600,000 Die from Second-hand Smoke Yearly

[Win2Win]

One of the perils and hassles of riding using public tranportation is encountering passengers who smoke cigarettes inside public jeepneys and non-air-conditioned buses. Most often than not, the drivers themselves are the ones who still smoke despite the stickers and signs that says “No Smoking” plastered right inside the jeepney they’re driving! This is despite [...]



http://images.jrocas.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/No-Smoking-300x225.jpg You are stupid not to understand this


One of the perils and hassles of riding using public tranportation is encountering passengers who smoke cigarettes inside public jeepneys and non-air-conditioned buses. Most often than not, the drivers themselves are the ones who still smoke despite the stickers and signs that says “No Smoking” plastered right inside the jeepney they’re driving!

This is despite the fact that Republic Act 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 which took effect years ago, expressly prohibits smoking inside public transportation. Sec 5. (e) of the law specifically says:


Public conveyance and public facilities including airport and ship terminals and train and bus stations, restaurant and conference halls, except for separate smoking areas;

Again, this was reinforced by the Land Transportation Frachising & Regulatory Board in Memorandum Circula 2009-036 calling for 100% Smoke Free Public Utility Vehicles and Public Land Transportation Terminals.

Unfortunately, drivers and commuters still blatantly ignore and violate these laws. Putting in harm’s way their non-smoking passengers who become exposed to second-hand smoke or passive smoking.

To those who sill don’t believe that second-hand smoke is harmful to one’s health, a recent study by the team of Dr Armando Peruga for the World Health Organization (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61388-8/fulltext) has came up with findings that confirms this fact:


Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379 000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165 000 from lower respiratory infections, 36 900 from asthma, and 21 400 from lung cancer. 603 000 deaths were attributable to second-hand smoke in 2004, which was about 1·0% of worldwide mortality. 47% of deaths from second-hand smoke occurred in women, 28% in children, and 26% in men. DALYs lost because of exposure to second-hand smoke amounted to 10·9 million, which was about 0·7% of total worldwide burden of diseases in DALYs in 2004. 61% of DALYs were in children. The largest disease burdens were from lower respiratory infections in children younger than 5 years (5 939 000), ischaemic heart disease in adults (2 836 000), and asthma in adults (1 246 000) and children (651 000).

These findings were based in 2004, Republic Act 9211 was enacted in 2003, while the LTFRB Memorandum Circular came to effect just last January 7, 2010. Still, drivers and smokers still smoke cigarettes inside PUVs, as if they are blind to the “No Smoking” signs inside their vehicles.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if those figures have increased as I’ve not seen a decrease in drivers and commuters who smoke in public transportation. The fight against second-hand smoke remains tough but is not a losing one.

And since the law is on our side (http://www.nosi.com.ph/main/laws), we should not be afraid of reminding drivers to stop smoking while inside their jeepneys or for other passengers to put their cigarette before boarding, otherwise, we should report them (http://www.nosi.com.ph/) so they’d end up with a fine or in jail.

Image by TheTruthAbout (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thetruthabout/2707984294/)

http://jrocas.com.ph/0838b5e6/4df00e41/vBulletin via cURL/PHP.gif

How to Ride the Jeepney in the Philippines (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/how-to-ride-the-jeepney-in-the-philippines/) (1)
Let’s use Anti-smoking pictures on cigarette packaging (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/lets-use-anti-smoking-pictures-on-cigarette-packaging/) (23)
References on the Reproductive Health bill (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/references-on-the-reproductive-health-rh-bill-debate/) (1)
On the Rizal Park Hostage Crisis (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/on-the-rizal-park-hostage-crisis/) (2)
Legalize Divorce in the Philippines – Support HB 1799 (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/legalize-divorce-in-the-philippines-support-hb-1799/) (2)


Content from... (http://jrocas.com.ph/archives/600000-die-from-second-hand-smoke-yearly/)

[stevewool]

i must admit i never saw anyone smoking on any jeepny i was in while there , yes the driver but no passengers

[KeithD]

So you may as well smoke first-hand then :crazy:

[Doc Alan]

It's common sense that frequent passive smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease, asthma and chest infections. But every one of these conditions has other causes. Conversely not all active smokers get cancer, never mind the other diseases.
The "600,000 deaths" headline is scare tactics by the WHO and those who quote them. The small print tells us that 379,000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease is an "estimate". Maybe it was 380,000 then ... They don't say how the other known risk factors were ruled out. It can be hard enough to do that with active smokers. I'm not defending passive (or active) smoking. But I'm not convinced that figures for worldwide deaths which can't be proved, or other scare tactics like pictures of lung cancer on cigarette packets, are the best way to reduce worldwide smoking.

[stevewool]

i was the only 1 other then my mum who did not smoke in the family house thats 13 people who smoked , and yes you get use to the smell and breathing it in everyday , but today no one smokes in my house and if i go round to my family its my choice to stay if they smoke too, but like i say my house my car even the companys vehicles if i am in them no one smokes, its a filthy habit sorry if that upsets others but it is

[Steve.r]

Interesting look at that Alan, and I guess you, more than anyone has seen the results first hand. I often wonder about the 'big brother' warnings and 'scare tactics' that our various governments use to get people to stop smoking.
I dont smoke and never have, but in my early years of life both my parents smoked. I do wonder what damage was done then and how long it takes to heal/recover if at all. I don't like people smoking around me, and get so annoyed when there are signs quite clearly showing no smoking and people still smoke. My most recent annoyance (and I did complain too :ReadIt:) was in Kuwait Airport in the little cafe area there. There were several groups of Arabs smoking right below the signs, no other people were smoking ie: other commuters, so for them I guess the rules are not to be followed, double standards again.
At the end of the day, if everyone were to give up smoking, where would the taxes come from, vicious circle isn't it. :doh

[KeithD]

...... where would the taxes come from, vicious circle isn't it. :doh
The poor stupid :crazy: :doh :D

[Englishman2010]

i must admit i never saw anyone smoking on any jeepny i was in while there , yes the driver but no passengers

Same here Steve.

As a European smoker and being made an outcast over the last few years I am always very concious of where I smoke now. I'm in the habit of not smoking in anyone's house, my own house, the office, in the car, in the pub, in the mall.....nowhere really except my own back garden. So when I go abroad I adopt the same rules and don't smoke in public places unless they are outdoors.

[Doc Alan]

I dont smoke and never have, but in my early years of life both my parents smoked. I do wonder what damage was done then and how long it takes to heal/recover if at all.
As you know, there's plenty advice about the benefits of giving up smoking and how, for many ex-smokers, symptoms soon improve - after a few years the risk for cancer and heart attacks reduces towards those for lifelong non-smokers.
It's harder to say what long term damage has been done by passive smoking as a child. My Dad ( a GP ) was a heavy smoker - yes, he should have known better, but he didn't know when he became addicted to cigarettes what we know now. However, if you are a lifelong non-smoker (like me) then the chances are that you are now at only slightly increased risk.

[stevewool]

Interesting look at that Alan, and I guess you, more than anyone has seen the results first hand. I often wonder about the 'big brother' warnings and 'scare tactics' that our various governments use to get people to stop smoking.
I dont smoke and never have, but in my early years of life both my parents smoked. I do wonder what damage was done then and how long it takes to heal/recover if at all. I don't like people smoking around me, and get so annoyed when there are signs quite clearly showing no smoking and people still smoke. My most recent annoyance (and I did complain too :ReadIt:) was in Kuwait Airport in the little cafe area there. There were several groups of Arabs smoking right below the signs, no other people were smoking ie: other commuters, so for them I guess the rules are not to be followed, double standards again.
At the end of the day, if everyone were to give up smoking, where would the taxes come from, vicious circle isn't it. :doh have you had a reply back yet steve:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[stevewool]

the worst bits now i think , is when you try to walk into a shopping centre or pub when lots are just standing outside the doors smoking

[Doc Alan]

have you had a reply back yet steve:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:
I always reply to Steve.r's posts because if I don't there will be a letter of complaint :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[stevewool]

i would too Alan but i am waiting for my glasses to come back , i sent them ages ago , it would have been sooner but i was behind this slow git driving and it took forever , and when i did get past there was this speed camera , in fact all this extra work i need some sort of extra suger intake but the klicker on my dispencer keeps cutting them up i am so tired , perhaps i shall get emma to write one for me :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

[Doc Alan]

... perhaps i shall get emma to write one for me :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:
Off topic and trusted members should know better :icon_lol::icon_lol:
Just in case anyone reading these recent posts is worried and doesn't understand :Erm: don't worry :NoNo: Stevewool, Steve.r and I are good friends :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Arthur Little]

have you had a reply back yet steve:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Probably he has ... unfortunately it would've been typed in Arabic! :D

[Arthur Little]

the worst bits now i think , is when you try to walk into a shopping centre or pub when lots are just standing outside the doors smoking

Thing IS ... this wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs could've so easily been avoided :rolleyes: HAD Governments been willing to compromise and agree to the provision of SEPARATE accommodation - in pubs, clubs, &c. - to cater for Smokers :Smokin: and Non-Smokers alike!

Not only would it be fairer all round ... but another obvious advantage of adopting such a policy, of course, is that there'd be a lot less half-smoked fag ends and other debris lying around outside these premises afterwards. :crazy:

[Doc Alan]

Thing IS ... this wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs could've so easily been avoided :rolleyes: HAD the Government been willing to compromise and agree to the provision of SEPARATE accommodation...
On topic again, and I agree, having heard this many times in the past couple of years, from smokers and non-smokers.
No one doubts the health hazards of smoking - the evidence being stronger for active rather than passive smoking - but it is an addiction, it can't be totally banned, and tackling the problem should be realistic.
My local hospital banned smoking in the grounds, so now smokers jump in their cars, drive to the entrance, park, smoke, discard their cigarettes and drive back to work / visiting patients :yikes:

[Steve.r]

Probably he has ... unfortunately it would've been typed in Arabic! :D

Yes Arthur they said this: نحن دخان حيث نريد لدخان :doh:doh

[Arthur Little]

And if the selfsame politicians were to be scrupulously honest :laughitupsmilie: (I'm "speaking" hypothetically here, you understand ... since whoever heard of an honest politician!? :rolleyes:) they would be forced to admit that there are double-standard tactics at play where the smoking habit is concerned. :doh

On the one hand, parliamentarians almost everywhere on the planet nowadays HAVE to be SEEN to comply with directives issued by the World Health Organisation; on the other, ALL governments - without [any] exceptions (that I know of) - are perfectly willing to overlook their collective "dictates of conscience" in favour of raking-in colossal amounts of revenue derived from the sale of the very products they purport to outlaw. :thumbsdown: Bloody hypocrites!!! :cwm23:

[mickcant]

Hi all,:Wave:
I was brought up with both parents smoking, I did not realise the difference until living in my own home!
I tried one fag at 15 when I first started work, did not like it and bought sweets insted.
My home for years has always been smoke free, the only exception was when my parents visited:xxgrinning--00xx3:
Mick.:)

[bornatbirth]

all my family smoked, then after a 60 a day habit my father stopped and yet after 10 years still feels the need for a smoke :Erm:

being a non smoker i can smell it on my clothes, im not sure that smokers are aware of it.

btw considering the amount poeple that die each year in the uk alone, isnt it safer to go to war :bigcry:

[grahamw48]

I am down to 10 a day now.

There have been times when I've stopped for a couple of years.

It IS a filthy habit, potentially life-threatening, and of course a total waste of money.

I don't ever smoke in the house or near my boy.
He thinks it's disgusting I'm glad to say, and I'm the only person in my family who smokes now.

I would be happy if the govt.totally banned the sale of cigs, and I'm sure a lot of other smokers would agree with me. We'd all do a bit of cold turkey and then be fine.
There is so much help available to help quit smoking now, and it worked for me last time.
I'm ashamed to say that I've just been too idle to get down to the docs and sign up for a (practically free) course again. Kept me off them for 2 years. 2006 to 2008.

Surely the govt. don't take enough in tobacco tax to finance the true cost of smoking and smoking-related diseases ? Think about it.

A lot of pubs would still be open if they had a proper smoking room IMO, but I still can't condone or say anything positive about smoking.

There isn't a day goes by when I don't worry about getting lung cancer, or maybe a stroke or heart attack because of my stupid addiction.

[Englishman2010]

I am down to 10 a day now.

There have been times when I've stopped for a couple of years.

It IS a filthy habit, potentially life-threatening, and of course a total waste of money.

I don't ever smoke in the house or near my boy.
He thinks it's disgusting I'm glad to say, and I'm the only person in my family who smokes now.

I would be happy if the govt.totally banned the sale of cigs, and I'm sure a lot of other smokers would agree with me. We'd all do a bit of cold turkey and then be fine.
There is so much help available to help quit smoking now, and it worked for me last time.
I'm ashamed to say that I've just been too idle to get down to the docs and sign up for a (practically free) course again. Kept me off them for 2 years. 2006 to 2008.

Surely the govt. don't take enough in tobacco tax to finance the true cost of smoking and smoking-related diseases ? Think about it.

A lot of pubs would still be open if they had a proper smoking room IMO, but I still can't condone or say anything positive about smoking.

There isn't a day goes by when I don't worry about getting lung cancer, or maybe a stroke or heart attack because of my stupid addiction.

I'm completely with you on this Graham, I wish I could give up. I know it's a will power thing and I really should try hard while I am still young enough to reverse some of the damage I've caused.

My 8 year old boy has never seen me smoke, and if he did I'm sure it would upset him, but then again, not as much as it would if his dad died of lung cancer.

Enough of the excuses, I'm going to have to try a lot harder to fgive up for the sake of my kids

[Arthur Little]

Surely the govt. don't take enough in tobacco tax to finance the true cost of smoking and smoking-related diseases ?

:rolleyes: ... wanna bet?

[Arthur Little]

I am down to 10 a day now ... but I still can't condone or say anything positive about smoking.

There isn't a day goes by when I don't worry about getting lung cancer, or maybe a stroke or heart attack because of my stupid addiction.

:anerikke: ... well, why do it, then? :rolleyes:

[Terpe]

I think the govt SHOULD ban the sale of cigarettes. And COULD ban the sale of cigarettes, if they had the will.
If you are are smoker, it should only be available by presciption. And pay the cost the packet of a prescription. More money for the govt. Less people smoking.
BTW I do smoke about 10 per day.
Only ever smoke in my own back garden, whatever the weather.

[Doc Alan]

It's not my intention to produce more statistics of dubious accuracy to prove what we already know - smoking is bad for health. Few organs in the body are unaffected by constituents of cigarette smoke ( narrowing of arteries affecting heart, brain, kidneys, limbs; lung infections, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema and cancer ; bladder, pancreas, cervix,and colon cancer). This DOES cost the NHS - but only a fraction ( roughly a fifth) of the money raised from tobacco duty. Smokers don't live so long (around a half die from smoking-related diseases) as non-smokers so actually save society money. IF most or all smokers stopped - an unlikely scenario - costs to society would rise. A healthier population would live longer, eventually requiring nursing homes, and treatment of other expensive diseases (such as cancer) of old age.
I'm into health promotion , not politics, and my message is positive rather than threatening or scaremongering : no matter when you give up smoking there are health benefits :xxgrinning--00xx3: After 15 years most ex-smokers will have similar life expectancy to smokers :xxgrinning--00xx3:
For ex- passive smokers the outlook is even better :xxgrinning--00xx3:.

[Sim11UK]

I suffer from a different type of smoke inhalation...having woodburners.
Quite often get a lung full, plus it makes your eyes itch. Not good for your health...But you can't beat the smell of a woodfire. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Likewise, all the people who cook with wood in the Philippines & when out on the street, all the barbequers, are fanning their coconut charcoal, breathing in great wafts of smoke.
Any thoughts on that, anyone?

[purple]

Cigarette smoking and smoke emissions from the cars and industrial companies that is polluting the air should be blame I think.

It has been a known fact that people who live in urban areas like cities do suffer with the effects of smoke compare to people who lives in rural areas.

[Arthur Little]

Cigarette smoking and smoke emissions from the cars and industrial companies that is polluting the air should be blame I think.

It has been a known fact that people who live in urban areas like cities do suffer with the effects of smoke compare to people who lives in rural areas.

Exhaust fumes, emissions from factory chimneys and industrial waste do cause air pollution ... mainly - though not exclusively - in built-up areas ... most CERTAINLY ...:iagree:! Cigarette smoke? Hardly! :NoNo:

[Doc Alan]

Exhaust fumes, emissions from factory chimneys and industrial waste do cause air pollution ... mainly - though not exclusively - in built-up areas ... most CERTAINLY ...:iagree:! Cigarette smoke? Hardly! :NoNo:
This is correct. Don't link cigarette smoke with other pollutants ! :NoNo:Just for the record (without giving too much information) I have rarely seen anatomically normal pink lungs in 10,000 postmortem examinations carried out over 35 years in UK and Malaysia. Almost everywhere now there is atmospheric pollution affecting lung function to varying degrees. There are of course occupational lung diseases following exposure to fumes, inorganic and organic dusts, coal dust, and ....worst of all ...asbestos. Lung cancer and asbestos exposure are related. Not all lung cancers are due to smoking (and not all smokers get lung cancer).

[Arthur Little]

I would be happy if the govt.totally banned the sale of cigs, and I'm sure a lot of other smokers would agree with me.


I think the govt SHOULD ban the sale of cigarettes. And COULD ban the sale of cigarettes, if they had the will.

:reaction: ... Gentlemen, that would be totally unfair to those who genuinely enjoy an occasional smoke - like after a satisfying meal ... (Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, for example!) - yet know how to control their tobacco intake. And the various British Parliaments have already gone too far as it is! Whatever happened to freewill? It should be left as a matter of personal choice - so long as it doesn't [directly] interfere with the lives of others who choose not to indulge in the habit. End of ... !

[Doc Alan]

It should be left as a matter of personal choice - so long as it doesn't [directly] interfere with the lives of others who choose not to indulge in the habit. End of ... !
Correct ! I don't condone smoking but I'm not a health fascist. Also I have already made clear that a total ban is impossible and (although not a good reason) would IF implemented cost the country more.

[Sim11UK]

that would be totally unfair to those who genuinely enjoy an occasional smoke - like after a satisfying meal ... (Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, for example!)

I bet he's on 40 a day, these days :laugher::D

[Terpe]

:reaction: ... Gentlemen, that would be totally unfair to those who genuinely enjoy an occasional smoke - like after a satisfying meal ... (Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, for example!) - yet know how to control their tobacco intake. And the various British Parliaments have already gone too far as it is! Whatever happened to freewill? It should be left as a matter of personal choice - so long as it doesn't [directly] interfere with the lives of others who choose not to indulge in the habit. End of ... !

I did not suggest a total ban on availabilty, I suggested a ban on general sales. As long as they would be available on prescription can't see the problem.

[Doc Alan]

I did not suggest a total ban on availabilty, I suggested a ban on general sales. As long as they would be available on prescription can't see the problem.
There are two problems. First, the logistics of GP's writing, and pharmacies dispensing, cigarettes for a quarter of the population. Second, when that proves unworkable, an increase in illegally sold cigarettes which provide no income for the government. A similar argument applies over illegal drugs for which there is also a demand.
However, I am not a politician. Enforcement of policies by a nanny state has its limitations. Health promotion - not threats, scare tactics, and claims which are unscientific like "603,000 deaths from passive smoking" - is the way forward.

[keithAngel]

If your riding a Jeepny in Cebu in the rush hour a bit of passive cigarette smoke is the least of your worries:icon_lol:

Mate arrived at the weekend 30 miles looked like he had been down the mines:rolleyes:

[Steve.r]

If your riding a Jeepny in Cebu in the rush hour a bit of passive cigarette smoke is the least of your worries:icon_lol:

Mate arrived at the weekend 30 miles looked like he had been down the mines:rolleyes:

:laugher::laugher: Yep, you are right there Keith. :laugher:

Back to your postmortem exams Alan, how many times did you ever see pure/clean lungs in your work? is there an age limit where you suddenly find everything starts to go bad? :Erm:

[Doc Alan]

how many times did you ever see pure/clean lungs in your work? is there an age limit where you suddenly find everything starts to go bad? :Erm:
Not often, and usually in young people. Pollutants gradually accumulate in most people's lungs over their lifetime. In many cases, including those with a history of passive smoking, it's difficult to ascribe the cause of death to smoke products and / or other pollutants, hence my cynicism about the figures quoted by WHO. Obviously there may be occupational lung disease justifying compensation, or lung cancer in a heavy smoker with no occupational factors, where the cause of death is beyond reasonable doubt.