One would imagine that public concern about butt litter would largely rise with the amount of butt litter that occurs. One would also reasonably imagine that news articles dealing with the "problem" of butt litter would similarly rise. If we take those two assumptions as being a given for the moment, and then look at the statistics uncovered by this research, we see something very interesting.

Using Google's time search feature we are able to search for news stories/articles in discrete time units. During the period of 10 inclusive years 1982 to 1991, there were 7 stories: i.e. less than one story per year. But during the inclusive 8 year period of 2002 to 2009, there were 242 stories, roughly 30 per year. That's over a 3,000% increase in public perception of and attention to the problem, which would indicate that there may have been as much as a 3,000% actual increase in the amount of butt litter between these two comparative periods.

Some of that may have been generated by increased paranoia about smoke and dislike/hatred of smoking and smokers, but it's likely that a great deal of it represents an actual and very serious increase in the problem.

So what changed in our society between those two periods that caused this problem to undergo such an incredible escalation? It could be that there are now far more smokers per given area than there were in the 1980s... but tobacco control statistics don't seem to bear that out: generally they claim a decrease in smokers while habitable/used land areas in cities/towns/beaches/parks etc have generally increased along with general population growth during those years. It could be that smokers are now less conscious of butt littering as a problem, but given the increase in media attention to the issue this is also unlikely to be a cause.

The one outstandingly obvious and overwhelming cause of this problem would seem to be the antismoking movement's insistence upon throwing smokers out into the streets to smoke rather than allow for provision of comfortably separated and ventilated indoor options and venues for smokers and their friends.

If cigarette butt pollution is indeed the true concern here, then such indoor options should clearly be explored. If however, as indicated in the abstract, the focus on cigarette butt litter is simply because such a focus is seen as a way to "justify environmental regulation and policies that raise the price of tobacco and further denormalise its use." -- a pure social engineering mechanism -- then such solutions will of course be ignored.

Which path do you think tobacco control will take?

Michael J. McFadden,

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Conflict of Interest:

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" Active member of (and sometimes officer in) a number of citizens' Free Choice groups. No compensation involved.

ASH Ireland very much welcomes the comprehensive article on cigarette waste by Smith and McDaniel. This is an issue ASH Ireland has been actively engaged with. In November 2009 ASH Ireland met with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Leader of the Green Party in Ireland) and outlined the scale of the problem to him and his department. Cigarette waste accounts for nearly half of all the litter pollution in Ireland over many years. This is due to the indifference of both smokers and the tobacco industry as to how to dispose of cigarette waste. ASH Ireland has also submitted its analysis of the problem to the public consultation process for a new waste policy. In addition ASH Ireland has asked that 50 cent be levied directly on the tobacco industry for every pack of 20 cigarettes that they seek to sell and that it be paid at source by the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry could then pass on the levy to their customer base should they so wish. The key point here is that the State, which has to clean up cigarette waste, would put the responsibility on the tobacco industry to pay for the waste problems caused by their products rather than putting the responsibility on the consumer. The revenue raised by such a levy could then be used to support local government in their efforts to prevent and clean up after cigarette waste pollution. Some of the funding could also be used to raise awareness among young people as to the environmental harm that tobacco use causes both at home and abroad. ASH Ireland would urge other tobacco control organisations to raise this issue with their respective governments so as to broaden our tobacco control activities and involve a wider discussion on the negative effects of tobacco use.

Dr Fenton Howell ASH Ireland Denshaw House Dublin 2.

Conflict of Interest:

Board member of ASH Ireland