Home / Media Room / News / ASH Daily News / ASH Daily News for 13 May 2009 / ASH Daily news for 29 June 2010

ASH Daily news for 29 June 2010

HEADLINES

  • Wales: Taxi drivers flout smoking laws in their cabs

    Smoking Enforcement Officers in Swansea are urging drivers of work-based vehicles to avoid lighting up at the wheel.

    The advice follows recent convictions against two local taxi drivers who both received costly fines for smoking in their vehicles.

    Both drivers pleaded guilty to a total of five offences between them and each received fines of £150 per offence along with £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

    Smoking in public places in Wales become illegal in April 2007 to protect the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. The ban includes pubs, restaurants and other public places where people congregate. The ban also includes workplaces and requires work-based vehicles such as taxis and buses to be smoke free.

    Swansea Council has since issued 53 fixed penalties to people for smoking in company and licensed vehicles. Eight prosecutions have been successful and one case is pending.

    Cllr John Hague, Cabinet Member for the Environment in Swansea Council, said: “Since the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places the Council has taken its responsibilities very seriously in terms of ensuring people comply with the ban.

    “We have noticed less compliance to the ban by some drivers of commercial and licensed vehicles.

    “We would urge companies to remind staff who drive vehicles to remember that vehicles used for work are also considered a public place and the legislation covers these vehicles.”

    Source: Welsh Icons - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://bit.ly/9ygjvW

  • Smoke-free Brits could save thousands on critical illness premiums

    Three smoke-free years could see ex-smokers save £9,150 on the cost of protection and cigarettes, according to moneysupermarket.com.

    Research from the comparison site revealed critical illness cover of £100,000 for a 30 year old male smoker over the next 25 years would cost £41.29 a month with LV=, but only £24.78 for a non smoker; a saving of £4,953 over the full term. A non-smoking female with Legal & General would pay £2,790 less than a smoker.

    Since the smoking ban came into force, in July 2007, a smoker could have saved themselves £4,190 on cigarettes by going smoke-free. Despite this, recent statistics reveal fewer smokers have been giving up recently; 26 per cent during 2008 and 2009 compared to 31 per cent in 2007.

    Emma Walker, head of protection at moneysupermarket.com said: "Three years on the benefits of kicking the habit remain - for your pocket as well as your health. The potential difference in the cost of protection premiums is vast, but in order to be classed as a non-smoker and qualify for life-insurance premium savings, insurers insist smokers have packed it in for a full year. Once smokers have given up for 12 months - this includes any tobacco-replacements products they might be on, such as nicotine patches - they should go back to their insurer and ask for non-smoker rates; subject to tests to prove they've quit of course."

    Considerable savings can also be made on single life insurance cover. It would cost £11.10 a month with Aviva for a smoker but £4.04 a month for someone who has kicked the habit - a saving of £1,212 over the term.

    Emma Walker continued: "It's disappointing less Brits are kicking the habit recently compared to when the smoking ban came into force - those still puffing away are effectively letting their hard earned cash go up in smoke.

    "The better your health, the cheaper your protection premium - the savings to be made by ditching cigarettes are vast. It is essential to do your research to get the right premium for you - shop around for the best deals currently available on the market and decide on the most cost-effective deal to best suit your circumstances."

    moneysupermarket.com's top tips for protection:

    Don't always be lured by the lowest premium; look at policy coverage and extras within the cover to make sure you are getting the best value for money

    Make sure your answers are correct and give all of your relevant personal information and medical history, or a subsequent claim might be rejected

    Always review cover at life-changing events such as a change of job, having children, a change in marital status, increased debt or moving house

    When replacing a policy, always seek advice and compare like for like, as the premium may be cheaper but the coverage might not be as comprehensive. Never cancel anything until the new cover is in place

    If the premium is too big for your budget, consider getting some initial critical illness cover that you can add to later.

    Source: Easier Lifestyle - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://bit.ly/cAsx4S

  • Leicester: We need to curb these 'fag houses'

    It sounds like something out of Prohibition in 1930s America, where the banning of alcohol led to illegal and secret liquor outlets and drinking dens, or speak easies. Fast forward 80 years to the estates in Leicester and we have a similar phenomenon.

    Secret and illegal "fag houses" or "tab houses" are now established on estates, such as New Parks and Saffron Lane, selling cheap cigarettes and alcohol.

    Information about their exact whereabouts is a close-guarded secret, but it is estimated that about 12 to 13% of all cigarette and tobacco sales are illegal.

    The loss to the Government, in terms of duty, is around £1.2 billion – in these times of spending cutbacks, money that could be spent on protecting jobs and services to the needy.

    The major concern about these "fag houses" is that because they are totally unregulated, cigarettes are often sold to young children.

    This illegal trade makes a mockery of the work done to try to prevent the sale of cigarettes to young people from newsagents.

    One youth worker admitted: "It's been going on for years. I don't think it is ever going to go away."

    However, we have got to make more of an effort to clampdown on this illegal trade and responsibility falls squarely on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to control.

    A spokesman admitted that the practice of "fag houses" was "fairly common".

    We may not ever be able to completely stamp out this trade, but it should be made more difficult if the health of our children is important.

    Source: Leicester Mercury - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://bit.ly/d5QU8j

  • US Supreme Court hands major victory to Big Tobacco

    The US Supreme Court gave a substantial victory to major tobacco firms Monday, rebuffing an appeal that would have allowed the government to pocket 280 billion dollars of their profits.

    The decision not to hear the case dealt a potentially fatal blow to long-running government efforts to penalize tobacco firms for 50 years of allegedly deceptive practices aimed at getting people hooked on smoking.

    Former president Bill Clinton's administration launched the original suit in 1999, seeking 280 billion dollars in allegedly ill-gotten gains and another 10 billion dollars to fund an expanded anti-smoking campaign.

    But an appeals court in Washington DC ruled in 2005 that the seizure of illegal profits by the government, known as "disgorgement," was not allowable.

    An immediate appeal of that ruling was not taken up by the Supreme Court, making this the second occasion on which the highest court in the land has refused to consider the government's case.

    The Supreme Court on Monday also refused to hear appeals from the tobacco industry in which it sought to overturn a judge's 2006 findings that it violated racketeering laws by defrauding smokers and potential smokers about the health risks.

    In the 2006 decision stretching to more than 1,600 pages, US district judge Gladys Kessler ruled that nine tobacco companies had engaged in a scheme to defraud smokers, in part by denying smoking's addictive nature and intentionally marketing cigarettes to youth.

    She made various restrictions on cigarette advertising, marketing and sales, and ordered remedies to be undertaken by the industry, including barring companies from making health claims about cigarettes and requiring them to publicly correct their denials of the health hazards of smoking.

    But she said her hands were tied over the government's multi-billion-dollar suit, citing the crucial 2005 ruling in the DC circuit court.

    That decision, after a nine-month trial, removed the "disgorgement" remedy, essentially shielding the tobacco companies from what had been a looming burden that could have permanently shifted the nature of the industry.

    A second ruling by the DC circuit court last year upheld most of Kessler's findings. It found Big Tobacco liable in the conspiracy under the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), but again denied consideration of the massive US suit and said federal law did not give courts power to order a national anti-smoking program.

    The defendants in the decision included Altria, parent of Philip Morris; Reynolds American Inc; British American Tobacco; and Lorillard, part of Loews Corp, among others.

    The US government described the defendants as collectively controlling more than 85 percent of the US cigarette market.

    Philip Morris USA issued a swift reaction after the Supreme Court's move Monday.

    "Although we are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not grant our petitions challenging the basis for the lawsuit, we are pleased that the Supreme Court has confirmed once again that disgorgement is not an available remedy," said Murray Garnick, an Altria senior vice president speaking on behalf of PM USA and Altria Group.

    "The case is now expected to return to the district court for further proceedings."

    The American Cancer Society said it would issue a statement later Monday.

    In 2007, after the government filed a fresh lawsuit which led to the 2009 court case, the defendants issued a brief in which they slammed the government for "urging an unprecedented expansion" of portions of RICO that would "convert RICO into a blunt instrument to impose sweeping regulatory requirements upon a lawful industry."

    In its appellate brief of November 2007, the government alleged that since 1953, defendants were engaged in a "conspiracy to deceive the American public about the toxicity and addictiveness of cigarettes, and that they did so to retain and extend the mass market for their product."

    Source: Yahoo!/AFP - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://yhoo.it/bjQ3ut

  • USA: Smoking around kids exacts a high toll

    American kids can breathe a sigh of relief, according to a study out today in the journal Pediatrics that finds their exposure to second-hand smoke at home has dropped significantly since the mid-1990s.

    But two other reports in the journal show that early-life exposure could lead to behavioral and health problems later in life.

    Exposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause lung problems, asthma, ear infections and contribute to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Smoking during pregnancy has also been linked to a host of psychological problems in children, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and antisocial behavior. But scientists have had a hard time teasing out the direct effects of tobacco versus lifestyle factors and mental health in the home.

    In one of the three studies in the journal Pediatrics, Dr. Marie-Jo Brion of the University of Bristol, U.K., and colleagues tried to disentangle those factors by analyzing two long-term studies from Britain and Brazil.

    Both studies had started in the early 1990s. Among British mothers, 16 percent reported smoking during pregnancy, compared with 29 percent in Brazil.

    The researchers initially found that at age four, the kids whose mothers smoked had higher levels of hyperactivity, peer problems and bad behavior, such as bullying, cheating and lying. The kids didn't have more emotional problems, however.

    After accounting for the parents' psychological health, economic position and whether the father smoked, only the bad behavior remained highly associated with having a mother who smoked, with odds increased up to 82 percent.

    Brion said her results weren't bulletproof evidence that exposure to tobacco in the womb causes behavior problems directly, but that it was likely to do so.

    Even if a prospective mother doesn't smoke, being around others who do could still affect her unborn child, according to the second study in Pediatrics.

    Researchers from the University of Hong Kong studied 6,800 school-aged children whose mothers weren't smokers. If their dads smoked daily, however, they tended to weigh more compared to those kids who weren't exposed to second-hand smoke in the womb or after birth. On average, they packed on an extra pound or so.

    The third study in Pediatrics shows that fewer kids are being exposed to smoke in the home. Dr. Gopal K. Singh of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Rockville, Maryland, and colleagues report that overall, about 5.5 million American children, or 7.6 percent, were exposed to second-hand smoke in the home in 2007. By contrast, that number was 35 percent in 1994.

    "That was a fairly dramatic drop," Singh said. "It is a positive message in the sense that exposure rates have declined." However, he and colleagues note that the 7.6 percent figure falls short of the 2010 revised national target for reducing childhood exposure to tobacco smoke at home, which is set at 6 percent.

    Almost 8 in 10 households have smoking bans now, according to Singh, which is nearly twice the number seen in the early 1990s. "That's a big difference in attitude," he said.

    In their study, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander children had the lowest exposure rates, while Black children had the highest. Children from poorer households and with less-educated parents were at highest risk. Singh said the decline in second-hand smoke had been much slower in these groups.

    Some states stuck out. For instance, less than 2 percent of kids in California and Utah lived with smokers, while more than 17 percent did so in Kentucky and West Virginia.

    While the study did not test smoking during pregnancy, national data show that around 1 in 10 pregnant women light up at some point, according to Gary A. Giovino of the School of Public Health and Health Professions at the University at Buffalo, New York.

    "The problems of smoking and pregnancy have come down substantially over the years," said Giovino, who was not involved in any of the new studies. "But we still have a long way to go."

    Source: Reuters - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://bit.ly/aEtC3a

  • New Zealand: NZMA Supports Smokefree Prisons

    The Government's announcement to make all New Zealand prisons smokefree by July next year is strongly supported by the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA).

    "This will have a positive effect on the health of prison staff and prisoners. We commend the Government for this positive initiative," says NZMA Acting Chair Dr Paul Ockelford.

    The Smokefree Coalition, of which the NZMA is a member, supports the vision of a smokefree New Zealand by 2020.

    "Extending smokefree environments, such as in prisons, is an important aspect of achieving this vision."

    "New Zealand has long been at the forefront of smokefree legislation and we encourage the Government to continue implementing smokefree policies that will reduce smoking related illnesses, whether from smoking or being exposed to secondhand smoke," says Dr Ockelford.

    A comprehensive smoking cessation programme to assist those in prison to quit smoking, including the provision of nicotine replacement therapy, will be essential.  

    Source: Medical News Today - 28 June 2010
    Link: http://bit.ly/9bnOcF