The politicizing of tobacco issues was used by Mr. Raphael in his email.  It
wasn't my phrase.

If a strategy is proven to reduce tobacco related deaths, then why wouldn't
you use it?

There are social roots but most of them are based in the relatively free
reign the tobacco industry has had in promoting its product to children.
The tobacco industry, in fact, loves programs that focus on smokers - it
takes the focus off them and what they're doing to replace the 45,000
Canadians who die each year and the several hundred thousand who quit.

This is  a disease vector scenario.  The carrier of the disease is the
tobacco industry.

The fact is, if you create smoke free public places and workplaces and ban
tobacco advertising, people don't smoke as much.  Whether their parents
smoke is a factor,  and whether they are poor is a factor, but these
strategies still work.

It reminds me of a City Councilor who said he couldn't support a smoking
bylaw because he represented poor people and they liked to smoke.  We did a
survey and it showed that poor people wanted to be protected from
second-hand smoke just like everyone else.

Don't stigmatize these people.  They deserve better.

This isn't "lifestyle correctness".  It's protecting kids, the same way you
would, I presume, want them to know about being protected from HIV/AIDS.  Or
should that be kept a secret too?

Lynn Greaves
Public Health Services
Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
2110 Hamilton St
Regina, SK Canada S4P 2E3
306-766-7903  Fax 306-766-7798
[log in to unmask]

> ----------
> From:         Robb Travers[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Health Promotion on the Internet
> Sent:         February 6, 2003 7:39 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: [heart-l] Resources for Preschoolers
>
> you speak of the "politicizing of tobacco issues" without once mentioning
> the "social context"  within which people smoke, why they smoke, or how
> they
> came to smoke -- people do not smoke in a social vacuum.  the links to
> poverty for example?  the moralizing and stigmatizing of smoking?  the
> playing field isn't equal when you tell a child "not to run into
> traffic"....teaching 1 - 3 year olds "lifestyle correctness" is merely
> obscuring the social roots of disease for yet another entire generation. .
> good health promotion?  I'd say not.
>
>
> Robb Travers, Ph.D (c)
> Research Associate,
> HIV/AIDS Social Research Group
> KTH 208, McMaster University,
> Hamilton, ON
> 905 977-7622
>
> Research Affiliate,
> HIV Social, Behavioural & Epidemiological Studies Unit,
> Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,
> Toronto, ON
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greaves, Lynn RQHR" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: February 6, 2003 8:13 PM
> Subject: [heart-l] Resources for Preschoolers
>
>
> > I have been following the discussion on educating children about smoking
> > with keen interest as I am working in the area of tobacco control.
> > Unfortunately, my email address changed and until today I haven't been
> able
> > to post a message.  Now all is clear, so here we go:
> >
> > Tobacco control is an emerging area of population health that has
> identified
> > "best practices"  - those evidence-based strategies that have been shown
> to
> > reduce the number of people who smoke and the number of children and
> youth
> > who start to smoke.
> >
> > They include - increased taxation, smoke free public and workplaces, and
> > banning of advertising and promotion.
> >
> > Cessation programs exist because everyone should have help if they want
> to
> > quit.   But cessation programs focusing on the individual smoker are not
> the
> > most effective way to reduce smoking deaths and disease.
> >
> > Those involved in effective tobacco control, in jurisdictions where
> death
> > rates and youth smoking rates decrease, for example British Columbia,
> have
> > implemented "best practices".   And they have reaped the rewards in
> terms
> of
> > fewer people smoking their way to an early grave and fewer children
> becoming
> > addicted to a product that leads half of its users to premature death.
> >
> > That being said, there are probably scenarios where health people are
> > focusing on helping smokers, when to be really effective they should be
> > implementing best practices.  And that being said, there are probably
> some
> > people 'overhelping' low income smokers.
> >
> > But to suggest that children should not learn about tobacco is to send
> > children into the world without arming them with the facts about the
> dangers
> > that exist.
> >
> > Telling children the truth about tobacco is not a 'political statement'.
> If
> > I tell children not to run out in traffic, that is not political.
> >
> > Children are bombarded by messages that smoking is cool and an "adult
> thing
> > to do".  Many of these come from the tobacco industry that promotes
> smoking
> > through sponsorship, and through advertising such as in tobacco product
> > displays - also called 'power walls' - which are placed right next to
> the
> > candy and other kids' stuff in stores across the country.
> >
> > Children are rarely told that 90% of adults who smoke became addicted
> when
> > they were children and youth.  And then later, when they became adults,
> they
> > wished they could quit but found it very difficult because they had
> become
> > addicted.
> >
> > Most parents who smoke wish they had never started and hope to heck
> their
> > children never start.
> >
> > Most educators of young children do not educate in order to offend any
> > smoking parents.  They are painfully aware that their teaching, although
> > initially accepted by young children, can later be overridden by tobacco
> > industry promotion, peer pressure, and experimental behaviour by youth
> who
> > have no idea of how addictive tobacco can be.  For example, in one
> study,
> > 92% of teenagers said they wouldn't be smoking in a year.  A year later,
> 99%
> > were still smoking.
> >
> > Children need help to escape a product that first addicts, and then
> kills.
> >
> > The politicizing of tobacco issues is done by the tobacco industry who
> > fights any tobacco control strategy that has been shown to work
> (smoking
> > bans, bans on advertising and promotion, increased taxation) and
> supports
> > any strategy that hasn't been shown to work (ventilation, youth
> possession
> > laws).
> >
> > Industry "front groups" whining about economic losses are common
> everywhere
> > even though mountains of scientific studies show there are no economic
> > losses with smoking bans.
> >
> > Case in point:
> > Here in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, on February 18, Rothmans,
> > Benson & Hedges Inc will appeal the banning of tobacco product displays
> in
> > public places where children have access.  These displays ostensibly for
> > storage purposes are no more than blatent tobacco advertising.  The ban
> has
> > been well accepted by the public in our province.  Our provincial
> > pharmaceutical association says "Compliance is high.  There have been no
> > significant problems or failures, economically or otherwise."
> >
> > The industry's legal challenge was dismissed last year and now they are
> > using their massive resources to appeal.
> >
> > Wish us well.
> >
> > And please also wish the children of our province well.
> >
> > Lynn Greaves
> > Public Health Services
> > Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
> > 2110 Hamilton St
> > Regina, SK Canada S4P 2E3
> > 306-766-7903  Fax 306-766-7798
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe
> > See: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your
> subscription
>
> Send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe
> See: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your
> subscription
>

Send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe
See: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your subscription