Smoking ban vital for youth, say doctors
Mitya Underwood
- Last Updated: November 30. 2009 12:17AM UAE / November 29. 2009 8:17PM GMT
Doctors talk about the need to introduce a federal smoking ban and boost education and smoking cessation services to cut the number of young smokers. Jeffrey E Biteng / The National
ABU DHABI // The UAE needs a national smoking ban, for the sake of young people’s health – and soon, several leading doctors have said.
“We need legislation, education and taxation” on tobacco products, said Dr Wael al Mahmeed, head of the Emirates Cardiac Society.
“If the price is increased it would cut the number of very young smokers.
“There is evidence which links the risk of heart attack to the amount of tobacco someone smokes, so stopping smoking at any time will reduce the risk.”
A federal law banning smoking in public places was drafted in 2006 by the Ministry of Health, but has yet to be implemented.
Multiple studies in the US and Europe show that a ban on smoking in public places reduced the incidence of smoking and smoking-related diseases, said Dr al Mahmeed.
Meanwhile health authorities are spending significant amounts of their public health budgets on anti-tobacco campaigns, specifically targeting schoolchildren and young people. Smoking cessation clinics to encourage people to quit have also been introduced nationwide and individual municipalities have introduced their own bans.
According to a 2009 World Health Organisation (WHO) report, more than a quarter of men in the UAE smoke compared with just 2.6 per cent of women.
However the figures for the younger generation were more worrying. The report said 13.2 per cent of girls and 25.2 per cent of boys ages 13 to 15 smoke.
Deaths from cancer in the region are predicted to almost triple over the next 10 years, another WHO report, produced by the Eastern Mediterranean regional office, said this year.
Increased smoking and a young population were cited as two of the reasons.
The median age of the UAE population is about 30 and Dr al Mahmeed said if the incidence of smoking is not reduced there will be a dramatic increase in lung disorders and coronary diseases in 20 or 30 years.
A pack of 20 cigarettes in the UAE is around six times cheaper than in the UK, where it would cost about Dh35.
Dr al Mahmeed, who is also head of cardiology at Sheikh Khalifa Medical City in Abu Dhabi, said as well as the issue of cost, the UAE should use federal legislation as a basis for boosting smoking cessation services and awareness campaigns.
“The danger here is that more young people and more women are smoking. It is a fad, not a cultural or religious issue. It is important for measures to be put in place, such as a federal ban, which make it more difficult for people to smoke, especially young people.”
Dr Mohamed Jaloudi, head of oncology at Tawam Hospital in Al Ain, said the ban should be introduced on a federal level and the UAE should look elsewhere.
“It has been shown in other countries that a smoking ban in public places, in conjunction with anti-smoking campaigns, reduces the incidence of smoking,” he said.
Figures from around the world show that smoking bans in public places have had a positive effect.
A year after smoking in public was outlawed in Scotland, studies showed that almost 50,000 people had attempted to quit.
A report by the UK department of health stated that in the first year of the ban in England, 234,060 people stopped smoking – 22 per cent more than in the previous year.
munderwood@thenational.ae
Chris,Since you have a gender neutral name,you should be used to people erring on your gender.Obviously we can't see you.Also you still haven't identified yourself as either sex.I take it though,if you are female,that matrimony is out of the question:) What "jibberish" and insults? My previous comment is a general statement of fact,interlaced with some humour.I merely used your name to refer to what you had stated.Perhaps now you wish to disown your "opinion"? You are certainly entitled to your opinion.I (and most people) would defend free speech,at least until it becomes (say) hate propaganda.It should be informed opinion though.My facts come from medical journals etc.,whereas your opinion seems to be "a little off".eg;When you stated "It's totally unfair to non-smokers to have to change our lifestyle to cater to smokers".You are not "changing" anything,for the circumstances have always been this way.You would only be forced to change your lifestyle if a smoking ban is enacted.So would everyone else.Your exposure to tobacco smoke has already declined by 70% due to smoking cessation.That was found to be the case in 1991.(CDC iirc but may have been ACS)
As for politics,the right blames the left for smoking bans.Conversely the left blames the right. Historically both have points.(say Nazi era Germany and Communist Russia)
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450
I suppose this link will do;(as you may know some have compared anti-tobacco science to Lisenko science)
The Science of Genetics Under Stalin
http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai131_folder/131_articles/131_genetics_stalin.html
There is very much more pertaining to secondhand smoke.
This is the most comprehensive study ever done,among many others (and defended by the BMJ);
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Air quality;
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
It is nonsmokers,when compared to smokers,that are the greater cost to health care.See these;
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052
http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/eric_crampton/NZMJ.pdf
The History of Tobacco Regulation
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HistoryTobaccoRegulation.pdf
Is tobacco regulation useless? (excerpt from above)
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/40/section_06.html
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke
http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13
Why must medical research resort to quackery?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/epidemi-reviews.htm
As I said,there is very much more.This should suffice for now as even this requires much reading.I've barely started on why tobacco taxes are a bad idea etc.etc.
Chris is partially correct with his/her (I can't call you it:) "smoking kills" comment.chas is "bang on".Tobacco use had been declining for many years.Today there are only about a third of the smokers that there once was.This should have been regarded as a great success.But,alas no,so called tobacco control had to go and make a mess of things again.By the looks of it,they are worse than the tobacco companies that they supposedly revile.
Chris. Smoking does NOT kill, it MAY kill some. Second hand smoke does not kill. It is a myth made up by dodgy scientists. No scientist has been able to name ONE person who has died for SHS.
Chris does not kill. It MAY kill some. Second hand smoke is not as deadly. SHS is yet another myth invented by corrupt scientists and not one of them has been able to name ONE person to have died from it.
Hey Vince, you sound like one of those republican dimwits, oh, whoops, I mean conservative, who throws jibberish at people as well as insults. My statement was my opinion. Don't state my name over and over again and try to demean me with your petty arrogance.
This comment is on the issue of the smoking ban, and not directed at anyone in particular,
Guess what people, smoking kills, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the facts. Where did you get your jibberish? In Mad magazine? I won't respond to anymore of your comments, as I can see your bored and hoping to get a rise out of people Mr. Vince (btw, why do you assume I'm male?) Does smoking stink, yes, it does. To compare smoking to issues such as weight or a persons personal appearance shows your lack of respect for anyone, much less non-smokers; and shows just how shallow you are. You give all Canadians and Americans a bad name.
Air quality testing done by OSHA (U.S. Dept. of Labor),Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab.,(U.S. Dept. of Energy) etc. all find that second-hand smoke levels indoors are well within safe limits.Add to this the fact that there have been a great number of studies that found that there isn't any statistical risk from second-hand smoke in the first place.It should be obvious to all,by now,that all this "smoker bashing" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's health."Harm" from second-hand smoke is essentially a rumor,usually raised by people that simply hate smokers.Causation cannot be shown using statistical science.(USSG for one) Smoking bans,of any type,are nothing more than a form of ethnic cleansing and should be regarded as hate crimes.
It appears that Chris is trying to mislead readers.Smokers anywhere,let alone Canada,have never "accepted" nor "welcomed" this tyranny.Neither have many business owners or nonsmokers.A Canadian Federal Court judge recently ruled against smoking bans in prisons.He stated that the ban "simply goes too far".Apparently Chris would have everyone believe that the smokers were so "happy" with the ban that they went to court to reverse it.Hopefully this will soon be the case everywhere.
Smoking bans have never caused smoking rates to decline.In fact the reverse occurs. Ireland recently announced that their smoking rate has increased,the U.S. just stated that they have had their first increase in many years and the decline in the Canadian smoking rate has virtually ceased since the advent of smoking bans.
Smoking bans cause much harm.This harm is both financial and physical,including death.What ethical medical practitioner would condone such activity? What has become of "first I will do no harm"?
As you should be aware smoking is addictive.So if you are so sure that you are so afflicted by a few wisps of tobacco smoke,then why aren't you addicted to it? Perhaps you have simply consumed too much caffeine? (linked to hallucination tendency) Remember that statistically "aliens" exist.However this has not been proven either,no matter how many people that claim to have seen them.
Chris seems to be in favour of bans because his sense of smell is offended.Implementing smoking bans will create a slippery slope.Suppose we ban the maimed,the ugly,the obese or simply people in red sweaters etc.,etc. because they offend someone's sight.Why not resurrect the eugenics movement?
Every one know that smoking kills! That's the bottom line. Second hand smoke is just as deadly.The thing is, why does the UAE gov't just keep talking about the issue instead of getting serious and just banning smoking in public places altogether? How can Abu Dhabi talk about a Green City to protect the environment,when a simple law can't be implemented to ban smoking? Doesn't make much sense.Those of us who are non-smokers have to put up with having smoke blown in our faces in shopping malls? Restaurants cater to smokers, the hotels in Abu Dhabi...one has to walk thru somoking areas to get to small non-smoking areas. It seems to me it should be the other way around. It's totally unfair to non-smokers to have to change our lifestyle to cater to smokers, a habit/bad addiction that in most countries just isn't cool anymore. The reality is, if smoking bans were implemented (and obeyed!),it would be a first step in encouraging smokers to cut down a filthy habit. Canada implemented the law a few years ago, and yes, it was difficult at first for smokers to get used to it, but once they did, they accepted it and in fact welcomed it. They're smoking cut down, and one isn't bombarded by the stench of smoke while trying to eat a nice dinner. It's high time a smoking ban were implemented here in the UAE. If they don't want to ban it everywhere, at least ban it in the restaurants and malls! Where else can anyone go where signs are posted outsife of malls stating, None smoking malls, however when you go inside it doesn't include cafes and restaurants??? What a joke!
Added: 12/05/09 04:11:00 AM
Chris,Since you have a gender neutral name,you should be used to people erring on your gender.Obviously we can't see you.Also you still haven't identified yourself as either sex.I take it though,if you are female,that matrimony is out of the question:) What "jibberish" and insults? My previous comment is a general statement of fact,interlaced with some humour.I merely used your name to refer to what you had stated.Perhaps now you wish to disown your "opinion"? You are certainly entitled to your opinion.I (and most people) would defend free speech,at least until it becomes (say) hate propaganda.It should be informed opinion though.My facts come from medical journals etc.,whereas your opinion seems to be "a little off".eg;When you stated "It's totally unfair to non-smokers to have to change our lifestyle to cater to smokers".You are not "changing" anything,for the circumstances have always been this way.You would only be forced to change your lifestyle if a smoking ban is enacted.So would everyone else.Your exposure to tobacco smoke has already declined by 70% due to smoking cessation.That was found to be the case in 1991.(CDC iirc but may have been ACS)
As for politics,the right blames the left for smoking bans.Conversely the left blames the right. Historically both have points.(say Nazi era Germany and Communist Russia)
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450
I suppose this link will do;(as you may know some have compared anti-tobacco science to Lisenko science)
The Science of Genetics Under Stalin
http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai131_folder/131_articles/131_genetics_stalin.html
There is very much more pertaining to secondhand smoke.
This is the most comprehensive study ever done,among many others (and defended by the BMJ);
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Air quality;
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
It is nonsmokers,when compared to smokers,that are the greater cost to health care.See these;
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052
http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/eric_crampton/NZMJ.pdf
The History of Tobacco Regulation
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/HistoryTobaccoRegulation.pdf
Is tobacco regulation useless? (excerpt from above)
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/40/section_06.html
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke
http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13
Why must medical research resort to quackery?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/epidemi-reviews.htm
As I said,there is very much more.This should suffice for now as even this requires much reading.I've barely started on why tobacco taxes are a bad idea etc.etc.
Chris is partially correct with his/her (I can't call you it:) "smoking kills" comment.chas is "bang on".Tobacco use had been declining for many years.Today there are only about a third of the smokers that there once was.This should have been regarded as a great success.But,alas no,so called tobacco control had to go and make a mess of things again.By the looks of it,they are worse than the tobacco companies that they supposedly revile.
Vince Harden, Winnipeg
Added: 12/02/09 09:01:00 PM
Chris. Smoking does NOT kill, it MAY kill some. Second hand smoke does not kill. It is a myth made up by dodgy scientists. No scientist has been able to name ONE person who has died for SHS.
chas winfield, Ipswich
Added: 12/02/09 06:44:00 PM
Chris does not kill. It MAY kill some. Second hand smoke is not as deadly. SHS is yet another myth invented by corrupt scientists and not one of them has been able to name ONE person to have died from it.
chas winfield, Ipswich
Added: 12/01/09 04:11:00 PM
Hey Vince, you sound like one of those republican dimwits, oh, whoops, I mean conservative, who throws jibberish at people as well as insults. My statement was my opinion. Don't state my name over and over again and try to demean me with your petty arrogance.
This comment is on the issue of the smoking ban, and not directed at anyone in particular,
Guess what people, smoking kills, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the facts. Where did you get your jibberish? In Mad magazine? I won't respond to anymore of your comments, as I can see your bored and hoping to get a rise out of people Mr. Vince (btw, why do you assume I'm male?) Does smoking stink, yes, it does. To compare smoking to issues such as weight or a persons personal appearance shows your lack of respect for anyone, much less non-smokers; and shows just how shallow you are. You give all Canadians and Americans a bad name.
Chris M, Abu Dhabi
Added: 12/01/09 06:52:00 AM
Smoke from tobacco in a decently ventilated venue is a statistically insignificant health risk.
http://thetruthisalie.com
http://www.citizensfreedomalliance.org
thomas laprade, thundernay
Added: 11/30/09 07:46:00 PM
Air quality testing done by OSHA (U.S. Dept. of Labor),Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab.,(U.S. Dept. of Energy) etc. all find that second-hand smoke levels indoors are well within safe limits.Add to this the fact that there have been a great number of studies that found that there isn't any statistical risk from second-hand smoke in the first place.It should be obvious to all,by now,that all this "smoker bashing" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's health."Harm" from second-hand smoke is essentially a rumor,usually raised by people that simply hate smokers.Causation cannot be shown using statistical science.(USSG for one) Smoking bans,of any type,are nothing more than a form of ethnic cleansing and should be regarded as hate crimes.
It appears that Chris is trying to mislead readers.Smokers anywhere,let alone Canada,have never "accepted" nor "welcomed" this tyranny.Neither have many business owners or nonsmokers.A Canadian Federal Court judge recently ruled against smoking bans in prisons.He stated that the ban "simply goes too far".Apparently Chris would have everyone believe that the smokers were so "happy" with the ban that they went to court to reverse it.Hopefully this will soon be the case everywhere.
Smoking bans have never caused smoking rates to decline.In fact the reverse occurs. Ireland recently announced that their smoking rate has increased,the U.S. just stated that they have had their first increase in many years and the decline in the Canadian smoking rate has virtually ceased since the advent of smoking bans.
Smoking bans cause much harm.This harm is both financial and physical,including death.What ethical medical practitioner would condone such activity? What has become of "first I will do no harm"?
As you should be aware smoking is addictive.So if you are so sure that you are so afflicted by a few wisps of tobacco smoke,then why aren't you addicted to it? Perhaps you have simply consumed too much caffeine? (linked to hallucination tendency) Remember that statistically "aliens" exist.However this has not been proven either,no matter how many people that claim to have seen them.
Chris seems to be in favour of bans because his sense of smell is offended.Implementing smoking bans will create a slippery slope.Suppose we ban the maimed,the ugly,the obese or simply people in red sweaters etc.,etc. because they offend someone's sight.Why not resurrect the eugenics movement?
Vince Harden, Winnipeg
Added: 11/30/09 10:07:00 AM
Every one know that smoking kills! That's the bottom line. Second hand smoke is just as deadly.The thing is, why does the UAE gov't just keep talking about the issue instead of getting serious and just banning smoking in public places altogether? How can Abu Dhabi talk about a Green City to protect the environment,when a simple law can't be implemented to ban smoking? Doesn't make much sense.Those of us who are non-smokers have to put up with having smoke blown in our faces in shopping malls? Restaurants cater to smokers, the hotels in Abu Dhabi...one has to walk thru somoking areas to get to small non-smoking areas. It seems to me it should be the other way around. It's totally unfair to non-smokers to have to change our lifestyle to cater to smokers, a habit/bad addiction that in most countries just isn't cool anymore. The reality is, if smoking bans were implemented (and obeyed!),it would be a first step in encouraging smokers to cut down a filthy habit. Canada implemented the law a few years ago, and yes, it was difficult at first for smokers to get used to it, but once they did, they accepted it and in fact welcomed it. They're smoking cut down, and one isn't bombarded by the stench of smoke while trying to eat a nice dinner. It's high time a smoking ban were implemented here in the UAE. If they don't want to ban it everywhere, at least ban it in the restaurants and malls! Where else can anyone go where signs are posted outsife of malls stating, None smoking malls, however when you go inside it doesn't include cafes and restaurants??? What a joke!
Chris M, Abu Dhabi