I read with interest your article in Tobacco Control "Curbing the
epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control".
Within the context of a hedonic pricing model a colleague and I
recently ran a set of regressions relating cigarette prices to their
characteristics (nicotine content, carbon monoxide content, tar level
etc). Primarily the intent was to establish were all...
I read with interest your article in Tobacco Control "Curbing the
epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control".
Within the context of a hedonic pricing model a colleague and I
recently ran a set of regressions relating cigarette prices to their
characteristics (nicotine content, carbon monoxide content, tar level
etc). Primarily the intent was to establish were all smokers the "same" or
did sub-groups exist that differed from each other. We have written this
up as a working paper.
We found (not surprisingly) that at least 2 sub-groups existed.
May I ask two questions
1. has anyone considered the possibility of taxing the constituents
of cigarettes - e.g. tar content, carbon monoxide content etc. - as a way
of targeting tobacco effects rather than tobacco per se?
2. ignoring the industry and probable collusion within it - in
theory, does the potential exist to proliferate the variety of cigarettes
available to consumers - in terms of characteristic combinations - and
thereby allow consumers to select bundles that may have less harmful
effects than those they currently smoke?
By inference I am suggesting that these approaches may offer two
further weapons to the arsenal of tobacco control.
I accept of course that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette
and that the preferred option will always be abstinence.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts in due course,
yours sincerely,
Ciaran O'Neill
Ciaran O'Neill (PhD)
Reader in Health Economics and Policy
School of Public Policy, Law and Economics
University of Ulster at Jordanstown
Newtownabbey
Northern Ireland
Thank you so much for your inspiring story. I'm trying to find out
information regarding smokeless tobacco for an institutionwide project I'm
coordinating. We are trying to estimate the amounts/servings of smokeless
tobacco used by patients here. I am not sure how much snuff, smokeless
tobacco, or pipes/cigars smoked would be considered an average daily
amount. It has been difficult to quantify pat...
Thank you so much for your inspiring story. I'm trying to find out
information regarding smokeless tobacco for an institutionwide project I'm
coordinating. We are trying to estimate the amounts/servings of smokeless
tobacco used by patients here. I am not sure how much snuff, smokeless
tobacco, or pipes/cigars smoked would be considered an average daily
amount. It has been difficult to quantify patients' responses for our
form. Thanks very much for your help.
Comprehensive Tobacco Control Strategies Impact Youth and Adults
by
Rick Kropp
Tobacco Prevention and Policy Resources
Santa Rosa, CA
May 1, 1998
Efforts to Prevent and Reduce Youth Smoking Also Help Reduce Adult
Smoking, And Vice Versa
As someone who has been falsely accused for many years of “just”
being a youth access specialist and “just” focusing on youth tobacco
prevention, I have dev...
Comprehensive Tobacco Control Strategies Impact Youth and Adults
by
Rick Kropp
Tobacco Prevention and Policy Resources
Santa Rosa, CA
May 1, 1998
Efforts to Prevent and Reduce Youth Smoking Also Help Reduce Adult
Smoking, And Vice Versa
As someone who has been falsely accused for many years of “just”
being a youth access specialist and “just” focusing on youth tobacco
prevention, I have devoted a great deal of time and thought to those
tobacco advocates who claim that a “youth-focused” tobacco control
strategy is ineffective, neglects larger tobacco issues such as ETS
exposure and adult smoking, and is counter- productive in achieving a
smoke-free society.
I have come to the conclusion these claims really missing the point.
Their proponents fail to see the forest before the trees.
The reality is that these so-called “youth-focused” strategies
support and enhance efforts to reduce adult smoking and nonsmokers’
exposure to ETS, and vice versa.
When someone looks at the wide array of tobacco control policies and
programs in our public health and political arsenal, it becomes quite
clear (at least to me) that all these approaches are interrelated and
mutually supporting of each other.
For sure, many tobacco advocates and elected officials use the
“youth” focus to achieve political and policy goals. And while this may
appear to be an effective strategy, it surely does play into the hands of
the tobacco industry over the long term.
National comprehensive tobacco control strategies include tobacco tax
increases; the regulation of nicotine and tobacco products; eliminating
nonsmokers exposure to ETS; youth tobacco prevention policies such as
youth access laws and their enforcement; youth tobacco prevention
education programs in the schools, home and community; restrictions on
tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and cessation programs for
current tobacco users.
In its most basic form, this national strategy addresses three public
health problems: 1) a prevention problem where the goal is stopping
children, teens and young adults from initiating regular tobacco use and
becoming addicted to nicotine through the use of various prevention,
media, education and policy strategies; 2) an addiction problem where the
goal is getting adults and teen tobacco users to quit on their own or
through cessation and relapse prevention programs; and 3) an ETS exposure
problem in the home, family vehicles, all workplaces, enclosed public
places, and public buildings. This national tobacco strategy impacts youth
and adults.
Tobacco prevention strategies such as youth access reduction efforts
impact youth, but also effect adults such as merchants, parents and other
adult family members who are sources of tobacco for minors.
Tobacco prevention strategies such as advertising restrictions impact
youth and adults. The objectives of tobacco advertising and promotion are:
1) market expansion, attracting nonusers to begin smoking and chewing
tobacco, almost entirely minors; but also 2) to encourage tobacco
consumption in three ways: by supporting continuation of smoking by adult
and youth smokers who would otherwise quit; by encouraging adult and youth
quitters to relapse; and by increasing adult and youth smokers’ daily
consumption of cigarettes.
Many other tobacco control strategies and approaches impact youth and
adults. For example, creating and promoting positive parental and family
influences in the home to prevent youth smoking impacts adults as well.
Interventions that promote positive role models for young people in the
community also impact adults. Restricting youth exposure to tobacco
advertising and promotion also impacts adults exposure. Efforts to counter
pro-tobacco influences in the community impact youth and adults. Anti-
tobacco media advertising campaigns can and should impact both youth and
adults.
Eliminating exposure to ETS in the home and family vehicles impacts
both youth and adults. School smoking restrictions apply to and impact
both students and adults. Local and state clean indoor air laws impact
adults and youth. Regulating the labeling, packaging and contents of
tobacco products impacts youth and adults. Increasing tobacco excise taxes
effects the consumption of both youth and adults.
The “youth” versus “adult” tobacco control issue is an inaccurate and
misleading distinction. Broad-based tobacco control programs, for example
our California Prop 99 program, impact youth and adults through
interrelated and mutually supportive activities.
In reading this otherwise excellent article on store tobacco sales
policies in the latest issue of Tobacco Control, I find it troubling that
it failed to mention the fact that the 1996 California YTPS (and 1995
YTPS) was conducted by the North Bay Health Resources Center in Petaluma,
California.
Tobacco smoking and periodontitis.
DAVID A. SCOTT1, MARK IDE2,3, RON F. WILSON1 AND RICHARD M. PALMER2
Dental Clinical Research1, Department of Periodontology and Preventive
Dentistry2 and School of Dental Hygiene3, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas'
Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, King's College
London, UK.
Chronic inflammatory periodontal disease (gum disease) is a major
cause of tooth loss...
Tobacco smoking and periodontitis.
DAVID A. SCOTT1, MARK IDE2,3, RON F. WILSON1 AND RICHARD M. PALMER2
Dental Clinical Research1, Department of Periodontology and Preventive
Dentistry2 and School of Dental Hygiene3, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas'
Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, King's College
London, UK.
Chronic inflammatory periodontal disease (gum disease) is a major
cause of tooth loss in humans. Periodontitis can be painful, emotionally
disturbing, and expensive to treat. Perhaps the greatest single
controllable risk factor for periodontitis, other than poor oral hygiene,
is tobacco smoking, and smoking remains a major risk factor for the
development and progression of periodontitis even when adjusting for oral
hygiene status, gender, socioeconomic status and age 1,2.
Smokers are significantly more likely to develop inflammatory
periodontal disease at a younger age (early onset periodontitis), to
develop more severe disease, to have more aggressive rapidly progressing
disease, and to respond poorly to periodontal treatment on comparison with
non-smokers 3-7. The influence of smoking on periodontal health is so
profound that it has even been suggested that smoking-related
periodontitis should be considered as a distinct disease category 4,7.
Smoking is known to effect many aspects of periodontal health, having
been reported to influence gingival bleeding and to be associated with
increased recession of the gingivae, increased attachment loss, increased
alveolar bone loss around the teeth, increased tooth mobility, increased
incidence of tooth loss, increased staining of the enamel, thickened and
fibrotic gingiva, and halitosis (oral malodour) 1-9. There is evidence to
suggest that the risk of periodontitis in smokers may be dose-dependent
2,4,5,8.
It is well known and almost universally acknowledged that smoking
contributes to the pathogenesis of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and many
other smoking-related diseases. Despite a barrage of anti-tobacco public
health campaigns and the increased availability of nicotine replacement
therapies and other interventions to aid cessation, nicotine users and
addicts are continuing to smoke and others continue to take up a smoking a
habit. An appeal to vanity may therefore be helpful, particularly among
young persons, as recognised in the yellowing fingers, wrinkled skin,
psoriasis, and stained teeth described in the recent advertising campaign
in British Columbia, Canada, detailed in the cover essay of a recent
edition of Tobacco Control (1999;8:128-31).
Dentists and oral health professionals have long been aware of their
responsibility to educate patients on the dangers of tobacco use and to
advise on the benefits of stopping smoking. We suggest that the
association between smoking and chronic inflammatory periodontal disease
should be recognised as an important weapon to be used in the armoury of
those involved in the battle against smoking. Smoking-related
periodontitis is a disease that can be much more severe and unpleasant
than may be generally appreciated. There is also evidence to suggest
periodontitis may also be a risk factor for the development of systemic
problems such as cardiovascular disease and low birth weight 10. In
addition to a recognition and appreciation of periodontitis as a smoking-
related health problem, aesthetic concerns such as early tooth loss,
halitosis and the adverse effects on periodontal tissues, as well as the
financial burden of periodontal treatment, may be considered in the
planning and implementation of tobacco control strategies.
References:
1. Ismail AI, Burt BA, Eklund SA. Epidemiologic patterns of smoking and
periodontal disease in the United states. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:617-23.
2. Martinez-Canut P, Lorca A, Magán R. Smoking and periodontal disease
severity. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:743-9.
3. Ah MK, Johnson GK, Kaldahl WB, Patil KD, Kalkwarf KL. The effect of
smoking on the response to periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol
1994;21:91-7.
4. Haber J. Cigarette smoking: a major risk factor for periodontitis.
Compend Contin Educ Dent 1994;15:1002-8.
5. Kaldahl WB, Johnson GK, Patil K, Kalkwarf KL. Levels of cigarette
consumption and response to periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 1996;67:675
-81.
6. Burgan SW. The role of tobacco use in periodontal diseases: a
literature review. Gen Dent 1997;45:449-60.
7. González YM, de Nardin A, Grossi SG, Machtei EE, Genco RJ, De Nardin E.
Serum cotinine levels, smoking and periodontal atachment loss. J Dent Res
1996;75:796-802.
8. Grossi SG, Genco RJ, Machtei EE, Ho AW, Koch G, Dunford RG, Zambon JJ
Hausmann E. Assessment of risk for periodontal disease II. Risk indicators
for alveolar bone loss. J Periodontol 1995;66:23-9.
9. Miyazaki H, Sakao S, Katoh Y, Tekehara T. Correlation between volatile
sulphur compounds and certain oral health measurements in the general
population. J Periodontol 1995;66:679-84.
10. Beck JD, Offenbacher S, Williams R, Gibbs P, Garcia R. Periodontitis:
a risk factor for coronary heart disease? Ann Periodontol 1998;3:127-41.
Dr.Koop should be congratulated for his willingness to express
himself without concern for the political correctness of this issue. I
too, am a pro-life republican but am appalled to think that
representatives of my government and the health care community (including
the researchers) would be "bought" at a price costing so many lives.
Please keep your ear to the public- hopefully you will begin to
"hear" the ou...
Dr.Koop should be congratulated for his willingness to express
himself without concern for the political correctness of this issue. I
too, am a pro-life republican but am appalled to think that
representatives of my government and the health care community (including
the researchers) would be "bought" at a price costing so many lives.
Please keep your ear to the public- hopefully you will begin to
"hear" the outrage!!
I believe we have come a long way when we are at the point
that we are trying to define just what this toxic pollution
really is. When I first started writing, about 15 years ago,
I saw the need to define tobacco smoke polluted air which
had been air conditioned and filtered but which still
contained the gaseous elements which are in tobacco smoke
in copious amounts. When the air is not entirely smokefree, filtering it
thr...
I believe we have come a long way when we are at the point
that we are trying to define just what this toxic pollution
really is. When I first started writing, about 15 years ago,
I saw the need to define tobacco smoke polluted air which
had been air conditioned and filtered but which still
contained the gaseous elements which are in tobacco smoke
in copious amounts. When the air is not entirely smokefree, filtering it
through an air conditioning system will not make it safe for us who are
hyper-sensitive to second hand tobacco smoke, hence the need for
nomenclature which would essentially describe air with the smoke smell
filtered out, but which still contains the gaseous elements. These are
exceedingly dangerous to us as a component of ETS. This kind of air has a
characteristic stuffy odor, which can cause me illness that can require
weeks or months to recover to the previous state of well being which I had
previously enjoyed.
I believe it is not enough to just use ETS since it is too brief.
People new to this problem may not get the picture.
I use 'second hand tobacco smoke/ETS' as the defining description since it
describes second hand tobacco smoke pollution as a factor added to ETS,
but which might require
a dialogue about ETS since it is a seperate complex problem.
I think it is necessary that we spell it out for them, what 'second
hand tobacco smoke/ETS' actually is. I also believe that since this has
been used for so many years, we should not change it because it does work.
Some legislators pretend to ignore this but they know what we are talking
about. It is more important to keep talking about it until they do the
right thing. They need to know that we are knowledgeable and have the
resources to back us up.
As Director of a program very similar to '2 smart 2 smoke' l was
thrilled to read of your study and positive results. Our tobacco use
prevention show "Naturally High" targets the same audience with identical
objectives and has been performed at over 89 schools in Hawaii and
California since October 1996. It is a drama featuring six children
performers using juggling, unicycling, stiltwalking, balancing and other
circus...
As Director of a program very similar to '2 smart 2 smoke' l was
thrilled to read of your study and positive results. Our tobacco use
prevention show "Naturally High" targets the same audience with identical
objectives and has been performed at over 89 schools in Hawaii and
California since October 1996. It is a drama featuring six children
performers using juggling, unicycling, stiltwalking, balancing and other
circus skills blended with music.
We have had outstanding reviews from teachers and students but have
consistsnly been asked by potential funders for data regarding the
effectiveness of our program. Your research offers some excellent support
for this kind of tobacco prevention program. I wonder if you would be
interested in expanding your evaluation to include our "Naturally High"
program and if you can offer any assistance to us in our efforts to show
our local Health authorities the benefits of this approach.
sincerely yours,
Graham Ellis
for more information please see our web site at
hiccupcircus.com
I wonder if we are being a bit too condescending to the general
public in this discussion about what to call passive smoking. I agree
that this proliferation of terms is probably somewhat confusing. All of
the terms currently in use by scientists and laypeople have their
drawbacks. However, my experience in conversation with the wo/man in the
street is that we are all fairly good at decoding our imprecise language....
I wonder if we are being a bit too condescending to the general
public in this discussion about what to call passive smoking. I agree
that this proliferation of terms is probably somewhat confusing. All of
the terms currently in use by scientists and laypeople have their
drawbacks. However, my experience in conversation with the wo/man in the
street is that we are all fairly good at decoding our imprecise language.
For instance, several times I have heard people, even activists in
the tobacco-control movement, call passive smoking "secondary smoking." A
few times I have also seen this "incorrect" use of the term in letters to
the editor of newspapers. Now in the scientific literature this term
means smoking a tobacco product other than the one a smoker usually
smokes. For instance, a person who usually smokes cigarettes, but very
occasionally smokes a pipe or a cigar, is said to be engaging in secondary
smoking when indulging in that pipe or cigar instead of smoking a
cigarette. But when ordinary people use the term to mean "secondhand
smoking" I suspect that everyone (or practically everyone) decodes
"secondary smoking" correctly. (There is of course the wider issue of
imprecise language being read and spoken by people whose native language
is not English and who are still at a stage of comprehension that is not
sophisticated enough to have to deal comfortably with several ambiguous
terms all supposedly "meaning" the same thing.)
One point not already raised by previous correspondents is that even
highly educated writers, such as scientists, sometimes make the mistake of
using the phrase "exposure to passive smoking." Presumably what they are
trying to say is something like, "exposure to another person's or other
people's tobacco smoke in the air." Of course, I concede that, again,
most of us manage to decode correctly the incorrect expression, "exposure
to passive smoking."
It is true that the term "passive smoking" may cause some people
subliminally to become passive about having to put up with tobacco smoke
in their air. On the other hand, it is probably just as true to say that
those who are not passive about this forced exposure to a poisonous
pollution are angered by the term "passive" and thus are motivated to
become active in their opposition to so many people being passive about
it. Incidentally, I know of no scientific evidence about how the term
"passive smoking" affects people, their attitudes or their actions.
The term "involuntary smoking" seems unnecessarily clumsy. Besides,
for those who believe that active smoking is addictive, those addicted to
it could be said to be doing "involuntary smoking."
Forgive me, but I just can't imagine normal people talking about
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke" or "ETS" at parties, on picnics and in pubs,
nevermind whether or not it is the pet term of the tobacco industry. I
can't recall any person outside the tobacco-control movement using the
term anywhere, not even in the more formal forum of letters to the editor
of newpapers and magazines. Do we really want to create yet another
unnecessary a gap between the terms being used by the scientific community
and those outside it?
When I use the term "secondhand smoke" I have always assumed that
everyone knew I meant the tobacco smoke in the air that surrounds me,
smoke created firsthand by someone other than me lighting up a cigarette,
pipe or cigar. It doesn't matter to me one whit whether those listening
to me know that only a small fraction of that is exhaled smoke and that
most of it is sidestream smoke. The point is that I am being exposed to
other people's dirty, sticky and poisonous pollution and I am certain that
when I'm on a TV or radio programme everyone knows that that is what I am
unhappy about.
As much as some may regret it, passive smokers are smokers. They are
doing a type of smoking which is causing many of the sorts of disease
outcomes linked to active smoking. Indeed there are some disease outcomes
now associated with passive smoking that are not linked to active smoking,
such as tooth problems in children and Legg Perthes disease. To avoid the
obvious fact that passive smoking is a type of smoking and has
unsurprising smoking-related disease outcomes is to undermine the power of
the message we want to get across. If you are a passive smoker and don't
like being called a smoker, you shouldn't object to being called a smoker;
you should object to being forced to be a smoker. Since well over 90% of
the population in the U.S.A. are either active smokers or passive smokers,
we have to face the fact that smoking is the norm in America and
presumably in all Westernized, industrial nations. Once we accept that
fact, angrily, we will be better motivated to take effective action.
Incidentally, I suspect that some disease outcomes from "passive
smoking" are not at all from inhaling smoke. For example, various eye
problems resulting from exposure to smoke are probably due to the surface
of the eye being exposed directly to the pollution and not to the eye
receiving irritant ingredients of the smoke delivered to it via the
bloodstream. The link between second-hand smoking and cervical cancer may
be due to sticky tobacco smoke adhering to the fingers of the smoking
sexual partners and being applied directly to the female sexual organs
during digital stimulation as in foreplay. I also hypothesize that certain
rare skin disorders apparently brought on by exposure to tobacco smoke in
the air may be reactions of the skin to the smoke adhering to the skin and
then being absorbed directly into it. (See, for instance, the various
publications in the scientific literature by B. J. L. Sudan on the disease
suffered by him and the immediate members of his family when exposed to
tobacco-smoke pollution.) If these instances of exposure other than
through inhalation are considered important, then perhaps a term such as
"tobacco-smoke pollution" (please note the hyphenated, grammatically
correct form of that phrase)would be better than any term involving the
word "smoking." The problem with Allyn Taylor's suggested "environmental
tobacco pollution" is that what we are discussing is the pollution of the
environment by smoke, not by tobacco. It is of course true that tobacco
products pollute the environment (as in dropped cigarette butts being left
in their billions as litter practically everywhere and specifically in
places where toddlers pick them up and ingest them and also lit butts
being discarded and causing major forest fires) but this is a matter
distinct from what we are trying to discuss when coming up with a term for
exposure to tobacco-smoke pollution.
On balance, I think I agree with John Slade that we are probably
going to be wisest if we choose "tobacco-smoke pollution" as our term.
However, because of the various reasons already put forward in favour of
"secondhand smoking," I would be very pleased with it as well.
I agree with John Slade that ETS is not a satisfactory term and that
a new term, incorporating the idea of pollution, should be utilized. I
prefer to describe it as "environmental tobacco pollution."
Incorporating the term "pollution" appropriately reflects that so
called second hand smoke is more than just a mere nuisance as the tobacco
industry claims. "Environmental tobacco pollution" adequately reflects the...
I agree with John Slade that ETS is not a satisfactory term and that
a new term, incorporating the idea of pollution, should be utilized. I
prefer to describe it as "environmental tobacco pollution."
Incorporating the term "pollution" appropriately reflects that so
called second hand smoke is more than just a mere nuisance as the tobacco
industry claims. "Environmental tobacco pollution" adequately reflects the
reality that tobacco smoke has real and dangerous health consequences and
significant "clean-up" costs like other forms of pollution such as toxic
waste.
As an international lawyer, I also prefer the term "environmental
tobacco pollution" because I believe that it broadens the message and the
appeal of our movement to those outside of tobacco control, particularly
organizations (national and international), academics and activists in the
environmental realm. Nationally and internationally the environmental
movement is a powerful force and potentially a tremendous ally. Utilizing
the term "environmental tobacco pollution" may function to educate the
environmental community about how closely aligned our interests truly are
and, thereby, mobilize broader interest in tobacco control.
Dear Prof. Chaloupka,
I read with interest your article in Tobacco Control "Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control".
Within the context of a hedonic pricing model a colleague and I recently ran a set of regressions relating cigarette prices to their characteristics (nicotine content, carbon monoxide content, tar level etc). Primarily the intent was to establish were all...
Dear Jane,
Thank you so much for your inspiring story. I'm trying to find out information regarding smokeless tobacco for an institutionwide project I'm coordinating. We are trying to estimate the amounts/servings of smokeless tobacco used by patients here. I am not sure how much snuff, smokeless tobacco, or pipes/cigars smoked would be considered an average daily amount. It has been difficult to quantify pat...
Comprehensive Tobacco Control Strategies Impact Youth and Adults
by Rick Kropp Tobacco Prevention and Policy Resources Santa Rosa, CA May 1, 1998
Efforts to Prevent and Reduce Youth Smoking Also Help Reduce Adult Smoking, And Vice Versa
As someone who has been falsely accused for many years of “just” being a youth access specialist and “just” focusing on youth tobacco prevention, I have dev...
November 11, 1999
In reading this otherwise excellent article on store tobacco sales policies in the latest issue of Tobacco Control, I find it troubling that it failed to mention the fact that the 1996 California YTPS (and 1995 YTPS) was conducted by the North Bay Health Resources Center in Petaluma, California.
Tobacco smoking and periodontitis. DAVID A. SCOTT1, MARK IDE2,3, RON F. WILSON1 AND RICHARD M. PALMER2 Dental Clinical Research1, Department of Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry2 and School of Dental Hygiene3, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Chronic inflammatory periodontal disease (gum disease) is a major cause of tooth loss...
Dr.Koop should be congratulated for his willingness to express himself without concern for the political correctness of this issue. I too, am a pro-life republican but am appalled to think that representatives of my government and the health care community (including the researchers) would be "bought" at a price costing so many lives.
Please keep your ear to the public- hopefully you will begin to "hear" the ou...
I believe we have come a long way when we are at the point that we are trying to define just what this toxic pollution really is. When I first started writing, about 15 years ago, I saw the need to define tobacco smoke polluted air which had been air conditioned and filtered but which still contained the gaseous elements which are in tobacco smoke in copious amounts. When the air is not entirely smokefree, filtering it thr...
As Director of a program very similar to '2 smart 2 smoke' l was thrilled to read of your study and positive results. Our tobacco use prevention show "Naturally High" targets the same audience with identical objectives and has been performed at over 89 schools in Hawaii and California since October 1996. It is a drama featuring six children performers using juggling, unicycling, stiltwalking, balancing and other circus...
I wonder if we are being a bit too condescending to the general public in this discussion about what to call passive smoking. I agree that this proliferation of terms is probably somewhat confusing. All of the terms currently in use by scientists and laypeople have their drawbacks. However, my experience in conversation with the wo/man in the street is that we are all fairly good at decoding our imprecise language....
I agree with John Slade that ETS is not a satisfactory term and that a new term, incorporating the idea of pollution, should be utilized. I prefer to describe it as "environmental tobacco pollution."
Incorporating the term "pollution" appropriately reflects that so called second hand smoke is more than just a mere nuisance as the tobacco industry claims. "Environmental tobacco pollution" adequately reflects the...
Pages