Smoky logic clouds need for action on public-health grounds
Vince Pinto's rhetoric about smoking in restaurants (South China Morning Post, November 6) strays far from the supposed objective of his letter.
We are sure that the majority in this community reject his accusations that smoke-free policies are the harbinger of bans on alcohol or anything else. The public-health sector has never proposed banning alcohol. Mr Pinto also tries to discredit the evidence on the harm caused by second-hand smoke and says he 'suspects' that traffic exhaust emissions 'cause more respiratory harm . . . than passive smoking'. This is not true and aimless repetitions of this fallacy will not change that fact.
Furthermore, we are not interested in a trade-off. Passive smoking and air pollution caused by traffic damage the lungs and circulatory system and public-health policy here aims to tackle both problems.
The so-called 'solution' based on the licensing of either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, proposed by Mr Pinto and James Lu of the Hotels Association (SCMP, November 8), is unworkable and will negate one of the main purposes of the Government's legislative proposals, which is to protect catering workers from damage caused by second-hand smoke.
Many of your recent correspondents have ignored that issue. However, most of your readers will reject the idea that workers' health should be decided by market forces and at the discretion of owners and managers.
Second-hand smoke is poisonous and will not be contained by the partial restrictions on smoking suggested by David Matthews (SCMP, November 9). Unquestionably, the only solution is to exclude it from the air we breathe.
The Hong Kong Hotels Association should be an advocate for clean air and more hygienic and safer conditions for patrons and the workforce in the establishments it represents. Your correspondents refer to us as the 'anti-smoking lobby', but 82 per cent of the Hong Kong public want smoke-free dining and more than 50 per cent have left restaurants because of smoke. The industry is clearly losing business, because of filthy indoor air.
Why then are some sections of the hospitality industry misrepresenting the views of the majority and continuing to actively support smoking in places where food is being prepared and served? If the industry does not adopt a different approach it will lose credibility with the public, and lose more customers.
Some of these letters were obviously targeted at senior policy makers, but shroud-waving based on specious economic arguments will not change the need for action on public-health grounds.
A. J. HEDLEY
Chairman
MARCUS YU
Executive Director
Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health
