Tuesday, 16 October 2012


So for a while now there's been talk about how tobacco based products are going to be banned. Or maybe the ban's been implemented, even. Why? In a bid to ensure that the consumption declines, and thereby leads to (hopefully) a lower rate of cancer victims. While I don't deny that the statistics of those affected by the dreaded disease are painfully high, and that tobacco consumption contributes to incidences of a certain type of cancer, I do wonder about the ban.

What happens with a ban is this: there's a brouhaha, it gets written about and talked about, the dailies are splashed with pictures of stores being raided, and then comes that bit about people purchasing on the sly, never mind the ban, thank you very much. Sloooowly, much   later (and on the quiet), the ban gets lifted/ terms and conditions of the ban change, much like a starlet changing clothes for a magazine shoot, and life goes back to normal. That is, those who weren't put off by the grotesque imagery on packets of said products, go grab them in their eager little paws once more.

I don't know if there's a solution here, honestly - you may even question whether awareness campaigns even cut it any more. And hence a ban is justified, according to some. At least that way, access is that much tougher, and consumption goes down. On the flip side, a (not so?) small little black market flourishes, and the ban is effectively moot. Becomes a farce, like so many other things.

So if not a ban - what? What will make people pause, think twice before reaching out for that ciggie? for that tobacco product that seemingly gives a high? I'm not a fan of smoking, both passive or active, and strongly believe that never mind burning a hole in your lungs or throat or mouth, look no further than your pocket to begin with. There itself the hole burns deep. In fact, passive smoking gets my goat, and how: why should someone else be at the receiving end of what you're subjecting your lungs to, and that too not out of choice? 

I'd rather pay my shopping bill instead of a hospital's.

No comments: