Students support ban of flavoured tobacco products
We are third year nursing students at UBC-Okanagan and are writing in regard to the growing amount of flavoured tobacco products available today.
With National Non-Smoking Week upon us, we feel it is important to address this concern specifically because of the way these products are being marketed towards youth.
When you hear the flavours cherry, pear, apple, chocolate, etc., tobacco products probably don’t immediately come to mind, but now-a-days these flavours and many more are available in a wide variety of tobacco products.
Elaborate colourful packaging is used to make products much more enticing. With our research it’s become very clear to us just how obvious the tobacco industry gears the marketing of these products to youth.
Flavours help to mask the taste of tobacco and to make smoking more appealing. Youth are more likely to try smoking if something tastes like, say, a candy apple.
Products are also available individually at a price for less than a toonie, so youth can easily afford them. Parental awareness is crucial, as many parents may not even recognize a tobacco product in their child’s bag, because they look so similar to makeup, markers and candy products.
Research shows that smoking rates are decreasing which means the tobacco companies are losing money. So, to make up for losses they have invested billions of dollars in products to get youth hooked, as it is a well-known fact that young people are most likely to take up smoking, become addicted and then continue to smoke throughout adulthood.
When the federal government’s Bill C-32 was passed in 2009, it made it illegal for tobacco products under the weight of 1.4 grams and with a filter to be flavoured. So what did the tobacco companies do? They simply increased the weight and removed the filter in some products to get around this law. Statistics show that 61 per cent of all youth age 15-19 who smoke are using flavoured tobacco such as menthols, smokeless tobacco, or little cigars know as cigarillos.
As nursing students this is extremely concerning. We see the devastating effects smoking has on people.
Lung cancer alone causes more deaths than breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer combined as approximately 50 per cent of those diagnosed with lung cancer will die from it. We comfort families whose loved one has just been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, and sit with the terrified patient who can’t breathe due to his loss of lung function from years of smoking.
A large majority of the patients we care for, who have other serious health problems such as cardiac disease, stroke, and lung disease are or were previously smokers. Many of these health issues could potentially be prevented by quitting or by never having smoked in the first place.
We would like to see a ban on all flavoured tobacco products.
Tobacco companies are targeting youth, capitalizing on their susceptibility to peer pressure, and using flavoured, dynamic products to make them more appealing and trendy.
We feel our government has a responsibility to protect the health of our youth and ban these flavoured products. We know the truth; we see it, and no matter what flavour it comes in, continued use of these products kills and causes serious health issues that consume exhausted health care dollars.
We feel that if these flavoured “starter” tobacco products were no longer available, youth would be less inclined to try them, thereby reducing risk of addiction and ultimately decreasing the rates of adult smokers and the harmful complications caused by long-term smoking.
Heather deMedeiros and Katelyn Roberts,
3rd year nursing students, UBC-Okanagan
Sign removal being dictated
Does the regional district really believe that removing advertising signs from the highway is good business for the South Okanagan?
My business, Road 6 B&B and U-Pick is half a kilometre east of the highway. I need highway exposure to my two simple tasteful signs (which cost me $1,700 10 years ago) to direct guests and U-pickers to my place. Ninety-five per cent of my U-pick clientele come from the highway. Locals watch my sign to know what fruit is ready to pick. Tourists see my sign and drop in.
I need my highway clientele to pick my fruit so that I can earn enough money to maintain my farm status. One hundred per cent of my gross farm income is donated to charity.
Driving between Osoyoos and Oliver there are dozens of so-called illegal signs; of all of these only a couple are “inappropriate” signs for non-farm, non-winery businesses located in Penticton or in Oliver and Osoyoos.
All the rest are foretelling of upcoming wineries, nurseries, fruit stands, accommodations and real estate for sale. Some real estate signs are for large projects, for example Osoyoos Cottages project which would never be known except for highway signage. All these signs grow our South Okanagan economy.
Highway signs, a couple of kilometres away from the attraction (winery or B&B), give the driver time to think, “Is that where I want to go?” Travelling at 80 km/h with only highways department signage close to the attraction leaves no time to think, so the tourist will just drive on by or they will drive so slowly that they hinder traffic. Off highway farm businesses need signage to “grow the economy” and stay in business.
All laws have to make common sense and there must be reasonable accommodation outside the rigid bureaucratic way.
I have talked to Allan Patton from the RDOS and Warren Belcher of the highways department, but they both adhere to the mantra that a rule is a rule.
Growing the economy needs advertising.
James Moore, Oliver
Addiction being candy-coated
Chocolate, cherry, peach, mint and vanilla. Treat or trick? Though they may sound like treats, these are flavours of tobacco we want to see removed from the shelves in 2014.
In honour of Canada’s National Non-Smoking Week, it’s time we say goodbye to the brightly packaged, highly addictive, candy-coated carcinogens.
We know youth are the biggest users of flavoured tobacco, but what may be surprising is that youth are also the biggest supporters of a provincial ban. Recent polling reveals 81 per cent of BC teens ages 15-18 agree the BC provincial government should adopt legislation to ban all tobacco products with fruit and candy flavours. An additional 74 per cent of BC adults (18+) also support a ban on flavoured products.
Flavoured tobacco products carry the same health risks and are just as addictive as regular tobacco products, though their candy-like packaging suggests otherwise. What’s worse is that fruit, candy and menthol-flavoured products reduce the harsh experience of cigarette smoke, making it easier for youth who are experimenting with smoking to become addicted to tobacco.
Tobacco-use claims the lives of more than 6,000 British Columbians each year and it’s completely preventable. It’s time for a change. Help stop smoking before it starts by asking your local MLA and BC health minister to take action and create a provincial ban of all flavours of tobacco products.
Randene Wejr, Regional Director, Canadian Cancer Society
Two-dog bylaw is the nuisance
As a lifelong “dog person” I really do not agree with the two dogs only bylaw. The number of dogs per household has nothing to do with dogs being a nuisance.
I live off Road 1 and there are many one-dog households nearby who create a terrible nuisance. On any given night there are eight or nine dogs howling because they have been left outside in the cold; they also bark non-stop all day, for no apparent reason other than being lonely and bored.
Outdoor dogs are no good as watchdogs as they permanently bark so nobody bothers to see if there is a problem, and a chained up dog does not deter burglars.
A dog inside the home is a much bigger threat to a burglar than a guard dog tied up in the yard.
We have two single dog homes nearby whose pets almost live in my yard. They are a happy pair of dogs, who meet up regularly for a ramble around the neighbourhood, but I do not want them hanging around.
They leave nasty deposits all over my yard, jump in the fish pond for some fun and trample all of my flower beds. They then stand on my patio, grinning at me through the glass doors, and driving my own two, indoor dogs crazy.
These dogs are both super friendly but a real pain to deal with as they come both day and night. Shouting at them does no good, and I have tried throwing pebbles but they just back off a few feet then come back.
An owner with three or four, well cared for dogs should not be penalized just because of numbers. Why not concentrate on the nuisance dogs and make their owners take responsibility?
Pat Whalley, Oliver
