Smokers' rights in ashes

2012-06-20 15:35

Johannesburg - The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) found on Wednesday that the health hazards of smoking outweigh the interests of smokers as a group.

The SCA dismissed an appeal against an order by the North Gauteng High Court brought by British American Tobacco of South Africa (Batsa).

The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of section 3(1) (a) of the Tobacco Products Control Act, as amended by the Tobacco Products Amendment Act, which relates to a prohibition on the promotion and advertising of tobacco products.

Batsa approached the high court for a proper interpretation of section three of the act.

It argued that in terms of section 16 of the constitution, the impugned prohibition limits the company's right to engage in commercial expression and the right to freedom of expression of tobacco consumers.

Batsa further argued tobacco consumers were denied the right to receive information concerning tobacco products.

It sought a high court order that the impugned provision did not apply to one-to-one communications between tobacco manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers, and consenting adult tobacco consumers.

The SCA said the appeal was whether the limitations were reasonable and justifiable in an open democratic society. This included the nature and extent of the limitations as required by section 36 of the constitution.

The court held it had to consider the rights of smokers to receive information concerning the tobacco product and the government's obligation to take steps to protect its citizens from the hazardous and damaging effects of tobacco.

It found there were powerful public health considerations for a ban on advertising and promoting tobacco products, and that the seriousness of the hazards of smoking far outweighed the interests of smokers as a group.

The SCA further held that South Africa also had international law obligations to ban tobacco advertising and promotion.

The judgment found the prohibition on advertising and promotion of tobacco products was reasonable and justifiable as required by the constitution.

  • charlesdumbwin.dumbwin - 2012-06-20 15:40

    what a drag

      mario.dippenaar - 2012-06-20 16:53

      Mind if I butt in?

      press.enter.12 - 2012-06-20 16:58

      Where there is a smoker there is a fire

      boer.afrikaner - 2012-06-21 02:35

      I dont smoke if I dont drink a beer or have a braai. But when I do have a braai and a beer I make shore that I am far away from people that does not like the smell of cigarettes. I braai about 3 times a week and consume about 12 sigarettes during this period. I know its bad for you but hell man like I said a braai with out a beer and a smoke. Sucks.

      OSSY24 - 2012-06-21 08:11

      up in smoke

      Alan - 2012-06-21 10:54

      Good one Derpy and Charles, but No Cigar.

      fussed.anderson - 2012-06-21 11:24

      Is it worth it

      martin.britchford.5 - 2012-06-21 11:26

      IM SMOKING AT MY DESK AS WE SPEAK, non smokers are welcome to wait outside and ring for assistance, i know its drizzling but tough, its better for your health out there in the cold

      fussed.anderson - 2012-06-21 11:27

      Ut would have been far better for everyone if, when applying for a liquor licence in the future, had a choise in a smoking licence or non smoking licence. A smoking licence would be double the price of a non smoking licence. Then the choice will be up to the patrons where they wanted to go

      fussed.anderson - 2012-06-21 11:34

      The gov would then only have to service the non smoking licence for compliance and the public now had a choice. A non smoker now has no reason to complain and this whole debarcal would have been settled

      fussed.anderson - 2012-06-21 11:39

      No more going to a vegetrian restaurant and demanding a steak and complaining about the Bad service because you got no meat. The same applied to Motor vehicles, You have to have safty belts in them or get a fine. But if you have a vintage car, no seat belts required and can still be driven on the road

      fussed.anderson - 2012-06-21 12:21


  • Rabble-Rouser - 2012-06-20 15:41

    Kick cigarette smoking in the butt.

      Randomhero6661 - 2012-06-21 12:52

      i once heard a speeding bus can also kill you... everyone to themselves...

      Tammy - 2012-06-21 15:57

      Oh shut up.

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 16:25

      Sadly it seems someone has been very liberal in deleting comments. Oh well, so much for intelligent debate...

  • gerald.king.589 - 2012-06-20 15:45

    Its all worth it for one life. Thousands have already been saved.

  • allstar.scotts - 2012-06-20 15:46

    As a smoker, all this court case achieved was a lot of money going up in smoke! What a waste!

      TheReverendSchizophilioSchadenfreud - 2012-06-20 16:00

      Yeah, whether they are advertised or not, people will still smoke. I know I will.

  • richard.hipkin - 2012-06-20 15:48

    I long for this to apply to alcohol and fast food...

      naeem.dollie - 2012-06-20 15:54

      True story! Fast food maybe not so much... but advertising of alcohol should definitely be banned as well.

      Jaco - 2012-06-20 16:13

      Yep, maybe we should just ban any type of free choice. Let the state decide everything for us kids.

      peter.jefferies.90 - 2012-06-20 16:50

      Please give me 1 good reason why alcohol advertising should be banned and I will give you 10 reasons why it shouldn't!!!

      peter.jefferies.90 - 2012-06-20 16:51

      I should say valid point not because of people driving drunk!

      schmee.gol - 2012-06-21 11:10

      I think they should just ban advertising full-stop then I can watch my TV programs without irritation.

      warren.vanwyk.3 - 2012-06-21 15:25

      @ PointBlank: If that be the case then through in Coca Cola ads too, lol.

      james.m.wood.773 - 2012-06-21 17:10

      I'm a smoker and I know its bad for my health and I do intend on quitting soon. Now all you idiots who say there should be no ban on liquor advertising need your heads read, there is mmore teenage and underage drinknig now more than ever before, there are more alcohol related deaths eg, drunk driving(not only them but the pedestrians and other unfortunate people who are involved), cancer of the colon, cancer of the stomach, cancer of the liover, throat, mouth, the list is long but lets not stop, detroyed families due to alcoholic and abbusive parents, siblings; heart disease etc. now since the ban on tobacco advertising, has it really done any good, I seriously doubt it, you can still see it in the movies and all around you, but where do kids see alcohol being adveritsed : on TV during kids programming, at sports events, on shop walls, and how is it being advertised, you successful looking people drinking and making it look so cool, the same way cigarettes were advertised. how about puuting warning signs on beer bottles to!

  • Niel.Kal - 2012-06-20 15:51

    Just stop selling smokes, that way I will also give up smoking...!!

  • Bruce - 2012-06-20 15:54

    As a Non-smoker, hurray. I am so tired of hearing of the rights of smokers to poison themselves. What about my right not to be subjected to secondary smoke?!

      andre.cronje007 - 2012-06-20 16:03

      Thats why there are smoking sections, to keep smokers away from winey people - I'm not a smoker, never smoked, however it has never bothered me if someone else does. I have a better idea, how about a ban on alcohol? A lot more people die from alcohol related incidents that smoking - but ooh wait, being drunk is all part of being south-african or so I understand.

      kathy.ducci - 2012-06-20 16:16

      @ Andre.cornje007 - that would be fine if they did only smoke in the smoking sections. My husband and son both have asthma and now what they must go for oxygen everytime we want to go out! How is that to work! We pay for their HABIT!!!!!! And we get non of the benefits - so much for winey people - more like Dead People - do we not have rights too????

      peter.jefferies.90 - 2012-06-20 16:58

      @Kathy, please get an education!!! 2nd hand smoke did not cause your husbands or sons Asthma. Do you ever braai at your house? Do you drive a car? Do you buy products that are produced in factories?? Then you are actually responsible for their asthma!! Stop driving your car, stop buying electricity, stop braaing, stop buying any product that was produced in a factory and I make a promoise to everyone on this website! I will stop smoking (I smoke around 30 a day) and I will also become start supporting non-smokers that wine about it.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-20 17:04

      Please stop driving a car, I'm SICK TO DEATH of all the Carbon Monoxide you spew out when I'm cycling. Selfish, whiny prat!

      Ebon - 2012-06-20 17:36

      @andre.cronje007: "A lot more people die from alcohol related incidents that smoking" Actually this is a myth. Most alchohol related deaths are the result of drunken driving. In the US alone, it is estimated that 50 000 people die annually as a result of heart disease caused by second hand smoke. Additionally about 5 000 people die of cancer and asthma as a result of second hand smoke. The total road deaths in the US are about 50 000 a year. In other words, SECOND HAND CIGARETTE SMOKE (I am not even talking about actual smokers) kills more people in the USA than all the road fatalities combined (including a lot of accidents which have nothing to do with alcohol). The difference is all in the PR. Car accidents are big, nasty and gruesome. When someone is intoxicated and causes an accident, the causality is obvious, even to your average idiot. Smoking related illnesses are a bit more obfuscated. You see, cigarette smoking does not actually kill. It causes other conditions that kill. As a result many cigarette induced deaths are passed off as heart disease, cancer, asthma, emphysema etc, and people seldom make the definitive link (much like AIDS death in SA, most of which are labelled as TB, Pneumonia, Influenza etc). It is only when the statistics are studied that the horrifying truth comes out about just how many of those fatalities are, in fact, caused by cigarette smoke.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-20 18:07

      Ebon that's rubbish. Definitely not from second hand smoke - how would they even measure that? Heart disease in the USA is PRIMARILY from obesity - eating junk food and lack of exercise. See the links I posted above - there is NO scientific proof that second hand smoke causes fatal illnesses. You need to change your brand of weed dude.

      oistar.tutu - 2012-06-20 19:07

      eben, your ancestors have been sleeping around campfires, in enclosed spaces for years. Pity they did not die out from secondhand smoke inhallation then, 'cos then we would not have to listen to your ill informed logic

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:03

      I don't smoke, I think it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit .. but, it's the smokers right to have that habit. My only concern is how inconsiderate (many) smokers are; it simply doesn't occur to the them that their smoke might be bothering someone, and if it does, they simply don't give a damn. For example, sitting outside at a restaurant. You're trying to eat, when the guy one table over lights up a smoke and the air - vindictive and horrible as it is - pushes that smoke into your face. .. Yummy .. food with cigarette smoke! Tasty! I'm all for letting people smoke if they want to, but I personally feel that there should be stricter measures as to where people smoke, such as - as one example - not near restaurants (even outside for the simple reason of the above example) unless, of course, the restaurant has a smoking room.

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 11:07

      @Hugh - "dude" you need to get a degree in statistics and/or medicine from a real university. Until then, please accept that you are an ignorant fool who is under the delusion that his opinion is worth more than the hard drive space it is stored on. But the short answer to your question (and for the benefit of other readers who need to get some idea of why what you are saying is a load of bollocks): Statistics are used to demonstrate how the rate of deaths from heart disease is higher among people living with a smoker (but who don't themselves smoke) than among people who don't live with a smoker. Let's say, for arguments sake, that on average 1 in 300 Americans dies of heart disease each year (1 Million Americans). But when they divide this sample group up into non-smokers, smokers, and non-smokers living with smokers, they find those ratios change. So among people living with smokers, they might find that the risk of dying from heart disease is upped to 1 in 200. In the end, through statistical correlation, it is concluded that 1 in 3 non-smokers living with a smoker who dies of heart disease, did so because of second hand cigarette smoke. Yes, it is impossible to tell, taking an individual case, whether second hand smoke was the cause, but across the large numbers, the Stats DO NOT LIE. They can't. Just because you don't understand statistics does not make them invalid. Insurance companies are living proof of this...

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 11:20

      What is sad is looking at the likes vs dislikes on the replies just to bruce.wells comment above, and what it says about average people. Sadly, the factual content is voted down heavily, while the urban legends, myths and lies are voted up. Crazy. I guess you'd all prefer to live in ignorance and/or denial (even if it kills you). Again, one of those truths. Feel free to dislike my comment if you want, at least I have tried to open your eyes... PS: The worst thing about the internet it seems, is that it has given a false sense of credibility to ignorance as a viewpoint. Most people do not seem to have a clue about most subject matter, but they reckon their opinion counts as much as someone who genuinely does. News flash people: Popular Opinion can never change reality.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 13:08

      ebon.geist you chop I understand stats pretty darn well having been in advertising / marketing industry most of my life. Number one reason for heart disease in the USA is directly related to obesity - bad eating habits and lack of exercise. Smoking adds to that, yes. Second hand smoke - NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA - the EPA's report on second hand smoke was proven to be manipulated and it's methods flawed. Go and Google it. I posted some links above which were deleted (did you report the comment or was it some other rabid anti smoker?). I'm not saying smoking is healthy, but it's absolute bull that second hand smoke from someone sitting outside will cause any illness to a non smoker. It's complete and utter rubbish. You need to grow up and go do your homework before you spread lies.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 13:37

      Ignorant anti-smokers saying second hand smoke is killing them when a guy lights up outside, while they smear their faces with makeup full of chemicals tested on animals, drive a car that spews chemicals, eat a steak that was injected with growth hormones and preservatives, munch their fresh salad made of genetically modified seeds that are genetically injected with pesticide and then still sprayed with Round Up, pop a fat free sugar pill in their coffee stacked with carcinogenic chemicals, then answer their cell phone spewing radiation into their head, have a sip of water that contains 0.4% Arsenic and some other yummy chemicals and that's just to name a FEW mostly unstudied chemicals people injest directly on a daily basis. But no, it's the smokers fault. Those few times a month when you go out to eat and that disgusting smoker is on the other side of the balcony - all his fault. Sure Ebon, your stats are just genius.

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 14:04

      Hugh: 1) I am glad to hear that you have lots of experience in marketting and advertising, but no degree in mathematics or statistics. It explains a lot. 2) No, I didn't report your comment and I would not have supported any move to have it removed, because I prefer to debate issues. (I suspect news24 doesn't like it when people post urls so that may be why). I did read both articles though. One was a news snippet with little usable info, and a lot of misleading headline type stuff. The other was clearly written by some hack (probably paid for by a cigarette company). Certainly neither proves anything about the EPA report being wrong (not on any objective level at any rate - although I can see why such a report would be appealing to someone who doesn't have a strong grounding in the relevant fields of expertise). 3) However bad regular air pollution is does not make it ok to add to the proverbial fire by exposing people to even more pollutants in the form of second hand cigarette smoke. 4) Same applies to heart disease. Just because obesity is the biggest cause of it, does not make all the other factors irrelevant. And most (>90%) of doctors agree that SHS is a significant factor. I do agree that there are indeed other areas of concern, but suggesting that we as a society ignore smoking until those other issues are sorted out by trying to dishonestly downplay just how bad smoking is, is absolutely a sinister ploy indeed and I, for one, see right through it.

      Andrew2711 - 2012-06-21 14:08

      @ Hugh_Influence: You need to update your reference database as your comments make you look fairly foolish. The EPA report I presume you are referring to was published 20 years ago in 1992; for your re-education I have pasted a sample of some up-to-date peer-reviewed meta-analyses and/or reviews demonstrating numerous and wide ranging negative effects of 2nd-hand smoke: 1) Meta-analysis of effects of prenatal and passive smoking on asthma ( 2) Meta-analysis demonstrating causal relationship between passive smoking and risk of stroke ( 3)Significant increase in risk of middle ear disease in child from passive smoke ( 4) 2nd hand smoke and adverse fetal outcomes in non-smoking pregnant women ( 5) Reduction in acute coronary events following smoke free legislation ( 6) Increased risk of lung cancer due to 2nd hand smoke (

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 14:18

      Certainly not a sinister ploy - my main concern is with refutable scientific evidence that without a doubt proves that second hand smoke is directly related to cancer. There is none. A non smoker who is exposed to second hand smoke sporadically when they go out for lunch at a restaurant cannot be a higher risk value when compared to the non smoker directly ingesting hundreds of harmful chemicals in their daily diet. Government would rather strip me of my right to smoke outside than enforce labeling laws in this country so I can know exactly what I'm eating. There should rather be a fair law, for example where restaurants and pubs etc can choose one of three options: a) Non smoking establishment b) Smokers outside c) Smoke all you want buffet. That way, smokers can choose their restaurants etc and so can non smokers. That's called democracy yah? Has anyone done a conclusive scientific study to weigh the percentage of second hand smoke versus all the other factors? No. So it's inconclusive, bias and smacks of bullying. I'm highly respectful of non smokers in public places and with non smoking friends (even when they visit my house). I don't smoke near pregnant women or kids. I don't chuck stompies on the ground. I clean my own ashtray if I'm given one. If I see someone in public getting annoyed I move away or try find a spot where the wind takes it away from people. I don't like other smokers smoke in my face so I understand that 100%

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 14:22

      P.S. I studied statistics and implemented many in advertising campaigns, they're not all they're cracked up to be. Secondly, statistics can hardly compare to refutable scientific evidence which is summarily backed by statistics through conclusive testing. Ie science outweighs stats on their own by a long shot.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 14:29

      Also - lastly - doctors aren't scientists. Doctors haven't scientifically tested their claims, only given their opinion. The symptoms may be there, but the cause may be something else. For example, did these doctors take the chemicals ingested into account? Did they eat junk food or organic, fresh farm produce? Did their subjects use insecticide on a regular basis or have one of those electronic mosquito repellents on every night? Did they work in or near factories? Also, did those the doctors claim to have died / got ill from second hand smoke live with smokers in a confined environment on a daily basis, or in a non smoking household but go out regularly and were surrounded by smokers? Too much inconclusive opinion, absolutely no science to back up the claims - even statistically.

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 14:31

      Hugh: I was trying to think of how to put this nicely, but then I realised (reading your comments and tone) that you really would not afford me that courtesy, so here it is flat out: For a researcher with a degree and experience, it is easy to spot the "fake" research from the genuine article. Not all opinions are equal, even though most people want to believe they are. I have met more than my share of self proclaimed genuises with no academic record who would like everyone to believe that they are just as smart as the guy from university. Most of them are simply bluffing because they are trying to cover up their own sense of inadequecy. Hugh, your bluster may fool a significant portion of ignorant people. That is not evidence of anything except the natural human condition to be gullible. I am tired of debating this issue with a person who is not open to reason and reckons his opinion to be worth more than that of the entire medical profession (If you were it would have been evident by now). How do you accept some worthless unpublished article on someone's blog as evidence, over peer-reviewed research validated by the entire medical profession? The mind boggles. Try actually explaining your argument. Oh wait, you can't. Because you don't understand it. You just like the idea that smoking isn't that bad. So you support it. Yes, I know this comment will get a lot of hate, but if the dislikers are honest with themselves, they'll realise it's not because I am wrong.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 14:50 20% increase recorded in wheeze / asthma - does not say it's ONLY passive smoking and is NOT a direct cause of asthma. 0.7% suffered strokes. Not 50%, not 80%, not 95%. Only 0.7% with no mention of external possibilities such as stress, poor diet, lack of exercise, working in a factory, levels of air pollution etc. which would proably leave it lets say at a conservative 0.4% and I take it that was done with people who lived with smokers, not those sitting in the open air at a restaurant. Slightly more interesting than the others, however "Exposure to SHTS, particularly to smoking by the mother"- was the mother breast feeding and pregnant when she smoked? Doesn't say. What were the confines of their environment if the mother never smoked but the father did (around here when she was pregs, around her when she was breast feeding etc) Totally agree, because the mother is directly ingesting the chemicals and passing it on to her child. Nothing to do with second hand smoke. Make a smokers life difficult and socially unacceptable until they quit and sure, the stats are in your favour. Ran out of comment space, continued:

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 14:52 Not even going to bother, people in China walk around with oxygen bottles and masks over their mouths because of the extremely high pollution levels. Have you ever stayed in a Chinese hotel? They're like match boxes. Living with a chain smoker in a matchbox then going out into that pollution? Sure... it's just the passive smoking. Those are loaded statistics.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 15:03

      My point: 1) I agree, passive smoking in close confines (like a small room or bar for example) can increase the chances of someone becoming ill or aggravate an already potential illness. If I had to spray DOOM in a small room every 30 minutes I'm pretty sure everyone would be dead within the year. 2) Those statistics do not take into account external factors such as pollution levels, work environment (working in factories etc), chemicals used on a daily basis around the home such as oven-cleaners, ammonia based products, insect sprays, and other cleaning chemicals. 3) Those statistics do not take into account chemicals directly ingested by the subjects such as GMO's, a host of other chemicals, carcinogens and preservatives ingested daily in food products. 4) I only saw one (I think it was the strokes) that never mentioned whether there were any possibility of genetic issues, whether they were generally all round healthy and then suddenly became ill etc. 5) If 0.7% are affected (as in one of the studies you listed) how does that number reduce when it is not a subject who is exposed on a daily basis? Lets say twice a month instead of every hour of every day? Like, say when the average person goes to a restaurant and is affected, lets say 3 times in that evening by a smoker for 30 seconds a time? Probably next to nothing.

      Andrew2711 - 2012-06-21 15:13

      @ Hugh_Influence: I think the term you were looking for was irrefutable evidence; the evidence put out by the cigarette companies is refutable and it has already been shot down. That aside, it is difficult to attribute cancer to a particular cause because we are exposed to a number of possible carcinogens every day, sunlight included. However, to give you some idea of how the evidence is gathered; due to the large sample sizes used, we (scientists) are able to establish a baseline in which the analysis set is all exposed (on average) to the same things (e.g. car fumes, processed food etc) at an equivalent level. The item under investigation (2nd hand smoke) is the only variable between the groups and then you measure the change in inceidence between the subsets. Yes there will be outliers, these however fade into insignificance when the sample size is large enough. However, cancer is not the only health concern, lung diseases, asthma etc are much easier to demonstrate and on top of the links I provided earlier, here is another one that concluded that second hand smoke was a fundamental and widespread cause of childhood asthma ( You made another points that pubs/restaurants should be able to choose whether to allow/ban smoking. What about their employees; are you advocating that they must be exposed to proven carcinogens daily in their place of work? Why not give them asbestos aprons whilst you're at it...

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 15:18

      Ebon - I'm entering into debate and you just don't like what I have to say anymore than what you're saying to me, we're on even ground there. You were first to insult my intelligence and I don't feel ANY need to prove my IQ to you. Like I said, and please tell me if you disagree. Doctors are not scientists. Yes, doctors know more than I do, that doesn't make my statements and my questions stupid. My point is valid, and you hate it. The studies posted by Andrew are fair enough, but there's not enough information for me to see if they took into account all the things I asked. Excuse my "tone" but first of all you resort to belittling me so yes, I'm dripping with sarcasm. Secondly if I had an irritating voice it would be the same - that's just how I write, forgive my tone please, I can't help it. Show me a conclusive scientific study that: a) Includes at least 50% of the external factors I mentioned b) Is ONLY specifically passive smoking related c) Where subjects are not in a confined environment and exposed on a daily basis (like a non smoker in public). THEN we can come back and talk. Until then you're talking about directly enhaling first hand smoke, the effects of smoke on kids by either pregnant mothers or mothers who are breast feeding and absolutely NO conclusive proof that sporadic exposure to SHS is a DIRECT cause of illness. Do you understand what I mean?

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 15:27

      Andrew - thanks for the link, will have a read in a mo. Quick comment - the staff can choose to work in the non smoking restaurants if they don't like being around smoke (I'm sure there will be more non smoking establishments than pro smoking ones anyway). Also those studies you gave (appreciated by the way) were non ONLY passive smoke. Also, you're talking about the environment being standard in the subjects which I can understand - did they check for any persistent use of other chemicals that may have caused those illnesses? Maybe the % who were effected at the time of the study all ingested some other chemical that induced the illness - taking the fact that there is a smoker present doesn't necessarily make the SHS the culprit. Going to go read that link and give you my unintelligent reply ;-)

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-21 15:27

      Andrew - thanks for the link, will have a read in a mo. Quick comment - the staff can choose to work in the non smoking restaurants if they don't like being around smoke (I'm sure there will be more non smoking establishments than pro smoking ones anyway). Also those studies you gave (appreciated by the way) were non ONLY passive smoke. Also, you're talking about the environment being standard in the subjects which I can understand - did they check for any persistent use of other chemicals that may have caused those illnesses? Maybe the % who were effected at the time of the study all ingested some other chemical that induced the illness - taking the fact that there is a smoker present doesn't necessarily make the SHS the culprit. Going to go read that link and give you my unintelligent reply ;-)

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 16:17

      @Hugh: Andrew pretty much explained how the statistical studies answer all your questions, and take all your doubts into account. Seriously, your argument is clutching at straws, and smacks of desperation. 2) Doctors are scientists. They are skilled in the specific scientific disciplines of, among others, biology, chemistry, biochemistry, statistics, research methodology. Medical researchers have to follow scientific method in their research. It is because of this that their research, unlike that of some hack on the internet, is credible. 3) If you are indeed an intelligent person, your cigarette addiction is clearly clouding your judgment. Your entire argument is very clearly driven by your personal affront at the state threatening to cut you off from your supply of nicotine. You simply cannot afford to accept the possibility that all this hype about how bad SHS is could even be close to remotely true, because that would seriously curtail your ability to indulge in your addiction. So in your mind you have concocted this marvelous conspiracy theory rather than accept the simple truth: Second hand tobacco smoke IS that bad. Yes, it took society a long time to see through the lie that SHS is harmless, or even close to it. But for those of us not addicted to nicotene and who have been shown the shocking stats, it is plain to see. There is just no way that this all some conspiracy. The only conspiracies are those trying to deflect from this issue.

      Ebon - 2012-06-21 16:23

      Oh, and Hugh, before you start crying foul about who insulted whom first, I refer you to your post dated June 20, 2012 at 18:07 (before which neither of us had engaged the other): The one that starts with: "Ebon that's rubbish." and ends with "You need to change your brand of weed dude."

      Andrew2711 - 2012-06-21 16:24

      @ Hugh: In any clinical study, the investigators will have screening criteria which the subject must meet (as well as exclusion criteria e.g. living next door to the mine dump) in order to be entered into the study. This is to try and control as much of the experimental environment as possible. The peer-review process under which these studies were published suggests that such rigorous scientific methods were employed. To try and further convince you on the errors of your ways, more evidence is available from from cell-line and animal models in which the scientist can control everything and therefore any observed effects are attributable to the causative agent. Yes, there are arguments that human have different metabolisms to other animals and that data isn't always transferable but by these studies corroborate the human epidemiological studies. 1) Genotoxicity of SHS - 2) Carcinogenicity of environmental tobacco smoke - 3) Cytotoxicity of environmental tobacco smoke - 4) Oxidative damage and genotoxicity of ETS -

  • Hermann - 2012-06-20 15:54

    Hoooray there we have just solved our education fiasco, we have just remedied our hopeless health sector, eliminated crime and stopped all road injuries and deaths. Let me go puke and then sit me down and enjoy my pipe with a glass of brandy.

      brett.leask - 2012-06-20 16:08

      Great answer I think I'll do the same!!cigar in mouth and vodka in the hand

      Hermann - 2012-06-20 16:19

      Great move Brett

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:10

      Because the Supreme Court of Appeal is around to handle the education crisis, remedy our health sector, eliminate crime and stop road injuries and deaths .. right? Your argument makes about as much sense as this: Scientist: I have invented a device that allows us to study the atomic structure of a supernova 400 million light years away!!!!!! *nerdgasm* You: Instead of studying the atomic structure of stars, why don't you do something about cancer?!

  • dieanderou - 2012-06-20 15:56

    nanny state...

  • wesley.bischoff - 2012-06-20 15:57

    What people put into their bodies is their business. No smoking in public places is fine. But to have an all-out offensive against smokers, making them feel like a disease is not right.

      jean.tredoux.5 - 2012-06-20 16:25

      Of course what they put in their bodies I couldn't give a rat's ass, but to see cigarette buds being flicked out cars or to walk on a beach and to see more buds than shells or to see parents smoking like chimneys in a car with toddlers or like alicia said cannot go to a place cos there isn't a smoking section... Being in unconsidered is still a major problem amongst smokers. And please I'm not attacking you, I'm finding you comment a bit flawed.

      Phae - 2012-06-20 16:56

      Smoking is largely the mental disease of addiction, that's why its such an emotive issue for smokers. Cigarettes are drugs plain and simple, legalise grass as well, but stay in private areas and NEVER with kids around when you use them. Your adult life, your choice, and you must realise you have to consider those that have no wish to be included in your lifestyle but are, and have no say.

  • trudiroos.potter - 2012-06-20 16:10

    Good I still suffer from cancer caused partly by smoking. I have stopped 12 years ago. Cancer is not for sissies! Please stop.

  • morgaporg - 2012-06-20 16:14

    Smoking - hazardous and damaging effects Alcohol - hazardous and damaging effects Bubblegum - hazardous and damaging effects Knives - hazardous and damaging effects Motorvehicles - hazardous and damaging effects Some fast food outlets - hazardous and damaging effects Our current government - hazardous and damaging effects Does this mean we should ban promotion and advertising of the above examples?

  • eyesears.handsfeet - 2012-06-20 16:15

    A ban on advertising and promoting tobacco products, yet the government and the anc wants money from this. How ironic. British American Tobacco of South Africa (Batsa)the "back hander" were not enough! LOL!!!

  • Vuyo - 2012-06-20 16:19

    At all shopping centres I've visited , there's always someone smoking "JUST" outside of the exit . smoking should be totally banned .

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:13

      Unless of course Umkhwetha meant that every single time (s)he has visited a mall there was someone outside the exit smoking. In which case, it would make it an always...?

  • stephen.king.900 - 2012-06-20 16:20

    I am the first to admit smoking is a stupid habit. However so is getting drunk jumping in your car and killing some one. We breath in all the pollutants from all the vehicles and industry all day and night but that we accept. I think the courts time could be better spent dealing with crime rather than dealing with something relativly minor, ifone looks at the bigger picture.

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:16

      According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Appeal - * functions only as a court of appeal * may decide any matter on appeal and, * is, except for constitutional matters, the highest court of appeal. Define Appeal: In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision.

  • chris.lang.581 - 2012-06-20 16:26

    Who in their right mind would deign to smoke??? Is it because they have been told that it calms ones nerves. Or is it a nervous chewing gum? Or is it because these people don't know what to do with their hands and mouth if there isn't a ciggy in them? Or is it just a macho thing? Just wondering.....

      Phae - 2012-06-20 16:32

      Smokers are drug addicts, and should be treated and understood as such.

      chris.lang.581 - 2012-06-20 16:37

      Correction: Substance abuse. Extremely difficult to quit..I was just lucky I never got started!

      Phae - 2012-06-20 18:24

      Sticking with drug addict. I was one of the stupid and badly addicted ones 8 years ago. I know how unbelievably difficult, almost impossible it was to give up. Rehab for smokers!

  • Phae - 2012-06-20 16:29

    Its the millions of cigarettes smoked daily causing air pollution, and stompies thrown on the ground leaking poisons that worry me. It really is time to quit for the sake of everything else, thanks and good luck.

  • nigel.burgess.52 - 2012-06-20 16:34

    I hear it's going to get a lot tougher. I'm a smoker, but I do take others into consideration, and will make a concerted effort in making sure I'm the cause of other peoples discomfort. On the other hand, if the new laws are passed and I'm somewhere out in the parking lot enjoying my smoke, and someone walks over to me and gives me grief, they will regret it. I'll give you your space, you give me mine.

  • kylecorreiadearaujo - 2012-06-20 16:35

    lol... I find this ironic, you know, obesity is a just as bad, a killer too?. Now they banning the advertisements of cigarette, will they ban unhealthy food advertisements too?...

      chris.lang.581 - 2012-06-20 16:40

      You're missing the point! When you smoke, you involve others!

      Phae - 2012-06-20 16:58

      Nice try but no cigar Christo!

      kylecorreiadearaujo - 2012-06-20 17:56

      Dear sir... please leave, Because your macdonalds burger and fries plus your coke and or milkshakes are unhealthy and harming the other people around you... That hows I feel, when I'm discriminated against cos Im a smoker... So put yourself in that position... Walk a mile in a smokers shoes... How does it feel?

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:27

      // Dear sir... please leave, Because your macdonalds burger and fries plus your coke and or milkshakes are unhealthy and harming the other people around you... // Explain how my consumption of food (in whatever quantity I want) is harming those around me? How is my consumption of a burger going to cause cancer to YOUR body whereas YOUR SHS (secondhand smoke) is "classified as "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.[1]" ? // That hows I feel, when I'm discriminated against cos Im a smoker... // Your cigarette smoke is harmful to others. Your cigarette smoke is disgusting, especially when I'm outside at a restaurant and you light one up while I'm still eating and I'm forced to consume a mix of steak and cigarette smoke. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to force others to inhale your disgusting habit. [1]

  • leonard.vanvuuren.1 - 2012-06-20 16:41

    Ag dan rook ons maar dagga, dis cheaper en vrylik bekrygbaar, cause dis is Africa

  • paul.smit.5 - 2012-06-20 16:52

    Do the same with Alcohol advertising we tell our kids dont smoke but please drink! Our national teams are sponsored by beer Alcohol is more dangerous to society than sigarettes, road accidents, family violents, etc!

      cheryl.williams.71404976 - 2012-06-21 09:07

      well said Paul! people complain about secondary smoke, blah blah blah...but its ok act silly after a few drinks and make proper fools of themselves.

  • markdoubleu - 2012-06-20 16:54

    I'm troubled by, mainly, the reaction to this. Our freedom of choice is being eroded and instead of being up in arms, people are getting caught up in the example. The troubling thing about this judgement is that it rates the state's opinion of what is good for us is more important than our right to choose for ourselves. I'd much rather have to make the choice to ignore the cigarette advertisement than trust some nanny state to choose that I'm not capable of resisting the temptation.

      flysouth - 2012-06-20 17:04

      The fanaticism with which morons approach the smoking and health question is itself an illness - and our government has contracted that illness it seems. We have a nanny state - and I reckon adults should not need a nanny! People who know nothing of history and of the way governments operate in the exercise of pure power for the sake of power fail to see that with each and every such illegitimate prohibition that meets little resistance, government will we lead immediately into the next one! Eventually we will find ourselves living under a totalitarian regime, introduced by small degrees without much resistance. The government will next ban liquor ads, and the consumption of liquor outside of regulated venues etc, followed by what else....?

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-20 17:18


      Raoul Duke - 2012-06-20 17:45

      Well, cigarettes are in fact bad for us. It's not just the state's opinion... And we are not being banned from access to information so much as we are being saved from constant, in-your-face, highly paid for and psychologically manipulative marketing. Do you think if we were on a level playing field with BATSA, and adults were left to make informed decisions, having access to all the information, anyone would smoke? You need a nanny. Or at least someone who has your best interest at heart, as you clearly don't. Think about it... Why would BATSA spend hundreds of thousands of your rands just to be able to advertise?

      Phae - 2012-06-20 17:48

      Very true, no to nanny states! I'm interested in your thoughts about how to protect kids and teenagers from getting sucked in to any detrimental lifestyle choices, by the very cleaver guys (and its not an insult) in advertising? I know parents have the major responsibility in this instance but most of them are more stupid than their children,and can't be trusted to give good advice for a half way decent chance of making informed decisions.

      markdoubleu - 2012-06-20 18:51

      You miss the point, Raoul. As Benjamin Franklin wrote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.". And herein lies the problem. Your approach is that cigarettes are bad thus this decision is obviously good. And, in isolation, you may even be right. But the fact is that you're applauding a decision that's limiting your access to information (yes, it's biased and yes, it's advertising but it's still an external entity deciding that you're not allowed to see this information). This has repercussions beyond this specific issue. Re-read my first post. The point I'm making is that people are getting caught up in the example and missing the bigger attack on our freedom. A point you seem to have missed twice now.

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:32

      So (if I understand you correctly) you want the freedom of information even if said information is harmful to your health and/or encourages people to smoke (which will in turn lead to harm to your (and their) health anyway)? Whether there are adverts for smokes or not is irrelevant to me, I'm just trying to better understand your position.

      Andrew2711 - 2012-06-21 14:24

      I think the reason why the State steps in is because, for the large portion of the population, the State is responsible for footing the bill for their healthcare. The harmful effects of smoking are well documented and there is a large burden on the public healthcare system due to smoking. So yes, middle class citizens who have private healthcare are being unnecessarily 'nannied', for the rest the government is trying to reduce demand on already thinly stretched resources.

      flysouth - 2012-06-21 15:09

      @Raoul Duke Sure smoking is not a healthy pastime - but then always remember that, of this life, we can say with absolute certainty that nobody is getting out of here alive! Having said that, make no mistake, I understand the unpleasant effects of inconsiderate smokers on those around them but there are also many ways persons can make themselves objectionable without a cigarette in sight! The act of living has all manner of hazards attached to it - and I do not believe that it is for government or anyone else to instruct an adult in what dangers to avoid or which to accept and manage as best they can. This is called 'freedom' - something which governments the world over hate incidentally and do everything in their power to curtail for their own convenience. When you have lived long enough and observed the full spectrum of government actions and petty and major repressions you will understand why the libertarian way is the only way.

  • brian.m.roberts.5 - 2012-06-20 17:22

    This is all so dam academic. Inconsiderate smokers still light up wherever they want and if you ask them to stop they either get aggressive or ignore you. Until the stringent smoking laws are properly policed they are irrelevant and a waste of time.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-06-20 18:11

      *Blows smoke into your avatar*

  • ian.d.samson - 2012-06-20 17:47

    I'll smoke where I like, when I like and how I like ... except in places where it's banned. I usually do not smoke inside the house because I cannot tolerate the smell of old rancid smoke, so I usually go outside. However, while typing this I have a smoke in my mouth. Like all the laws in this country, they are subject to being bent at will.

      brian.m.roberts.5 - 2012-06-20 17:48

      Two wrongs don't make a right you chop!

      warren.vanwyk.3 - 2012-06-20 20:16

      @ IanDSamson: I hate to break it to you but all smokers smell like old rancid smoke. Man, if only smokers could smell themselves we could successfully declare this filthy problem solved. And before all you stinky litter-bugs "dislike" my reply, can you remember a while back that guy you sat next to that didn't bath for 2 weeks? ...yep, you're on the same level. TRUST ME!!!

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:36

      Warren: a good way to demonstrate to a smoker what they smell like is by doing this: get them a glass of water, tell them to take a mouthful of it after having several drags of a cigarette and keep the water in their mouth, then tell them to inhale and exhale via their nose. The effect is similar to you or I taking a whiff of an ashtray.

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 09:36

      Only they get in their mouth.

      warren.vanwyk.3 - 2012-06-21 12:34

      @ skootzie: Bet you not one stinky bugga that read your reply tried it, LMFAO dude.

      Andrew2711 - 2012-06-21 16:36

      Or get them to smell their fingers (the ones they use to hold their cigarette with); that is what they smell like

      skootzie - 2012-06-21 20:07

      I wouldn't be surprised, lol. I did it to my best friend. Didn't stop him smoking, but it did cause him to change the way he smoked in an attempt to not continue smelling like an ashtray on legs. You can lead a horse to water..

  • byron.matthews.562 - 2012-06-20 18:43

    I'm in the process of filing a patent for a device I've created - The Smoker's Mask (...or Smask if you prefer). Everytime a smoker wants a puff, s/he loads the device and pulls the mask on - an action which triggers the built-in lighter to light up which prevents any 2nd hand smoke from escaping while the tobacco's burning. All 2nd hand smoke will now be available for all smokers to enjoy like they love to at present but simply don't have the means to. Now, smokers can experience that 2nd hand smoke aroma at any time without having to play nosey - the benefits are endless... No more fingers smelling like topatjies No more coholes on your favorite item(s) of clothing No more whiny/whiny anti-smoking battalions gunning for you Look out for it at your closest legal drug dealer (pharmacy). Ask for it by name -> Smask(C)TM MMXII PTY (Ltd.).

  • somikazi.pita - 2012-06-20 19:04

    No to SMOKING and alcohol.

  • darren.peach - 2012-06-20 19:12

    Damn, I need a smoke after reading all that....

  • Trevor - 2012-06-20 21:07

    smoke weed....and everyone will be happy with the secondary smoke too..... puff puff pass.... :-)

  • givenmasanabo - 2012-06-20 23:21

    why dont we say no to smoking and say mybe to alchol

      edson.zandamela - 2012-06-21 10:11

      sounds like a plan!

  • givenmasanabo - 2012-06-20 23:21

    why dont we say no to smoking and say mybe to alchol

      edson.zandamela - 2012-06-21 10:59

      dam right!

  • Zeek - 2012-06-21 06:34

    wow, very interesting and informative article, thanks! PS. Get Paid Daily...

  • cheryl.williams.71404976 - 2012-06-21 08:58

    what I still do not understand is the fact that having one too many ciggies tonight at a party or a friend's place, will not affect my judgement or inhibitions and it certainly wont make me a risky driver, yet alcohol sponsorships are the whole place full, the macho beer and whiskey and brandy ads play on TV all the time, the fact that people DO drive drunk or under the influence and yes, cops DO get bribed...smoking, i agree, is a health risk, but what about the physical dangers of alcohol! surely they should have the same or similar laws too.

  • comurray - 2012-06-21 10:42

    All this about cigarette smoking killing innocent people, how many die in SA on a daily basis from cigarette smoking and how many are killed in mini bus taxis on a daily basis. Then there are the toxins from motor vehicles burning petrol/diesel fuels, non of these have been banned??!!

  • pisciotta - 2012-06-21 11:25

    Non-smokers must consider that when talking to smokers about the harmful effects of smoking you are talking to someone who is addicted. Their responses, reasoning and logic will be driven by their physical need to smoke. Hopefully that will help when you encounter irrational thinking. Perhaps it would not be so bad if they smoked in a plastic bag and kept their exhale out of my face. But even then the damage they cause to their bodies affects us all with higher health costs. It is perhaps one of the most preventable causes of poor health. I must eat. I try to always eat healthy but I don't always read the labels, nor do I always understand the complex words printed. Smokers it seems NEVER read the labels. WHy not? Because it is too easy to understand and is an embarrisment to their behavior. I can't stop taxis or others eating poorly, but I can manage MY OWN behavior and not be a static to the cig company nor impose my poor behavior on the wallets of others.

  • carla.matheson.758 - 2012-06-21 11:49

    Oh shut it and stop whining, I am a smoker and I will darn well smoke if I feel like it. Bunch of nag pots. Ain't nobody gonna make me stop

      pisciotta - 2012-06-21 11:59

      Stop? No. You can burn corn-silk if the tobacco companys go out of business. But where you can smoke in public? Yup that has changed and will continue to change more and more. Just watch it get worse for you. I smoked 3 packs a day at one time. Quit in 1986. As for you - that's your addiction talking now. You have proven my point. You will eventually quit smoking - your family, friends and I hope you live to see that day with us.

      brian.m.roberts.5 - 2012-06-21 12:02

      See comment from PJP and get back in your box you addict!

      carla.matheson.758 - 2012-06-21 12:04

      Hahaha! Never, I enjoy it, just like some people enjoy taking a drink, which I dont, or eating unhealthy food, all of which have different harmful effects on your body. This is my body, my life. Let me light up

      pisciotta - 2012-06-21 12:08

      Can't help this one: Carla - your photo is a black square. Did you post a colour MRI of your left lung? LOL Ok that was cheap, but as I said I couldn't help it. Carla - you wrote "I will darn well smoke if I feel like it". Well, if you are a smoker thent that feeling comes ~ every 30 min or less. When you have your coffee, after doing chores, after meals, after sex (if your so blessed), after so many "triggers". It is all part of being addicted. "....when I feel like it" is not really correct. It is WHEN I HAVE TO SMOKE. I dare say you smoke to feel "normal". That Carla is addiction.

      carla.matheson.758 - 2012-06-21 12:16

      Which ever way you put it, doesn't matter to me. The point I'm trying to make is that I smoke and I'm not going to stop because someone is telling me how harmful it is or telling me to stop. If anything, it makes me want to do it more. That, PJP, is the bottom line.

      pisciotta - 2012-06-21 12:18

      Carla - don't exhale and you'll get more supporters for your addiction. Let me say I do NOT consider smokers to be bad people - I used to smoke. It is only after one is free from the addiction that they can truely pass judgement on the behavior. Otherwise they are fearful of going thru withdrawl and that creates a turmoil in their heads and emotions run rampant and some become violent in speach over their rights. Your rights end where my nose begins. Now if you are serious about quitting I'd be happy to share with you how I did it. I developed a technique later used by the American Cancer Society. It is not easy - addictions are tough. Carla - I ask you did you have to learn how to smoke? Did your body at first reject the smoke? Most smokers if honest will say yes. My key was to reverse the eduction process in my body. It worked for me and I smoked for 15 years burning up to 3 packs a day. I think my history gives me credibility. Your call. I'll help if you wish. MY FB link is available.

      pisciotta - 2012-06-21 12:37

      Carla you are truly an addict. That is sad. If you wish to quit I'm happy to share how I did it myself - and by myself. As I said it became part of the American Cancer Society's "Fresh Air" program back in the 1980's. My wife at the time and I taught the classes free for over 5 years in a local Christian church hall. We achieved 80% success rate after 12 months. All I can ask is that you consider smoking in private or not exhaling in public. It is your "right" (today) to smoke. It is NOT your right to willfully harm others simply because of your ADDICTION.

  • erena.slabbert - 2012-06-21 12:12

    I will only be happy if there is no cigarettes sold in ANY shop. What a disgusting habbit

  • malcolm.dale - 2012-06-21 13:05

    @Alicia. I am so glad that you have reached the age you have- I am older than you and I smoked up until 1997. BUT the question I want to ask is - at 93 how did your dad avoid all the carcinogenic products of the world? I mean diesel, petrol, braai fire fumes etc etc etc - the list is endless? There are far more carcinogen producing things in the world than cigarette smoke - of this I am pretty sure, so let's not rub the smokers noses in the muck. Let's move on to the diesel trucks and trains now and get rid of them, then it's on to the next one and the next one and the next one until we eradicate them all and we will all be happy and down and out and living in caves like the first man on earth (oh and woman of course)without fire or water - wow what a concept. My wife smokes and when I implored her to give up she told me to shut up and leave her alone enjoying what she is doing while probably dying of it!!

  • jimmy.kawa.1 - 2012-06-21 13:34

    cigarette adverts used to be the best ads on tv and at the cinema. i miss them. if people want to smoke, let them smoke. just not in public places like around the entrances to buildings, or in restaurants. around the braai, no problem. just not while i'm eating out. otherwsie smoke away.

  • patsy.smith.125 - 2012-06-21 15:57

    How much more is the paranoia about smoking going to cost the tax payer? Surely there are many more important projects that need the money and attention? Like housing, education, public transport etc., etc., etc. Booze is responsible for many more deaths than smoking, yet nothing is done about that. People are starving and freezing to death, very little is done about that. As long as their smoking doesn't affect other people, please leave the smokers alone. Signed by a non-smoker...

  • anne.yates.104 - 2012-06-21 16:32

    It all boils down to the "stop anyone having fun" stories, they must sit up there and think hmmmm how else can we make them miserable... I am a smoker but never smoke in my house or car and I am considerate to other people and especially children, there fore Smoking sections work for us if I am in the minority we sit in the non smoking sector... easy. Oh it is sooo sad the world has lost its sense of humour big time :(

  • alansmartSnr - 2012-06-21 17:12

    .. I am a heavy smoker but cannot hide my joy that Batsa got a bashing and lost their case. The reason being that they are responsible for a lot of outlets of "cheapies" (sigs at 60c or 70c).. were closed down by SARS. They were the main informers to protect their absurd price of R28=00 per packet.. and the price difference was not all the tax which was evaded. They were/are making huge profits at the cost of us who enjoy a smoke after a meal or while having a relaxing dop or two.

  • pages:
  • 1