Duterte to sign EO on smoking ban nationwide
At long last Mr DU30 will bring this from Davao to Luzon.
GOOD
Sooner the better IMHOPresident Rodrigo Duterte will sign an executive order Tuesday that will ban smoking in all public places nationwide, Agriculture Secretary Manny Piñol said.
Well ...Originally Posted by Terpe
... at least the very fact he's using the money saved to go towards the building of more childrens' hospices then, of course,
makes it good,
!
Nasty habit,
Ridiculous unenforceable law.
It'll just lead to more corruption in the police force
If he's that worried about public health then why not do something about the pollution caused by smoke belching trucks and jeepneys first
Well ...... otherwise, such a policy smacks of autocracy,
I'm afraid!
Well in my eyes it's the most sensible thing he's done so far, a move in the right direction, I'll be glad when the same happens in the UK I'm sure it will in the not to distant future
Well in my eyes it's the most sensible thing he's done so far, a move in the right direction, I'll be glad when the same happens in the UK; I'm sure it will in the not too distant future.... 'fraid it already has, Michael - thanks to our 'Nanny State' - sadly!
It’s true that reducing air pollution from causes other than smoking - both outdoor and indoor - is also a major challenge, not only in the Philippines, but also worldwide.
However, the country has a SERIOUS problem with smoking ( link here ). Estimates vary for its smoking rates, but almost half of Filipino men, and at least a tenth of women, smoke - over 90 billion cigarettes are thought to have been sold in 2015. This compares to less than a fifth of men and women now smoking in the UK ( in the 1970s nearly half the adult population smoked ).
To date, public smoking bans in the Philippines have been implemented by local ordinances, with mixed success. However, the aggressive ordinance in Davao City, where of course Duterte was mayor for over 20 years, means that public smoking can bring 4 months in jail and a P5,000 fine.
What those living in or visiting the Philippines will already have noted is graphic health warning labels which finally began being implemented last year. However, the country has one of the strongest tobacco industry lobbies in the Western Pacific Region. Pro-industry legislators were able to reduce the public health proposal for 80%-sized warnings to be placed on the upper front and back of packs, to the bottom 50% of packs. Packs that violate the rule are still widely available from retailers, and many smokers buy cigarettes individually rather than by the pack. It’s also hard to believe that ALL adults don’t already know the dangers of smoking ( or at least that cancer is one of them ).
Cigarettes in the Philippines were in 2012 the cheapest in southeast Asia. While still relatively cheap, “ sin tax “ reforms have since raised taxes and the higher prices are claimed to reduced sales, especially discouraging young and lowest income smokers.
Despite the well known multiple health risks from smoking ( especially cigarettes ), it’s always claimed that banning cigarettes would be impossible to implement, given the continuing demand from smokers. It’s also the case that receipts from " sin taxes " may help to fund health service(s) - for example, enabling " PhilHealth " to cover more very poor Filipinos. Estimates vary, but taxes on cigarettes in the UK may bring in £12 billion annually, whereas NHS treatments of smoking-related illness may be half that amount ( and smokers have reduced life expectancy ; link here ). If cigarettes were only available on the " black market ", clearly there would be no tax revenue.
It remains to be seen how successful will be the Philippines attempts to control tobacco smoking. Until now, more effort has been made to reduce another serious disease especially affecting lungs - tuberculosis.
ALL CREDIT FOR TRYING, HOWEVER !
It’s nearly 40 years since I have seen stamps issued, during the presidency of Marcos, to publicise the adverse effects of smoking :-
From June 1st "foreigners" will no longer be able to be apart of their spouses Philhealth plan.. They will have to fill in a new form and pay 16/17K per year for the coverage they had before on top of renewing their wives policy!!It’s also the case that receipts from " sin taxes " also help to fund health service(s) - for example, enabling " PhilHealth " to cover more very poor Filipinos.
It may work in Davao under the Du30`s to some extent but nationwide it has a ZERO chance of success.. Where we live, the "police" don`t even investigate murder or petty crime ,let alone vehicle emissions! lol.Ridiculous unenforceable law.
It'll just lead to more corruption in the police force
If he's that worried about public health then why not do something about the pollution caused by smoke belching trucks and jeepneys first
Law enforcement here is as laughable as it always was but hey..That`s life in the R.P!!
As you were!!
https://www.philhealth.gov.ph/circul...c2017-0003.pdf
Of course smoking is addictive and a proportion of smokers ( perhaps a third ) either can't or don't want to give up. It’s declining in the Western world but continues to increase in many " developing " countries, especially in women. If the entire population could be persuaded to stop smoking, the effects on healthcare alone would be enormous.
National campaigns, bans on advertising, and a substantial increase in the cost of cigarettes are ways of achieving this. Smoking bans in the workplace and public spaces may also help. Active encouragement to stop smoking, perhaps with " e-cigarettes " or drugs such as " Varenicycline ", is a useful approach for individuals. Clearly none of these are 100% effective.
Nearly half of Filipino ( men ) and at least a tenth of Filipinas still smoke in this day and age. The status quo is unacceptable IMHO !
Excellent read Alan, nice to see you return with your comment to a most interesting thread provided by Peter, also I did like the way you managed to find stamps to highlight awareness of the dangers of smoking, all good stuff.It’s true that reducing air pollution from causes other than smoking - both outdoor and indoor - is also a major challenge, not only in the Philippines, but also worldwide.
However, the country has a SERIOUS problem with smoking ( link here ). Estimates vary for its smoking rates, but almost half of Filipino men, and at least a tenth of women, smoke - over 90 billion cigarettes are thought to have been sold in 2015. This compares to less than a fifth of men and women now smoking in the UK ( in the 1970s nearly half the adult population smoked ).
To date, public smoking bans in the Philippines have been implemented by local ordinances, with mixed success. However, the aggressive ordinance in Davao City, where of course Duterte was mayor for over 20 years, means that public smoking can bring 4 months in jail and a P5,000 fine.
What those living in or visiting the Philippines will already have noted is graphic health warning labels which finally began being implemented last year. However, the country has one of the strongest tobacco industry lobbies in the Western Pacific Region. Pro-industry legislators were able to reduce the public health proposal for 80%-sized warnings to be placed on the upper front and back of packs, to the bottom 50% of packs. Packs that violate the rule are still widely available from retailers, and many smokers buy cigarettes individually rather than by the pack. It’s also hard to believe that ALL adults don’t already know the dangers of smoking ( or at least that cancer is one of them ).
Cigarettes in the Philippines were in 2012 the cheapest in southeast Asia. While still relatively cheap, “ sin tax “ reforms have since raised taxes and the higher prices are claimed to reduced sales, especially discouraging young and lowest income smokers.
Despite the well known multiple health risks from smoking ( especially cigarettes ), it’s always claimed that banning cigarettes would be impossible to implement, given the continuing demand from smokers. It’s also the case that receipts from " sin taxes " may help to fund health service(s) - for example, enabling " PhilHealth " to cover more very poor Filipinos. Estimates vary, but taxes on cigarettes in the UK may bring in £12 billion annually, whereas NHS treatments of smoking-related illness may be half that amount ( and smokers have reduced life expectancy ; link here ). If cigarettes were only available on the " black market ", clearly there would be no tax revenue.
It remains to be seen how successful will be the Philippines attempts to control tobacco smoking. Until now, more effort has been made to reduce another serious disease especially affecting lungs - tuberculosis.
ALL CREDIT FOR TRYING, HOWEVER !
It’s nearly 40 years since I have seen stamps issued, during the presidency of Marcos, to publicise the adverse effects of smoking :-
Dear Doc.The status quo is unacceptable IMHO !
The "Status quo" as you put it is allowed to be expressed freely and is not against the forum rules.
There are a small number of moderators here that were assigned to moderate this forum.
If "unacceptable" material is seen by us (as per forum rules) it will be dealt with.. By us.
Thank you for your kind understanding.
A big thank you to fred and to jonnijon for the very important heads-up on PhilHealth changes.
I certainly was unaware of this and the updated info just happens to be timely for us.
So can I take it that if I join the 'new' program my wife is included under the same annual fee ?
Thanks for the clarification doc re "status quo" (via PM)..Appreciated.
This is what happens when the Gov. regulate and ban..
Hard working publicans and famous local pubs go bankrupt..British culture further erodes.. Very sad.
Some of the greatest days of my life was spent in pubs around the UK,back when they were full of Character,and characters..
These days I`m told that many of the ones that remain open are soulless, clinical AND expensive..
No wonder they are falling like dominoes..
Congratulations, P.C nanny state Politicians. You win.
Regulation
The most important regulatory obstacle for many pubs in recent years has been the smoking ban which, unlike that of most other countries, allows no exemptions whatsoever for the hospitality industry. The UK’s smoking bans correlate more closely with the collapse in pub numbers than any other factor and it is now widely acknowledged that the ban has damaged many pubs, particularly those which are land-locked and ‘wet led’.
https://iea.org.uk/blog/whos-killing-the-british-pub
See #7: ................................... Those are the very words I'd used in concluding my reply to Michael's immediately preceding post ... but nobody took me up on my comment.
Whether or not any newly introduced regulation/law will work or is enforceable remains to be see.
I remember the same was said when similar smoking bans were introduced in UK and France. Also Germany to some extent were enforcement was always questioned.
There are still some bars and restaurants here where smoking in designated areas is allowed. It's a bloody nuisance IMO
Hopefully the owners of such establishments will face heavy penalties if complaints are made against them.
Who on earth wants to sit in a taxi where the drivers wants to puff on his fag.
Here in Philippines 'vaping' (e-cigs) tend to get treated same as regular cigarettes.
It'll take time but it's a start and penalties will (I believe) be applied in most cases.
Having never smoked in my life but having been brought up inside a family of 14 and only 2 never smoking i was use to it.
If i wanted to go to a pub in my younger days it was my choice, if i wanted to see friends who smoked in there house it was my choice too.
Smoking never stopped me going into a pub or round someones house.
You are right drinking is so expensive these days.
Years ago you use to stay all night in the same place and the only thing you got to eat was crisps , nuts and if you waited till after 10pm some smelly prawns or winkles with a splash of vinegar, those was the days .
Today's pubs is a meeting place for that one drink then of you go to another and then you eat a meal in another one .plus who walks to a pub these days .
As i understand it at the moment, yes you wife can be included, but you and your wife will not be able to avail the "Z package". That will no longer be available to foreigners. So you pay in your name with no Z package and pay for your wife in her name she will avail the Z package.
For those that don't know the Z package pays a higher amount for life threatning complaints, cancer, heart, and so on.
What is the fee for the wife and her partner, plus could Emma get her father and brother on this once we are over there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply