Smoking accounts for about one in five Cancer deaths

Tobacco smoke causes 90 percent of all Lung Cancers. Thanks to falling smoking rates in most countries of the world. Fewer men than ever are dying of lung cancer. But lung cancer is still the leading cancer killer in men. Smoking accounts for about one in five deaths from cardiovascular disease andthe risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked each day.

Cigarette smoke in carpet could affect babies

WE'RE all aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke; only recently, a leading doctor said smoking should be banned in cars carrying children.
But could there be even greater worry? Could you suffer the effects of passive smoking from simply travelling in a smoker's car -even if they haven't lit up?

Is that nasty ash-tray tang that lingers on car-seat fabric, curtains in homes and the clothes of the nicotine addict strong enough to damage other people's health?

These questions were posed in an article by The Mail of London in a recent article on a research on the effect of cigarette smoke on children.

The Mail reported that according to some experts, thirdhand smoke, as it is known, is as dangerous to health as the fumes billowing directly from a pipe or cigarette, particularly for babies and children.

A recent report in the United States of America has warned that even if you don't smoke in front of your family, you might be putting them at risk of cancer or delaying the development of their brain, thanks to polluting their environment with a lingering chemical cloud.

The warning came from a paper produced in the respected journal, Paediatrics, earlier this year.

The study surveyed more than 1,500 households, learning that just 26.7 per cent of those that included a smoker had strict rules about not smoking in the home.

"The dangers of third-hand smoke are very real," explained the leader of the study, Professor Jonathan Winickoff, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States of America.

"Toxic particles in cigarette smoke can remain on nearby surfaces long after the cigarette has been put out, meaning the sofa is potentially as problematic as the ashtray itself," Winickoff said.

Small children and babies are particularly susceptible because they crawl on the carpet and are likely to breathe in close proximity to smokers or even lick and suck clothing or items that smokers have touched.

Winickoff is also concerned about new mothers who smoke, saying, "When you're near your baby, even if you are not smoking, the child comes into contact with those toxins.

"And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in the breast milk."

According to the National Toxicology Programme in the United States of America, tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals, including 250 poisonous gases and metals.

Such poisonous gases and metals in tobacco include butane (used in lighter fuel), arsenic, carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene (found in paint thinners), ammonia, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), lead and hydrogen cyanide (which is used in chemical weapons).

The smoke even contains polonium-210 - the highly radioactive carcinogen used to murder Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006.

Experts fear that these particles are carcinogenic and that some of the toxins may affect brain development in young children, who may be more affected than adults as their bodies and brains are still growing.

And these concerns are not confined to the Americans.

"Parents who smoke should be aware that when they cuddle or hold a child on their lap, they are exposing them to the smoke on their clothes," says Professor Ros Smyth, Head, Division of Child Health, University of Liverpool.

Smyth added, "They should be particularly aware if they have a child with a respiratory problem such as asthma."

It is a question of risk, says Professor Andrew Shennan of baby charity, Tommy's.

Shennan said, "You wouldn't go into a room full of asbestos, so would you go into a room full of other toxins?"

Earlier this year, two students in San Antonio, Texas, United States of America, won an award at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair for an experiment on fruit fly larvae that had been exposed to foam saturated with tobacco smoke.

The pair observed a high number of mutations, which could influence scientific knowledge of the effect of environmental - or third-hand -smoke on humans.

Meanwhile, a San Diego study in 2004 discovered that in households where there was a smoker, although all smoking was done outside, children still had nicotine in strands of their hair and in their urine.

Mothers who smoked away from their children were found to have nearly as much nicotine on their hands as smokers who made no special effort.

This new research on third-hand smoke builds on previous studies into second-hand smoking, or passive smoking - inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke.

The original passive smoking studies began in the Seventies and although the initial findings linking passive smoking to disease were contested by the industry, it is now accepted that there is a clear link.

In 2004, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared that scientific evidence unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco from passive smoking causes death, disease and disability.

It also found that the risk for lung cancer when a spouse smoked was 20 per cent for a woman and 30 per cent for a man. It is estimated heavy exposure to cigarette smoke at work pushes this to 50 per cent.

The danger with passive smoking is so-called 'side stream' smoke - this is full of the same toxins as the 'mainstream smoke' inhaled directly by the smoker from the filter end of the cigarette, but comes from the burning tip of the cigarette.

Indeed, fresh side-stream smoke is actually four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, according to research from the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, United States of America.

The report concluded, "Smokefree public places and workplaces are the only practical way to protect the public health from the toxins in side-stream smoke."

Further studies have shown that children who passively smoke as a result of living in households where there is a smoker are more likely to suffer from respiratory disease, asthma attacks, middle ear infections and cot death.

The increasing weight of the evidence about the dangers of passive smoking led many countries to consider smoking bans in enclosed public places, with Norway the first to go smoke-

free in 2004, Italy in 2005 and the United Kingdom in 2007. Doctors and health workers have already noted a corresponding fall in the number of hospital admissions for heart-related conditions.

SOURCE

Researchers Call for Stronger Controls on Tobacco

The debate over a new and wholistic national tobacco control laws in Nigeria have been the concern of Anti-Tobacco Control Advocates, Nigerian Government and those engaging in the cultivation, processing, distribution, advertising and marketing of tobacco's lethal products.

A Public Hearing on the National Tobacco Control Bill 2009 was held on July 21 and 22 by the Nigeria Senate's Health Committe to this effect, in which over 40 civil society group made presentaions. The bill which would amend the 1990 Tobacco Control Laws of Nigeria is sponsored by Deputy Minority Leader, Senator OlorunimbeMamora, will completely domesticate the WHO Framework Convention onTobacco Control (FCTC), which Nigeria signed in 2004 and ratified in2005 but is yet to fully domesticate in Nigeria.

The imperative of a new tobacco control laws is not new to Nigeria as example abound elsewhere in the world. The New Zealand case report below not only call for a stronger control but emphaise the rich benefits of putting one in place as well as the modalities. In other word, the draft National Tobocco Control Bill 2009 is a product of a rich consultation so that when passed into law will be adequate to address the subject matter of tobacco control beyond the scope its 1990 content would.

New Zealand- Call for Stronger Controls on Tobacco

Health researchers say tobacco control policies should be strengthened or modified because they have reduced smoking by only 3%.
The issue is being discussed at the public health association conference at Otago University in Dunedin.
Professor Peter Crampton from Otago University campus in Wellington told delegates that in 1996 about 24% of New Zealanders were smokers. Despite significant reforms, he says, a decade later that figure had dropped by just 3%.
Professor Crampton says smoking prevalence has actually increased over that period in several demographics. He believes the figures illustrate that dramatic changes to tobacco policy are required.
Another researcher, Professor Richard Edwards, suggests a tobacco supply agency be established to restrict the amount of tobacco entering New Zealand.
He says the agency would buy the tobacco from the tobacco industry and then control how and where it was sold.
Professor Edwards says sales could be banned within 1km of schools and tobacco sold in plain packaging featuring only health warnings.

Copyright © 2009 Radio New Zealand

Cigarettes: Ban production not smoking

-Ahmed Raji

MOST people detest smoking. Even the "Turkish" smoker knows that it is not a healthy habit. That smoking poses a grave health hazard to both the actual and passive smokers is beyond argument. And what is more, nobody has been able to identify any benefit derivable from smoking.
Even medically, some say a daily glass of beer is good for the system. They say it clears the bowel. Nothing good is attributable to smoking. I challenge anyone to come up with any benefit derivable from smoking. The entire world over, it is being recommended that all cigarette packets should carry the warning: "Smoking is dangerous to health". Of late, other measures are being rolled out to discourage smoking. Some accounts have it that the death of over 20 million people yearly is traceable to smoking. In Turkey, which is the home of smoking, smoking is about to be banned in almost every public area.
In most parts of the Western world, smoking is not allowed in "public places". Anti-smoking law is about to be rolled out in Abuja and some other parts of Nigeria. But do all these measures constitute any enough deterrence to smoking considering the gravity of damage it does to humanity? I think not. All these prohibitions have not affected the cigarette market in any major way. People still smoke their lives away. It needs not be repeated, the nexus between cigarette smoking and hard drugs like cocaine, cannabis, heroine etc.
A once and for all pragmatic solution will be to outlaw the production of the product in all forms. And that will amount to tackling the problem from root rather than attending to the effect. A grace period of not more than 12 months should be given to all producers of cigarettes to wind down while a comprehensive diversification scheme should be put in place to switch them over to other lines of business. Our pharmacologists and social scientists should be tasked on how to carry out the required therapy on chronic smokers and addicts. It will not be a misstatement to contend that the proposed diversification exercise programme will not cost the world up to five per cent of what the Iraqi war consumed.
Banning the smoking of cigarette while production of cigarette is allowed looks like "a collective mockery of our collective intelligence". The world should rise up to the challenge. Banning the production may also assist in the war against global warming. Nigeria can show example by outlawing all forms of cigarette making in Nigeria and also banning importation and smoking of same. Even the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.) won't dare complain if we close our borders to cigarette.
And I take this opportunity to appeal to our "smoking leaders" to see this as a sacrifice for the greater good of all. It is a fact that smoking is not an easy habit to quit. But with determination, it is achievable just as this writer took his last stick in 2006.
Notwithstanding doubts as to the sustainability of some of the recent law suits in Nigeria against the major cigarette producers, we must commend the ingenuity of both the plaintiffs and their counsel. Their efforts have further confirmed the menace which production of cigarettes constitutes to our healthy living. Even non-smokers face the danger of passive smoking.
Distinguished senators and very honourable members of the house, the health of the nation is in your hands. If only you can pass a bill banning production of cigarette and allied products Nigerians and the world will forever remember you. You should resist the professional lobbyists with deep pockets who may not be bothered by the death of fellow human beings. Save life please. Initiate the bill today and pass it with the same dispatch with which the Senate passed the 2009 appropriation bill.
Smoking can be a terrible addiction. There is this good but nasty friend of mine who promised his wife that when their first child was "delivered" he would quit smoking. When reminded of his solemn promise after the arrival of the first child, my friend told the wife that he did not "deliver" a baby as a man cannot so do hence he has continued to smoke his Benson & Hedges in spite of all appeals. Despite his blood pressure problem, my friend is yet to quit up till this moment. And his health suffers! Production of cigarette must be outlawed to save the life of millions in my friend's shoes.

SOURCE

Tobacco use kills 6 million annually

by Joanne McCarthy

Tobacco use kills an estimated six million people a year, and costs $500 billion annually, the 2009 edition of The Tobacco Atlas has revealed.

The Tobacco Atlas, published by the American Cancer Society and World Lung Foundation and released at the Livestrong Global Cancer Summit currently taking place in Dublin, describes Ireland as ‘among world leaders in tobacco control’.

It confirmed that Ireland and the UK are among the countries with the strongest tobacco control policies, delivering both economic and health benefits. However, it revealed that the Irish economy lost US$980 million (€686 million) in 2007 because of tobacco use.

The economic costs emerged as a result of lost productivity, misused resources, missed opportunities for taxation and premature death. Because one in four smokers die and many more become ill during their most productive years, income loss devastates families and communities, according to the Atlas.

However, Ireland has benefited from positive steps to control tobacco, the Atlas said. It has ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global treaty endorsed by more than 160 countries and recommended by the World Health Organization. The smoking ban in workplaces, tobacco tax increases, effective mass media campaigns, pictorial warnings on packages and advertising restrictions have all been of benefit. Irish people who want to quit smoking receive subsidised access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and certain clinical cessation services, the Atlas points out.

According to The Tobacco Atlas, more than two million cancer deaths per year will be attributable to tobacco by 2015. It highlights that the danger of tobacco is preventable through public policies, such as tobacco taxes, advertising bans, smoke-free public places and effective health warnings on packages.

The Tobacco Atlas has confirmed that the tobacco industry has shifted its marketing and sales efforts to countries that have less effective public health policies and fewer tobacco control resources in place.

As a result of this, most people who die from tobacco-related illnesses are in low and middle-income countries. Since 1960, global tobacco production has increased three-fold in low and middle-resource countries while halving in high resource countries.

The three-day Livestrong Global Cancer Summit is currently taking place in the RDS in Dublin. It is bringing together more than 500 world leaders, NGOs and individual advocates to showcase commitments to cancer control. Livestrong is an initiative of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

SOURCE

RE: Much Ado About Tobacco

This sort of 'syndicated dare-devil' journalism will only stripe you of your pedigree. If only you have been following the year’s long campaign to make you and your families have the choice of breathing free air devoid of the contaminations from tobacco smoking, you will not be risking your precious integrity to publish syndicated materials from this merchant of death.

I read with disdain and pitying your ignorance on the importance of putting in place a new tobacco control laws in Nigeria. Wondering why the need to cook up assumption with regards to the Senate Committee on Health’s recent public hearing on the National Tobacco Control Bill 2009. This is another media stunt well done and for the 'dough', simple. That's not ‘just’ at all. It is with the same ‘damning all, throwing cautions to the wind attitudes’ with which you penned your name on this story that these tobacco manufactures are targeting your little children. Their strategy is simple; caught them young, use baits, hunt for financially pressed media voices to propagate falsehood and you know the rest. They are out orchestrating a device targeted at your children and you are saying ‘much ado about tobacco’, what kind of a father’s heart have you got?

Secondly, you need to know that journalists all the world over are playing prominent roles in the promotion of tobacco control advocacy because the pursuit of truth is just. It is sad therefore that you suddenly silenced your journalism ethic of objectivity in the face of Naira and to the detriment of your nation. Or was it in foreign currency you were paid to push this through and knowing it would malign the hard earned credibility of very newspaper. You could have written to carefully examine the matter from its economic and health perspective as the Distinguished Senate President David Mark spoke so profoundly while declaring the public hearing opened. But this undeserving as an editorial material underscores the importance of all the efforts. In other word, the investment of time and money expended by the Senate, the Senate Health Committee to deem it fit to repeal an old law with a more proactive one and in order to address a very critical dilemma is unnecessary.

Writing in assumption without taking a trip to Oke Ogun and other tobacco growing farms to discover the truth is unacceptable. Have you compared it with a similar antecedent of our Cocoa production era and its impact on national life? Now bring it down to the reality, if this is the experiences of the tobacco farmers BAT and her accolades are spending mega billions to sing and dance in the media they are creating jobs for. If you have consulted with the body of research done by World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and several other global agencies most trusted on the subject, then one would think maybe, just maybe, the anti tobacco movement got it all wrong. Nigerians also deserve to know from you if there are benefits acquiring from smoking. Your essay is biased and greatly lacked in details to the detriment of the good of all mankind.

If this bill is not just, then the series of ‘evil-intended’ publications going about in the media, obviously sponsored by those who are threatened by the mere mentioning of the National Tobacco Control Bill 2009 and aimed at pitching two Nigerian patriot against the other to discredit the collective will and genuine intention to guarantee the rights of smokers and non-smokers in this country. Perhaps, if there exist ‘plenty noise about nothing’, it is the continuous fabrication of falsehood by your kind working for the Big Tobacco (Merchant of Death) to blindfold truth. Your refusal to see any significant goal portray you as an enemy of the people in that you are only interested in maintaining the status quo for BAT and others merchants. If we listen to you, then we would be sending the next generation of Nigerian youths into drug dependency, we would be licensing cigarette manufactures to keep killing our loved ones, to make us spend more on healthcare treating preventable illness as well as dependants of the dead – deaths caused by tobacco smoking.

What is sinister about a bill conceived with all genuine intention to repeal another because the reality demands for it? This is the reason you consented that ‘this kind of bill should be seen as a good thing…’ It is confusing that you commended the Tobacco Control Act 1990 and refuse to see the need for its replacement with a proactive one even when such is expedient. More than you can imagine, these tobacco companies knows what they are doing. By successfully using you as a willing ally to push these ‘white lies’ shows their desperation and callousness at playing the game. Their entire move to suppress truth, to delay the passage of the bill and distort reality with massive advertising strategies is just ‘buying time’ to kill more Nigerians. You should have requested for the recording of the public hearing and see how BAT trembled and shake discovering that the civil nature of the bill also have criminal appeal.

For a reminder, the singular act of penning your name against falsehood will go down in history. Let's imagine that you even smoke and want your children or relatives to do so. That is yours and their rights. As you quoted, "equity follows the law if it is just", where then is the right of the non-smokers and smokers should the later decide to seek redress in the court of law for damages resulting from taking a product made by BAT? Is tobacco not classified under drug and why should it be sold by an ‘Aboki’ and to a minor. Or don’t you think, all of these are missing in the Tobacco Control Act 1990, and that, it is in order be just (putting tobacco in proper perspective, economy versus health, weighing the gains over loss to the Nigerians) that the Senate thought it fit to review this provision. More so, the position of the Nigerian Senate on this bill is clear and just. These efforts deserved to be commended even as the bill scale through its final path to passage.

Adeyinka Olugbade
Programme Manager
JATH

Much ado about tobacco

-Mobolaji Sanusi

What is the big deal about a Tobacco bill? This is the multi-million Naira question that followers of controversies trailing the above bill before the Senate Committee on Health may be seeking answers for. The bill is aimed at repealing the Tobacco (Control) Act 1990 and to enact the National Tobacco Control bill 2008. Its stated goals like the 1990 one are laudable – to provide for the regulation or control of production, manufacture sale, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco or tobacco products and other related matters.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Adeleke Mamora, a medical doctor, ostensibly in tandem with some groups of lawyers in the country. Ordinarily, this kind of bill should be seen as a good thing considering the fact that since the tenure of military president Ibrahim Babangida, the late Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti who was then Minister of Health, championed the battle for regulation of tobacco smoking. It was then that the issue of public smoking and compulsory inscription of ‘tobacco smoking is dangerous to your health’ on packet of cigarettes, on billboards and other forms of advertisement were enforced.
Thus, the current bill is not out to achieve any significant goal different from what Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti achieved during the military era. But the bill that is still at the public hearing, stage in the Senate is generating so much controversy and this has attracted intense public attention. Many are wondering why there is no much ado about this new Bill for an Act to repeal the Tobacco (Control) Act 1990.
For this reason, I have taken time to look for the bill, got a copy and have since realized that the bill is as needless as the artificial controversy surrounding it. Certain provisions of the bill (sections 40-45) question the professed altruistic motive of most promoters of the bills: it is important to ask whether most promoters of bills put national interest over personal gains in their pursuits of legislative enactments. Whatever their motives, it is also germane to point out that that is why there are levels of checks in legislative drafting – first, second, and third readings and even the stage of public hearings in legislative enactment processes. But does the National Assembly legislators adhere to this in the overall interest of the nation or just see it as something just there for being there sake? Could it be that the effort by the Senate Health Committee to play by the rules and not allow arm twisting actually led to the on-going controversy on the matter?
What I do know is that there is something sinister about the purport of the bill which might not completely be in the overall interest of the nation. The issue of Child Rights that came out of the bills public hearing that has generated heated debates between Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello and Mrs. Maryam Uwais might be a decoy aimed at blackmailing somebody so that the bill can enjoy easy passage.
Let us get it right ab initio that cigarette smoking is without equivocation dangerous to the health of both young and old persons. This is acknowledged by the Tobacco companies that agreed with the legislation that compels them to inscribe the warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. Professor Ransome-Kuti himself was a chain smoker of cigarette and this warning would not even deter him and many others in his shoes from smoking. There are several people in high places, including state governors whose governments are suing Tobacco companies who are today chain smokers too. What moral right do these sets of people have to sue the cigarette producing companies? Among the downtrodden in this country, millions engage in legal cigarette smoking. It is at least better than smoking of marijuana and other illicit drugs. The present cases before the court are stalled because of unfavourable rules of evidence which the bill is avariciously planned to cure when passed in to law.
Some of these curious provisions in the bill attempt to empower the government to sue and make claims from tobacco companies for cost incurred from treating tobacco related ailment victims. For example, this provision presupposes that there are free medical services in the country. This is a fallacious assumption as the social safety nets in the country are almost zero. So, the proposed recourse to legal actions by states through the services of certain group of lawyers is laughable. This is not within the jurisprudential sociological theory of law espoused by Rosco Pound. These state governments and their ambitious lawyers behind the bill should also study more of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Realistic School of legal Jurisprudence. Any piece of law worth its salt should be made for the society and not vice-versa. Any law or provisions of it that is out to force itself on the society would only benefit few individuals for a short while before subsequently roiling into oblivion.
The all important legal principle; volunti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) in the Law of Tort applies in the case of smokers of cigarette. If after the warning and other precautions, people still go ahead and smoke, nobody or entity should be blamed but the smokers themselves.
Morally, some of the state governors who engage in smoking with some of their cabinet members should not have approved the suits being pursued on their behalf by some lawyers in the first instance. Within the Presidency today, there are smokers who are not ready to quit the habit. Would the state be right to claim compensation on behalf of leaders and others no matter their ages who voluntarily take to smoking as habit? I hope this bill is not out to benefit few lawyers who are its covertly promoters?
Most parents smoke cigarettes and even send their wards to buy same for them. These children copy the habit from them. Should anyone or an entity be blamed for this? This is why the issue of prohibiting communications of any form by entities producing cigarettes becomes deluding or the selling of cigarettes within particular radius from certain public places hypocritical. One, it is through advertisement on the danger of smoking that smokers can be more aware of the risk they voluntarily put upon themselves.
Not allowing sale within a certain radius or outright prohibition would make illegal tobacco sale business thrive thereby making monitoring difficult. Tobacco smoking would be a difficult thing to eradicate in any country. In Christianity as well as Islam, it is one thing that is not prohibited but strands condemned because of its hazardous health implications. There should be moderation in the mode of its legislation. What the country should bother about is the creation of standard and effective monitoring through agencies like the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and the Consumer Protection Council (CPC). One of the tobacco companies, British-America tobacco, reportedly had paid tax in excess of over N80 billion since 2001 and gives employment to hundreds of Nigerians from its 150 million dollar factory. This is aside its corporate social responsibilities that gulped hundreds of millions of Naira too.
The question is: Can Nigeria afford to trade off the sector at this point through this draconian bill that might send companies operating therein out of business via needless, avoidable law suits- at a time most big companies are relocating to neighbouring countries? The answer is in the negative

SOURCE