The hypocrisy of ''statutory warning''

“Tobacco means only death.  I have seen this closely, effects of tobacco as an ENT surgeon” Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan said.  “From April next year, 85% of space on both sides of cigarette packs and other tobacco products will have to be mandatorily covered with pictorial and text warnings ….”, said a Health Ministry notification reportedly carried by Times of India under the caption “Warning to cover 85% of cig packs” (October 16, 2014).  

“Cigarette smoking is injurious to health.” “Smoking is addictive.”  “Smoking may cause impotence.” While there is no dearth of “statutory warnings”, days were that, for many,  college days remained incomplete without the smoking adventure. Boys and girls smoke to impress their peers and flirt  with the forbidden – a sort of heroism. Some puff  because they enjoyed. They may ask, why would people quit something they enjoyed.  One person tells me, “I smoke. Why not non-smokers respect it?  It is not easy to stop smoking”. 

If the product is evil, why not make it illegal? A common-sense query, but uncommon among our law-makers!  Tobacco kills up to half of all users. Statistics screams that 100 million deaths were caused by tobacco in the 20^th century.  If the current trend continues, there is likely to be one billion deaths in the 21^st century, while a third of the world cigarettes are smoked in China alone.

Even if a cigarette packet that recites a health warning every time you open it (similar to the one used in musical cards), there may be  few takers.  A long-time smoker of over three decades, over an informal chat,  confirms, “You slap a 100 per cent tax on the tobacco product and display the goriest image of a dead body on the cigarette box in support of the “warning”, it will not deter me to stop smoking”.  An addict shared that “nicotine helps to focus”.

How many smokers "quit" by seeing the "warning" label?  No smoker ever argued that smoking is not harmful to health, as their brain can process this information. The knowledge is there, yet it is more about giving into the addiction. But as Mark Twain said, “Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world.  I know because I’ve done it thousands of times.”  

“Statutory” doubts

Warning labels on cigarette packs may stir the emotions, but never drive them to quit. How does the psychology - selling cigarettes and also "warning" about the ill-effects of smoking tobacco  - work?  Does the law forbid cigarette brands from sponsoring sporting and cultural events?  I wonder why no tobacco industry representative has seen it as a curb on its right to free speech?      Smoking is being singled out in a way alcohol consumption, or fast food for that matter, is not.  You don’t see images of obese people on potato chip packets, nor liquor bottles  show images of diseased livers/drunk driving accidents.

It is not the same craving for chocolates that can be applied to craving for cigarettes.  “Drink responsibly” is different from “smoke responsibly”.  If smoking is so evil and dangerous, causing illness and death, why the government fails to criminalise tobacco, and in fact makes money from the sale of the anti-health product.  Does that make the government an  abettor to the crime? Why something so demonstrably damaging is legal?  It tantamounts to “we think this product is so awful but we will let you buy it”, hypocrisy generously flamboyant.

What does corporate social responsibility signify? 

The tobacco industries are clever, and they have resources.  They come up with new ways to get around bans, they are canny about it.  It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18.  Not a single prosecution has ever been brought for selling tobacco products to minors, not one.  How could any shareholder in the tobacco companies  not feel sorry for what they promote?  Why tobacco manufacturers didn’t think of any other business alternatives? Anti-smoking segments may be thrilled with the invention of “talking” cigarette packet.  However, without the government intervention, cigarette manufacturers will pay no heed to the request and continue to use the tiny-lettered health warnings on the cigarette packets. 

“Drinking” has seen a lot of regulations and bans.  Unlike cigarettes, is it possible to consume alcohol safely?   Can people drink socially without damage, and can be positive one in moderation?  If you want to discourage tobacco use, attack the source.  Tell the young smoker the truth – they look insecure and immature, when they light up.  We don’t need statutory warnings for that.  People choose to do things that are unhealthy all the time, and they are aware, they have to at some point of time accept the consequences of their choices.  The Turks in the 18^th century threatened death to smokers. Hardly a few were executed, but smoking continued to become number one drug of use in Turkey. 

If the government put a tiny ‘warning’ message, it is the least they could do, and it is the least they have done.  Graphic and grisly images are steadily losing their “shock” value as people become desensitised to grotesque images. Not once have I heard the medical and health professionals say “Ban it completely”. There is none so blind as those who will not see.

A seasoned smoker shares, “The only time I stopped smoking was for six months when I had to look after my first grandson, emotional reason clearly paving the way to keep tobacco product at bay.  To a fair extent I could maintain the same arrangement with my next grandson as well”.

Dear Doctor/Health Minister Harsh Vardhan, yet, where is your prescription for smoke-free lungs?

Skull and crossed bones, nevertheless, get my vote.