DOCSLIB.ORG

Smoke-Free Policies in New Zealand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Smoke-Free Policies in New Zealand WHO/NHM/TFI/05.9 Smoke-free Policies in New Zealand Murray Laugesen Health New Zealand World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative Headquarters would like to thank the Regional Offices for their contribution to this project. WHO Regional Office for Africa (AFRO) WHO Regional Office for Europe (EURO) Cite du Djoue 8, Scherfigsvej Boîte postale 6 DK-2100 Copenhagen Brazzaville Denmark Congo Telephone: +(45) 39 17 17 17 Telephone: +(1-321) 95 39 100/+242 839100 WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO) WHO Regional Office for the Americas / Pan American Health Organization (AMRO/PAHO) WHO Post Office Abdul Razzak Al Sanhouri Street, (opposite Children’s 525, 23rd Street, N.W. Library) Washington, DC 20037 Nasr City, Cairo 11371 U.S.A. Egypt Telephone: +1 (202) 974-3000 Telephone: +202 670 2535 WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia (SEARO) WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO) World Health House, Indraprastha Estate Mahatma Gandhi Road P.O. Box 2932 New Delhi 110002 1000 Manila India Philippines 2 Telephone: +(91) 11 337 0804 or 11 337 8805 Telephone: (00632) 528.80.01 Smoke-free Policies in New Zealand Introduction health centres and lifts. Through a local retailer, the Tobacco Institute challenged the by-law in court, claim- In 1985, when the New Zealand comprehensive tobacco ing councils did not have this power. The retailer finally control programme was launched, one of its goals was withdrew, but litigation successfully prevented most other smoke-free workplaces. In that year, 30% of adults councils from enacting similar smoke-free by-laws. Medical smoked, consuming an average 23 cigarettes per day.(1) students surveyed workers in Wellington City and found Smoking was common in offices, even in the Department 75% were exposed to cigarette smoke during tea breaks of Health. Legislation in 1990 made offices smoke-free, and 44% during actual work time. ASH (membership and further legislation in 2003 dealt with remaining work- 380) submitted a petition signed by 11 200 others to places. Smoking restrictions commenced with passenger Parliament to ban or restrict smoking in enclosed public aircraft, then spread to public places, offices, and finally to places, including workplaces. Health officials sought their all remaining workplaces including hospitality venues. Minister’s support to develop policy with a view to leg- islation. Smoke-free legislation enacted in Canada made Smoke-free workplaces it easier for politicians to support a similar law. Domestic airlines went totally smoke-free voluntarily in response First steps to passenger demand. Opinion polls commissioned by the Department of Health found very strong support for 1970s. Smoking was banned only for fire safety or food smoke-free environments. hygiene reasons. The Department of Health banned smok- ing in its official meetings during this decade. 1989. Palmerston North City Council passed a clean indoor air by-law. 1980s. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) campaigned for and achieved restrictions on smoking in some airline Preparing the intervention: policy seats. development 1984. The South Canterbury branch of the Asthma Society 1988. The Department of Health was charged with pro- and 470 others petitioned Parliament to ban smoking in all ducing the evidence and devising a blueprint for smoke- public places. The Tobacco Institute argued that a ban was free legislation, for which there was little precedent. unscientific and unenforceable. In its annual report that “Creating Smoke-free Environments”was a discussion year, the Department of Health supported the concept of paper setting out the evidence about harm from sec- a smoke-free society for work, travel and leisure. A Cancer ond-hand smoke and giving policy alternatives for public Society poll showed that 75% of adults (including 53% of comment.(3) Faced with a voluminous tobacco industry smokers) agreed no smoking should be allowed in public submission(4) purporting to review the scientific literature, places. the Department commissioned a report “Through the 1986. The US Surgeon General’s report focused on sec- Smokescreen”,(5) which examined the tobacco industry’s ond-hand smoke, as did a report from the Australian use of the scientific literature and concluded that the latter Health and Medical Research Council. had been misused in order to minimize the harm caused. Information was selective, incomplete and relied on poor 1987 A Cancer Society poll showed that 82% favoured quality sources (letters to the editor written by industry- further restriction of workplace smoking. In December the related consultants). New Zealand Department of Health, following a similar 1986 move in the Australian (Federal) Department of The first intervention: the 1990 Smoke-free Health in Canberra, declared, after a three-month transi- Environments Act tion period, all its many offices and vehicles to be smoke- The 1990 Act restricted smoking at work and also banned free. The move was widely reported and well-received. In tobacco product and sponsorship advertising. The public 1987, second-hand smoke deaths in New Zealand (homes support for smoke-free workplaces was high and carried and workplaces combined) were estimated for the first support for the bill as a whole, while sports sponsorship time at 273 per year.(2) advertising restrictions were less popular. 1988 Waitemata City Council, lobbied by ASH, passed a The Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 required every by-law restricting smoking in public places: shops, banks, employer to have a written policy on smoking with annual 3 World Health Organization policy review in consultation with employees. The law increasingly adopted smoke-free policies for buildings, banned smoking in all offices (unless all present agreed which many extended to grounds also, during the 1990s. otherwise in writing) and in the public parts of workplaces (thus making shopping smoke-free), and created smoke- Effect of the first intervention – the 1990 law free conditions for travellers and smoke-free tables (a making offices smoke-free contiguous 51% of the seating as the minimum) in restau- Effect on second-hand smoke exposure rants. Bars were exempt. School classrooms were regarded – health protection of non-smokers as a student’s workplace, to be smoke-free at all times. The explicit purpose of the smoke-free part of the 1990 As of 1996, the smoking ban in shops and offices was well Act was to protect people from other peoples’ unwanted observed, with only 12% of white collar workers exposed cigarette smoke, whether they smoked at work, smoked to smoke while working. (Table 1). only at home, or did not smoke at all. The Act gave smok- Steps towards implementation ers about six months before the new smoke bans came into force in February 1991. If office workers were week- The focus for the workplace was to adopt a smoking end smokers only, their workplace became a smoke-free policy, and to provide a complaints procedure that would haven. If they did smoke at work, many coped with the ensure compliance. Employers were free to make their impending change by attempting to quit smoking, and workplace entirely smoke-free, and some did so. many workplaces assisted them in doing so. The 1990 Act avoided any draconian overtones by not Protection of white-collar workers. The 1990 law banned imposing fines on smokers except for passengers smok- smoking in offices and shops. The 1990 definition of ing on aircraft. Elsewhere the onus was on the employer workplace did not include shopping malls. Between 1989 or café manager to enforce the law, by persuading and and 1991 there was a 50% reduction in smoke exposure if necessary ejecting people, as with any other anti-social among white-collar (office) workers. The ban in offices behaviour. Smoke-free health promoters worked alongside but not factories reflected lower smoking prevalence and smoke-free enforcement officers who handled complaints greater support for smoking restrictions among white-col- from workers and information requests from employers. lar workers before enactment of the law. No office was prosecuted. Several passengers were pros- Blue-collar workers. The 1990 law was not designed ecuted for smoking on aircraft. The smokiest remaining to, and did not apply to factories or homes. Smoking public places were bars, bar-cafés and some factory work- prevalence was higher among blue-collar workers, and place canteens. fewer supported smoking restrictions. Exposure to smoke at home declined no more than did the consumption of In 1994 one restaurant was prosecuted for not providing tobacco products generally. Factory workers reported little a smoke-free dining area. In 1996 the Ministry of Health effect if any (Table 1). established a regional smoke-free enforcement serv- ice, which due to resource constraints mainly addressed Note: In 1991 and 1996, smoking was permitted in half of enquiries from workers or employers. (6) all workplace cafeterias but not in offices. While white-col- lar workers would not be exposed to smoke in the office, Between 1989 and 1996 total consumption of cigarettes they might be when moving through non-office work and tobacco per adult decreased by 19%, (Table 1) thus areas. The 1990 Act halved the workplace cigarette smoke reducing non-smokers’ second-hand smoke exposure exposure for this group. except in cafés in high-smoking low-income suburbs and public bars. Social pressures on smokers not to light Effect of smoke bans on smoking prevalence up inside cafés increased. Health promoters distributed Smoking prevalence among white-collar workers was 20% smoke-free stickers and persuaded most shopping malls in 1989, 22% in 1991, and 19% in 1996.(8) Smoking and many cafés to become smoke-free. Airports made prevalence in all adults was 26.7% in1989, 26.2% in their buildings smoke-free, with provision of a single 1991, and 25.6% in 1996.(9) The Act did not lower smok- smoking room for international terminals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disparities in Age of Smoking Initiation and Transition to Daily Smoking in New Zealand
    Disparities in age of smoking initiation and transition to daily smoking in New Zealand September 2019 ISBN: 978-0-478-44986-0 Prepared for the Health Promotion Agency/Te Hiringa Hauora (HPA) by: Niveditha Gurram and Greg Martin, Research and Evaluation Unit, Health Promotion Agency. Citation: Gurram, N., & Martin, G. (2019). Disparities in age of smoking initiation and transition to daily smoking in New Zealand. Wellington: Health Promotion Agency. Copyright The copyright owner of this publication is HPA. HPA permits the reproduction of material from this publication without prior notification, provided that fair representation is made of the material and HPA is acknowledged as the source. This document is available at: http://www.hpa.org.nz/research-library/research-publications Any queries regarding this report should be directed to HPA at the following address: Health Promotion Agency PO Box 2142 Wellington 6140 New Zealand www.hpa.org.nz [email protected] September 2019 CONTENTS Executive summary 5 Acknowledgements 7 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Background 8 1.2 Current study Objectives 9 2. Methods 9 2.1 Survey 9 2.2 Variables 9 2.3 Analyses 10 3. Results 11 3.1 Age of smoking initiation 11 3.2 Age of daily uptake of smoking 12 3.3 Transition duration from smoking initiation to daily uptake 13 4. Discussion 14 4.1 Strengths 15 4.2 Limitations 15 5. Conclusion 16 6. References 17 Appendix: Trends in the age of smoking initiation and daily uptake 2010-2018 19 List of Tables Table 1: 2018 HLS sample characteristics 11 Table 2: Mean age
    [Show full text]
  • THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association
    THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association CONTENTS This Issue in the Journal 4 A summary of the original articles featured in this issue Editorials 6 Array of hope for high-resolution genetic screening services in New Zealand Christine M Morris, Ursula R Jewell 12 Toward more uniform conflict disclosures: the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Original Articles 15 Taking the pulse: medical student workforce intentions and the impact of debt William R G Perry, Tim J Wilkinson 24 Programmatic research in medical education: a national collaboration Tim J Wilkinson, Jennifer M Weller, Judy McKimm, Barbara J O’Connor, Ralph E Pinnock, Phillippa J Poole, Dale Sheehan, Mike J Tweed, Andy M Wearn 34 The New Zealand Advanced Choice of Employment (ACE) Scheme: analysis after 7 years of District Health Board cooperation in a competitive employment context Brandon M Adams, Gregory O'Grady, J Richard Pole 43 The student code: ethical and professional expectations of medical students at the University of Otago Lynley C Anderson, Neil J Pickering Review Article 50 Array comparative genomic hybridisation: a new tool in the diagnostic genetic armoury Renate Marquis-Nicholson, Salim Aftimos, Ian Hayes, Alice George, Donald R Love Clinical Correspondence 62 A rare late complication of spilled gallstones Dinuk L Gooneratne NZMJ 16 July 2010, Vol 123 No 1318; ISSN 1175 8716 Page 1 of 112 URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/123-1318/4226/ ©NZMA 67 Apical pulmonary lesions due to Marfan syndrome misdiagnosed as pulmonary tuberculosis Prem P Gupta, Krishan B Gupta, Joginder S Gulia, Rohtas Yadav, Sanjeev Kumar, Dipti Agarwal 73 Nontraumatic hepatic hematoma caused by Wegener’s granulomatosis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain Selim Doganay, Ercan Kocakoc, Mehtap Balaban 79 Medical image.
    [Show full text]
  • Projecting Future Smoking Prevalence to 2025 and Beyond in New
    NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1406/6374 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Projecting future smoking prevalence to 2025 and beyond in New Zealand using smoking prevalence data from the 2013 Census Frederieke S van der Deen, Takayoshi Ikeda, Linda Cobiac, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely Abstract Background We have previously published a forecasting model of future smoking prevalence in New Zealand (NZ). Under business-as-usual (BAU) assumptions NZ’s smokefree 2025 goal was not attained by any demographic group. However, the 2013 Census (which included a question on smoking) showed a greater than expected fall in prevalence, especially for Māori. We therefore aimed to provide upgraded projections to inform policy around tobacco endgame planning. Method The previously developed dynamic forecasting model was re-specified using smoking prevalence data from the 2006 and 2013 censuses from NZ. Calculations included changes in initiation by age 20 years, and net annual cessation rates, by sex, age, and ethnicity (Māori vs non-Māori). Projections under 2006–2013 trends (adjusted for no tax rises since 2010), by sex and ethnicity were made out to 2025 and beyond. Results Between the 2006 and 2013 censuses (adjusted for no tax rises since 2010), initiation of daily smoking by age 20 years decreased annually by 3.4% (95% uncertainty interval 3.2% to 3.6%) and 2.7% (2.5% to 2.8%) for non-Māori men and women, and by 2.9% (2.6% to 3.2%) and 3.2% (2.9% to 3.5%) for Māori respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry Civ-2002-404-1729
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2002-404-1729 BETWEEN BRANDON POU AND KASEY POU Plaintiffs AND BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED AND W D & H O WILLS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED Defendants Hearing: 7-10, 13-17, 20-24, 27 & 28 February 2006, 8-10 and 13 March 2006 Appearances: Mr D B Collins QC, Mr B Corkill, Mr J French and Ms J Herschell for plaintiffs Mr M R Camp QC, Mr M R Bos, Mrs V Lobao and Mr S O'Sullivan for defendants Judgment: 3 May 2006 at 2 pm JUDGMENT OF LANG J Counsel: D B Collins QC, Lambton Chambers, 101 Lambton Quay, Wellington B Corkill, L 8, Central Chambers, 114-118 Lambton Quay, Wellington M R Camp QC, P O Box 10048, Wellington Ms J Herschell, P O Box 905, Wellington Solicitors: French Burt Partners, 110 Don Street, Invercargill Phillips Fox, P O Box 160, Auckland POU V BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED AND W D & H O WILLS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2002-404-1729 [3 May 2006] TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction [1] The claim [5] Issues [7] Summary of findings [8] 1. Is the plaintiffs’ claim barred by virtue of section 4(7) of the [10] Limitation Act 1950? Duty of Care [19] 2. Could any duty of care owed by a manufacturer of cigarettes in 1968 [20] include a duty to completely cease the manufacture and distribution of its products? 3. Was there a prima facie duty to warn consumers of the potential [30] hazards of cigarette smoking when Mrs Pou began smoking in 1968? If so, is the existence of the duty otherwise negated by virtue of the fact that the dangers of smoking were
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Control
    NEW ZEALAND HEALTH STRATEGY DHB TOOLKIT Tobacco Control To reduce smoking (and harm from second-hand smoke) 2001 Edition 1: October 2001 Contents Executive summary ...........................................................................................................3 Introduction........................................................................................................................4 Development of the toolkit .............................................................................................4 Key documents ..............................................................................................................4 Linkages.........................................................................................................................6 Policy context.....................................................................................................................7 The rationale for tobacco control in New Zealand .........................................................7 Who smokes in New Zealand? ......................................................................................9 Regional prevalence data ..............................................................................................9 Tobacco control efforts in New Zealand ......................................................................13 Roles and responsibilities for tobacco control .................................................................14 The Ministry of Health..................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • The Tobacco Industry in NZ
    The Tobacco Industry in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Behaviour of Multinational Companies George Thomson Dr Nick Wilson Public Health Monograph Series No. 6 Department of Public Health Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences February 2002 2 Copyright All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the authors Public Health Monograph Series No. 6 ISSN 1175 - 7817 ISBN 0 - 473 - 08415 - 5 (Paper version) ISBN 0 - 473 - 08414 - 7 (Electronic version) Published by the Department of Public Health Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences PO Box 7343 Wellington South Wellington New Zealand Electronic version at: http://www.wnmeds.ac.nz/academic/dph/docs.htm “If you want to do something about malaria, you have to study mosquitoes. And if you want to do something about lung cancer, you have to study the tobacco industry.” Professor Stan Glantz. In: Noah T. Funding of study of tobacco firms is periled in House. The Wall Street Journal 7 August 1995. 3 The tobacco industry and its allies said it: “... nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, ….” (Addison Yeaman, Brown & Williamson vice president and general counsel, 1963. Cited in Lewan 1998) “Today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while in their teens … The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris ...” (1981 report sent from researcher Myron E Johnston to Robert B Seligman, then vice president of research and development at Philip Morris in Richmond, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Smoke Has Cleared: Evaluation of the Impact of a New Smokefree Law
    After the Smoke has Cleared: Evaluation of the Impact of a New Smokefree Law A Report Commissioned and Funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health ` Editorial team Advisory Group 8 Richard Edwards 1 * Shane Allwright 9 Chris Bullen 2 John Britton 10 Des O’Dea 1 Becky Freeman 2 Heather Gifford 3 Hayden McRobbie 11 Marewa Glover 4 Leigh Sturgiss 2 Murray Laugesen 5 Yannan Xiang George Thomson 1 Anaru Waa 6 Nick Wilson 1 Alistair Woodward 7 *Corresponding author: [email protected] 1. Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago 2. Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Population Health, University of Auckland 3. Whakauae Research Services, Whanganui 4. Auckland Tobacco Control Research Centre, School of Population Health, University of Auckland 5. Health New Zealand Ltd, Christchurch 1 6. Health Sponsorship Council Research and Evaluation Unit, Wellington 7. School of Population Health, University of Auckland 8. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland 9. Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 10. ASH New Zealand, Auckland 11. New Zealand Drug Foundation, Wellington 2 Contents Contents 3 Acknowledgements 6 Executive summary 8 1. Introduction, scope and approach to the evaluation of the Smoke-free Environments Act Amendment 16 Summary 16 1.1. Introduction 16 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 17 1.3. Approaches to policy evaluation 17 1.4. Evaluation approach adopted in this report 18 1.5. Models of evaluation for tobacco control interventions 19 2. The Smoke-free Environments Act (1990) and Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act (2003) 20 Summary 20 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Illicit Tobacco in New Zealand, 2018 Full Year Report
    Illicit tobacco in New Zealand 2018 Full Year Report 24 May 2019 ______ kpmg.com/uk KPMG LLP Tel +44 (0)20 7311 1000 Strategy Group Fax +44 (0)20 7311 3311 15 Canada Square DX 157460 Canary Wharf 5 Canary Wharf London E14 5GL United Kingdom 24 May 2019 Important notice This presentation of key findings (the ‘Report’) has been prepared by KPMG LLP in the UK (‘KPMG UK’) for Philip Morris (New Zealand) Limited and Imperial Tobacco New Zealand Limited, described together in this Important Notice and in this Report as the ‘Beneficiary’, on the basis set out in a private contract dated 18th December 2018 agreed separately with the Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Report constitutes legal advice. Information sources, the scope of our work, and scope and source limitations, are set out in the Appendices to this Report. The scope of our review of the contraband, counterfeit and unbranded segments of the tobacco market within New Zealand was fixed by agreement with the Beneficiaries and is set out in the Appendices. We have satisfied ourselves, so far as possible, that the information presented in this Report is consistent with our information sources but we have not sought to establish the reliability of the information sources by reference to other evidence. This Report has not been designed to benefit anyone except the Beneficiaries. In preparing this Report we have not taken into account the interests, needs or circumstances of anyone apart from the Beneficiaries, even though we have been aware that others might read this Report. This Report is not suitable to be relied on by any party wishing to acquire rights or assert any claims against KPMG LLP (other than the Beneficiaries) for any purpose or in any context.
    [Show full text]
  • Smokefree-In-A-Box
    Smokefree-in-a-Box A Guide for Companies Going Smokefree INTRODUCTION Over the past 0 years, workplaces around the world have seen a sweeping movement towards smokefree air policies. Many companies have adopted smokefree policies voluntarily to protect workers and customers from the proven dangers of secondhand smoke. Other companies have created smokefree workplaces to comply with existing laws. Companies that have gone smokefree have found that these policies save money as well as lives. The policies also improve worker satisfaction and the company’s public image. The purpose of this toolkit is to help you design and implement a smokefree workplace. While there is no “one-size-fits-all” plan for going smokefree, this toolkit draws from the experience of workplaces around the world to provide the basic elements of an effective smokefree plan. This map shows the progress of smokefree policies worldwide as of March 008. Companies should adapt the advice in this toolkit to fit their unique circumstances. Experience from smokefree companies shows that proper implementation of these policies requires planning and coordination. This toolkit provides senior leadership, managers, and staff with easy- to-use advice on what to do from the moment your company decides to implement a smokefree policy. For more information on the Global Smokefree Partnership or on smokefree policies, please visit the Global Smokefree Partnership Web site at www.globalsmokefreepartnership.org or email [email protected]. This toolkit is a project of the Global Smokefree Partnership, a multi- partner initiative formed in 005 to promote effective smokefree air policies worldwide. The partnership involves more than 00 organizational and individual members from more than 60 countries worldwide, and it is hosted by the American Cancer Society and the Framework Convention Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand's Tobacco Control Programme 1985-1998
    Tobacco Control 2000;9:155–162 155 New Zealand’s tobacco control programme Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.9.2.155 on 1 June 2000. Downloaded from 1985-1998 Murray Laugesen, Boyd Swinburn Abstract This paper reviews New Zealand’s national Objective—To review the impact of New tobacco control programme (TCP), asking Zealand’s tobacco control programme whether it has: (1) fulfilled its original aims and from 1985 to 1998 on smoking prevalence targets in reducing smoking; (2) achieved and tobacco consumption, and to estimate reductions in smoking among youth, Maori, the scope for further reduction. and lower income groups; (3) reduced Design—Country case study; interven- exposure to second hand smoke; (4) reduced tions, with outcomes ranked internation- cigarette mortality; and (5) made favourable ally across time. progress compared to other OECD (Organisa- Setting—New Zealand 1985-98; for 1985- tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 95, 23 OECD countries. ment) countries. Interventions—Between 1985 and 1998, This review begins in 1985, when the Minis- New Zealand eliminated tobacco advertis- ter of Health publicised a “comprehensive ing, halved the aVordability of cigarettes, policy to promote non-smoking” from his and reduced smoke exposure in work time advisory committee on smoking and health, by 39%. which asked the government to commit itself Main outcome measure—Reduction in to its TCP plan. The plan included public adult smoking prevalence and in tobacco involvement and health education, quit clinics products consumption
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Full Year Report
    Illicit tobacco in New Zealand 2019 Full Year Report 26 May 2020 kpmg.com/uk KPMG LLP Tel +44 (0)20 7311 1000 Strategy Group Fax +44 (0)20 7311 3311 15 Canada Square DX 157460 Canary Wharf 5 Canary Wharf London E14 5GL United Kingdom 26 May 2020 Important notice This presentation of key findings (the ‘Report’) has been prepared by KPMG LLP in the UK (‘KPMG UK’) for Imperial Tobacco New Zealand Limited, described in this Important Notice and in this Report as the ‘Beneficiary’, on the basis set out in a private contract dated 1st August 2019 agreed separately with the Beneficiary. Nothing in this Report constitutes legal advice. Information sources, the scope of our work, and scope and source limitations, are set out in the Appendices to this Report. The scope of our review of the contraband, counterfeit and unbranded segments of the tobacco market within New Zealand was fixed by agreement with the Beneficiary and is set out in the Appendices. We have satisfied ourselves, so far as possible, that the information presented in this Report is consistent with our information sources but we have not sought to establish the reliability of the information sources by reference to other evidence. This Report has not been designed to benefit anyone except the Beneficiary. In preparing this Report we have not taken into account the interests, needs or circumstances of anyone apart from the Beneficiary, even though we have been aware that others might read this Report. This Report is not suitable to be relied on by any party wishing to acquire rights or assert any claims against KPMG LLP (other than the Beneficiary) for any purpose or in any context.
    [Show full text]
  • Why People Smoke
    Key Reviewer: Dr Hayden McRobbie, Consultant, Inspiring Ltd, Auckland WHY PEOPLE SMOKE 48 | BPJ | Issue 19 Supporting the PHO Performance Programme Clinicians who want to encourage people to quit smoking people around them who smoke are major influencing are likely to be more successful if they have some factors. Understanding these influencing factors is useful understanding and empathy for why people start smoking as many of them are able to be changed.3 WHY PEOPLE SMOKE and continue to smoke. This understanding and empathy is unlikely to come from experience as statistics show only It is important to ensure young people avoid starting to 3.4% of New Zealand medical practitioners are regular smoke in the first place as nicotine addiction can occur smokers and 81.4 % have never smoked.1 rapidly. In one study, 10% of children who became regular smokers showed signs of nicotine dependence within two In this article we look at what are commonly perceived by days of first inhaling from a cigarette, and 25% within a smokers as the “benefits” of smoking, along with some of month.4 Within a year of starting to smoke, it has been the more significant barriers to quitting. reported that children will be inhaling the same amount of nicotine as adults, will experience cravings when they do not smoke, will make quit attempts and will suffer Why do people start smoking? withdrawal symptoms.5 It has been estimated that 80% of adult smokers begin smoking as children, and about 30% of children have tried smoking by the age of 11.2 Why do people continue to smoke? There is no single reason why young people begin to Because of the effects of nicotine smoke.
    [Show full text]