bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Should the full smoking ban be delayed?
Judith Mackay  (Talkback, December 11)  has a serious problem in her quest to eliminate cigarette smoking but there is absolutely no justification to target a small group of businesses that  provide a service for those who wish to smoke.
Licensed bars and entertainment places are private premises to which customers are invited at a manager's discretion and are not public places with right of access.
Smoky bars are, therefore, not places with 'indoor air pollution' to which the public or even 'catering workers' are forced to venture.
Nobody disputes that nicotine is an addictive drug and smoking kills, but like it or not, hundreds of millions of people worldwide still choose to smoke.
Governments are sensible enough not to attempt to outlaw tobacco because quite apart from not wanting to lose billions of tax dollars, the memory of the attempted alcohol ban in the US in the 1920s - Prohibition - is still too fresh.
No-smoking regulations already applied to shopping centres are weakly enforced, so what hope have you of enforcing even stricter regulations for private premises?
The chairman of the Clear the Air  (Talkback, December 12)  group, Christian Masset,  should check his facts. I am still a life member of the group.
I submitted a resignation some years ago, which was never acknowledged and the group has continued to send me members' notices. I have also asked him as  Clear the Air chairman to have a members' general debate on the smoking issue, which was ignored.
The anti-tobacco lobby  in Hong Kong and elsewhere has not been doing too well in recent years. Its weary message of doom for smokers is as stale as the lingering smell of smoke in an empty bar.
Clear the Air has unfortunately permitted itself to be hijacked by anti-smoking campaigners, seeking to reinforce their flagging message.
Most supporters believe in a far more noble cause than penalising smokers.
We believe the priority is to clean  the filthy and unhealthy outside air we are compelled to breathe without choice.
This is what air pollution is really all about.
If Dr Mackay and Clear the Air get their way, they will drive smoking dens underground.
Or worse still, we will have larger groups of people hanging around on the pavements, blowing smoke into the faces of passers-by.
Leave the bars and entertainment spots alone.
P. A. Crush, Sha Tin
I continue to be perplexed by claims of those such as  Lam Kwok-tung  (Talkback, December 13) that there is a 'right' to smoke in Hong Kong. Nicotine is a listed poison and deliberately applying  poison to another person with the intent to harm is against the law.
Smokers know that second-hand smoke causes harm because in Hong Kong we usually blow the exhaled smoke as far away from our faces - and our friends' faces - as possible.
It is also considered polite to hold a lit cigarette far away from friends' faces - and direct it instead towards strangers.
Lam Kwok-tung is mistaken in believing that deliberately poisoning people is part of a civilised society.
It is a contravention of Chapter 212,  which has the charming title of Offences Against the Person Ordinance.
His best choice, in order to stay within the law and reduce air pollution, is to quit.
Annelise Connell, Stanley
What do you think of the  drug-abuse proposals?
In recent years, the drug problem in Hong Kong, especially among teenagers, has worsened.
We keep reading news reports about young drug users.
As a consequence it has been proposed that there should be compulsory tests in schools [of pupils suspected of taking illicit drugs].
I would not support such a measure.
The test would not catch students who take drugs but do so outside school.
Also, it is easy now to cross the border to the mainland.
It is easy for teenagers to go to the mainland to take drugs.
It only takes a few minutes to get to Lok Ma Chau [border checkpoint] from Sheung Shui.
Also it would be very costly  in terms of time and money, to have these tests and it might interfere with students' studies.
Also, what criteria would the school authorities draw up while  deciding which students to test? Different teachers might set different criteria, which is unfair to students.
When it comes to curbing drug use among young people, education is crucial.
Teenagers always want to rebel. We need to take a gentler approach when dealing with them.
Wing Tam, Fanling
Should domestic-violence laws cover same-sex couples?
The Domestic Violence Ordinance  does not cover people of the same sex who cohabit, because marriage, as defined under Hong Kong's laws, does not cover same-sex couples. Instead of amending the ordinance, as has been proposed, the government should study the feasibility of same-sex couples getting help from social services when they are having problems. I think that the present  laws provide effective protection to all citizens.
Hung Wing-kee, Tuen Mun
On other matters ...
I refer to the letter by E. Delannoy (Talkback, December 9), criticising the MTR Corporation's strategy on saving energy. He asked why it was 'shutting down a number of escalators in stations at certain hours', but still keeping the air conditioning at cold temperatures inside its carriages [from Tung Chung to Central]. I support his views on this issue for a number of reasons.
I wonder how much energy is saved by shutting off a number of escalators and compare that with how much is wasted by having air conditioning  at such high levels over a long period on the trains.  Air conditioning that  keeps the temperatures so low inside MTR trains must consume a great deal of energy.
The fact is that passengers feel uncomfortable in the carriages when they are so cold. Therefore, one simple way to conserve energy would be for the MTR Corp  to lower  the   temperatures.
It could also try to install  a good ventilation system so it does not have to  rely on air conditioning to provide a  flow of air. I hope  MTR Corp can look into these problems and rectify them.
Angel Chan, Tuen Mun



Talkback