(Røykfritt Miljø Norge)


Smokefree Environment Norway

(Røykfritt Miljø Norge)

is a voluntary non-profit organization that works for the creation of a smokefree environment and assure the general public of protection against tobacco smoke.

We are all exposed to tobacco smoke, which is far more dangerous than previously proved. Even low concentrations for short periods of time can cause serious harm.

Moreover, the components of tobacco smoke attach themselves to clothes, furniture, walls, carpets etc., and can cause harm later, especially to children (Third-hand smoking).

The health authorities have declared that tobacco is so harmful and creates such strong dependence that the product would not have been allowed today.

In accordance with current legislation on protection against dangerous products, tobacco must be removed from retail outlets.

Many years have already passed since Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, presented a plan for a gradual halt to the sale of tobacco products.

Why wasn’t this plan implemented long ago?

In the course of the last 20-30 years, a number of good plans have been drawn up for a tobacco-free society. But they have not been systematically implemented.

Our health authorities and the World Health Organization have a great responsibility to really put effective plans into practice.

Passiveness kills.

Tobacco kills 11 people every minute, and a far higher number are harmed.

Tobacco cultivation harms both humans and the environment.

Effective measures must be implemented immediately

The following is a list of concrete proposals:

1. Manufacture and sale of tobacco products must be terminated through a fixed, gradual programme over a period of 6 years.

International cooperation is important. Point out in a positive manner countries that have already accomplished this.

2. Prices for tobacco products should be increased in “shock steps”.

3. Tobacco-free working hours should be introduced swiftly. This is particularly important in kindergartens, schools, health institutions and relevant government departments. Provide positive impetus to local government, local communities and companies generally. Put a spotlight on countries that provide a good example, like Sweden.

4. Indoor smoking stations must be removed immediately.

5. The Smoking Act must be substantially improved.

A smoke-free environment must be ensured for:

- homes – see recent research on neighbours’ smoking

- institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, retirement homes etc.

- workplaces

- hotels

- entrances to office blocks, blocks of flats, shopping centres etc.

- all public transport, bus stops, platforms in stations etc.

- outdoor restaurants

- theatre stages

- grandstands, arrangements, i.e places where people congregate, parks, beaches, in due course smoke-free cities

6. Non-smoker appointments in particularly important occupations, such as kindergartens, schools, health institutions and relevant government departments

7. Smoke-free film productions etc.  - i.e. indirect advertising/influencing of children/adolescents

8. Information, education and trainings must be substantially strengthened – in schools, colleges and universities.  It is also important to teach parents, and to reach groups who are particularly vulnerable.

The general public needs and wants better information. Establish a special television/radio channel/website for information, education etc. for the general public.

9. Defence against the tobacco industry’s undermining of legal protection and concealed influence.  Measures against corruption and similar in the government, research, the media etc.

10. Establish an action centre with selected staff working on contract. A legal basis for posts can be procured by restructuring appropriate government agencies and institutions. Better cooperation should be achieved with the voluntary non-profit organizations.

International cooperation is important

– the World Health Organization has a central role as promoter.

There are enough documents and symbolic measures – now we need clear goals and effective action.

Smokefree Environment Norway

Røykfritt Miljø Norge







Who will be next?

Big Tobacco kills another person for each hour that passes   -  in Norway.

Others are harmed and subjected to great suffering.

This will continue until the authorities stop the killing  

- and ban the sale of this drug.  



Smokefree Environment Norway (Røykfritt Miljø Norge) is a non-governmental organization, working for a smokefree environment and to grant everybody the right to be protected from all effects of pollution caused by tobacco smoke (ETS).





P.O. Box 8701 Youngstorget

0028 OSLO




(Original title: Røykfritt, ja, men hvordan?)     Web-Brochure

Are you suffering from environmental smoke?

Do you dare to speak up about it?

We might be able to help you with some ideas.



Smokers are not governed by reason

Even smokers normally agree on this point. Perhaps that's why tackling the problem with reasonable arguments doesn't get us far. So let professional health workers take care of direct smoke cessation. We others should concentrate on preventing ordinary people from having to smoke passively against their wills. We have to believe that smoking is enjoyable for smokers, so we cannot expect to meet with any understanding regarding how disagreeable it can be for others. Only those who are bothered by smoking can understand that, and they are the ones for whom this brochure has primarily been written. It is a collection of arguments and forms of action, from the most restrained to the really tough. All have been tried and found to be effective.

Make sure you're not misunderstood

If smokers get the impression that you are trying to get them to stop smoking, you may not fare too well, and you will have to try somehow or other to get them to understand that you just want them to smoke somewhere else.

If there are children present, it tends to be easier, and in places where you are the one who decides there's also usually no problem, but then you have to make your wishes clear, not just intimate vaguely that some consideration might be nice. For those who find it hard to speak out, silent reactions can sometimes be just as effective. For example, you can move from your chair onto the floor when somebody lights up, because the air is often a little better down there. This will attract notice, and has proved to be effective after just a few repetitions.

Anything that can be interpreted as an ashtray is an invitation to smoke. If you have ashtrays you think are too valuable to throw away, hide them from your guests. If you find it hard to give it to them straight when visitors ask for an ashtray, you can look in all the cupboards, before explaining that it's so long since you saw them that you have forgotten where they are. Well brought up smokers will understand as a rule that it will be best for them to wait until they get outside. Those who are not so well brought up, and who find a substitute ashtray, must be given another hint, such as your opening doors and windows. The latter is particularly effective in cold weather, especially if you don an overcoat at the same time.


If you are afraid this is a breach of good manners, remember that if you suffer and endure the smoke in silence, the smokers will have no idea that you are keeping quiet out of politeness. They don't think that far, and your politeness will be totally wasted.

Humour and making fun of smoking are very often the best way of changing attitudes. Unfortunately, this is a subtle art, mastered by only a very few people. Don't let any opportunities for humorous teasing go by.

Discussions with smokers who totally fail to understand your arguments are inevitable sooner or later. That's when you have to try the shock method. Arguments that have been heard too many times are simply perceived as nagging, and no longer have any impact. But if smokers hear something totally unexpected, you can sometimes shake them from their rigid views, and there is a slight chance that they will suddenly understand that you want something quite different from what they thought. They may even get interested enough to continue the discussion. How far you should go in making shocking statements depends on how hopeless the situation seems to be, and what sort of people you are dealing with. Sometimes it's enough to say:

As far as I'm concerned, you can smoke as much as you like, but you must do it somewhere else.

If you want to be a bit tougher, you might try this one:

We should be happy about smoking, because the statistics show that smokers die just about when they retire. That means there's more space in retirement homes, and it must save society a lot of money.

This one is suitable for the workplace: Carry on smoking, there are plenty of people interested in your job.


If you're waiting in line for promotion, it would obviously be stupid to warn your superiors against smoking.

Our toughest so far has proved useful on a number of occasions:

Smoke as much as possible. Smoking is the most effective means we have today of combating the greatest problem in the world - overpopulation.


If you turn down an invitation on the grounds that you know that some people will be smoking there, it will make an impression, particularly if everyone knows you would very much have liked to be there.

When you look for a place to eat along the road, you should take the time to find a place with a smokefree option, but make sure to let those that don't have one know why you prefer to keep looking. The restaurant business is always claiming to be attentive to the public's desires, but it is clear that they hear far too little from those in the public who don't want smoke.

Example of shock treatment:

A woman found her husband's smoking very disagreeable, but her complaints had no effect on him. It was always a relief to visit her son, where nobody smoked, and she always dreaded returning home. Once, on the way to her son, she was told about the shock method, which involved writing to her husband and telling him she would not come home before he stopped smoking. It helped. He didn't actually stop smoking, but he doesn't do it in the house anymore.

At restaurants and hotels it is common to hear the following arguments:

The law doesn't apply to us. Quite often, you're dealing with ignorance or bluff. In cases like this, it helps to have the regulations with you. This is called being caught with your trousers down, and is often more effective than a letter a few days later.

We've tried, but it's no use. They haven't done enough, and need to be reminded of their duty to find a way of complying with the law.

We lose money if we obey the law. In some types of restaurant, this is probably true, but nobody can grant themselves exemption from the law. In the USA this claim was used by many restaurants, until it was proved that the accounts showed the opposite. Reports from Sweden a few years back showed that in particular eating places open during the day that introduced completely smoke-free premises increased their earnings. The reason for this was not just reduced cleaning and maintenance expenses. It turned out that many of the guests who used to sit for a long time with just a cup of coffee and a cigarette were replaced by guests who spent more money on food but occupied tables for a shorter time. The staff also noticed the improvement.

We have to have the door to the smoking room open, or else the air in there gets too bad. In shopping centres and such places, the law demands that the door be kept closed, and we add the further argument that the smokers must be allowed to keep the air they have paid so much for to themselves.

At other places to which the public has access, you often hear that they do not have time, or do not wish to act as smoke police. They need to be reminded that their own views are of no importance compared to their duty to ensure that the law is complied with. This duty is not discharged merely by putting up a few signs.

Who's difficult? It is by no means always the smokers who have the most difficulty in understanding the need for smoke-free places, though there are times when they are the most disagreeable. It is usually possible to get them to understand that they are prejudiced in such matters. It is important to be aware that ordinary people who do not smoke themselves, but who do not find smoke unpleasant either, are in consequence just as unqualified to judge as smokers. It is often very difficult to get them to accept this. They regard themselves as impartial, simply because they do not smoke, and they see no need for action.

Bad conscience Some people think we should be careful not to give smokers a bad conscience. The only answer to that is that as long as smokers can smoke wherever they want to without getting a bad conscience, we'll get nowhere. We have to give smokers a bad conscience - which must surely be considerably preferable to bad health!

Good comparisons are effective, particularly if they are accompanied by good illustrations. The idiocy of trying to create a smokefree zone by putting up a sign is effectively illustrated below: Peed-in water Clean water Smoke spreads in air like pee in water, with a total disregard for zones!

Dangerous words Have you noticed that there is one word we have not used in this brochure? Words are our weapons, and must be chosen with care. We take it as self-evident that nobody would allow themselves to be called a non-alcohol drinker, or a non-drug-abuser, but unfortunately the word non-smoker is thoroughly incorporated into most languages. This is regrettable, because the word non- is negative, and should be avoided.

The steady spread of smoking for so many years created the impression that smoking is normal. There is no doubt whatsoever that most smokers believe this to be so, and in this context it is the way they perceive the situation that is important.

It is not surprising, then, that the word non-smoker started being used in reaction to this situation. The result, at any rate, is that those of us who do not smoke are regarded by a very large number of people as an eccentric minority. This is not true, but by continuing to use the word, we unconsciously help to perpetuate this misconception. The only people benefitting from this are the tobacco industry, and we must try to wrest this advantage from them. If we succeed, it will be a major setback for them, and a setback for the tobacco industry can only be to our advantage.

It will take a long time, and demand a great deal of thought, but it may be worth the trouble to try and say things in such a way that it is the smokers who stand out as deviants, and we others as normals.

The tobacco industry itself has stated that the social acceptability of smoking is the real issue on which the battle about the future of tobacco will be won or lost.

We will henceforth strike the ugly word "non-smoker" from our vocabulary.

Dependence is another word we should avoid. Because what happens when a smoker is told it is very difficut to give up? It becomes even more difficult!

You will find more on this phenomenon in another brochure which deals with a subject that can perhaps be called a byproduct of our activities - Indirect cessation.


Our newsletter presents new ieas and stories that may be an aid to those wanting to keep informed of what is going on in this area.




Quit smoking for the sake of your dog

Second hand smoke can adversely affect animals.  Everything from oral cancer and lymphoma in cats to lung cancer in dogs.  Pet birds are also at risk, suffering from eye, skin, and heart problems as well as lung cancer.

In the documentary film "The Witness,"  produced by Tribe of Heart, Eddie Lama explains why he finally decided to quit smoking:

"I was a smoker for 25 years, Camels, non-filter. They ruled my life.  I thought I'd die smoking.  So there I was smoking my 35th cigarette of the day, the living room filled with smoke, and I looked at my cat Moo Moo.  I love Moo Moo and I want the best for him and I realized how much smaller he was than me.  If I'm smoking one cigarette he's smoking 10 and then I thought this animal has no choice.  I had to accept his well being.  He was looking right at me and I could have sworn he coughed, and that was it.  And the cigarette was extinguished."

Eddie's choice to quit smoking for the sake of his cat is not that rare, according to a new survey that included 3,300 pet owners published this week in the journal Tobacco Control.  In fact, the survey results found that 1 in 3 smokers would quit the habit to protect their pet's health. 

Evidence shows that second hand smoke can adversely affect animals.  Everything from oral cancer and lymphoma in cats to lung cancer in dogs.  Pet birds are also at risk, suffering from eye, skin, and heart problems as well as lung cancer.

The survey suggests that motivating smokers to quit for their animal companion's benefit, may be another way health counselors can reach their smoking clients.

For Eddie Llama, his love of his cat Moo Moo, was what it took to for him to kick the habit.  And now their living room is smoke-free.

 Shelley Frost, SF Dogs Examiner

Second hand smoke and pets     http://www.sonomapets.com/?p=800

Second-hand Smoke kills

Tobacco smoke is a major indoor air pollutant.

What is second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke is a complex mix of thousands of chemicals. It includes irritants and systemic poisons such as hydrogen cyanide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, and formaldehyde. At least 40 substances in second-hand smoke have been shown to cause cancer including arsenic, chromium, nitrosamines, and benzo(a)pyrene.

SHS results from the "sidestream" smoke that comes from the burning tip of a cigarette and the "mainstream" smoke that is exhaled by the smoker. Second-hand smoking, passive smoking, involuntary smoking or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) all refer to the phenomena of breathing other people's smoke.

Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. It has been classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a "class A" or human carcinogen. Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

How does second-hand smoke affect health?

Non-smokers who breathe second-hand smoke suffer many of the same diseases as regular smokers. Heart disease deaths as well as lung and nasal sinus cancers have been causally associated with second-hand smoke exposure. Second-hand smoke also causes a wide variety of adverse health effects in children including bronchitis and pneumonia, development and exacerbation of asthma, and middle ear infections ("glue ear"), which is the most common cause of deafness in children. Exposure of non-smoking women to second-hand smoke during pregnancy reduces fetal growth, and postnatal exposure of infants to second-hand smoke greatly increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Tobacco smoke also causes immediate effects such as eye and nasal irritation, headache, sore throat, dizziness, nausea, cough, and respiratory problems.

Are well-ventilated non-smoking sections the answer?

No. Although good ventilation can help reduce the irritability of smoke, it does not eliminate its poisonous components. When smoking sections share ventilation with non-smoking areas, the smoke is dispersed everywhere. Smoking sections only help protect non-smokers when they are completely enclosed, have a separate ventilation system that goes directly outdoors without re-circulating air in the building, and when employees are not required to pass through them.

So how can we protect people from second-hand smoke?

The government should enforce the Clean Air Act's smoking ban in public places, educate people about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and provide support for those who wish to quit smoking. Employers can initiate and enforce smoking bans in workplaces. Parents can stop smoking in the house and car, particularly around children, and ask others to do the same. They can also ensure that their children's day-care, school and after-school programs are smoke-free. Individuals can let their family, friends and co-workers know that they do mind if they smoke near them.

Are smoking restrictions hard to enforce?

Most of the public -- even smokers -- support smoke-free spaces. Smoking bans in workplaces and public places work when people are aware of them. The public should know in advance that smoking bans are being implemented, and they should know the health reasons for smoking bans. Good education and advance planning lead to self-enforcement and success of smoking restrictions.

Do smoking restrictions hurt business?

No. Most employers who go smoke-free save money by increasing productivity, lowering maintenance and cleaning costs, and lowering insurance coverage. Studies of sales receipts from restaurants and bars in the US before and after smoking bans have found that sales usually stay the same or go up after a smoking ban.

...then why are smoke-free places so rare?

The tobacco industry spends millions to fund misinformation campaigns on second-hand smoke. Scientists and consultants have been hired to not only confuse the public about the validity of scientific data, but to also create doubt about the researchers who produce the data and about the science itself. In addition to attacking legitimate studies, bogus research projects that downplay the seriousness of second-hand smoke are funded and promoted.

Tobacco lobbyists and lawyers deflect government regulation of second-hand smoke, and this has been supplemented by huge tobacco contributions to political campaigns. When money and misinformation don't work, the industry promotes false solutions to control second-hand smoke.

Although evidence shows that ventilation is not an effective solution to the problem of second-hand smoke, the industry continues to push for this option, even forming indoor air consulting "front groups" who downplay the risks of second-hand smoke.

A tobacco industry campaign to promote "courtesy of choice" as an alternative to banning smoking in public places has been launched worldwide. This implies that the serious problem of second-hand smoke can be solved merely by smokers asking for permission before they light up, or by having separate smoking and non-smoking sections. Second-hand smoke is thus portrayed as a mere annoyance for non-smokers, rather than as a health issue. The industry also funds 'smokers rights' movements to create so-called independent opposition to smoking bans. People concerned about second-hand smoke are then branded as zealots.

Fortunately, tobacco industry opposition to clean air can be defeated. Your actions will make a difference. Become a leader in your workplace, your organization, your community, and your home. Speak up for clean air and make your voice heard! Let's clear the air.

--- adapted from the WHO FAQ for World No Tobacco Day



Tobacco Industry Interference with Tobacco Control

Publication date: 2009
Languages: English
ISBN: 978 924 159734

Download document [pdf 1.39Mb]

The tobacco industry has historically employed a multitude of tactics to shape and influence tobacco control policy. The tobacco industry has used its economic power, lobbying and marketing machinery, and manipulation of the media to discredit scientific research and influence governments in order to propagate the sale and distribution of its deadly product.  Furthermore, the tobacco industry continues to inject large philanthropic contributions into social programs worldwide to create a positive public image under the guise of corporate social responsibility.  This document describes the spectrum of tobacco industry practices that interfere with tobacco control.  As an outcome of the first meeting of tobacco industry monitoring experts convened by WHO at the offices of PAHO in October 2007, this report exposes these practices and provides the Contracting Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and other WHO Member States the background and contextual information that may assist in implementing the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 guidelines against tobacco industry interference with tobacco control.

Tobacco Use Kills 6 Million People Annually: Report

And costs the global economy $500 billion each year

Tobacco use kills an estimated six million people worldwide each year and drains $500 billion annually from the global economy in lost productivity, misused resources, and premature deaths.

That assessment comes from The Tobacco Atlas, Third Edition, published by the American Cancer Society and the World Lung Foundation and released at the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Summit in Dublin, Ireland.

What's more, illnesses and deaths from tobacco use are totally preventable through such "well-established public policies" as tobacco taxes, advertising bans, smoke-free public places, and health warnings on packages, the report said.

By 2015, an estimated 2.1 million cancer deaths annually will be caused by tobacco products. And by 2030, most of these deaths -- 83 percent -- will occur in poor and middle-income countries, the atlas reported.

In developing countries, smokers spend disproportionate sums of their income on tobacco products, money that could otherwise be spent on food, health care, and other necessities. And because 25 percent of smokers die and many more become ill during their most productive years, that loss of income wreaks havoc on families and communities, the report said.

The atlas also pointed to what it called an "undeniable trend" -- the tobacco industry has shifted its marketing and sales efforts to less-developed countries that have less effective public health policies and fewer tobacco-control resources.

In 2010, an estimated 72 percent of people who will die from tobacco-related illnesses will be from low- and middle-income countries. Since 1960, tobacco production worldwide has increased three-fold in low- and middle-income countries, while getting cut in half in wealthier nations, the report said.

Using Bangladesh as an example, the report said that if the average household bought food with the money spent on tobacco, more than 10 million people would no longer suffer from malnutrition and 350 children less than 5 years old could be saved each day.

The report also said that tobacco replaces potential food production on almost 4 million hectares [a hectare is 2.47 acres] of the world's agricultural land -- the equivalent of all the planet's orange groves or banana plantations.

"The Tobacco Atlas presents compelling evidence that the health burden is shifting from richer countries to their lower-resource counterparts," Peter Baldini, chief executive officer of the World Lung Foundation, said in a news release. "This evidence clearly articulates the breathtaking scope and dimensions of the problem. It calls out to be used actively in strengthening the case for policy change."

"The Tobacco Atlas is crucial to helping advocates in every nation get the knowledge they need to combat the most preventable global health epidemic," John R. Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said in the release. "It is especially appropriate to present the atlas here in Ireland, where so much progress has already been made against the scourge of tobacco. By utilizing this information to develop public health strategies to reduce tobacco use and help people stay well, we will save millions of lives."

More information

For information on how to quit smoking, visit smokefree.gov.


To the top


Second Hand Smoke

- even brief exposure can cause harm

There is no safe level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause harm — especially for people suffering from heart or respiratory diseases. Children's health and development are much more at risk than previously thought.

Attempts to separate smoking in buildings — using either separate areas or ventilation systems meant to suck up the smoke — haven't worked.

Tens of thousands of nonsmoking Americans die each year as a result of their exposure to secondhand smoke — including more than 35,000 from heart disease. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and other illnesses.

It is difficult for those of us who don't smoke to understand how cigarettes could be appealing to those of us who do. And smokers often don't understand how annoying it is when they light up around non-smokers.

But it's more than that. Smoking is a nationwide health hazard — and not just for the smokers.

There is no safe level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause harm — especially for people suffering from heart or respiratory diseases.

Children's health and development are much more at risk than previously thought.

Attempts to separate smokers and nonsmokers in buildings — using either separate areas or ventilation systems meant to suck up the smoke — haven't worked.

Even brief exposure  - third hand smoke -  can cause harm

Cigarette companies, of course, don't agree with the report's findings. “It seems unlikely that secondhand smoke presents any significant harm to otherwise healthy nonsmoking adults; and, given the extensive smoking bans and restrictions that have already been enacted, nonsmokers can easily avoid exposure to secondhand smoke,” R.J. Reynolds says on its Web site.

View the Full Report of the U.S. Surgeon General here:



Third Hand Smoke Can Pose Serious Risks for Nonsmokers, Especially the Most Sensitive

Third hand smoke" – "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers' hair and clothing" (NY TIMES) – has been labeled in the medical journal Pediatrics as "toxic" and as a cancer risk to nonsmokers of all ages, especially to children of parents who smoke only outside the family home.

Smokers' Breath Can Be Harmful to Health, Especially to Children, the Elderly, and Those Especially Sensitive to Many Chemicals


That's the message from a new Australian study which showed that smokers who smoked only outdoors nevertheless emitted enough respirable suspended particles in their breath when they returned indoors to create air pollution which is "harmful" to children.

The study found that the chemicals in smokers’ breath were sufficient to cause or aggravate respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs, and colds among children in smokers’ homes as compared with kids in homes with nonsmokers.

Respiratory illnesses were found to be much more prevalent in homes with smokers. Children exposed to higher air nicotine levels were three times more likely to have asthma or wheeze than those not exposed.



Kids Still Exposed to Smoke

Despite increasing smoking bans in public places, and fewer people picking up the habit, nearly half of all U.S. children are still exposed to secondhand smoke every week.

Researchers at the American Academy of Pediatrics found secondhand smoke affects 42 percent of children every week. Experts say children exposed to cigarette smoke have an increased risk for asthma, ear infections, cavities and SIDS.

Stephanie Stouffer  

Tobacco Smoke Residue Causes "Massive Damage" in Babies' Skin

Parents who do not smoke in the presence of their children, including even those who smoke only outdoors, nevertheless put their children at serious risk of "massive damage" to both skin and nerve cells.


Smokers Will Not Be Able to Adopt

The Aberdeen City Council - concerned about legal liability for health problems - is reportedly about to join the majority of agencies and counsel in Scotland that will no longer allow smokers to adopt children, notes Action on Smoking and Health.



1.  A child is much more likely to grow up to be a smoker, and to face the enormous health hazards this imposes, if one or both parents are also smokers, regardless of where they do their smoking.

2.  Thirdhand tobacco smoke -  "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers' hair and clothing" -  to combine with a common indoor air pollutant to form very potent cancer-causing substances. This places children at serious risk, even if parents smoke only outside the home, because they carry the residues inside with them.

3.  The tobacco-residue chemicals in smokers' breath were by themselves sufficient to cause or aggravate respiratory illnesses - including asthma, coughs, and colds - among children in smokers' homes as compared with kids in homes with nonsmokers, even if the parents only smoked outside the home.

There is just no justification for exposing children to any level of toxic or cancer-causing chemicals, since there is no safe level of exposure to any human carcinogen like asbestos or secondhand smoke.

The U.S. Surgeon General's warnings: "It hurts you, It doesn't take much. It doesn't take long. . . .There is no safe amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be dangerous."


"Air Filtration"?

That's Just Tobacco Companies Blowing Smoke Again

Don't be fooled! No ventilation system has ever been designed that can protect the public from the death and disease caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.

Why doesn't ventilation work? Secondhand smoke has what scientists call a non-linear dose response. Therefore, while a ventilation or air filtration system (a.k.a. air purifiers or air cleaners) may be successful in reducing the level of visible smoke in the air, this reduction doesn't eliminate hazardous toxins and gases found in secondhand smoke.


In July 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona declared that the debate is over about the science of secondhand smoke, concluding that separating smokers from nonsmokers, air cleaning technologies, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure, stating that conventional air cleaning systems cannot remove all the poisons, toxins, gases, and particles found in secondhand smoke. Additionally, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

Read the full, landmark 2006 Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke."



Smokefree outdoor

Smoking in parks, on beaches and on the street should be banned in order to protect people and stop children taking up the habit, says researchers.

Smoking should be banned outside to protect people an stop children taking up the habit.

Further restrictions on smoking in public places would mean fewer children would be exposed to cigarettes and people smoking them making them less likely to want to take up the habit themselves, a series of experts have written in the British Medical Journal.

Ministers have announced that displays of cigarettes and other tobacco products will have to be removed at the point of sale, meaning in effect they will have to be sold from 'under the counter'.

Further restrictions will also be introduced to ensure children cannot buy cigarettes from vending machines, through the use of tokens, electronic ID cards or remote control activation of the machines by the shopkeeper or landlord.

Bans on smoking in enclosed public places came into effect in England in July 2007 after similar moves in the rest of the UK and certain outdoor spaces like railway platforms and NHS grounds also prohibit smoking outside.

George Thomson and colleagues at the University of Otago, in Wellington, New Zealand said: "The central argument is that outdoor bans will reduce smoking being modeled to children as normal behavior and thus cut the uptake of smoking. Outdoor smoke-free policies may in some circumstances, such as crowded locations like sports stadiums, reduce the health effects of secondhand smoke; will reduce fires and litter; and are likely to help smokers' attempts at quitting."

Countries including Finland, parts of Canada, two American states and New Zealand have already banned smoking on school grounds and in California smoking is banned within 25 feet (7.6 metres) of outside playgrounds.

Mr Thomson and his colleagues said research has shown the British public favor greater restrictions on outdoor smoking where there are children.

There is NO safe level of second-hand smoke  ....even outdoors


Smoke-Free Homes

I am being exposed to my neighbour’s second-hand smoke. What can I do?



Outlaw tobacco

A senator who is also a doctor is calling for a new era of Prohibition — outlawing cigarette smoking and other tobacco use.

The unlikely demand comes from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the staunchest free-market conservatives in the Senate.

Coburn, one of two doctors in the Senate, is well-aware of the health risks that come with smoking cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

“What we should be doing is banning tobacco,” Coburn said in a recent Senate floor speech he gave during a debate on a tobacco regulation bill. “Nobody up here has the courage to do that. It is a big business. There are millions of Americans who are addicted to nicotine. And even if they are not addicted to the nicotine, they are addicted to the habit.”

It might appear that lawmakers are inching closer and closer every year to an outright ban on tobacco products, passing waves of taxes and regulations that make it prohibitively expensive to buy cigarettes.

A pack of cigarettes costs about $7 in Washington. In New York City, cigarettes have topped $9 a pack, with more than $5 of that price consisting of government fees.

Earlier this year, Congress expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which included an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes by more than 60 cents a pack.

But there’s no evidence that lawmakers will take on assorted vested interests to outlaw tobacco entirely.

Nevertheless, there’s a new wave of regulation in the works: The Senate is expected next week to pass the Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control Act.

Coburn has suggested banning tobacco outright rather than passing a bill that would authorize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restrict the manufacturing, marketing and sale of tobacco products.

“If we really want to make a difference in health and we want to eliminate dependence on tobacco, what we have to do is to stop the addiction,” Coburn said during floor debate.

The Senate floor was awash with gory stories this past week about the victims of smoking.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) displayed a blown-up picture of Gruen Von Behrens, a teenager who became addicted to snuff and later underwent multiple surgeries to remove his jawbone and half his tongue after being diagnosed with cancer.

Coburn isn’t prone to siding with liberals when they attack their favorite targets, such as gas-guzzling SUVs. Just recently Coburn enraged liberals on the blogosphere when he wondered aloud: “But what if I want to drive a gas guzzler?”

Tobacco is a different story.

Coburn made his case against the bill because he said it would send a mixed message to the FDA, which is charged with ensuring the safety of food and drugs. Coburn’s argument is that there’s nothing safe about tobacco and that it would make more sense for the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate it.

Coburn suggests that putting cigarettes and chew under the authority of an agency that to this point has been tasked with ensuring product safety would only make it tougher to ban tobacco someday.

“In this bill, we allow existing tobacco products not ever to be eliminated,” he said.

Philip Morris, the tobacco giant, supports the bill.

Coburn suggested Democrats are backing the legislation with an eye on helping a key interest group: trial lawyers.

“We have had all of these lawsuits through the years where billions of dollars have gone into attorneys' coffers,” he said.

By Alexander Bolton



(Original title: Hva er tobakksindustrien mest redd for?)

Although the number of smokers is steadily and perceptibly dropping, we cannot be satisfied with our results in Norway, particularly in view of what is happening in the USA, Canada and Australia.

It's time to think in new ways. The tobacco industry's own thoughts regarding the future were revealed a few years ago in an internal letter which fell into the hands of an outsider. It contained the following revealing sentence:

The social acceptability issue will be the central battleground on which our case in the long run will be lost or won.

In other words, it is the people who demand that smokers must find somewhere else to smoke, that the tobacco industry believes there is reason to fear.

Perhaps this is a point they have understood in the USA, Canada and Australia? They are less afraid than we are to demand smoke-free environments, not only in public places, but also in hotels and eating places. Perhaps the reason they are so far ahead of us is that these countries traditionally have different attitudes from ours to a number of such subjects. And the key to starting a process that subsequently gains a momentum of its own is to change attitudes.

If you are successful in establishing a smoke-free environment in one place, the chances are it wil give you the courage to try somewhere else. The experience gained from the first two attempts may make it even easier in a third, and then it starts being fun. Success normally attracts attention, and so the ball has started rolling.

The change in attitude starts in earnest when smokers constantly have to find places to smoke other than those they had in mind. They have to think twice before they light up, and this is precisely the point of the exercise.

Consumption will naturally decline as opportunities to smoke become more and more limited, and there are constant stories of smokers who have given up simply because it has become so difficult to find a place to enjoy a cigarette. Standing on display outside several times a day in all kinds of weather is not everyone's idea of enjoyment.

It is very important to prevent children and young people from starting to smoke, and many people, both health workers and voluntary idealists, do an impressive job in this respect. But during a critical period of more than ten years, children and young people are exposed to influences of many kinds, not least peer pressure to start smoking, and who has the strength to resist, when they are surrounded by smoking?

There can be no doubt that changed attitudes and smoke-free environments will be important, and perhaps crucial to this essential work. Now perhaps you understand why we call our work indirect cessation?

Smoke-free environments are cost-effective. They cost nothing at all. On the contrary, both employers and society in general save money by introducing smoke-free environments. It's the smoking that costs.