From behind a veil of smoke: 'I have quit trying to quit'
Being anti-smoking and anti-tobacco is NOT being anti-smoker. Indeed, many current smokers and ex-smokers are supportive of anti-smoking measures. Indeed, it is "Hate the smoke. Love the smoker." This is why tobacco control advocates work hard to help smokers quit, so that they won't wait for cancer or a stroke or heart attack to cure their nicotine addiction.
Smokers may have a right to smoke, but not to harm others with secondhand smoke; so go ahead and puff away if you really want to, but don't expose others around you to the toxins and carcinogens of tobacco smoke. But the question is: do smokers really want to stay addicted and run the risk of debilitating or life-threatening disease? Your many quit attempts, though unsuccessful, seem to indicate otherwise.
As you say, it is smoking (and not anti-smoking) that has marginalized smokers. Why? Because of its many harms on health to both smoker and non-smoker, harms to the environment, harms to social structures like the family, and even harms to the economy (in spite of sin taxes). The culprit here is the tobacco companies that make huge profits from the smokers they victimize.
While it may be true that smoking is seemingly less popular today than 20 years ago, it is not exactly true that the Philippines is a tough place for smokers and that RA 9211 is in full force. Almost one out of two Filipino males is a smoker, and the smoking rates among women is among the highest in the world and rising. If tobacco control measures are so successful, why do so many Filipinos still smoke? The truth is that RA9211 is a flawed law, full of loopholes that are exploited by tobacco companies.
a. A partial smoking ban allows for indoor smoking rooms that do not protect workers and the public from exposure to tobacco smoke. Even then, it is not well enforced in many cities and municipalities (yes, LGUs not doing their job to protect public health), and it doesn't help that Philip Morris officials visit and confuse the ones that are serious about the smoking ban.
b. Sure, tobacco ads on TV and radio have disappeared, but posters and outdoor billboards have proliferated at every sari-sari store despite a partial advertising ban (including on outdoor ads).
c. We have ineffective, small, text-only health warnings (in English no less, and none in the vernacular) even if companies like Philip Morris, Fortune Tobacco, and Mighty Corp have been producing for many years pictorial (graphic) warnings for export to other countries such as Singapore, Brunei, and Thailand. Do Filipinos not deserve the whole truth about smoking harms?
d. "Excise tax is on a rampage"? How can you say that when cigarettes are so very affordable at one or two pesos per stick? We have among the cheapest cigarettes in Asia! The government should raise taxes so that only those who can afford to get sick from smoking are the ones that can afford to buy cigarettes.
e. What has the National Tobacco Administration done to help our tobacco farmers diversify and shift away from tobacco as required by RA9211? Nothing?
Our government has a lot of work ahead to meet its obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, ratified in 2005, notwithstanding the heavy tobacco industry lobby. This is where transparency and good governance should play a crucial role, as the tobacco industry is well known for fighting regulation "at all costs".
In the meantime, while government struggles to get its act together, smokers should continue to seriously consider quitting. Quitting smoking, especially for those heavily addicted, is never easy. But don't give up. Quitters never win.
No comments:
Post a Comment