Wrong smoke signal

How to encourage smoking

MALAYSIANS’ hope of seeing smoke-free restaurants and eateries may be going up in smoke. And so may be the dream of a smoke-free Malaysia. The Health Ministry is considering giving smokers more space. To be fair, the move is merely at an idea stage. The ministry wants to listen to everyone. But still it is a threatening idea to non-smokers. Experts interviewed by this newspaper say the idea is a sign of a “U-turn”. We won’t go that far, but the idea of creating more space for smokers in public areas does send a wrong signal to smokers, some of whom would have quit smoking but for the announcement on Saturday. What is worse, non-smokers may even be encouraged to take up smoking as Malaysia becomes smoker-friendly again. We laud the government for wanting to hear everyone out, but what is good for smokers will never be good for nonsmokers when it comes to public space. The latter know a smoke-free Malaysia is some distance away, but they want the government to take small but sure steps to get there.

Decades of hard work on getting people to quit smoking may be wasted if the government does decide to give more space to smokers. The Health Ministry should have visited restaurants and eateries around the country where smokers continue to puff away despite notices screaming of hefty fines. Lack of enforcement breeds impunity. The Health Ministry must know that smoking is not only dangerous to smokers, but also to non-smokers. What is more, the public health bill of smoking-related illnesses is a growing annual headache for the Treasury. With the exception of secondary smokers, smokers bring the diseases onto themselves. They have chosen to smoke and, as such, they must pay the price. The Health Ministry must find a way to make them pay for it, not appease their bad habit by making the non-smokers pay.

As for choice, the Health Ministry seems to be fearful of trampling on the constitutional rights of smokers. This was one of the reasons why an end was put to the tobacco generational endgame. We say this fear is unwarranted. And legally misplaced, too. Two reasons will do. One, the Federal Constitution has no such express provision. Such a right must be argued. There is no precedent for such an argument. Two, even if we grant the argument, it can be argued away by a stronger counter-argument. There are 34 million people in Malaysia, of whom only 4.9 million are smokers. If we want to grant the constitutional rights argument to smokers, then surely 29.1 million non-smokers have a greater right to be free from smoke. We are not saying that the majority will always win in the courts. There may be circumstances where the court will grant such a right. This is not one of them. The right must be beneficial, and not one as detrimental as smoking. It is indisputable that smoking is detrimental to the health of smokers. It is equally detrimental to the health of nonsmokers. Finally, it is detrimental to the coffers of the government. The Treasury may be happy to receive billions in tax revenues from tobacco sales, but it loses twice that to just three smoking-related illnesses — lung cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Penny in, pound out never did any governments any good.

The right must be beneficial, and not one as detrimental as smoking.