Millions of smokers stub out cigarettes from the home

Since smoking was banned from enclosed public spaces two years ago, many people are turning their homes into smoke free zones too. The poll of 2,000 of Swinton's home insurance customers found that 81% had completely banned smoking inside their home. 

Of those questioned who currently smoke, 63% said that they go outside for a cigarette rather than having one inside their home. The main reasons for this was the smell (54%) and to protect non-smokers from second hand fumes (23%).

Women were the most likely smoke outside (86%) over men (74%). The most popular place to smoke was at the back door (72%) followed by out of a window (18%) and a small unfortunate few were confined to the garden shed (2%).

Recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics have shown that the number of adults smoking has reduced from 22% in 2007 down to 21% in 2008.

Each year smoking causes 3,500 household fires in the UK which result in 80 deaths and up to 1,400 injuries(i). To reduce the risk of causing a household fire through smoking, Swinton advises:

- Don't smoke in bed

- Never leave cigarettes unattended

- Use a proper ashtray

- Keep matches and lighters away from children

Steve Chelton, Insurer Development Manager for Swinton, said: "Each year there are thousands of home insurance claims for items damaged by cigarettes such as carpets and armchairs. Hopefully, now that more people are choosing to smoke outside we will see a drop in these claims, which may also help to reduce home insurance premiums."

(i) Figures from the Association of British Insurers

Source: Salfordonline Housing, 2 July 2009
Link: http://www.salfordonline.com/housingnews_page/13911-millions_of_smokers_stub_out_cigarettes_from_the_home.html

Is the EU in the sway of Big Tobacco?

Opinion piece by David Cronin who argues that the EU's timid anti-smoking legislation shows it is incapable of standing up to the lobbying might of the tobacco industry. 

Maybe there's still hope for journalism when the News of the World manages to squeeze in a story or two unrelated to Michael Jackson. "European zealots", the paper told us on Sunday, are demanding a ban on smoking outside pubs and offices. The ever-reliable Godfrey Bloom, newly re-elected MEP for Ukip, was rolled out to fulminate against this latest affront to his nation's sovereignty. "It's beyond the nanny state," he said. "It's the bully state. Do they want to close down the English pub?"

The truth, as you may have guessed, is a little more complex. Yes, it's correct that the European commission has issued a new proposal that will not go down too well with some smokers. Citing estimates that more than one-quarter of the 79,000 EU citizens who die annually from exposure to tobacco smoke are non-smokers, it has recommended that lighting up should be banned in all "enclosed" or "indoor" public places. As these would include a wide range of areas covered by roofs or surrounded by walls, it's fair to assume that smoking both inside pubs and within their immediate vicinity outside is being targeted.

Yet the insinuation by the commission's rightwing critics that the Brussels bureaucracy is replete with meddlesome fitness freaks is wide of the mark. For most of the EU's five-decade history, responsibility for health policy has been guarded jealously by its individual governments. More recent experience suggests that this was a good thing; the commission's formative forays into this domain show how it is wedded to the same ideology that has fuelled catastrophic inequalities in the US.

Last year the commission tabled a "patient's rights" law on receiving treatment in an EU country other than the one where you live. This law – still being debated by MEPs – seeks to have healthcare considered as an economic, rather than a social, service. This could set a dangerous precedent whereby access to high-quality treatment becomes more dependent on your ability to pay for it than on your need.

Even worse, the union's business agenda has long been dictated by the behemoths of the pharmaceutical industry. A free trade agreement (pdf) that Brussels officials want India to sign in the near future would require the New Delhi government to introduce stringent rules on drug patents. India's status as the world's leading provider of cheap unbranded medicines to victims of Aids and other major killers would be jeopardised as a result.

Back to smoking, and the sad fact is that EU officials have not been sufficiently tough in standing up to the tobacco industry representatives that have been strenuously lobbying against an EU-wide smoking ban. The lobbyists have resorted to a sophisticated and sometimes duplicitous campaign in trying to advance their threadbare case that smoking isn't really that harmful. Top-level officials have been quite literally bought by the tobacco industry. Pavel Telicka, the former EU commissioner for health, now works for British American Tobacco, setting up appointments for the firm with his old colleagues in officialdom. Others have been charmed into submission; one former commissioner told me he was convinced that Philip Morris represented the progressive side of the industry. It never dawned on him that the firm had sunk gargantuan sums into making him believe just that by, for example, setting up a medical institute bearing its name.

No national administration would allow paedophiles a say in setting child welfare policies. So why should the views of Big Tobacco on issues of health be taken seriously? And no, I don't think this analogy is too extreme. According to the World Health Organisation, half of the children on this planet have to breathe air polluted by smoke.

This week's move towards creating a "smoke-free environment" across the EU by 2012 is superficially positive, but in reality quite a timid move. The commission's ban will not be legally binding but will rely on the goodwill of national governments to put it into effect. It remains to be seen if any action will be taken against those that don't. So far just 10 of the EU's 27 countries have introduced comprehensive bans on smoking in the workplace. Some other countries have claimed to have taken measures to shield their citizens from smoke, but with so many ludicrous loopholes that the influence of cigarette-makers over politicians is obvious. In Belgium, I've often had to wade through a carcinogenic fog to find the non-smoking areas in cafes. This is because its cowardly government decided against introducing a proper ban.

At the cost of five million lives each year, smoking is the top cause of preventable death in the world. The industry that seeks to profit from this misery is beneath contempt – it's about time our policy-makers started treating it that way.
      

Source: The Guardian, 2 July 2009
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/02/eu-smoking-legislation-ban?commentpage=1

Smoking - Publicising the danger (1959)

From the Guardian archives: 2 July 1959:  

Mr M. Lipton (Lab.) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the House of Commons yesterday what action he would take to co-ordinate the work of Government departments in publicising the danger of lung cancer caused by smoking.

Mr Lipton: Is it not cowardly or at least half-hearted for the Government to leave the whole of this important task to local councils? Aren't you well qualified to conduct a nation-wide campaign?

Dr Hill: The statutory responsibility of health education rests on local authorities and they can and will engage in health education on this subject.

Stopping smoking [leader]

What are the heavy smokers among us to do now? "Stop smoking," is the simple answer, but it is unlikely that a public pronouncement will have a dramatic effect on habits ingrained over several years. So it is natural to look to the Government for help. In many ways the Government has already done a good deal. The public endorsement given last week to the proposition that smoking can cause lung cancer should have some effect.

The Government's only fault has been that of procrastination. But what else can be done now? Could there be some form of direct legislation against smoking that would have some real effect, and which could not run counter to British susceptibilities? It is hard to think of any. There is no evidence that smokers harm anybody but themselves; so an act forbidding smoking in public places would have no more moral validity than one prohibiting it altogether; it could not be argued that such a prohibition was needed to protect non-smokers from smokers.

There is certainly something to be done in the field of publicity. Probably there is scope for action in the schools, but even here there are difficulties. Schoolteachers cannot reasonably be asked to lecture about lung cancer. There seems to be a case for asking doctors to give regular talks to schools, or for including material like this in the broadcasts for schools.

It may be suggested that taxation penalising cigarette-smokers as against those who smoke pipes would drive the former to a less dangerous form of their indulgence. Unfortunately the comparative statistical innocuousness of tobacco pipes seems to be due in part to the fact that their users do not inhale. Converts from cigarettes might not be so judicious. These are only some of the pitfalls in the way of direct action by the Government. It is all very well calling it "cowardly and half-hearted". But what steps do the critics propose?
 

Source: The Guardian, 2 July 2009
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/02/archive-smoking-health-effects

Harrow Sheesha cafe fined for breaching smoking ban

The smoking ban needs to be updated to protect the “authentic Sheesha experience,” according to the council. 

Sahara Lounge was recently fined £200 because a section of seating outside the front of the restaurant, in Stanmore Hill, was too enclosed.

Another cafe was also rapped, but settled with Harrow Council out of court, and Councillor Susan Hall, responsible for environment services, is now saying the law needs to be more clear about what business owners can get away with.

She said: “These cafes are becoming increasingly popular across London, but the legislation on smoking in public places wasn't framed with them in mind.

“It needs to be updated so all councils have clear guidance on what these cafe fittings should look like.

“We can then balance the right of customers to sit and enjoy the authentic Sheesha experience while continuing to deliver clean and safe streets.”

Many Sheesha bars across the capital were hit hard when the smoking ban was brought in and, while some were forced to close, others have struggled to find ways to keep going.

Traditional Sheesha cafes often involve low ceilings and cushions arranged on the floor to make sitting more comfortable.

But council officers say that as cafe owners try to replicate the authentic surroundings outside they slipping over the line between what is legally considered indoors.

Source: Harrow Times, 2 July 2009
Link: http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/4471978.Calls_to_help_Sheesha_bars_with_review_of_smoking_ban/