Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
oro cigarettes tells her that to take another one out, light it up and smoke would be bad for her health.
"Smoking Kills" it says. The 18-year-old, from Spondon, does not need her packet to tell her that.
Her doctor and family do that already and deep down, Holly knows smoking is no good for her.
Yet today, on National No Smoking Day, when thousands of people are expected to take their first step to giving up, she will not be joining them.
"I've just not thought about it," she said. "It doesn't bother me."
Besides, as Holly sees it, she is a social smoker - a person who picks up a cigarette when she is out at the pub rather than at times when she is alone.
Jump to full article »
Finding it tough if you gave up cigarettes on National No Smoking Day on Wednesday? If so, take comfort from how much money you're saving. Not only are you no longer spending £5 on each packet of 20, but by giving up you'll soon be entitled to cheaper insurance.
That's crucial when it comes to life and critical illness insurance. Brokers warn that after a decade of falling prices, premiums could rise by as much as 10 per cent this year.
The independent adviser LifeSearch says factors that in previous years contributed to lower premiums, such as fewer than expected numbers of claims relating to HIV and Aids, are running out of steam. Kevin Carr, a senior technical adviser at LifeSearch, says: "Few things become cheaper indefinitely and life cover premiums have hit the bottom."
Perched 32 floors above the Hudson River, the Cherner-Seitz household is the portrait of boundless wealth, familial bliss and, on this day, utter chaos. With four hours remaining until their departure for France, where they will all spend the coming school year, everyone was rushing around the six-bedroom apartment accompanied by a symphony of ringing telephones and the soundtrack from "Oklahoma!"
That is, everyone except Mr. Cherner, who was sitting at his desk as tranquil as a Buddha. After 15 years of fighting the tobacco industry through legislation, elementary school lectures and self-financed advertising campaigns, Mr. Cherner was savoring his greatest victory yet: the likely passage of a bill that would ban smoking in all New York City workplaces, including bars, restaurants and dance clubs. Although the City Council must still hold public hearings, the mayor, the Council speaker and six of the seven health committee members already back the bill, which would drastically alter the lives of an increasingly alienated constituency.
While Mr. Cherner's money and relentlessness helped bring about the disappearance of the cigarette vending machine, the end of the subway tobacco ad and the advent of mandatory nonsmoking sections in restaurants, the city's chief executive, Michael R. Bloomberg, has taken the initiative this time . . .
After years of being branded a millionaire kook by his opponents, Mr. Cherner, 44, finally feels vindicated. "All truth goes through three stages," he said. "It's ridiculed, then violently opposed and then accepted as self-evident." . .
. And how will he cope with the French and their love affair with Gitanes? "I've got my list of smoke-free restaurants," he said. "And besides, even the French can change."
All truth goes through three stages. It's ridiculed, then violently opposed and then accepted as self-evident.Tobacco control activist Joseph Cherner, on smokefree legislation, in a major profile.
I was surprised to find little news or editorial reaction to Speaker Milliken's seminal ruling.
The issues under discussion in Bill S-15 were - and remain - of critical importance. Would the bill have achieved its aims? Is it possible to target youth properly without addressing adult smokers, given that teens with non-smoking parents are only half as likely to become smokers?
The fact that two of Canada's three major tobacco firms supported S-15 gives rise to even further questions. Was the industry in a win-win situation, expecting to reap a PR bonanza when the bill almost inevitably failed, but ready to exploit weaknesses in its wording, should it have succeeded? These questions require thoughtful, informed analysis and perspective. . .
Whatever the perspective of your editorialists or columnists, I believe that the form and content of Bill S-15, as well as the tobacco industry's support and the government's own procedural opposition, all warrant careful commentary.
It's not slight praise to say Peter Milliken is much more masterful in handling the House of Commons than his predecessor . .
Milliken ruled that however worthy the aims of the bill, it was at its core a tax measure, and thus an initiative out of bounds to senators (or to individual MPs). His "duty" as Speaker was to defend "the primacy of the House in respect to taxation as well as the financial initiative of the Crown in the House." He noted the wide backing for the bill but it failed because it was contrary to the fundamental of the parliamentary system that only the Crown in Parliament - i.e., the governing party in the House of Commons - may sponsor a tax measure.
Not all is lost with the Milliken decision. The scale of backing Sen. Kenny nurtured may have shamed the government and its health minister, the nice but dithering Allan Rock, toward a thorough, well-funded drive to reduce early addiction to tobacco.
Now that our Commoners' constitutional prerogatives have been secured for another day, however, let us look at the remarkable impact that Mr. Kenny and his team have had in nominal defeat -- a case study on how an allegedly creaky institution can be used to mobilize support for sweeping changes in public policy. . .
According to Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, Mr. Kenny and his group "have had a tremendous influence and much of this wouldn't have happened without the support he was able to mobilize."
Not bad for a creaky old dinosaur.
Bill S-15 died in the House on Tuesday. The bill would have raised $360-million a year for efforts against cigarette smoking by adding a 19-cent levy on every pack. [This graph only]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Moments ago a bill was introduced, Bill S-15. I take this occasion to indicate to the House that it is my belief that the bill cannot proceed to the next reading because it is out of order.
Bill S-15, which was just introduced in the House, creates an independent foundation to provide funding for programs to prevent the use of tobacco products by young people. It is obviously a very laudable initiative.
The funds would come from a tax on tobacco products. The senator who introduced the bill expects that such a tax will bring in $360 million each year to fund the foundation.
As members know, section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
S-15 has already served an enormous public service by drawing attention to the need for improved funding for tobacco control, and by contributing to the recent commitment on the part of the Ministers of Finance and the Minister of Health to provide $480 million over 5 years to comprehensive tobacco control measures. Senator Colin Kenny is to be commended for his tireless work in this regard.
However, now that S-15 is further progressing through Parliament, it is appropriate to examine it on its own merits.
S-15 contains two significant structural flaws, each of which is unlikely to be amendable under Commons procedural rules.
Flaw #1
S-15 limits all programs to only those which directly address youth-smoking.
The limits of such an approach is well known, and has been extensively documented. The U.S. Surgeon General's report for 2000, for example, was focused on reviewing measures to reduce tobacco use. After reflecting on the limitations of focusing on youth, the scientists concluded: "a comprehensive approach - one that optimizes synergy from applying a mix of educational, clinical, regulatory, economic and social strategies - has emerged as the guiding principle for future efforts to reduce tobacco use." (Reducing Tobacco Use, A Report of the Surgeon General, 2000, p. 435.
Although S-15 purports to be based on the CDC guidelines for "best practices," most of these best practice elements would not be eligible for funding under S-15. . .
Flaw #2
S-15 provides a number of statutory benefits to the tobacco companies
As a result of the previous speaker's decision, Senator Kenny had to transform his proposal to fund tobacco control initiatives in order to make it procedurally acceptable. Where the 1997 legislation (S-13) tried to disguise a public health measure as a levy for industry purposes, the 2001 legislation (S-15
California has a terrific model, honourable senators. . .
Bill S-15 is a tax bill, in my opinion. As such, it cannot properly be passed here . .
Canada is lagging far behind other countries in preventing youth smoking, a Nova Scotia pediatrician says. Dr. Andrew Lynk notes that 29% of his province's teens smoke, while the comparable rate in California is only 7%. "We're way behind the eight ball," says Lynk. . .
Despite the new spending, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) is urging physicians to back the Tobacco Youth Protection Act, which would impose a 19-cent levy on each pack of cigarettes and raise an estimated $360 million annually — $12 per capita — for programs to reduce youth tobacco use.
Health Minister Allan Rock should take the lead in preventing youth smoking or get out of the Senate's way, says Toronto's Medical Officer of Health.
Dr. Sheela Basrur yesterday spoke candidly to a Senate Committee studying Senator Colin Kenney's bill to finance anti-smoking efforts for teens.
She condemned Liberal politicians standing in the way and had a special message for Rock: "Lead, follow or get out of the way.
"One of the three would be ideal.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore," she added.
Bill S-15 has twice been shot down in the House of Commons, where it needs to get a majority of votes before becoming law.
TIRED of governments and the tobacco industry blowing smoke over wanting to stop youth smoking?
Who isn't? But if you want to do something about it, the opportunity is at hand.
You can write your MP, your man in the federal cabinet (Robert Thibault for Nova Scotia), Health Minister Allan Rock and the prime minister. Tell them to wise up and adopt a no-bull bill on curbing youth smoking - Senator Colin Kenny's Tobacco Youth Protection Act.
Senator Kenny's private member's bill, S-15, is a great piece of legislation. . .
California's cessation effort is not only saving the young from addiction, it is saving $3.62 in medical costs for each $1 spent.
Canadian youth and taxpayers deserve what works, too.