study-shows.376119http://c257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com/arts-entertainment_02_temp-1310972148-4e23d8f4-620x348.jpg

Although the number of US movies in which an actor lights up fell sharply between 2005 and 2010, Paramount Pictures’ Rango, released this year, has several characters using cigars and a cigarette.

The number of US movies in which an actor lights up fell sharply between 2005 and 2010, and this could have contributed to the decline in smoking among US teens, a new study says.

A majority of movies – 55 per cent – that scored huge box office success in the United States in 2010 had no scenes that included tobacco use, compared with a third of top-grossing films in 2005, the study released by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says.

In the same six-year period, the number of what are called “tobacco incidents” in top-grossing movies fell by 56 per cent – but still clocked in at nearly 2,000 scenes where an actor used tobacco either openly, on screen, or implicitly, off-screen, the study says.

“The percentages of 2010 top-grossing movies with no tobacco incidents were the highest ob-served in two decades,” the CDC says in the study published in the Morbidity And Mortality Weekly Report.

“The decreased presence of onscreen smoking might have contributed to the decline in cigarette use among middle school and high school students,” it says.

A study released last year by the CDC found that the percentage of middle school students in the US who smoked cigarettes fell from 11 to five per cent between 2000 and 2009 and those who “experimented” with cigarettes fell from nearly 30 to 15 per cent.

Use of other tobacco products, such as cigars, pipes and chewing tobacco, was also down among middle schoolers, generally aged between 11 and 14.

Among high school students, smoking was down, too, although less sharply, the 2010 study showed. Seventeen per cent of high school students smoked cigarettes in 2009 compared with 28 per cent in 2000, while three in 10 high schoolers tried smoking two years ago, compared with nearly four in 10 in 2000.

An analysis of four studies linked 44 per cent of teens who started smoking with seeing tobacco products being used in movies, the CDC says in the study.

Most people start to smoke or use smokeless tobacco products when they are teens, the CDC added. With studies pointing to a link between less smoking on the silver screen and fewer teens taking up smoking, the US Department of Health and Human Services has made reducing youth exposure to onscreen smoking part of its 2010 strategic plan to cut tobacco use.

Three of the six major US movie companies have policies to reduce tobacco use in their movies, and the number of tobacco incidents in their G and PG movies fell from an average of 23.1 incidents per movie in 2005 to a single incident per movie last year, the study added.

“Tobacco incidents” were 10 times more frequent in movies made by independent companies and the three major studios that do not have anti-tobacco policies.

The study did not indicate which movie studios have anti-tobacco policies and which do not.

Earlier this year, Paramount Pictures came under fire from the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) for its PG-rated animated feature Rango, which shows several characters using cigars and a cigarette.

Letters to Editor HK Standard newspaper

Johnny Phang  (July 19) ‘Ban smoking completely –  someone to show me how much taxes governments all over the world collect on tobacco and related products’  advocates banning smoking and asks how much tax is collected.. Bhutan has banned smoking and New Zealand intends to do so by 2025; Iceland is debating making tobacco available only by medical prescription. The HK Government has many available tools in its armoury if it has the political will to use them.  The first tool was to increase tobacco tax belatedly but without an included amount for inflation in the last Budget, thereby  making cigarettes less affordable to  replacement smokers (youth). The tax increase whilst welcome does not go  far enough given Hong Kong’s standard of living and retail elasticity /affordability.  Using one control pack of 20 cigarettes  the HK$ international retail prices inclusive of taxes  are : New York 113, Singapore 72, New Zealand 90 (with another i10% increase scheduled Jan 01 2012) , Ireland 90, UK 80 , Hong Kong  50. In Australia  the Government will introduce into Law plain packaging of cigarettes this month. New Zealand intends to follow their lead; this removes the packaging attractiveness  (known as the Silent Salesman) which appeals to youth and the  pink colour that appeals to girls. Big Tobacco is screaming breach of trade agreements and loss of trademarks since it realizes the move will domino. They do not have a cancerous leg legally to stand on and think huff and puff will work instead but the admirable Governments will not back down. In Hong Kong’s Budget  in 2010 we did not have an excise increase ; in the four months thereafter 661,559 million excise paid sticks were sold reaping excise HK$ 797.83 million whereas after the excise tax increase in the 2011 Budget in the same 4 month period thereafter the figures are 291,217 million sticks  and HK$ 496.65 million. The tax increase has reduced comparative sales by 370,34 million sticks over 2010 figures and excise revenue reduced by HK$ 301 million. In 1998 the HKU Department of Community Medicine study revealed the cost to HK society for loss of productivity and health care for treating smoking related diseases was HK$ 5.3 billion per year, if loss of life were included due to smoking related disease the figures would be HK$ 73 billion per year. It is clear the cost of treatment at 2011 prices will be far higher than the HK$ 5.3 billion in 1998 dollars and abundantly clear that the tax payer is subsidising the massive treatment costs inflicted on society by Big Tobacco . The Government has a duty of care to its citizens and , like the USA did and Canada is now doing, must sue Big Tobacco  to recover these costs – to do otherwise condones the 7,000 tobacco deaths each year here .

James Middleton

Chairman

Clear the Air NGO    Tel 26930136

www.cleartheair.org.hk

Banning tobacco displays ‘violates Bill of Rights’

http://www.3news.co.nz/Banning-tobacco-displays-violates-Bill-of-Rights/tabid/419/articleID/219143/Default.aspx

18 July 2011

Three ACT Party MPs say the bill banning the display of tobacco products in shops, which passed in Parliament last week, violates the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

The Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill makes it against the law for shops to display tobacco products and have references to tobacco products in their trading names.

But the ban “violates the basic right to freedom of expression” according to ACT MPs Heather Roy, Sir Roger Douglas and Hilary Calvert who voted against the bill.

Ms Roy says Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act “protects the right to freedom of expression. This bill violates that right. The right to display legal products in a store is basic”.

“Smokers have rights too. We support their rights. We don’t like smoking, but we don’t believe it is for us as MPs to say whether people should smoke or not, much less whether they may display a legal product or not. That our Parliament deems it fit to interfere in people’s personal lives, as it did on Thursday, saddens us,” Ms Roy says.

Sir Roger says it is “another tedious example of nanny-statism and political correctness” and says he is worried that “activists won’t stop till they’ve achieved complete prohibition”.

But Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia believes the bill is the complete opposite and says “it’s a great moment for New Zealand” and it “closes one of the last loopholes the tobacco industry uses to prey on our young people”.

The bill also increases fines for selling tobacco products to under-age persons, with maximum penalty becoming $10,000 compared with a previous $2000 fine.

The powers of Smokefree Enforcement Officers will also be increased, enabling them to impose instant fines of up to $1000 for sales to those under 18 years of age.

The changes come into force in July next year

Is ‘nanny-state’ the new ‘politically correct’? | Mamamia

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/is-nanny-state-the-new-politically-correct/

Mary Poppins was not a horrible bitch. Neither was Maria from the Sound of Music. Both women were strong yet wise with the purest of hearts and kindest of intentions. They were also nannies. So what’s with this god-awful $10m ad campaign from the tobacco industry trying to convince us that plain packaging is a bad idea by hiring an actress who looks like The Freak from Prisoner and railing against a ‘nanny state’?

Tobacco People, this is so many shades of wrong, it’s hard to know where to start. How about here: it seems ‘nanny-state’ has become the new ‘politically correct’ – a derisive term used to sneer at anyone who advocates tolerance, respect and consideration for others. “Un-Australian” is often used in the same way (* waves to gambling industry *). They’re blunt, lazy, dumbed-down terms, which do nothing but try to shut down debate.

And what’s with the demonisation of nannies, anyway? Like all other childcare workers, nannies have a singular purpose: to care for vulnerable people who aren’t old enough, smart enough or responsible enough to make the right decisions. Decisions which can have negative consequences for themselves and others.

Are there teens and adults who fit that same criteria and who could benefit from a bit of Mary Poppins style guidance? So many. Like the ones who drink and drive or don’t put seatbelts on their kids. The ones who smoke with children in the car or flick lit cigarette butts out the window. Or take drugs. Or drive dangerously. Surely that’s the job of a government; to protect its citizens from each other and sometimes from themselves. That’s why we have laws. And the plain packaging legislation simply seeks to protect vulnerable people from being influenced by marketing to take up a deadly habit.

Maybe you’re a smoker and you don’t think tobacco-marketing influences you and perhaps you’re right. But this isn’t about you. This is about people younger than you. Not as wise. They’re the ones we need to protect. There’s no other reason for plain packaging legislation. Really. So bring it on.

Okay, now back to nannies for a moment because I’m perplexed by the way they’ve been cast as villains. I’ve never met a nanny who looks or acts like The Freak. The ones I’ve known and employed over the years have been lovely, professional women (haven’t met a Manny yet but I’m told they’re fantastic) who work damn hard looking after other people’s kids. Just like any other type of childcare worker except inside your house.

Of course we must acknowledge the economic elephant in the room: it’s expensive to employ a nanny and those who can are fortunate. Absolutely. Like most parents, we’ve had a hodgepodge of childcare arrangements since I returned to work part-time when our first child was four months old. This has included everything from grandparents, to day-care, pre-school and after-school care. When we’ve had nannies, they’ve mostly been part-timers; girls who’ve done a few days on the side while they finished uni or worked another job or saved some cash to go travelling. However long they stay though, it’s an oddly intimate relationship. Who else gets to see your family dynamics up so close not to mention the natural state of your house? Gulp.

When it works, a nanny can become a unique hybrid of sister, wife and friend. When it doesn’t, it’s like having another child. Or worse. I once hired a nanny who – I discovered later – came to work hungover and snoozed all day on my couch before stealing bag-fulls of my clothes. But it’s always been a theme in my life that my worst experience of something (job, relationship etc.) comes right before my best. And the nanny I employed after that spectacular disaster is now on maternity leave after being with us for five years. She has been the most wonderful influence on our kids and a balm on our chaotic household.

Still, there’s a lingering sense of guilt and shame in some circles about admitting you have a nanny. “I never say ‘my nanny’, I say ‘my babysitter’” says one friend in the public eye who resents the implication that because she has a nanny who looks after her daughters while she and her husband work, she doesn’t spend any time with them. “Yes, I know I’m lucky to be able to afford to have my childcare come to me but how does that have any bearing on what type of parent I am?” she wonders defensively.

You most often hear this gripe when the subject of celebrity parents comes up – the idea that they have a fleet of nannies who raise their kids while they go gallivanting around the world to red carpets and film sets. The inference: bad parents.

But we know little of what actually goes on in other people’s families, famous or not. Having a nanny does not necessarily mean you are an absent or disengaged parent. Just like not having one doesn’t mean you are a present and involved one.

So enough with the demonising. Let’s remember: nannies (and their employers) aren’t the bad guys. Tobacco companies are.

Here’s one nanny state ad…

And another…

What do you think?

USA Smoking in movies report – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention

Download PDF : mm6027

The way forward in Tobacco Control

Smoking In California Hits Record Low : Shots – Health Blog : NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/07/14/137843399/smoking-in-california-hits-record-low?ps=sh_sthdl

California health officials say smoking rates in the state are down to 11.9 percent, a new low. And the latest figures make it only the second state so far to achieve a federal target of reducing adult smoking rates to 12 percent by 2020 so far. Utah got there first, in case you were wondering.

Across the nation, 1 in 5 Americans still smokes. And federal health officials say more than half of all children are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke, setting them up for future harm from cancer, heart disease and a variety of other ailments.

Tobacco news

New law: Smokes, tobacco in shops to be hidden

New Zealand Herald – Claire Trevett – ‎22 hours ago‎

Tobacco products and advertisements will have to be kept out of sight in shops under a law passed by Parliament yesterday. All but three Act MPs voted for the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, 

National Right to Life News

WHO official urges China to print graphic warning labels on cigarette packs

Xinhua – ‎7 hours ago‎

Dr. Sarah England, a technical officer at the Tobacco Free Initiative with the WHO Representative Office in China, said Thursday at a tobacco-control seminar held in Beijing that people have a fundamental right to information about the harms oftobacco