Ottawa Public Health (OPH) is calling on the federal government to follow the example of New Zealand’s “smoke-free generation” law, which sought to ban cigarette sales to anyone born after 2008 for their entire lifetime.

Even though the New Zealand policy is now at risk due to a new government’s plans to abandon it, OPH recommended Health Canada adopt a “similar approach” as it reviews the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.

According to OPH, current restrictions are not sufficient to protect young people from addiction. It also pushed for a federal minimum age of 21 to buy tobacco, nicotine and vaping products.

An Ottawa doctor specializing in smoking cessation called the generational ban “an exceptionally good idea,” but an expert in drug and alcohol policy warned it would repeat failed experiments in prohibition that only benefit the black market.

Last year, then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s government passed legislation to gradually raise the smoking age to prevent anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009 from ever being able to buy cigarettes legally in New Zealand. The ban was set to come into effect in 2027.

The policy also would have restricted the number of retailers allowed to sell cigarettes and limited concentrations of nicotine to non-addictive levels.

Last month’s elections produced a new coalition government in New Zealand, which this week said it plans to reverse that law, at least partly, to fund tax cuts.

OPH said it had no one available to comment on its proposals, which appeared in a report to the city’s board of health.

In that document, OPH explained that New Zealand shares Canada’s goal of cutting the smoking rate to below five per cent.

‘Abundant good sense’ or boon for criminals?

Dr. Andrew Pipe, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of medicine and an expert on smoking cessation, said the proposal “makes abundant good sense.”

He went further, saying the generational ban should apply to all nicotine products — not just cigarettes.

“It’s a very good way of restricting access to tobacco products,” he said. “You have a cohort of young people who are completely unable to purchase nicotine products, and that’s important because nicotine is the most tenaciously addictive drug we deal with in our community.”

New Zealand’s policy is “world-leading” and “innovative,” according to Sir Collin Tukuitonga, president of the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine.

In an interview with CBC, he said there’s still time for that government to reverse itself.

He said the model is realistic for Canada and noted the United Kingdom already plans to copy it. New Zealand’s smoking rate is already low, at around eight per cent, but Tukuitonga said it can get lower.

“We think that the whole package of things — education, legislation, reducing availability through a limited number of outlets — all of those things will overall lead to a continued reduction,” he said.

Sarah Butson, public affairs and policy analyst with the Canadian Lung Association, said it’s “unnecessary” for young people to be able to buy tobacco in the future, given the harms associated with smoking.

“This is a strategy that makes a lot of sense to make sure that our younger generations simply cannot get these products in their hands,” she said.

“We know that public education, unfortunately with most health issues, only goes so far.”

Dan Malleck, a professor of health sciences at Brock University who specializes in drug and alcohol regulation, called the policy another example of prohibition — which has a long history of failure.

“Prohibition never works. This is prohibition. It’s just generational,” he said. “There’s a lot of ways to get your hands on something you want to try, and if you make something illegal, for some people it becomes more appealing.”

He noted that past experiments with prohibition provided ample opportunities for criminal networks to profit.

“There’s established smuggling networks. People will continue to do this,” he said. “It would be better for public health to focus on limiting the negative effects on others, which we’ve done fairly successfully.”

Malleck noted the proportion of young people smoking is already dropping. He said the most successful strategies for curtailing smoking rely on providing alternatives, not bans.

More vendors selling to minors, OPH says

In addition to the smoking age recommendations, OPH is also urging Health Canada to ban smoking and vaping on federal lands, like parks, trails and beaches, and to regulate nicotine product placement in streaming and social media, including by influencers.

The agency is also pushing for financial incentives for smoking cessation counselling or medication, and for smoking cessation training for tobacco and vaping vendors.

According to OPH, tobacco enforcement officers have noted a significant increase in vendors selling to people under 19 in Ottawa recently.

There have been 114 charges and seven warnings during youth access inspections so far this year, according to OPH — a new record.

Source : CBC

The post Ottawa Public Health Urges Tough Anti-Smoking Policy That New Zealand is Scrapping appeared first on Policy Print.

Public health academic Michael Baker is baffled by the new government’s “incoherent” approach to World Health Organisation (WHO) regulations.

New Zealand’s new government has urgently lodged a reservation – a letter saying the country would not sign up yet – for amendments to WHO health regulations.

It was part of National’s agreement with New Zealand First, which requires the government to ensure a ‘National Interest Test’ before New Zealand accepts any United Nations agreements, or those from its agencies, “that limit national decision-making, and reconfirm that New Zealand’s domestic law holds primacy over any international agreements”.

“As part of the above, by 1 December 2023 reserve against proposed amendments to WHO health regulations to allow the incoming government to consider these against a ‘National Interest Test’,” the agreement stated.

That test would assess whether it is in New Zealand’s interests to sign up to proposed amendments, but Prof Baker said the agreement seemed to be calling for what was already happening.

“Before New Zealand does sign any substantial international agreements including those from the World Health Organisation … it will carry out a national interest analysis, and then there’s a parliamentary treaty examination,” he said.

“All of those happen routinely, the only time when that wouldn’t happen is if there’s very minor insubstantial change to international law where government agencies and Cabinet decide that it’s not necessary.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said including the provision in the plan for the government’s first 100 days was because of the short timeframe allowed.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“We just, as a new government, want to be able to take a pause and make sure that it meets a national interest test,” he said. They had nothing against the regulations, “we’re just saying there’s a decision that needs to be made”.

Just one amendment to the WHO regulations would need a reservation to be lodged by the end of November, but it merely shortens the time countries can lodge a reservation from two years to one – speeding up the WHO’s ability to come to agreement on health regulations.

“That strikes me as rather odd,” Baker said. “It’s an administrative shift, and that was reviewed by [Cabinet] and I’ve got the Cabinet minutes here – which has been released publicly, anyone can download it – that explains why this was an inconsequential change in didn’t require lengthy review process.

“I just can’t see that you would want to go through that whole process for a trivial amendment like this.”

The amendment had been part of a larger suite of changes proposed by the United States in May last year, which was the subject of criticism for overreach in an international law blog, but as the WHO’s decisions show only the change to timeframes was adopted.

WHO member states are also set to vote next year on a much broader revision of the regulations in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with New Zealand’s Dr Ashley Bloomfield co-chairing a working group of 15 representative countries to agree on changes over the past 18 months.

Once agreed, these would be presented to the next World Health Assembly in May 2024. Proposals for changes are publicly available, but have not yet been finalised.

As Baker says, however, all of that would be subject to a national interest test anyway – as the last major amendments were.

“Frankly, I find the points being made about these international health agreements incoherent, and I just do not know what they’re doing there… I am baffled by seeing this clause in the agreement because in many ways, it’s just stating what New Zealand already does.”

He said he expected the changes from that broader review would lead to improvements in global security for future health emergencies.

“I think people should look at what changes are proposed and then hopefully there’ll be opportunities for all of us to voice our opinions publicly.

“Because really, the world needs more coordination rather than less, because we are all in it together. And countries cannot insulate themselves from pandemic threats.”

There’s also currently a process for an international treaty for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response which countries hope to have finalised for the May 2024 meeting, as well as an international panel reviewing the pandemic response led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Theories about the UN and the WHO have been circulating online as one of the major recurring touchpoints of conspiracist movements, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began.

NZ First leader Winston Peters, now the deputy prime minister, posted on social media in May saying New Zealanders would be “highly concerned that the World Health Organisation proposes to effectively take control of independent decision making away from sovereign countries and place control with the Director General”.

NZ First leader Winston Peters at his swearing-in. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

His second-in-command Shane Jones penned an opinion in the NZ Herald in June railing against globalism and the risks of handing more power to the WHO.

Asked whether the reservation laid out in New Zealand First’s coalition agreement was pandering to conspiracy theorists, Baker said: “it would be easy to read it like that, I guess you just have to ask the people who wrote it”.

New Zealand First did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Interim position’ – Shane Reti

National’s Shane Reti, however, did – confirming in a statement the Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade ministries had formally notified the WHO about Cabinet’s reservation about the health regulation amendments “in their entirety” on Wednesday.

Health Minister Shane Reti being sworn in on Monday Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“They did this until the government can conduct a national interest test,” Reti said. “The only way to give effect to this is to formally reject the amendments. Rejections may be withdrawn by New Zealand at any time, after which the amendments would come into force.

“Reserving against provides for a pause on New Zealand’s response to amendments suggested by the WHO, while they’re considered against a national interest test. This is an interim position to give the new government the opportunity to receive advice and fully consider the amendments.”

Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall said she was deeply concerned “that I see that sort of rubbish about the WHO and international health regulations on the internet, and all of a sudden it’s in a coalition document.

Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“Those health regulations are used to make sure that when there is a disease with pandemic potential, there is an early warning given out across the world.

“The government needs to be able to speak, and justify the decisions that it has taken on these quite fringe concerns.”

Reti however said it was unjustified for Labour to “somehow suggest that the government’s commitment to international health outcomes has been compromised”.

“New Zealand remains committed to working with other Member States to ensure the WHO is best able to fulfil its mandate. We are not going to walk away from all the good work on international health carried out by the WHO over decades,” he said.

Source : RNZ

The post Coalition’s Who Policy Leaves Public Health Expert ‘Baffled’ appeared first on Policy Print.