Letter: Anti-cigarette campaigns

Fri, 06/06/2008 1:15 AM  |  Reader's Forum

Recent anti-cigarette articles in The Jakarta Post reiterate three recurrent themes of coverage of social affairs in Indonesia.

The first is that young people, especially young women, are at the crux of any social issue that has vaguely moral overtones. The second is that advertising, especially on television, is a corrosive influence that seduces people into liking things they should abhor. The third is that symbolic government action, in this case, ratification of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, is the first prerequisite for social progress.

Lest we choke in a fog of anti-tobacco propaganda, we should weigh these cliches carefully. First, numerically and proportionally, adult males are the largest group of smokers, the heaviest smokers and also the group whose smoking has the broadest economic effects.

Moreover, middle-aged men are the group at most immediate risk of strokes, heart attacks, cancers and other smoking-related diseases. So, arguably, middle-aged men deserve priority in tobacco policy planning.

In fact, whatever policy is adopted, it should take into account the needs of all affected parties -- farmers, cigarette makers, distributors, consumers young and old and non-smokers.

It should not be oriented only to young women, just because they are thought to have "sexy" lifestyles, to offer emotional leverage to propose tighter restrictions, or to be proper objects for control.

Second, regarding advertising, people are not idiots who will buy any old junk just because they see it advertised. Plenty of companies have tried to promote their way into, for example, the instant noodles market, but failed for a simple reason; their noodles tasted like soap.

If people buy cigarettes it is because they enjoy them.

Of course, anti-smoking campaigners assert that the chance of enjoyment offered by cigarette companies is fraudulent compared to the chance to become a good-looking health statistic. But if some people eventually decide that the pleasure is worth the risk, then anti-smoking advocates should respect their choice, not demonize tobacco companies for "fooling" people into following the path to paradise.

Third, on the government's role, the Jakarta administration already enacted a bylaw restricting smoking in many public areas. Although flawed and poorly enforced, it does in theory protect passive smokers who are the main victims of cigarette smoking.

However, most smokers ignore it.

Thus, before bewailing the government's failure to enact further legislation, which will purportedly have some effect years in the future, it is essential to ask why a majority of the population disrespect the regulations already in place.

Lack of enforcement is one aspect. Ignorance is probably another. But the solution to ignorance is discussion and objective information, not hypocrisy and propaganda.


JOHN HARGREAVES
Jakarta

Comments (3)  |   Post comment
A  |   A  |   A  |   Mail to a friend  |  Printer Friendly Version |  Digg it!  |  Add to Del.icio.us!  |  Add to Reddit!  |  Stumble it!

Suki (not verified) — Fri, 06/06/2008 - 5:43pm

"If people buy cigarettes it is because they enjoy them."

Wow, you definitely don't know anything about nicotine.

Nicotine is a very powerful, highly addictive stimulant drug.
It's known to be one of the hardest addiction to kick besides cocaine and heroine.

Most people buy cigarettes because they are ADDICTED to them. Not simply because of enjoyment.

Trying to put policy planning prioritizing middle-age men is simply putting the wrong foot forward. It'll simply be a knee-jerk policy.

The young crowd is the largest potential "market" for the tobacco company hence we see them investing and pouring big money into marketing and sponsorship of major sporting events hence targeting at the young at the same time.

We need to start educating and imposing firm policies on the young crowd (underage should not be allowed to purchase cigarettes) and tobacco companies. Without education and firm policies, many of the younger generation will fall into this nicotine addiction trap.

We are inhaling enough smog from auotmobiles as we speak, spare our bodies the first and second hand smoke from cigarettes.

T. Cotton, Pattaya Thailand (not verified) — Fri, 06/06/2008 - 3:28pm

I strongly disagree with the implication of Mr. Hargreaves' letter, i.e. that any prohibition on cigarette advertising would be ineffective. I recall as a young adult, that when other young adults took their first puff of a cigarette that they coughed and showed dislike for smoking. It was the pressure of conformity with their fellows and the allure of the "good life" with the attributes which followed, i.e. social acceptability, good looks, good health or a rugged masculine image (the Marlboro Man)engendered by advertising, which encouraged young people to start smoking. Additionally, there was the desire to imitate adults who at the time were mostly smokers.

We can easily see the results of the prohibition of advertising, the restrictions on where one can smoke and the rising cost due to excise taxation which in "progressive, health-consicious" countries as led to sharp decreases in the number of smokers. If you don't believe it, just visit Canada. There smokers have become pariahs. The non-smokers have benefited by escaping the uncertain risks of second-hand smoke.

Perhaps Mr. Hargreaves works in the tobacco or advertising industry and has some conflict, which misleads him to the views he has here expressed.

The Reader (not verified) — Fri, 06/06/2008 - 2:49pm

the thing is that in Indonesia tobacco companies pay small amount of tax. I think we should tax them more.

What's On

more
more
  • Salim / Who is Salim?
    09/02/2008 - 09/14/2008, Galeri Nasional Jakarta, Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No: 14, Central Jakarta
  • Visual organic
    09/03/2008 - 09/11/2008, Philo Art Space, Jl. Kemang Timur 90 C, South Jakarta (Tel. 92705705, 7198448)
more