Banning the smoke that kills

THE SUPREME COURT has done well by the people of India in ordering a ban on smoking in public places throughout the country. There can be no difference of opinion on the need for such an urgent measure. The ban is welcome as it protects the long-term interests of the smoker as much as it reduces the risks that passive sufferers are exposed to. Attempts in the past, including the Union Cabinet's decision to impose such a ban, have not met with immediate success. Now backed by the majesty of law, in the petition filed by the Congress(I) leader and former MP, Mr. Murli Deora, Governments across the country should embark upon a multi-pronged approach to address the serious public health hazard of smoking. It is now imperative that the well- intentioned order by the Court is taken to its logical end: action that aims at drastically reducing the consumption of tobacco in all its forms. Statistical evidence points to a reduction in the incidence of smoking in India, with the per capita consumption of cigarettes declining over the past decades. That the per capita consumption of cigarettes in the country has fallen from 190 per annum in 1970 to 129 cigarettes in 1997 is indicative of the positive interplay between increased awareness and reduction in smoking.

However, this is no cause for comfort. There are alarming statistics that bring out the seriousness of the killer-smoke. In absolute terms, there has been an increase in the total consumption of cigarettes in India, from over 62,908 million sticks in 1970 to over 81,514 million in 1997. At a global level, estimates place the number of tobacco-related deaths at 4.2 million per annum. Close to a billion people are likely to die from tobacco use during the century - about 150 million in the first two decades. For countries such as India, matters could be worse as seven in 10 of tobacco-related deaths are likely to take place in the developing world. Given the high social costs as well as the wastage of economic resources through both reductions in the workforce by premature deaths and costs incurred in treating respiratory diseases, the pro-active mode of the Supreme Court is timely. Clearly, the time has come to place public health concerns at the top of national priorities. That the chronic smoker will remain unmoved by reasonable objections is also sufficient reason to bring in such measures.

It will also be appropriate to realise that the ban on smoking in public places is only a part of the solution. The larger and more difficult issue of getting cigarette manufacturers to comply strictly with the provisions of the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975 remains incomplete. International experience is not very encouraging about the success of voluntary compliances. It is in this unfinished task that much of the battle against smoking is to be waged, especially given the impact of advertisements on impressionable minds. One common argument by resource-powerful tobacco groupings has been the adverse impact of harsh measures aimed at curbing tobacco consumption on cultivators as well as those who are employed in related industries. There is considerable sensitivity to the sufferings that could descend on those who make a living through the tobacco industry. However, it is also time now for society to pause and ponder if it has to encourage the slow-death of millions in the name of providing employment opportunities. Finding alternative crops and work opportunities for those in whose name such resistance is put up is a compelling social duty. India can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to its millions who continue to be lured to inhale to death.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Meeting India's concerns
Next     : India & Pakistan: doing the impossible