LeighDec 22nd, 2008 - 04:54:54

Yes such a scandle. It just goes to show that the smoking bans are not so much about harmful effects as they are about anti smoking groups forcing their brand of totalitarianism on others. What next?, will the smokers all have to wear patches on their shirts to identify them?

Report this comment

Dark KnightDec 22nd, 2008 - 08:10:49

it's ironic that the journalist Dan Kadison who wrote the stories in the SCMP
is
a) a smoker since he admits to lighting up in the smoking room of a bar
b) fully aware of the comments of the Secretary of Food and Health made two years previously and was in possession of the following data before he wrote his stories:



Smoking ban set for start
HK Standard newspaper
Caroline Kim

Thursday, October 19, 2006


Legislators have overwhelmingly passed the controversial anti-smoking bill banning smoking in all indoor workplaces and restaurants and selected outdoor areas such as parks and beaches after a marathon nine-hour debate.

The vote on the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 2005 - with 52 in favor and two abstentions - paves the way for the ban to come into effect from the start of next year.

The bill, which went through its first and second readings Wednesday, exempts certain places of entertainment such as mahjong parlors, massage houses and nightclubs until July 1, 2009. It will go through its third reading today.

Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow Yat-ngok shocked lawmakers with a last-minute announcement that the government will, over the next year or two, study the feasibility of allowing smoking rooms at public parks and beaches.

Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, Albert Chan Wai-yip, Andrew Cheng Kar-foo and Kwok Ka-ki introduced further amendments to the bill.

The Democratic Party's Cheng, who has been advocating a complete ban on smoking at outdoor recreational parks, stuck to his original amendment, which prohibits the sale of tobacco products to people in school uniform.

Kwok, the medical sector representative who has also consistently pushed for a total smoking ban in outdoor recreational parks, expressed concern over exposure to secondhand smoke at theme parks such as Ocean Park, despite previous letters from the park's management stating that smoking areas have already been designated throughout the facility.

'More than HK$5.3 billion has already been spent on medical care for people with illnesses related to secondhand smoke, while 14,000 people are dying each year from both smoking and secondhand smoke,' Kwok said.

Chow, reiterating his previous stance on Kwok's amendment, said: 'The designated smoking areas are places where there are very few visitors.'

Kwok, questioning the government's decision to introduce the provision during the last stages of the bill, said: 'If you're referring to smoking rooms in restaurants, that means you're taking a regressive step when we have spent over 150 hours already on the bill's review.'

Chow said that 'although a trial of newly constructed smoking rooms failed to be viable, we'll conduct studies within the next one or two years to seek a feasible ventilation system.'

Kwok argued: 'The government has imposed the idea of smoking rooms for the sake of industries.'

Hong Kong Federation of Restaurants and Related Trades president Simon Wong Ka-wo said: 'The catering industry and customers will get used to a total smoking ban in two years. The introduction of smoking rooms is, therefore, totally unnecessary.

'Creating separate smoking rooms could cost up to HK$500,000 each. It is not viable for small traders,' Wong said.

Both Chan and Cheung withdrew their amendments to smoking rooms following the government's proposal to conduct a further study on the matter.

'I cannot support this bill because there are just too many loopholes,' Chan said.

The government did not support Chan's other amendment for a complete exemption for bars, mahjong parlors and other venues, which have been granted a two-year grace period.

'If we want customers to continue patronizing restaurants and bars, the government needs to invest more in education and publicity,' The Frontier's Emily Lau Wai-hing suggested.
Chow said the government would not support an amendment prohibiting smoking in queues at bus stops and transportation interchanges, as proposed by several lawmakers.

Martin Lee Chu-ming, who has been lobbying for an anti-smoking bill for almost a decade, said Hong Kong should learn from the United States, where a health warning was recently issued against secondhand smoke, saying that inhalation of secondhand smoke can increase the risk of contracting heart diseases and lung cancer by up to 30 percent.
Representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong stressed the importance of individuals' rights, stating that the law should not deprive people of their freedom and choice.



Chow takes flak over smoke room idea

Health chief York Chow Yat-ngok has come under heavy fire from pro- democracy lawmakers for the government's 'U-turn' on the controversial anti-smoking bill by proposing that smoking rooms be installed in some public areas.

Caroline Kim and Carrie Chan

Friday, October 20, 2006

Health chief York Chow Yat-ngok has come under heavy fire from pro- democracy lawmakers for the government's 'U-turn' on the controversial anti-smoking bill by proposing that smoking rooms be installed in some public areas.
The secretary for health, welfare and food was even accused of harboring political motives - to the extent of trying to win the catering sector's votes in next year's chief executive election.
'The allegations are ridiculous and groundless,' Chow retorted, denying that the 'U-turn' was politically inspired.
'Definitely not. First of all, we have had no position on smoking rooms for some time. The concept of smoking rooms differs in different sectors. There are people who think that a smoking room is a place where you can smoke, enjoy food as well as other activities,' he said Thursday. 'The proposal that I have now, [on which] we haven't decided, and that we would like to investigate, is to find a room that might be able to allow people to smoke but would not allow any services or any other activities, something very much like those in the airport. Whether this is technologically and scientifically proven, and also technically feasible, then we have to investigate.'
Chow went on to defend the government' stance: 'If you look at the banned areas now, a lot of people, in particular smokers, would be forced to smoke on the street. Knowing that Hong Kong is such a densely populated area, we might encounter a lot of smokers in certain areas. If we could allow them to smoke in a confined space rather than disturbing pedestrians and non-smokers, then we would be able to more successfully segregate smokers and non- smokers. So, that is the main reason why we think that we need to look at this problem.'
After the bill's passage, Chow told reporters: 'We want the public to know that smoking will decline progressively and now is a good time to quit. The passage of the ordinance marks a historical moment and is a step forward for Hong Kong in becoming a smoke-free city.'
Catering sector lawmaker Tommy Cheung Yu-yan was accused of conspiring with Chow to support his amendments, which proposed adaptation periods of 90 days for restaurants.
But Cheung repeatedly denied the accusations, insisting he was not under political pressure. Although non- smokers will be able to enjoy smoke- free venues, the law is expected to negatively effect restaurants, the catering industry and karaoke operators, which are expected to be hit hardest, with an expected 20 percent loss in revenue.
But Hong Kong Federation of Restaurants and Related Trades president Simon Wong Ka-wo said: 'If the people want it, we will find a way to deal with it.'
According to Wong, major restaurant companies have already begun organizing seminars and training frontline employees and executives on how to deal with the new law.
However, Wong said the transition will be most difficult for the city's 5,500 smaller restaurants where blue-collar workers mostly eat, and smoke. Wong also said he feared that law enforcement will not be adequate, even with the recruitment of 30 inspectors by the Tobacco Control Office.
For Anthony Lock Kwok-on, managing director of one of Hong Kong's major karaoke operators, California Red, it is a matter of changing a whole culture. 'We will try hard to prepare for the changes but it's more complicated than just replacing ash trays with no smoking signs,' he said.
In addition to all indoor areas and workplaces, smoking will not be allowed in outdoor areas at hospitals, universities and public swimming pools.

October 19, 2006
Prevention


Smoking rooms proposed to protect non-smokers


Secretary for Health, Welfare & Food Dr York Chow has reiterated the proposed establishment of 'smoking rooms' aims to protect non-smokers, adding both the public and lawmakers will be widely consulted if the concept is found feasible.
He told reporters today when the new anti-smoking law comes into effect, many smokers may have to resolve to pursue their habit in open spaces. Non-smoking road users may probably be left without a choice but to become second-hand smokers.
'The primary consideration for setting up 'smoking rooms' is for the protection of non-smokers' interest by separating smokers from non-smokers. The study will take one to two years to complete,' Dr Chow said.
The proposed 'smoking rooms' are meant to offer a venue to smokers for the sole purpose of smoking and no other activities. It has to be technically feasible to effectively bar emissions from leaking from the room, so as not to pollute air outside and jeopardise non-smokers' health.
The bureau has not begun the study. Neither is there any conclusive evidence on its feasibility, nor has any consideration been given to details such as where these rooms should be installed.
If the idea is deemed viable, the bureau will widely consult the public. It will put forward a relevant proposal to the legislature and go through the usual legislative procedures before putting anything in place.
Regarding previous discussions on 'smoking rooms' by the Bills Committee on the 2005 Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill, it was a proposal of a different concept - a room with an independent ventilation system installed in the premises of the hospitality industry for its guests to enjoy the normal activities that the venue offers. At no stage has the bureau taken this proposal on board, and the bureau remains firmly against it.

and



Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ18: Feasibility study on installing smoking rooms
****************************************************

Following is a question by the Dr Hon Kwok Ka-ki and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (November 1):

Question:

At the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 2005 in this Council on 19 October this year, the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food said that the Government would study the feasibility of installing smoking rooms. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has any evidence to prove the effectiveness of smoking rooms in preventing second-hand smoke from affecting the neighbouring environment;

(b) whether the above study will be conducted solely by the government departments concerned or undertaken by commissioned consultants;

(c) of the estimated expenditure on the above study; whether such expenditure would be borne wholly by the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau and whether other services of the departments concerned will be affected by the additional expenditure;

(d) whether it will invite health care practitioners, anti-smoking groups, academics in building services and other relevant groups to participate in the entire study; and

(e) whether it will report to this Council on the progress of the study regularly?

Reply:

Madam President,

First of all, I wish to reiterate that what we propose to study is a room which is solely meant for smokers to smoke therein. There should not be any other activities going on in the room (including the serving of food and beverages and provision of any other type of services). Non-smokers and employees should not be allowed to enter into the room. I also wish to emphasize that with the passage of the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 2005 (the Bill), the top priority of the Administration at the moment is to ensure its effective implementation. We will pool our resources together to mount an intensive publicity campaign on the many amendments made to the Ordinance, in particular the smoking ban that will come into force starting January 1, 2007, with the aim to ensure that the public is well informed of the stipulations for compliance. At the same time, we will continue to actively promote smoking cessation services and anti-smoking education in the hope that the number of smokers, in particular teenage smokers, could be reduced as many as possible. The proposal of setting up 'smoking rooms' is not part of the Bill, neither is the proposed feasibility study our working priority at this stage.

My replies to the various parts of the question are as follows:

(a) As pointed out by my colleagues from the Bureau during the deliberations of the Bills Committee over the past year or so, no sufficient evidence from any scientific research or internationally accepted ventilation standards are available at the moment to support the feasibility of setting up the type of 'smoking room' mentioned above, on which we propose to conduct a study. This is precisely why I raised the idea of carrying out a feasibility study in my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the focuses of the study will be to find out whether it is technically feasible to effectively avoid the air outside the room from contamination by the secondhand smoke produced from within the room. The overriding principle is to protect the health of those who are outside the room.

With the new Ordinance coming into effect, it is envisaged that many of the smokers may have to resort to pursue their habit in outdoor areas. Road users in some busy districts may probably be left without a choice but to tolerate the intake of a lot of secondhand smoke. The primary consideration of setting up a 'smoking room' is to afford protection to non-smokers by imposing a more effective separation between smokers and non-smokers.

(b) to (e) The Bill was just passed on October 19. To date, we have not yet commenced the study on the 'smoking room' and have not reached any conclusion on its feasibility, neither have we worked out the details for the study, including the expenditure, the collaborative parties to take it forward or the details of its implementation.

Nevertheless, as I said at the Second Reading of the Bill, we must have collected sufficient scientific data and experimental evidence to prove its technical feasibility before we can be convinced of the feasibility of the 'smoking room' or formulate any specific standards. Hence, it is anticipated that we shall need the prior assistance of experts from the engineering sector to carry out a technical study. We will also seek advice from other experts, as required, if and when we encounter any technical or professional problem.

Only after the completion of the proposed feasibility study will we be able to give further thought to this proposal and discuss whether it should be put into practice. At this stage, it is premature to jump to any conclusion. The study, together with the discussion in the process, will be open and transparent and the public and this Council will also be consulted at appropriate times.


Ends/Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Issued at HKT 13:21

NNNN Source HK Govt Information services
　
Ashrae - no current ventilation system can remove tobacco smoke.

> BMJ 2006;332(7535):227 (28 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7535.227
________________________________________
BMJ 2006;332:227-229 (28 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7535.227
Analysis and comment
Public health
Blowing smoke: British American Tobacco's air filtration scheme
Nadine Rae Leavell, subcontracted researcher1, Monique E Muggli, subcontracted researcher1, Richard D Hurt, director2, James Repace, visiting assistant clinical professor3
1 Mayo Clinic Nicotine Research Program, Rochester, MN 55905, USA, 2 Nicotine Dependence Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA, 3 Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA
Correspondence to: R D Hurt rhurt@mayo.edu
As Westminster MPs prepare for a free vote on a complete smoking ban in public places, researchers question the efficacy of a technique meant to clear the air of tobacco smoke—heavily promoted by tobacco companies as an alternative to legislation
The health benefits of smoke-free public places are well proved.1-3 Nevertheless, the tobacco industry has attempted to create public doubt about and refute the scientific evidence on the adverse health consequences of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.4-6 Furthermore, the industry has promoted the accommodation of smokers and non-smokers by separate seating, ventilation, and air filtration.7 8 None of these proposed solutions, which the UK government promoted in the 1999 Public Places Charter on Smoking, provides adequate protection. We therefore urge the government to pass comprehensive smoke-free workplace and public places laws similar to those already existing in several countries.
Current measures to reduce exposure
In 1998, the UK Department of Health issued a white paper called Smoking Kills,9 which suggested initiatives to address smoking in the workplace and public places through a voluntary and self regulatory Public Places Charter on Smoking. The charter, proposed by the hospitality industry and launched in 1999 by the minister for public health, requires pubs and restaurants that sign up to voluntarily implement several principles including the accommodation of smokers and non-smokers by separate seating, ventilation, and air filtration and to display five specific signs at the entrance showing compliance with these measurements (see bmj.com). The designated policy options are
• Smoking not allowed in public areas
• Smoking allowed in public areas
• Smoking allowed only in designated smoking areas
• Ventilation meets standard; smoking allowed
• Ventilation meets standard; smoking allowed in designated areas.
The charter was promoted and financially supported by members of the tobacco industry.10
Although the minister of public health promoted the charter as a step in the right direction, it has been heavily criticised for not being strong enough to create smoke-free public places.11 12 Its proposed ventilation standard to control environmental tobacco smoke actually violates the UK 24 hour air quality standard for particulate matter (PM10) for workers by a factor of three for a pub at full occupancy and with the prevalence of smoking specified in the charter.13 In addition, research has shown that separate smoking sections do not protect people in non-smoking sections from the harmful constituents in environmental tobacco smoke, a conclusion first made 20 years ago by the US Surgeon General.14



Secondhand smoke is a big hazard for bar workers
Credit: NIKOLAI IGNATIEV/NETWORK PHOTOGRAPHER


Industry approach to smoking restrictions
The motivation behind the tobacco industry's promotion of ventilation and opposition to legislated smoking restrictions seems clear: smoke-free pubs and restaurants reduce the prevalence of smoking. Smoke-free workplace laws are associated with reduced consumption by continuing smokers, increased likelihood that a smoker will stop altogether, and a £310m ($544m; 451m) annual loss to the tobacco industry.15 Recent data from Ireland show that since March 2004, when the smoke-free workplace law was implemented, smoking prevalence fell by 8.6% to an all time low of 23.3% in March 2005, although recent trends show an increase to 24% in October 2005.16
Newly released internal corporate documents from British American Tobacco (BAT) show that despite internal acknowledgment that ventilation and air filtration were ineffective at removing environmental tobacco smoke, BAT has extensively promoted these technologies to the hospitality industry since the mid-1990s. Documents also show that BAT's strategies to promote these initiatives worldwide were seen internally as viable solutions to circumvent smoking restrictions and to gain global marketing opportunities.
In 1993, ventilation, heating, and lighting manufacturer Colt International gave BAT an air filtration unit to evaluate the system's ability to remove particulate matter, the constituent that gives tobacco smoke a visible presence and odour. BAT determined that the unit was only 34% efficient at removing particulate matter from cigarette smoke.w1 w2 It reported that the unit did little to remove harmful gas phase smoke constituents including carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, but that it significantly reduced 'haze, tobacco-smoke aroma and total perceived smoke'w1—in other words, particulate matter that could be seen and smelt.
Despite this evidence, BAT concluded that the air filtration unit 'was a cost-effective mechanism for removing ETS [environmental tobacco smoke]... would prove a useful device to incorporate into specific environments where BAT might want to... gain commercial advantages over its competitors,'w1 and should result in 'direct benefits in terms of... brand (or corporate) awareness and image transfer.'w3 BAT scientist Nigel Warren also stated that the company's interest in air filtration was primarily, 'To negate the need for indoor smoking bans around the world, particularly when we can provide pre- and post-filter air quality studies showing substantial air quality improvements.'w4
By 1995, BAT had installed Colt air filtration units worldwide.w5-w7 In one such project, BAT installed the Colt unit at a Brussels airport lounge and branded it throughout with signage, colours, and merchandising items for Barclay cigarettes.w8 Although it knew that the filtration unit was inadequate, BAT insisted on beginning installation so as not to lose out to competition while waiting for Colt to develop alternative technology.w9-w11 A memo from Nigel Warren noted that air filtration, if nothing else, could be used to market BAT's products.w11
BAT targeted the hospitality industry by pushing a so-called 'smoker resocialisation' initiative,w12 which aimed to portray smoking in a 'more positive and stylish context'w13 and to lobby against smoke-free public places.w7 w14 A memo in February 1996 from Nigel Warren summarises BAT's approach to hospitality managers:
When entering into deals with restaurant/club owners we try to first convince them of the filters capability by demonstrating a 'mini' unit which we fill with smoke, switch on, and watch the smoke disappear in a few seconds—an attention grabber. We point out that by imposing a smoking ban in their outlet they may suffer a loss of (smoking) customers and maybe their non-smoking friends too. By introducing filtration systems (at their or our own expense) smoking and non-smoking customers can more easily socialize in the better quality air—indeed such systems may help to increase the number of customers overall. The 'penalty' that the restaurant owner may have to bear could be exclusive trade marketing for our brands. Essentially everyone benefits!!w15
Although BAT's board of directors was not convinced of the effectiveness of air filtration units,w16-w18 the Colt units continued to be installed at locations worldwidew19 w20 even in the face of failed performance.w21
Latest developments
In 1997 Corporate Responsibility Consultingw22 created AIR (Atmosphere Improve Results), an indoor air quality consultancy company to 'identify and promote practical techniques to resolve the public smoking issue,' such as ventilation solutions, in line with the 1999 charter.w23 AIR is funded by the hospitality and tobacco industries.24 An internal BAT memo dated May 2000 reports that AIR was used to 'resolve the [environmental tobacco smoke] issue, rather than construct a short-term PR [public relations] and lobbying defence against regulations.'w25
The document further reports: 'To get this level of coverage was beyond the resources of a conventional PR or advertising campaign especially if the source of the campaign was seen to be outside the industry itself.' Corporate Responsibility Consulting contacted the leading trade associations and offered them the opportunity to deliver a solution to the problem of environmental tobacco smoke using the resources of the tobacco industry but with their own leadership.w25 It aimed to sign up half of the desired 56 000 pubs and restaurants to the charter within nine months of its introduction, with a budget of £793 000.w26
In June 2000, BAT undertook a joint effort with Corporate Responsibility Consulting to install 'smoking tables,' originally designed and manufactured by Colt,w27 in a bar at Birmingham International Airport. These tables suck tobacco smoke down through a filter and recirculate the partially filtered smoke out into the room again. Even if the technology was improved from that in the 1990 filtration units, the tables would be ineffective because isolation of the source or the worker are the only control measures that yield air quality that is safe to breathe.w28 Again, BAT scientist Nigel Warren commented on the possible perceived effectiveness of these units:
When the tables were switched on and demonstrated, there was obvious amusement caused from the visual impression of smoke disappearing down through the middle of the table and into the filter box. We took this as a very effective perceived solution to the 'problems' of smoking in public.w29
Warren also noted: 'Until yesterday, this airport had a complete no smoking policy!... It was a delight to be seen removing the large, red lettered, `do not smoke here' sign.'w29 In line with BAT's public relations strategy to be seen as solely accommodating smokers and non-smokers through the use of filtration and ventilation methods, any news release was to use 'caution' stating that, '[We] don't want to imply that BAT's goal is to try to overturn smoking bans.'w30


Summary points
Ventilation and air filtration are ineffective at removing environmental tobacco smoke
Despite this knowledge, BAT extensively promoted these technologies to the hospitality industry
Internal documents show such strategies were viewed as viable solutions to circumvent smoking restrictions and gain global marketing opportunities
A total ban on smoking in public places is the only way to protect all employees from environmental tobacco smoke



New legislation
In November 2004, the UK government published another white paper, which proposes to end smoking in most workplaces and public places but also proposes exemptions for private clubs and pubs that do not serve food.17 This exemption was included despite the fact that the government's scientific committee on tobacco and health advised that bar workers are particularly at risk from secondhand smoke.18 According to government estimates, these exemptions would leave 10-30% of pubs free to choose their own smoking status, and pubs that serve food could stop doing so in order to allow smoking.
The public health community should reject the 2004 white paper's proposal for exemptions to provide smoke-free workplaces for only some workers in the United Kingdom. Without a comprehensive smoke-free workplace law, the tobacco and hospitality industries can continue to mislead the public about the hazards of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by promoting separate seating, ventilation, and air filtration as viable options to smoking bans. This will do nothing to reduce the risk of lung cancer among employees.2 Furthermore, people of lower socio-economic status are more likely to live near pubs and clubs that are exempt from being smoke-free.19 All workers deserve to work in smoke-free environments, the United Kingdom should follow the lead of countries such as Bhutan, Cuba, Ireland, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, and Norway in legislating for a total ban on smoking in public places.
________________________________________



________________________________________
FACT SHEET

Ventilation and Designated Smoking Rooms

MYTH

“Ventilation protects people from second-hand smoke (SHS).”

FACT Ventilation as a solution to second-hand smoke (SHS) is a propaganda brainchild of the tobacco industry, and is not based on
public health protection. Ventilation is marketed as a way to “accommodate” both smokers and non-smokers, somehow meaning
that SHS is no more than an irritant or nuisance. Can you think of another industry or workplace where employees and customers alike
would be expected to show accommodation in the face of repeated and prolonged exposure to known human health hazards? Ventilation
is no substitute for 100% smoke-free by-laws.

MYTH

“Designated smoking rooms (DSRs) with separate ventilation can reduce SHS concentrations to acceptable levels of exposure.”

FACT There is no acceptable level of exposure to SHS. No scientific authority or regulatory health body in the world to date has established an exposure limit. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is the world authority on ventilation, setting standards for ventilation rates that are widely adopted as industry norms. ASHRAE's Addendum o to Standard 62 –

Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality states that smoking areas should have increased rates of ventilation, based on comfort, but
asserts that “specific ventilation rate requirements cannot be determined until cognizant authorities determine the concentration of
smoke that achieves an acceptable level of risk.”1

James Repace is an internationally recognized second-hand smoke physicist and former senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). He describes how tornado-like levels of ventilation would be required to reach an acceptable risk level of
exposure, based on the U.S. federal occupational and environmental health regulatory decision rules for assessing harm of environmental
agents.2 However, this is a moot point, as no acceptable level of exposure to SHS has yet been determined.

Non-Smokers' Rights Association

August 2004

MYTH “The costs of separately ventilated DSRs are limited to just the proprietors who choose to install them.”

FACT Everyone ends up paying for the presence of DSRs. First and foremost, hospitality employees and cleaning staff end up paying for
DSRs with their own health and well-being, as many are still expected to enter DSRs to carry out their work. With a large proportion of these
jobs being entry-level, and with workers being young and/or ignorant of their rights, the right to refuse work is not realistic. Second, tax payers end up footing the bill for by-laws that permit DSRs, as they require more surveillance and enforcement than smoke-free by-laws.
New regulatory bureaucracies with high levels of technical expertise are needed. Proprietors who can afford a DSR must hire a contractor, engineer
and architect. Based on the experience of proprietors in various Ontario municipalities, costs can range from $50,000 to $250,000 and up. DSRs create an uneven playing field, as not all proprietors have the option, the space or the money to install one. Seeing as the trend in Canada is towards 100% smoke-free indoor environments,
proprietors may not even recoup expenses before a municipality moves to strengthen its by-law.

MYTH “Once a DSR with separate ventilation is installed, it's smooth sailing.”

FACT The real world of DSRs is full of reports of poorly maintained ventilation systems, clogged vents, inadequate air flows, overcrowding,
and doors being propped open. High electricity bills have also caused some proprietors to turn off the ventilation some of the
time, contributing to sub-optimal performance.

MYTH “If current ventilation technology doesn't make the grade, new technology will.”

FACT Experts have theorized that a new but unproven technology called displacement ventilation may be able to reduce SHS levels by
as much as 90%.3 However, this claim does not have any credible evidence to support it. Furthermore, SHS has no safe level of
exposure. Displacement would still not provide effective protection.

MYTH “'Courtesy of Choice' and the Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) legitimately represent the concerns of bar
and restaurant owners.”

FACT “Courtesy of Choice” is a Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (CTMC) funded programme, run through the Hotel Association
of Canada. The programme advocates for the use of ventilation and attempts to shift the focus from health onto one of “conviviality and
mutual respect” between smokers and non-smokers.4 The Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) is another front with ties to the CTMC.
The FAAC touts ventilation as a “win-win solution to the public smoking debate.”5 Incredibly, the now-infamous Black Dog study,
which concluded that ventilation could address SHS health risks, has been dragged back from oblivion and is resurrected on the FAAC
website.

Non-Smokers' Rights Association

August 2004

1 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (2002). Addendum o to

4 Courtesy of Choice. Available on-line:

so if you have struggled through the data above on the quotes from York Chow Secretary for Health, what conclusions would you have , if you were writing the story ?
The Government is studying oudoor smoking rooms for parks, beaches, and street areas so they can protect health by segregating smokers from the majority of non smokers. Only 11.6% of Hong Kongers are daily smokers. Smoking rooms for bars and restaurants is not on the table for discussion or consideration by the Government, as the journalist well knows.

Ironically the catering sector representative in Legco Tommy Cheung, one of the remaining Liberal party members in Legco, has all along pushed for smoking exemptions in bars and karaokes etc that will Kill his constituents rather than demanding smoke free premises that offer a level playing field for business and which protect the health of his constituents.
1,324 peeople die from passive smoking in Hong Kong per year.
After restaurants became smoke free on January 1st 2007, restaurant receipts have risen 30.8% above takings in pre-ban 2006.
QED.

Report this comment

Taichi swordswomanDec 22nd, 2008 - 08:56:20

The World Bank, endorsed by World Health Organization, has stated:
The goal should be a completely smoke-free workplace.
There is no safe level of exposure to ETS.
Ventilation cannot ‘clear the air’ and protect workers from exposure. Furthermore, well-ventilated smoking rooms can be costly.”
Further, they embed smoking as acceptable behaviour.”

Report this comment

Taichi swordsmanJan 13th, 2009 - 08:51:44

The educated know better. Just read about the latest discoveries of lingering chemicals from smoke on clothing, etcetera. No one should be free to ruin the health of another individual, even if its effects are not detrimental until years later. Happy retirement...

Report this comment

Third-Hand SmokeJan 13th, 2009 - 09:01:01

Read this, just add the http at the beginning...
://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?_r=3&em

Report this comment