Gloves off on smoking
2 September 2009, 15:04
They've been a long time coming, but harsh new clampdowns on smoking have been signed into law by President Jacob Zuma, who is among the 78 percent of South African adults who don't smoke.
Owners of pubs, restaurants and workplaces who allow people to smoke in non-smoking areas may have sniffed at the paltry R200 fine they faced up to now, but may think twice of flouting the anti-puffing law now that the fine is R50 000.
Partially enclosed patios, balconies and walkways no longer qualify as open spaces, so smoking is out in those spots, too.
Parents can no longer subject their children to smoke-infested areas of restaurants, and adults may not smoke in a car if any of the passengers are under 12.
And if Tiffany takes piano lessons at Mrs Smith's house, no-one in that house may smoke while she is there.
It's now also illegal for the cigarette companies to stage "by invitation only" parties or use "viral" marketing to target young people - tactics the industry has resorted to since 2000 when advertising was banned.
If the following post on a local blog is anything to go by, it's a strategy that's worked for them. In answer to the question "which brand do you smoke?" someone shared this: "I used to smoke Stuyvesant red. Then one day at RAU these super hot chickies were doing promos for Rothmans so I signed up!
"Ever since then they've been sending me two packs a month and free lighters, free stuff and party invites! Been smoking Rothmans ever since!"
More big changes are expected in the coming months - according to the National Council Against Smoking (NCAS).
The health ministry is "still finalising regulations".
These include forcing the manufacturers to include dire photos of diseased lungs and the like on cigarette boxes; restricting smoking in outdoor areas such as stadiums and bus stops; stopping people from smoking at entrances to shops and offices and banning the terms low-tar, light, and mild.
"Such labels suggest that 'light' cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, when they are not," the NCAS said this week.
"Smokers who switch from 'regular' to 'light' cigarettes do not reduce their intake of tar or nicotine, or the risk of disease."
To me this is one of the tobacco industry's biggest frauds.
It emerged in a major court case in the US in 2006 that the tobacco industry had known since the late 1960s that because most smokers are hooked on nicotine and crave a certain daily dose, when they switch to lower-nicotine cigarettes, they "compensate" by taking more puffs, inhaling more deeply, covering the ventilation holes or smoking more cigarettes in order to get the same fix.
In an editorial in 2006, the New York Times stated: "Smokers of light or low-tar cigarettes need to realise that the industry is not so much concerned about their health as it is worried, in the words of an internal document, that their penchant to quit smoking entirely could pose 'a special problem for the cigarette industry'."
Try explaining the compensation thing to committed "mild" cigarette smokers, and chances are they won't buy it - believing the industry's light lies is easier than kicking the habit.
Interestingly, two weeks after being ordered by US federal court judge Gladys Kessler to publicise the dangers of smoking and to stop marketing so-called "light" and "mild" cigarettes as healthier than others, the tobacco companies returned to court to effectively ask the judge if they could carry on deceiving their overseas markets about "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes.
In that court case, it emerged that the tobacco industry had for decades, as the New York Times put it "obfuscated the health consequences of smoking, duped people into thinking that low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes might be less harmful, manipulated cigarette design to ensure an addictive dose of nicotine, downplayed the adverse effects of second-hand smoke and seduced young people into taking up smoking while denying that it was doing any such thing.
"To hide its tracks, the industry, abetted by its lawyers, suppressed research and destroyed documents."
Kessler was appalled by what emerged in the courtroom, stating that the companies had marketed and sold their products "with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted".
That an industry can knowingly, legally sell a product that's both highly addictive and deadly while parading its "social responsibility" as a badge of honour, is sickening.
That people continue to buy and use their products, despite what we know about the industry's despicable lack of ethics - on top of the associated health risks - says volumes about the stranglehold of nicotine addition. Smoking prevalence in SA has fallen by a third in the past decade - from 32 percent of adults in 1995 to 22 percent in 2006 and the new laws are expected to accelerate the trend.
Contravention of the Tobacco Products Control Act can be reported to the police or one's local health department.
Owners of pubs, restaurants and workplaces who allow people to smoke in non-smoking areas may have sniffed at the paltry R200 fine they faced up to now, but may think twice of flouting the anti-puffing law now that the fine is R50 000.
Partially enclosed patios, balconies and walkways no longer qualify as open spaces, so smoking is out in those spots, too.
Parents can no longer subject their children to smoke-infested areas of restaurants, and adults may not smoke in a car if any of the passengers are under 12.
And if Tiffany takes piano lessons at Mrs Smith's house, no-one in that house may smoke while she is there.
It's now also illegal for the cigarette companies to stage "by invitation only" parties or use "viral" marketing to target young people - tactics the industry has resorted to since 2000 when advertising was banned.
If the following post on a local blog is anything to go by, it's a strategy that's worked for them. In answer to the question "which brand do you smoke?" someone shared this: "I used to smoke Stuyvesant red. Then one day at RAU these super hot chickies were doing promos for Rothmans so I signed up!
"Ever since then they've been sending me two packs a month and free lighters, free stuff and party invites! Been smoking Rothmans ever since!"
More big changes are expected in the coming months - according to the National Council Against Smoking (NCAS).
The health ministry is "still finalising regulations".
These include forcing the manufacturers to include dire photos of diseased lungs and the like on cigarette boxes; restricting smoking in outdoor areas such as stadiums and bus stops; stopping people from smoking at entrances to shops and offices and banning the terms low-tar, light, and mild.
"Such labels suggest that 'light' cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, when they are not," the NCAS said this week.
"Smokers who switch from 'regular' to 'light' cigarettes do not reduce their intake of tar or nicotine, or the risk of disease."
To me this is one of the tobacco industry's biggest frauds.
It emerged in a major court case in the US in 2006 that the tobacco industry had known since the late 1960s that because most smokers are hooked on nicotine and crave a certain daily dose, when they switch to lower-nicotine cigarettes, they "compensate" by taking more puffs, inhaling more deeply, covering the ventilation holes or smoking more cigarettes in order to get the same fix.
In an editorial in 2006, the New York Times stated: "Smokers of light or low-tar cigarettes need to realise that the industry is not so much concerned about their health as it is worried, in the words of an internal document, that their penchant to quit smoking entirely could pose 'a special problem for the cigarette industry'."
Try explaining the compensation thing to committed "mild" cigarette smokers, and chances are they won't buy it - believing the industry's light lies is easier than kicking the habit.
Interestingly, two weeks after being ordered by US federal court judge Gladys Kessler to publicise the dangers of smoking and to stop marketing so-called "light" and "mild" cigarettes as healthier than others, the tobacco companies returned to court to effectively ask the judge if they could carry on deceiving their overseas markets about "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes.
In that court case, it emerged that the tobacco industry had for decades, as the New York Times put it "obfuscated the health consequences of smoking, duped people into thinking that low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes might be less harmful, manipulated cigarette design to ensure an addictive dose of nicotine, downplayed the adverse effects of second-hand smoke and seduced young people into taking up smoking while denying that it was doing any such thing.
"To hide its tracks, the industry, abetted by its lawyers, suppressed research and destroyed documents."
Kessler was appalled by what emerged in the courtroom, stating that the companies had marketed and sold their products "with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted".
That an industry can knowingly, legally sell a product that's both highly addictive and deadly while parading its "social responsibility" as a badge of honour, is sickening.
That people continue to buy and use their products, despite what we know about the industry's despicable lack of ethics - on top of the associated health risks - says volumes about the stranglehold of nicotine addition. Smoking prevalence in SA has fallen by a third in the past decade - from 32 percent of adults in 1995 to 22 percent in 2006 and the new laws are expected to accelerate the trend.
- This article was originally published on page 7 of The Daily News on September 02, 2009
Pretoria
