Anti-Smoking Laws Part Deux
June 1st 2006 01:36
Category: No Category
Today I’m continuing my random ramblings and thoughts about anti-smoking laws and campaigns.
I think the financial side of the public smoking debate is secondary to the ethical issues. Public awareness and general health messages relating to the dangers of smoking are very apparent when compared to that of other nations. The health authorities have done a brilliant job of presenting the facts and minimizing might of the tobacco industries in public advertising and sponsorship. It seems eons ago when high profile sporting events were splashed with Winfield and Marlboro logos and the cricket greats would battle for the Benson and Hedges Test Series each summer. You don’t really notice the lack of smoking advertising in Australia until you step outside the borders. One of the first things I noticed when I left Australia was how aggressive and enticing the tobacco advertising industry is.
That being said, tobacco is a perfectly legal drug that has been a part of many cultures for centuries. Like any commodity, tobacco producers want to have a viable business. This requires market demand and promotion. I don’t think it is reasonable to blame tobacco companies for endeavoring to continue and promote their trade. Although there are known health risks, tobacco remains as a perfectly legal drug. Similarly, alcohol and excess consumption is known to promote a variety of health problems. Yet the social stigma and advertising bans are nowhere near as harsh as that applied to the tobacco industry.
I guess it boils down to the question as to the extent with which a governing body should regulate harmful activities. The facts and figures should be clearly defined. If smoking is dangerous, it should be made public and any smoker should know of the potential health risks associated with smoking. I agree with encouraging smokers to quit and new generations to avoid the habit. But, to what extent should a governing body start making decisions for people. Once all the information is provided, should it still remain the choice of the individual whether they light up at the bus stop or not? I can justify smoking bans in enclosed public spaces where passive smoking is a problem, but I’m not in total agreement with smoking bans in open public areas where passive smoking is not such an issue.
It’s been years since my teenage years of rebellious cigarette bum-puffing. I do prefer going to bars and not enduring the searing eye sting and lingering ashtray smell that seeps all the way through to your underwear. But at all the same, as long as tobacco remains a legal drug, I believe people should be given the right to an informed choice. There are many consumer products that skirt the high risk, long term health evils that tobacco has.
I think the financial side of the public smoking debate is secondary to the ethical issues. Public awareness and general health messages relating to the dangers of smoking are very apparent when compared to that of other nations. The health authorities have done a brilliant job of presenting the facts and minimizing might of the tobacco industries in public advertising and sponsorship. It seems eons ago when high profile sporting events were splashed with Winfield and Marlboro logos and the cricket greats would battle for the Benson and Hedges Test Series each summer. You don’t really notice the lack of smoking advertising in Australia until you step outside the borders. One of the first things I noticed when I left Australia was how aggressive and enticing the tobacco advertising industry is.
That being said, tobacco is a perfectly legal drug that has been a part of many cultures for centuries. Like any commodity, tobacco producers want to have a viable business. This requires market demand and promotion. I don’t think it is reasonable to blame tobacco companies for endeavoring to continue and promote their trade. Although there are known health risks, tobacco remains as a perfectly legal drug. Similarly, alcohol and excess consumption is known to promote a variety of health problems. Yet the social stigma and advertising bans are nowhere near as harsh as that applied to the tobacco industry.
I guess it boils down to the question as to the extent with which a governing body should regulate harmful activities. The facts and figures should be clearly defined. If smoking is dangerous, it should be made public and any smoker should know of the potential health risks associated with smoking. I agree with encouraging smokers to quit and new generations to avoid the habit. But, to what extent should a governing body start making decisions for people. Once all the information is provided, should it still remain the choice of the individual whether they light up at the bus stop or not? I can justify smoking bans in enclosed public spaces where passive smoking is a problem, but I’m not in total agreement with smoking bans in open public areas where passive smoking is not such an issue.
It’s been years since my teenage years of rebellious cigarette bum-puffing. I do prefer going to bars and not enduring the searing eye sting and lingering ashtray smell that seeps all the way through to your underwear. But at all the same, as long as tobacco remains a legal drug, I believe people should be given the right to an informed choice. There are many consumer products that skirt the high risk, long term health evils that tobacco has.
| 38 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by mnordfors