Roll on the 10th December Smokefree bars

[Drunken Monkey]

Try and watch the motoGP and Superbike from 'mainland' Europe and spot the tobacco sponsorship on the bikes ? Can't? Oh yes...there's central europe.

Fair 'nuff, I shall concede that is possibly gross generalisation. The point is public smoking bans, and people's attitudes to smoking, not advertising. Do you honestly beleive Europeans (the whole EEC here, not just a select few motorbike race suppporting western Europe states) are, in general, equally, if not more anti-smoking than we are? Have you recent personal experience? When was the last time you sat in a cafe in Paris? A bar in Germany? A bar in Prague? A restaurant in Greece? Would someone with more than my measly 6 weeks of European exposure care to comment?

Global trend....are we talking by population? Economies? Perhaps I should have said there is a global trend in most developed countries. Citing one country does not mean it's not a trend..

Asia isn't third world. Since when did Hong Kong, Japan or Korea (to name a few) suddenly become a developing country? Economies don't smoke, people smoke. The comment was to put in context that is indeed not a world-wide trend. Paul in NZ said 'global' - the comment does not specifically exclude developing countries - and why should it? Whether third world or developing countries have schemes in place to discourage smoking is irrelevant to the comment. I would suggest that unless 51% of the world's population is living in a country/ies that are banning smoking in bars, then it is indeed not a global trend. Fair enough?

Had a look at the links.....stats for outside the US at least 10 years old. One thing I do think it shows is that in developing economies where they can market to their hearts content they have increased the number of smokers (and sales). So I guess there is absolutely no link between advertising and people smoking (or starting to smoke). Whoops going off topic.

My bad, I meant to post a link to the 1999 WHO data. Bleh, can't find it now either, although most published studies from a rudimentary google search are based on data up to 1996.

Yes, that is off topic, but worth discussing. Further hyposchrisy in action - why would a government ban smoking form virtually anywhere but your own home and ban virtually all forms of advertising, all 'for the good of the health of the population', yet make no steps at regulating the tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers. If there was no substantial financial gain (ie through taxes), then I would imagine tobacco would have the same status as marijuana.

FTR, my interest is purely acedemic - I don't smoke cigarettes, and only smoke my cigars (vary rarely at that) while enjoying a good single malt in the privacy of my own home.

[MikeL]

[QUOTE=Drunken Monkey Do you honestly beleive Europeans (the whole EEC here, not just a select few motorbike race suppporting western Europe states) are, in general, equally, if not more anti-smoking than we are? Have you recent personal experience? When was the last time you sat in a cafe in Paris? A bar in Germany? A bar in Prague? A restaurant in Greece? Would someone with more than my measly 6 weeks of European exposure care to comment?
[/QUOTE]

I first went to Europe 30 years ago, and was last there in October 2002. The 2 countries I know particularly well are France and Italy. My observation is that the smoking rate and attitudes towards smoking have scarcely changed. There have always been non-smoking train carriages, but trying to find a smoke-free restaurant, bar or cafe would be a challenge. Even to ask for a non-smoking hotel room identifies you as a (probably Anglo-Saxon) tourist.
I suspect that in Germany and Scandinavia it might be a bit different.

[F5 Dave]

Yes attitudes do change slowly, it used to be that it was fine to smoke at work & further; driving while drunk was just one of those things people did.

Just because they do something overseas doesn’t mean they are more enlightened than us.

It may well be in Europe the tobacco companies have more political clout as they employ many people.

I resent the fact that a company decides we will buy its wares with such scant disregard to the health risks it covers them up as much as it can.

It has decided we need to smoke & sadly the biggest group of smokers seem to be teenage girls esp. those from ethnic minorities.

[Paul in NZ]

sadly the biggest group of smokers seem to be teenage girls esp. those from ethnic minorities.

Sure fire way to stay a minority!

btw - I'm far from a rabid anti smoker. I just don't like the smell in public places and the way it lingers in your clothes and hair.

[Drunken Monkey]

Some very interesting news clippings, although obviously with an agenda:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

Thanks for sharing your observations, Mike.

[Jamezo]

Yes, that is off topic, but worth discussing. Further hyposchrisy in action - why would a government ban smoking form virtually anywhere but your own home and ban virtually all forms of advertising, all 'for the good of the health of the population', yet make no steps at regulating the tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers. If there was no substantial financial gain (ie through taxes), then I would imagine tobacco would have the same status as marijuana.

smoking has, and always will, cost a country more in healthcare costs than is gained through taxation.

it isn't hypocrisy to try and regulate smoking, while not pushing for a complete ban, regulation is definitely the lesser of two evils in smokers' eyes, and a complete ban would be seen as far more of an intrusion into personal freedom.

it is a matter of balance, at the moment, the social cost of smoking is such that regulation against smoking in public places would do the most good for the people of New Zealand, while minimising outrage from those who feel their freedoms are being diminished in the name of "PC HELEN-LAND HYPOCRISY LOL!"

currently, the outrage at the percieved diminished level of freedom from a complete ban, is seen to outweigh the social cost of private smoking. thus a complete ban is not being pushed.

Dat be da truest shit I ever wrote.

[Drunken Monkey]

smoking has, and always will, cost a country more in healthcare costs than is gained through taxation.

Which country?

The 2002 figures for NZ indicate total tax revenue from tobacco was 895.3 million (1.9% of all taxes raised, apparently = if someone can confirm the total tax figure for 2002, this would help validate/rubbish the info) The healthcare cost for smoking related diseases was 230.5 million. This is less than the healthcare cost of treating obesity related diseases, at 303 million (although strangely the obesity related cost, while the actual figure is agreed upon in multiple sources, the 'percentage' varies from 2-6% of the total healthcare cost). Sources: WHO, MOH.

Inconsistencies of published NZ data aside, that is one of the reasons why we have been so slow to move on bringing court action against the Tobacco companies here, despite the postive successes in the USA.

In the USA, the tax income from tobacco was indeed much lower than the indicated health-care costs. They could justify the big payout imposed by the courts. We can't.

Just seen on sky/fox news: Hitcher's fears coming to light. The UK is moving to introduce a 'fat food advertising' ban, which will ban advertising of 'fat' foods before 9pm. They are also looking at introducing some form of compulsory red/amber/green sticker system to help people identify what kind of foods they are eating.

[Jamezo]

thanks for pleasantly suprising me, I didn't know our tax levels were so far removed from the data I have seen for other countries.

it's a shame that the tax is always passed on to the consumer, market economics dictate that no matter where we hit 'em, the tobacco industry only increases prices further? what can you do? set maximum prices? sounds draconian, but it ought to be investigated, unlike the US, we can act with impunity and do whatever we like to the corporations, as we don't have to deal with 'lobbyists' and PAC's.

[F5 Dave]

Well the fat foods question is a little different in that they are only doing it to themselves & they only bring the (not inconsiderable) health cost burden to the taxpayer & us having to look at their fat arses.

However the question is “am I my brother’s keeper?”

In the fast food case when the target audience is to start them off as children then; YES to an extent I have to be my children’s keeper. Most parents will know that saturation marketing, bright colours toys & clowns mean kids know about & desire going to these places before they even know they have food. They food hooks them for life & it is hard to break an eating habit, one modern human are ill equipped to deal with. How I will deal with this if I have kids will be a dilemma.

But I don’t want to send the topic off debating fast food, just an illustration of companies offering products in such a way to basically addict a young market to becoming dependant to their product with little or no concern for the health implications.

No I don’t propose wrapping people in cotton wool, but when companies are reaming large profit by playing on human weakness & addictive personalities then I think it’s not fair. Gambling would be another example.

[Drunken Monkey]

no probs - interesting stuff reading further on (it's actually a WHO report focussing on tobacco smuggling!) - No money earned from tobacco tax had to be allocated to Health at all until 2002. This is unlike tax revenue from alcohol and gambling income - a fixed proportion has had to be paid back directly into the related support areas (ie health, gambling addiction support, etc...) They did not specify how much tobacco tax income has to be allocated to health.

[Slipstream]

The legislation requires bar owners to take all reasonable steps but smokers are allowed to smoke in the open. Since "The Open" is not defined in the legisation one suspects a cetain amount of leeway will be accorded! A semi enclosed balcony for example! (maybe you could open a bar called "The Open" and make a mint?)

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.

The Open, I like that

[riffer]

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.

The Open, I like that

You'd probably find it difficult to use that name - sounds a bit too much like something the golf people would already have the rights to.

[Jamezo]

and you'd get geeks tagging "...source revolution!" on your nice big sign.

it's alright, just make sure you have a ratio of at least 3 mechanical bulls to every patron. nothing makes a bar succesful like an abundance of animatronic bovines.

[bluninja]

I would suggest that unless 51% of the world's population is living in a country/ies that are banning smoking in bars, then it is indeed not a global trend. Fair enough?

That's a global majority not a global trend.

BTW Bhutan has now banned the sale of tobacco....first country to do so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4012639.stm

[Drunken Monkey]

That's a global majority not a global trend.

BTW Bhutan has now banned the sale of tobacco....first country to do so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4012639.stm

Eh? Surely you must see that something has to be done by a 'global majority' in order for it to be 'global'? How can something be a global trend if only a minority of the world pariticipates? Global means the same as world-wide, does it not? If the trend is seen by mostly anglo-saxon countires, then surely it is a mostly anglo-saxon trend?