TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

‘Alarming’ results show women starting to smoke younger – research

New research describes the global use of tobacco an “epidemic” – with women increasingly starting to smoke at younger ages and early half of adult men in developing countries still using tobacco products.

Image: Peter Byrne/PA Wire/Press Association Images

NEW RESEARCH HAS revealed “alarming patterns” of tobacco use across the world, despite several years of global tobacco control efforts.

Almost half of adult men in developing countries still use tobacco products, women are increasingly starting to smoke at younger ages, and quitting rates remain low in most countries, The Lancet reports.

Major disparities remain in the use of tobacco and access to effective policies and treatments to limit its use, according to researchers, who point out that although 1.1 billion people have been covered by the adoption of the most effective tobacco-control policies since 2008, 83 per cent of the world’s population are not covered by two or more of these policies.

Lead researcher Gary Giovino from the University at Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions in New York said the findings had come at “a crucial point in tobacco control”, several years after the ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The stark results underline the need for effective tobacco control, he said.

Global Adult Tobacco Surveys

Using data from the Global Adult Tobacco Surveys (GATS) undertaken between 2008 and 2010, the team compared patterns of tobacco use and cessation in adults (15+ years) from 14 countries of low and middle income (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Vietnam),  which account for most of the disease burden from tobacco use. They also included nationally representative data from the UK and the USA for comparison purposes.

Researchers say that the overall picture was “alarming”, and showed disproportionately high rates of tobacco smoking among men (41 per cent vs 5 per in women) and wide variation in smoking prevalence between GATS countries.

About 22 per cent of men in Brazil were smokers, compared to over 60 per cent in Russia, while 0.5 per cent of women in Egypt used tobacco in contrast with to almost 25 per cent in Poland. Women in the UK (21 per cent) and the USA (16 per cent) also reported some of the highest smoking rates.

China has more tobacco consumers than any other country, with approximately 301 million tobacco users, closely followed by India with near to 275 million. The research found the majority of tobacco users (64 per cent) smoke manufactured cigarettes, although smokeless tobacco use (eg, loose-leaf chewing tobacco and snuff) is particularly common in India (206 million users) and Bangladesh.

The authors said their “particular concern” was the rise in tobacco use among women at younger ages, noting: “Women are increasingly starting to smoke at an equivalent age to men.”

Many ex-smokers Ôsay ban helped'

Picture by: PA/PA Wire/Press Association Images

To compound the problem, quitting rates were also noted to be very low in most GATS countries, with less than 20 per cent of adults who had ever smoked in China, India, Egypt, Bangladesh, and Russia saying they had stopped. Quit ratios were highest in the UK, USA, Brazil, and Uruguay with over 35 per cent of ever smokers saying they had stopped.

Commenting on the results, Jeffrey Koplan from Emory University in the USA and Judith Mackay from the World Lung Foundation in Hong Kong described the underinvestment in tobacco control “extraordinary” in light of the health burden of tobacco use.

“For example, core funding by governments for implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) within their own countries is woefully inadequate for the enormity of the epidemic. For example, in low-income countries, for every US$9100 received in tobacco taxes, only $1 was spent on tobacco control,” they said.

“With behaviours and lifestyle in flux globally and marketing rampant, we can expect initiation of tobacco use to begin at younger ages than at present, and pressures on young women to smoke to increase. Hopefully, with successful control efforts, there will be an increase in attempted and successful quit rates.” they added.

Read: Australia’s top court upholds rules on generic cigarette boxes>

Read next:

Comments (42 Comments)

  • As a smoker who’s hoping to give up , again when I started smoking it was seen as the mature thing to do , there were no health warnings nothing , you only have to you tube old cigarette adverts to see how the world saw them. How times have changed if I could turn back the clock I would ,

    Reply
  • As a smokers myself, I would love it if the Government banned the sale of cigarettes altogether.

    Reply
    • I agree bob, Ive really cut down and in the past year. I smoke less than 10 in a week. which almost seems pointless having cut down from over 20 a day but I don’t think ill ever be free from the demon tobacco, its one of the hardest addictions to break. I’d welcome a blanket ban. but we all know that would just create a stronger black market for them. and on a related note, I hate when people complaine about the ‘quality’ of counterfeit cigarettes ‘Ooooh ye don’t know what could be in them’ yeah I’m really concerned that there might be more than just the usual arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide etc. that you get in the authentic ones.

      Reply
    • I totally agree with you Bob.

      Reply
  • If the results are so ‘alarming’ then why is the product available for public use?

    Cigarettes are the one and only product that are guaranteed to kill you if used exactly as intended. So again, why are these even available? (€€€)

    Reply
    • More importantly, why do people start smoking?

      Reply
    • @Hamstrings
      The cost of healthcare to treat smoking-related illness exceeds the tax take from tobacco products, so I don’t thing its as simple as €€€.

      Reply
    • mattoid 17/08/12 #

      @Micheal
      The tobacco industry has been very skilful and adept at targeting young people in order to build its next generation of addicts.
      Teenagers are at a very vulnerable age in terms of risk-related decision making. At that age there is a tendency to feel invincible and ignore known risks, thinking that cancer etc. only happens to other people. By the time they get past this they are already addicts.
      How many older smokers started in their teens / early 20′s but wish they hadn’t?

      Reply
    • @mattoid
      I very much doubt that the cost of treating smoking related illness exceeds the amount taken in tax. I presume you can provide evidence to back up this claim.

      That aside, @Hamstrings asks the question that has confused me for some considerable time. Why is it still legal for companies to sell a product that is incredibly addictive and undoubtedly causes slow painful death??

      The systematic harassment, abuse and alienation of smokers has proved to have limited effect in reducing smoking. The problem here being that the anti-smoking lobby simply do not understand how incredibly addictive smoking is. Instead of offering real support to smokers to help them quit, such as free nicotine patches, the anti-smoking brigade, in their abundant ignorance, believe that simply abusing smokers and turning them into social outcasts will do the trick.

      Obviously such tactics will only fail, but hey, it’s not all bad. At least the government are making piles of money by trying to tax smokers into submission. lol.

      Reply
    • Micheal 17/08/12 #

      @Hugh, the cost of providing health care to smokers far and away exceeds the revenue collected, due to the fact that most smokers spend quite long periods of time in hospital in their later life. (IE: months, sometimes years).
      @Mattoid: agreed. Perhaps it’s time to change the advertising to reflect that smoking isn’t cool.

      Reply
    • @Michael. That’s your opinion. I find it hard to believe so please provide evidence to support your claim. Then I will have to agree with you.

      Until then I reiterate, that I believe taxes from smoking far exceed the cost of treating smoking related illness or the government would do the right and proper thing and simply ban tobacco products.

      Reply
    • Micheal 17/08/12 #

      HSE spend on smoking related diseases (2011): 2.3bn.
      State spend on medical certs for smoking related illness (2011): 350m.
      Revenue from cigarettes (2011): 1.2bn.

      Reply
    • @ Michael, I think your figures are a bit off, can you provide a link to them

      Reply
    • @mattoid – I’m going to have to call you on that…..

      I was hoping you might be able to provide some true facts there but really you’ve exposed that there are no true numbers on this.

      The report states “up to 15%” and goes on to say that in “high income countries like Ireland, smoking related health care costs account for between 6% and 15% of all annual healthcare costs”

      I make that €0.9bn to €2.25bn and there are other questions around these figures.
      Is this a true net cost to the system or is it a gross cost which does not take into account recovered costs through health insurance.

      I’d hope you don’t think that I support smoking. I used to smoke but quit – pretty much seeing the senselessness of it during a time when my Dad was in for a double bypass.
      I just think these figures are thrown around and are not comprehensive. It surprises me that this doesn’t exist in any country – I’m wondering if that says something? The lack of comprehensive research allows for rubbishing of the financial argument.

      The health part of it is the real argument.

      Reply
    • mattoid 17/08/12 #

      @Tomy
      Point taken on the large disparity between 6% and 15% – I guess it illustrates the difficulty in coming up with an accurate figure and as you rightly point out, its surprising there isn’t more precise data on this.

      Nevertheless, lets be even-handed and take the median figure of 10.5% – this still gives us a costing of €1.575bn, well above the annual tax take.

      The point about health insurance is a red herring unless you can show that the proportion of smokers holding health insurance is larger than the proportion of non-smokers.

      Reply
    • I didn’t put it in there as a red herring – I put it in there as something which would need to be included in a comprehensive report of the issue.

      I don’t think you’d need to prove what it is you’re saying at all. 1.575-1.2=0.375bn to be accounted for through health insurance if indeed it were the case that these contribute to net costs.

      Also, there is another element which would need to be included in a comprehensive view of the numbers. Smokers die younger and therefore cost less to the state in pensions. It might be a bit dark but it’s a factor when looking at finances.

      Reply
    • @mattoid FYI direct taxes on cigarettes raises 2.5b annually. Add to this taxes on the tobacco company’s profits plus income tax and PRSI and USC on employee’s wages plus employer’s PRSI contributions plus VAT on all the goods and services paid for in the production of cigarettes and those of the tobacco company employees and you will realise why smoking is still legal.

      Still think that smokers are a burden on the health service?? Oh contrare, the health service couldn’t survive without the contribution of smokers.

      Reply
    • Micheal 18/08/12 #

      Hugh,
      There are no Irish tobacco companies that contribute significantly to the tax take of this country. There are likely less than 100 people paying tax in this industry in the entire country.
      I’m not sure where you got your figure for tax take on cigarettes, but 1.2bn is the figure quoted on revenue.ie.
      The HSE spend on smoking related diseases was 2.3bn last year, as quoted on HSE website. This includes capital investment.
      The fact of the matter: smoking costs. The only reason for not banning smoking: a death warrant to the political party that implements it.

      Reply
    • @Michael – can you clarify where this €2.3bn figure comes from? I have seen nothing to accurately state this – only interpretations of incomplete reports (see above comments).
      If sticking with an economic argument, please also not the comment on earlier deaths saving on state paid pensions.

      You seem to be suggesting prohibition of cigarettes? I would love to hear a comprehensive proposal on how this could work…..

      I can’t see it – you may as well be trying to ban unhealthy eating, or prosecute people for not taking medicines IMO.

      Reply
  • I agree. I started smoking when I was 15 when you make stupid decisions based on wanting to fit in with people and be seen as cool. At that age death is so long off you never even think about it and if you do you probably think something idiotic like it would be cool to die before you get old. I remember I even briefly smoked Death cigarettes when they were launched! Most people who end up addicted began at a really young age when it is actually illegal to smoke so I don’t know what can be done about it bar total prohibition which would reduce access and make it harder to get addicted. You could maybe have exceptions from this in the medium term for people who already smoke plus way more help for people to stop but the most effective way is definitely prevention because quitting is so hard.

    really sad to see history being repeated in developing countries – shows the power of the tobacco industry and the collusion of governments especially when this time no one can say people didn’t know…

    Reply
  • Smoking is an absolutely disgusting habit anyways…

    Reply
  • Elrat 17/08/12 #

    Alcohol is just as bad and also costs millions to the health services. Alcohol causes much more hardship to many families than tobacco !

    Reply
  • Voluntary euthanasia is banned by law. I don’t see much difference between that and smoking.

    Reply
  • Just goes to show that advertising bans, education, etc don’t work. The only way to stop anyone from smoking is to ban them altogether. And if Govt were that concerned about the issues of smoking they would put a complete ban….But revenue is the driving factor as to why they won’t…!!!

    P.S. And I am a smoker…!!!

    Reply
  • In this country the witch hunt on smokers is beyond the joke.

    Reply
  • The reason why young people smoke is to look cool! And peer pressure by others! Look at me I’m smoking and destroying my lungs I’m so cool…

    Reply
  • Well said@hugh hicks

    Reply
  • Eoin Faz 17/08/12 #

    Ban smoking in public places

    Reply
    • Damn good idea, ban smoking in public places. Just as soon as smoking is an illegal activity. Until then you are discriminating against smokers who are doing absolutely nothing wrong. Smoking is a personal choice, as is drinking, as is stuffing your face with fatty creamy buns. All are unhealthy, but I was not aware that it is compulsory to adhere to a healthy lifestyle. Perhaps I missed that meeting.

      Trying to force your beliefs on people simply doesn’t work. Nobody likes to be forced or harassed and humiliated into compliance, and nobody has the right to force their will on anybody anyway. I personally am totally opposed to alcohol but it is none of my business if people want to become mindlessly drunk and inevitably make fools of themselves, it is their choice and it is not illegal.

      Perhaps when the bigots in the anti-smoking lobby realise that they cannot simply spout propaganda and bully and harass smokers into giving up, then we may begin to look forward to a smoke free society.

      Reply
  • Anyone else think smoking shows a distinct lack of intelligence???

    Reply
  • Sometimes that’s why peole start smoking – to look cool. By the time they’ve figured out it’s not quite so cool as they thought, they’re hooked.
    I wonder just how effective plain packaging and graphic pictures will really be for someone seriously addicted to tobacco. I smoked for around 15 years and went cold turkey giving it up and even then it took 2 years after I quit before I could go anywhere near someone smoking without wanting to light up.

    Reply

Add New Comment