THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TOBACCO-RELATED HARM

SUBMISSION ON THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL [B24B – 2006]

The Association for the Reduction of Tobacco-related Harm (ARTH) supports and applauds all efforts of government on the control of the smoking of tobacco products and the reduction of health-related harm resulting from the smoking of tobacco. Hence, it pledges its full support for the intentions of the provisions in the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill [B24B – 2006]. The ARTH also believes that in an environment where a potentially harmful substance is legally available, efforts at minimising any harm resulting from its use is a societal imperative and the ARTH pledges to support and strengthen government’s efforts in this regard. In the context of this pledge the ARTH submits the following as a constructive contribution to the deliberations of the National Council of Provinces on the aforementioned Bill.

Primary prevention among the young who are not yet users of tobacco

The ARTH believes that more effort than at present should be directed towards primary prevention, particularly among the young. The promotion of healthy lifestyles, free of drugs, alcohol and tobacco, through the medium of sports, dance and music, delivered through public-private partnerships (PPPs) has the potential to make great strides in primary prevention, especially if entrenched as a policy objective in the Bill. The ARTH is committed to pursuing this objective with all interested and supportive stakeholders.

Minimisation of harm to the non-users of tobacco and the environment in general

Implicit in the publication of the Amendment Bill is that government has no intention to ban tobacco. The several thousand products of tobacco combustion (smoking) have the potential to cause harm to the non-user of tobacco as well as to the environment in general. It is not often emphasized, and sometimes not understood, that the potential for this harm can be drastically reduced, and in cases eliminated, if the users of tobacco were not to smoke it and opt for a smokeless form of tobacco use. In fact, smokeless tobacco can also protect the environment from unintended consequences such as veld fires resulting from the careless disposal of lit cigarette butts.

In an environment where tobacco is legal, the consideration of alternatives which are less harmful to non-users of tobacco must be a policy imperative to ensure minimization of harm.

Minimisation of harm to the users of tobacco and the environment in general

It is a widely accepted and known fact that nicotine in tobacco is addictive. It is perhaps not that widely known that the several thousand products of tobacco combustion (smoking) are more harmful to the health of the smoker than the addictive properties of tobacco. Diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema are attributed to the products of tobacco combustion. It follows, therefore, that among the adult tobacco users who choose not to or cannot give up smoking, use of less harmful alternatives would drastically reduce health related harm albeit the addictive properties remain. Smokeless tobacco is such an alternative, as already pointed out in the discussion on the benefits for non-users of tobacco and for the environment in general. While it is not suggested for a moment that smokeless tobacco use should be encouraged, it undeniable that smokeless tobacco is considerably less harmful to smokers and secondary smokers and, for that reason, is a preferable alternative for those who choose not to or cannot give up smoking.

Conclusions and recommendations

The ARTH is in total agreement with government and public health practitioners that tobacco use is potentially harmful, certainly to the user, but also to the non-user in certain circumstances and to the environment in general in a variety of ways. However, given that tobacco is legal, there is a societal imperative to minimize the potential harm resulting from its use, in every way possible. This submission presents some of the ways in which the ARTH is engaged in achieving this and appeals to government to support such efforts through policy and partnership.

Chan Makan PhD

Executive Director: ARTH

4 Steenberg House

Steenberg Business Park

Tokai 7945

REFERENCES

Alko Ltd. “Nordic Alcohol Statistics 1989 - 1993.” Nordic Alcohol Studies. II(1994): 80-95.

Boyfield, K. Too Much to Swallow: The Case for Lower Excise Duties on Alcohol. London: Adam Smith, 1995.

Calfee, J. E. and Carl Scheraga. “The Influence of Advertising on Alcohol Consumption: A Literature Survey and An Econometric Analysis of Four European Nations.” International J of Advertising. 13(1994).

“Canada: Illicit liquor trade costing Cdn$ 1 billion”. Globe and Mail. 24 June 1993, pB1.

“Contraband Liquor in Canada”. KPMG Report. September 1995.

Crawford, C. T. and W. L. Gramm. Writing in the cover memo to “Omnibus Petition for Regulation of Unfair and Deceptive Alcoholic Beverage Advertising and Marketing Practices” (Docket No. 209-46), Federal Trade Commission, (6 March 1985):2.

Crawford, I. and S. Tanner. “Alcohol Taxes and the Single Market.” Commentary No. 47, London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 1995.

Duffy, M. “Advertising and the consumption of tobacco and alcoholic drink: a system-wide approach.” Scottish J. of Political Economy. 38(Nov. 1991).

Duffy, M. “Advertising in demand systems for alcoholic drinks and tobacco: a comparative study.” J. Policy Modelling. 17(1995).

Evans, K. R. “Development of a National Alcohol Strategy - The Politics of the Real World.” International Congress on Alcohol and Addictions. 36^th International Congress. Glasgow, Scotland, 17 - 21 August 1992.

Fisher, J. C. “Advertising, Alcohol Consumption, and Abuse: A Worldwide Survey.” Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1993.

Fisher, J. C. Media influence in “Prevention and Societal Impact of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.” (Ammerman, R. T., P. J. Ott and R. E. Tarter Eds.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1999.

Fisher, J. C. and P. A. Cook. “Advertising, Alcohol Consumption, and Mortality: An Empirical Investigation.” Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1995.

Gius, M. P. “Using panel data to determine the effect of advertising on brand-level distilled spirits sales.” J. Studies Alcohol. 57(1996).

Lee, B. and V. J. Trembley. “Advertising and the US market demand for beer.” Applied Economics. 24(1992).

Makowsky, R. C. and P. C. Whitehead. “Advertising and Alcohol Sales: A Legal Impact Study.” J. Stud. Alcohol. 52(1991).

Mulford, H. A., J. Ledolter and J. L. Fitzgerald. “Alcohol Availability and Consumption: Iowa Sales Data Revisited.” J. Stud. Alcohol. 53 (1992): 487-94.

Nelson, J. P. “Broadcast Advertising and US Demand for Alcoholic Beverages: System-wide Estimates with Quarterly Data.” Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission. 1997.

Nelson, J. P. and J. R. Moran. “Advertising and US alcoholic beverage demand: systen-wide estimates.” Applied Economics. 27(1995).

Nelson, J. P. and D. J. Young. “Do advertising bans work? An international comparison.” International J. Advertising. 20(2001).

Osterberg, E. “Finnish social alcohol research and alcohol policy.” Nordic Alcohol Studies. II(1994): 60-7.

Pittman, D. J. “The Effects of Alcohol Beverage Advertising Practices and Messages on Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Problems: A Review of the Research Since the Landmark 1976 Congressional Hearings.” CBA Global Briefing. August 1996.

Pittman, D. J. and M. D. Lambert. “Alcohol, alcoholism and advertising: A preliminary investigation of asserted associations.” St. Louis, MO: Social Science Institute, Washington University, 1978.

Saffer, H and F. Chaloupka. “Alcohol Tax Equalisation and Social Costs.” E. Econ. J. 33 (1994).

Smart, R. G. and R. E. Cutler. “The alcohol advertising ban in British Columbia: Problems and effects on beverage consumption.” British J. of Addiction. 71(1976).

Smith, A. The Wealth of Nations. Vol. II, Liberty Classics Edition.

Smith, D. I. “Consumption and advertising of alcoholic beverages in Australia, 1969 - 86.” Drug and Alcohol Review. 9 (1990).

“Tax Reductions in Denmark”. Harpers Wine and Spirit Gazette. No 5517, p3.

Walsh, B. M. “Alcohol Beverages in Ireland: market forces and government policy.” British J. of Addiction. 84(1989).

Walsh, B. M. “The Economics of Alcohol Taxation.” Economics and Alcohol. Eds. Marcus Grant, Martin Plant and Alan Williams. Gardner Press. 173-89.

Wilcox, G. B., G. R. Franke and B. Vacker. “Alcohol beverage advertising and consumption in the United States: 1964-1984.” Department of Advertising Working Paper, The U. of Texas: Austin, January 1986.