CNN: World anti-smoking pact in force

Hiz Highness · 02-27-2005, 06:49 PM

From: http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/02/27...eut/index.html

Quote:

GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- A global treaty aimed at dissuading children from smoking and helping adults kick the habit came into force on Sunday with the United Nations saying it could save millions of lives.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) applauded the strong warnings on cigarette packages and the eventual ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship laid down in the the world's first international public health treaty.

"It's entry into force is a demonstration of governments' commitment to reduce death and illness from tobacco use," said WHO Director-General Lee Jong-wook in a statement to mark the event.

Tobacco, the second leading cause of preventable deaths globally after hypertension, kills 4.9 million people a year, the U.N. agency says.

And the annual death toll from tobacco-related diseases -- lung cancer, heart attacks and cardiovascular diseases -- could soar to 10 million by 2020, with 70 percent of the deaths in developing countries, it adds.

The treaty, known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, gives members three years to slap strong health warnings on tobacco packages and five years to ban advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

It also recommends tax increases on tobacco products, a crackdown on smuggling, and reducing exposure to second-hand smoke.

Approved by the WHO's 192 member states in May 2003, the pact became law on Sunday, 90 days after the 40th state had ratified it.

It will only carry legal weight in those countries which have ratified it, now numbering 57. In total, 167 countries have signed the pact -- but have not necessarily sent it to parliament for ratification.

WHO officials and activists say the powerful tobacco industry is lobbying intensively to restrict the number of countries applying the treaty, including the United States which has signed up but not yet sent it to the Senate.

"The tobacco industry wants to be free to sell and market their deadly products in such a way that they have more and more profits. This is the only language the tobacco industry knows," Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, director of the WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative, told journalists.
[SNIP]

Governments of the world unite! Let's save the people from themselves! Is the global treaty banning the advertising of fast food in the works yet?

-HH

Buzzby · 02-27-2005, 07:14 PM

Nobody's banning tobacco. They're banning tobacco advertising. If people want to smoke cigarettes there's nothing stopping them.

Tobacco causes close to five million deaths a year on a world-wide basis. Governments have a legitimate interest in discouraging something that kills their citizens. I have a legitimate interest as well. People killing themselves with cigarettes make my health insurance premiums much higher than they would otherwise be.

The purpose of cigarette advertising is to draw more people (read "young people") into the addiction. After all, once a person starts smoking they need no encouragement to keep smoking. Do you think it's appropriate for businesses to try to rope children into a lifetime addiction to a truly dangerous drug?

Hiz Highness · 02-27-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzby

Nobody's banning tobacco. They're banning tobacco advertising. If people want to smoke cigarettes there's nothing stopping them.

Right . . . I don't believe I claimed anywhere that tobacco was being banned.

Quote:

Tobacco causes close to five million deaths a year on a world-wide basis.

How many are killed by obesity-related diseases or other health problems caused by eating fast food?

Quote:

Governments have a legitimate interest in discouraging something that kills their citizens.

So why do we allow fast food and liquor companies to advertise their harmful products?

Quote:

I have a legitimate interest as well. People killing themselves with cigarettes make my health insurance premiums much higher than they would otherwise be.

So you must abstain from eating fast food. I'm sure you wouldn't burden others by raising their health insurance premiums due to your poor eating habits.

Quote:

The purpose of cigarette advertising is to draw more people (read "young people") into the addiction.

Does McDonalds not target young children with their product?

Quote:

Do you think it's appropriate for businesses to try to rope children into a lifetime addiction to a truly dangerous drug?

I don't see that as the issue. The global governments aren't trying to ban the advertising of all businesses that market a harmful product to children, they're focusing solely on the tobacco industry. Where's the logic in that?

-HH

Buzzby · 02-27-2005, 07:41 PM

Fast food is not addictive. Eaten on an occasional basis it is not harmful. People can stop eating it any time they want.

Alcohol is not addictive when taken in moderate quantities. People have a choice to drink or not to drink, to drink responsibly or irresponsibly. It takes a long time to become an alcoholic.

Cigarettes are extremely addictive. People get hooked on them very quickly. Once started on the habit people have no choice but to keep it up or suffer the painful consequences.

Would you legitimize the advertising of heroin and cocaine?

I don't know any adults who have been smoking for a while who would recommend it to others. They're just strung out and don't quit because of the problems of withdrawal and living without their crutch.

Hiz Highness · 02-27-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzby

Fast food is not addictive. Eaten on an occasional basis it is not harmful. People can stop eating it any time they want.

Do we have more overweight people in America, or more smokers? Who is raising the costs of health insurance again?

Quote:

Cigarettes are extremely addictive.

Cigarettes are one form of tobacco. I smoke a pipe myself. Research shows that occaisionally pipe smokers tend to live longer than non-smokers.

Quote:

I don't know any adults who have been smoking for a while who would recommend it to others. They're just strung out and don't quit because of the problems of withdrawal and living without their crutch.

I would recommend pipe smoking to those who enjoy the effects, the aroma, the flavor, and the relaxation it brings. Now you know at least one adult who would recommend it to others who are interested.

As an aside, that was a good post Cheeba.

-HH

CheebaMonkey · 02-27-2005, 07:45 PM

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/elett...83/242/a#29405

Quote:

WHICH COSTS SHOULD WE COUNT ?

Sir - This article rightly points out that smoking has serious social costs, far outweighing those of illicit drugs, which however attract more public attention. The social costs considered include health care expenditure, loss of life, loss of health, the ill-effects of passive smoking, absenteeism, ambulance use, fires, crime, and littering.

No physician would dispute that these costs are deplorable, but if we examine smoking and alcohol abuse from the viewpoint of an economist, we find that the smoker and the heavy drinker actually benefit the economy. First, they pay a very great deal more tax than nonsmokers and nondrinkers. Second, their survival is shorter; they do not collect their pensions for periods of many years, and sometimes not at all. Their final illnesses - for example lung cancer or myocardial infarction - frequently are of short duration and thus inexpensive. They seldom require long-term institutional care at the end of life.

By contrast, the nonsmoking teetotaller contributes no excise taxes to the state, and may draw his or her pension for 20 or more years, creating economic problems for future generations. The longevity associated with their healthy lifestyle may lead to a requirement for costly long-term care that places a huge burden on the state. Of course smoking is a social and medical evil, but we should not deceive ourselves that its disappearance would save money.

I'm not so sure if alcohol is really saving us money as he writes, but I can agree with what he says in regards to tobacco.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/elett...7468/749#82357

Quote:

Can the government afford to ban smoking?

Rao wonders why the government is hesitating about 'doing the right thing' in banning smoking in public places. There is certainly much to be said for such a ban. The impact of smoking, in terms of increased mortality and morbidity and cost to the NHS, is well recognised. It has been estimated that smoking causes one in five of all deaths [1]; smoking causes 84% of all deaths from lung cancer, 30% of all cancers and 15% of cardiovascular disease deaths [1]; the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is £1.5 billion each year [2].

There have been repeated calls by medical and public health authorities for a ban on smoking in public places. The Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, has set out the case for a ban [3].

However, although the British government have introduced a ban on tobacco advertising, which is anticipated to reduce tobacco consumption by 3% [4], they still seem reluctant to enforce a ban on smoking in public.

A simplified analysis of the economics of smoking reveals that there is a significant financial gain to the country from smoking.

The costs to the country from smoking can be divided into health care and employment costs.

NHS costs of treating smoking-related disease [4]: £1,500 million

Costs of NHS prescriptions of smoking cessation therapy [1]: £30.3 million

Total productivity losses due to smoking-related illness [5,6]: £4,230 million

Total costs due to smoking/annum : £5,760.3 million

However, smoking also generates revenue for the country in terms of taxation on tobacco, corporation tax levied on tobacco manufacturers and tax revenue (income tax and national insurance) from workers in the tobacco industry. Another important financial benefit to the country is from the reduced life expectancy of smokers. The average life expectancy at birth in the UK is around 78 years [7], but smokers die on average eight years before non-smokers [8], meaning that non-smokers will accrue an average of 15 years of pension and other state benefits, while smokers only live to collect an average of seven years’ benefits, assuming a retirement age of 65.

Tobacco revenue duty [2,9]: £8,100 million

Corporation tax revenue from tobacco industry [2,9]: £804 million

Tax revenue from tobacco industry workers [9,10]: £86 million

State pension and benefit savings [6,11]: £4,720 million

Total cost saving or income from smoking : £13,710 million

A simple calculation shows that the overall financial benefit to the UK from one-quarter of its population smoking is approximately £8 billion per year, and that this is probably an underestimate.

Total cost saving or income from smoking: £13,710 million

Total costs due to smoking: £5,760.3 million

Net financial gain to the UK from smoking : £7,949.7 million

There are therefore overwhelming financial reasons for any government to allow its population to continue to smoke. This attitude may seem outwardly callous. However, all state money is used for the benefit of the nation. Money not spent on pensions for smokers is instead used for education, health care for non-smoking-related diseases, transport and support of other industries, and even aid to third-world countries [9]. Whilst every early, avoidable death is a tragedy, the risks associated with smoking have been known for half a century [12], so most of today’s smokers have developed the habit with at least partly informed consent, and perhaps also a dose of denial. Instead of criticising smokers for a habit likely to cause them ill-health and premature death, perhaps we should be praising their generosity towards their non-smoking peers, who are the main beneficiaries from their life-long donation of extra revenue, and subsequent reduced claim on state support in later life.

References

1. National Statistics Statistical Bulletin. Statistics on smoking: England, 2003.

2. Action on Smoking and Health. Basic facts: Three. Tobacco economics. May 2004 www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/basic03.html.

3. Laurent C. UK health minister under pressure to ban smoking in public. BMJ 2004;329;368. (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/329/7462/368).

4. Action on Smoking and Health. Basic facts: Three. Tobacco economics. May 2004 www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/basic03.html.

5. ASH Scotland Economics www.ashscotland.org.uk/statistics/economics.html.

6. National Statistics. Mid-2003 population estimates.

7. OECD Health Data 2004.

8. Boyle P. Cancer, cigarette smoking and premature death in Europe: A review including the Recommendations of European Cancer Experts Consensus Meeting, Helsinki, October 1996. Lung Cancer 1997;17:1-60.

9. HM Treasury. Budget 2004. Prudence for a purpose: A Britain of stability and strength. March 2004.

10. Inland Revenue statistics table 2.4 Shares of total income tax liability.

11. National Statistics. The Pensioners’ Incomes Series 2002/03.

12. Doll R, Hill AB. The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits: A preliminary report. 1954. Reprinted in BMJ 2004;328:1529 -1533.

Granted, that data in the last one is from the UK, but you get my point.

Zilos · 02-27-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

The treaty, known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, gives members three years to slap strong health warnings on tobacco packages and five years to ban advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

Sounds good to me! I grew up with parents who smoked most their lives, and ofcourse I eventually started up. Since then I've managed to quit (been quit for a year) and parents have now quit after trying to many, and damn I mean many times!! Cigs are almost completely useless! And I have no problem with advertising being banned, and anything else related that might encourage it's use.

And I highly doubt this will eventually turn into fast foods being banned

There's a big difference between a drug's (nicotine) advertising being banned, and fast-food ( MMMmmm.. McDonalds!

).

HH, the only good thing that would come from not banning advertising for cigs, is population control....

Zilos · 02-27-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Cigarettes are one form of tobacco. I smoke a pipe myself. Research shows that occaisionally pipe smokers tend to live longer than non-smokers.

As was already said, they are not banning tobacco, so you don't have to worry about not being able to obtain any. However people won't be sucked in to starting the habit from advertising..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Advertising Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Hot Products:

Orange Krush - Legal Bud

Black Magic Solid Smokes

Vapir One Vaporizer