trendingNow,recommendedStories,recommendedStoriesMobileenglish2726169

Smoking warnings need to be realistic not legalistic

But, the luxury of pushing lawmaking, enforcement, and adjudication to the ridiculous extent of making a person aware of every danger involved is a little bit too much and unacceptable in a practical world

Smoking warnings need to be realistic not legalistic
Tobacco

Last week a Canadian court imposed a fine of about $11 billion on several tobacco companies, including Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans Benson & Hedges, etc. The case was filed by the smokers in Canada as a class action suit who must have been chain-smokers and firm believers of the song "Main zindagi ka saath…" yet they had the cheek to state that they were not made fully aware by the cigarette companies of the smoking risks. It is laughable and we, in India, surely understand that compensation or fines for these types of cases can only be awarded in legal environments like Canada, United States and certain countries in Europe where the yardstick for measuring reasonableness and prudence is very different from that used in India.

"Main zindagi ka saath nibhata chala gaya, Har fikr ko dhuen mein udaata chala gaya…" picturised on the ever-stylish Dev Anand is the famous song from the movie "Hum Dono" made in 1961. This song was penned by the versatile lyricist Sahir Ludhianvi and captured the spirit of a man living the moment without any rancour towards the past or anyone. Dev Saab on screen was seen smoking with great satisfaction, but the song in no way was meant to promote smoking. It was and is, however, referred to by many smokers as their anthem.

The deeper meaning of the song is to make a person forget the bitter past and move ahead with life. But, somehow smoking has its connection with letting a person, usually in stress, to relax and calm down. This salutary effect of smoking tobacco, though for a short period, has been commercially exploited by cigarette companies by making smokers become addicts, especially of a particular brand. Advertisers have a field day in promoting cigarettes, though through surrogate advertising, of late. A couple of decades back cigarette advertising was more direct and smoking was considered to be macho – with bitter and filterless cigarettes considered to be the first choice of the real men. Inexpensive filterless cigarette brand "Panama" was promoted with the slogan, "Panama ke damdar kash ki kasam, kisi filter me kahan ye dam" (swearing in the name of the strong puff of Panama, no filter cigarette has this strength). Now, the cigarette advertisements are more indirect, surrogate and subtle, but still the message is surely conveyed to the target market segment – the smokers, and that's how the cigarette companies make money.

Courts and law are not going to allow this to happen for a long time, at least in the developed world. Given the choice of making a decision as mature adults whether to smoke or not, evolved democratic jurisdictions pass the responsibility of making the decision on the individual, however, it is necessary that he must be properly and fully informed of the threats and dangers of smoking, and that too for a very long period of time. The combined duty of the legislature in making strict laws and of the executive in enforcing the law through rules and regulations has to be performed to the fullest to give sufficient information to the individual to enable him to take a balanced view and not simply get attracted to the colourful and glossy advertisements, or those advertisements which appeal to one's inner courage by challenging him, along with fantastic aroma of menthol or different exotic tobaccos.

But, the luxury of pushing lawmaking, enforcement, and adjudication to the ridiculous extent of making a person aware of every danger involved is a little bit too much and unacceptable in a practical world. In the realistic world, the issue of smoking and interpretation of related laws should not be made hyper-technical, with either side – cigarette companies and smokers – trying to outwit the other in a legal battle, which itself depends on the discretion of the judges hearing the matter and can in no way be said to be objective decision making.

Who doesn't know that smoking tobacco is harmful to health?

There should not be overburdening of laws and regulations to make such an obvious thing to be told again and again to the smokers who become immune and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to any warning, while having a cigarette between their lips and humming, "har fikr ko dhuen mein udaata chala gaya".

The author is a professor at IIM-A, akagarwal@iima.ac.in

LIVE COVERAGE

TRENDING NEWS TOPICS
More