- 23 Sep 2005
- 1,295
- 76
A conference on tobacco held in Uruguay has recommended that additives used to make cigarettes more appealing to new smokers should be restricted or banned.
Delegates from over 170 countries that have signed a UN tobacco control treaty also said tobacco producers should disclose their products' ingredients.
These guidelines - adopted by consensus - represent the latest public health setback for the tobacco industry;
Full Story;
Global health officials target tobacco additives
I totally agree that a lot of the additives should be completely cut out from tobacco (isn't it addictive enough?) as well as the chemicals found in many pre-rolled cigarettes that make them burn more (if you leave a roll-up/hand rolled cigarette in an ashtray it will go out in a couple of minutes but if you leave a premade packet cigarette in an ashtray it will continue to burn right down to the filter if it is not put out properly, which has been the cause of many house fires).
But i think the WHO's estimate statistics on deaths caused by smoking are overblown;
World Health Organization figures point to big losses of life from tobacco use.
The WHO says that tobacco kills more people than Aids, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder and suicide combined.
It estimates that of the more than six billion people alive today, half a billion will eventually be killed by tobacco.
Worldwide we don't know how many people die from Aids, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder & suicide and i don't know where they are pulling these figures from (how do they get statistics from countries like Somalia, India, Nigeria, Dubai etc?). These would have to be extremely rough estimates. To assume that half a billion people will die would be to assume that almost every person who smokes will never give up smoking and is pretty much guaranteed to die from it. The second issue is that smoking varies greatly from country to country in a number of factors (for example some cigarette brands/types are definitely worse than others and different brands will be popular in different countries etc).
So while on the one hand i definitely think that the tobacco companies should be force to cut out a lot of the crap from the tobacco (i'm a smoker and i choose a particular brand of plain rolling tobacco for this very reason i.e. trying to avoid the flavourings, preservatives, additives, burning chemicals etc added to all cigarette brands), i believe that;
a. We cannot tackle smoking as a worldwide issue- we have no control over what other countries do and considering the state of many 3rd world & war torn countries i think smoking is the least of their problems. I personally view world crisis's such as world hunger, war & Aids as much more serious issues than smoking. Priorities...
b. I'm wary of statistics. I have absolutely no doubt that smoking is very bad for you, that after many years of smoking it can kill you, and that smoking around children in confined spaces etc is bad, but i also think that you can use statistics to pretty much prove anything and that the WHO's statistics are blatently biased & very rough.
c. And he told the AFP news agency that if one popular blend - American - was banned, "it will impact more than 6m producers worldwide". Just a point: 6 million producers= 6million+ jobs? Considering tobacco is grown a lot in poorer nations, surely this will negatively affect many poorer people's welfare?
Smoking is bad for your health but it is a personal choice, on the other hand i think it is very important that underprivilaged people have steady legit jobs that supply a reliable income which allow them to support them & their families. I don't see the WHO proposing anything as to what to do about the millions of people that would loose their jobs if they did do something like destroy this particular blend.
IMO its all fair & well to be idealistic, but idealism is not always better than realism. Example: Saddam was not the best dictator ever (certainly not the worst) and many people were morally against him for the sake of his people; but are the people of Iraq better off now without him & living in a war-torn hell hole of a country or were they better off with a guy who although ruled with a heavy hand, ran a functional peaceful country?
IMO there is no point in removing infrastructures for moral causes (although in the case of Iraq despite popular belief we did not "liberate it to free the people", though this is why many people supported the war) if the consequences of removing those infrastrures leave the people worse off than before.
So yeah...Basically i both agree & disagree with the WHO's objectives, depending on which ones.
Delegates from over 170 countries that have signed a UN tobacco control treaty also said tobacco producers should disclose their products' ingredients.
These guidelines - adopted by consensus - represent the latest public health setback for the tobacco industry;
Full Story;
Global health officials target tobacco additives
I totally agree that a lot of the additives should be completely cut out from tobacco (isn't it addictive enough?) as well as the chemicals found in many pre-rolled cigarettes that make them burn more (if you leave a roll-up/hand rolled cigarette in an ashtray it will go out in a couple of minutes but if you leave a premade packet cigarette in an ashtray it will continue to burn right down to the filter if it is not put out properly, which has been the cause of many house fires).
But i think the WHO's estimate statistics on deaths caused by smoking are overblown;
World Health Organization figures point to big losses of life from tobacco use.
The WHO says that tobacco kills more people than Aids, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder and suicide combined.
It estimates that of the more than six billion people alive today, half a billion will eventually be killed by tobacco.
Worldwide we don't know how many people die from Aids, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder & suicide and i don't know where they are pulling these figures from (how do they get statistics from countries like Somalia, India, Nigeria, Dubai etc?). These would have to be extremely rough estimates. To assume that half a billion people will die would be to assume that almost every person who smokes will never give up smoking and is pretty much guaranteed to die from it. The second issue is that smoking varies greatly from country to country in a number of factors (for example some cigarette brands/types are definitely worse than others and different brands will be popular in different countries etc).
So while on the one hand i definitely think that the tobacco companies should be force to cut out a lot of the crap from the tobacco (i'm a smoker and i choose a particular brand of plain rolling tobacco for this very reason i.e. trying to avoid the flavourings, preservatives, additives, burning chemicals etc added to all cigarette brands), i believe that;
a. We cannot tackle smoking as a worldwide issue- we have no control over what other countries do and considering the state of many 3rd world & war torn countries i think smoking is the least of their problems. I personally view world crisis's such as world hunger, war & Aids as much more serious issues than smoking. Priorities...
b. I'm wary of statistics. I have absolutely no doubt that smoking is very bad for you, that after many years of smoking it can kill you, and that smoking around children in confined spaces etc is bad, but i also think that you can use statistics to pretty much prove anything and that the WHO's statistics are blatently biased & very rough.
c. And he told the AFP news agency that if one popular blend - American - was banned, "it will impact more than 6m producers worldwide". Just a point: 6 million producers= 6million+ jobs? Considering tobacco is grown a lot in poorer nations, surely this will negatively affect many poorer people's welfare?
Smoking is bad for your health but it is a personal choice, on the other hand i think it is very important that underprivilaged people have steady legit jobs that supply a reliable income which allow them to support them & their families. I don't see the WHO proposing anything as to what to do about the millions of people that would loose their jobs if they did do something like destroy this particular blend.
IMO its all fair & well to be idealistic, but idealism is not always better than realism. Example: Saddam was not the best dictator ever (certainly not the worst) and many people were morally against him for the sake of his people; but are the people of Iraq better off now without him & living in a war-torn hell hole of a country or were they better off with a guy who although ruled with a heavy hand, ran a functional peaceful country?
IMO there is no point in removing infrastructures for moral causes (although in the case of Iraq despite popular belief we did not "liberate it to free the people", though this is why many people supported the war) if the consequences of removing those infrastrures leave the people worse off than before.
So yeah...Basically i both agree & disagree with the WHO's objectives, depending on which ones.
Last edited:
