Friday, November 13 2009

IT is right and fitting that the Government regulate the use of tobacco, but this should avoid unnecessarily criminalising sections of the population for what is basically a legitimate activity.

Opposition and Independent Senators made a convincing case in the Upper House last Tuesday for the Government to take another look at the Tobacco Control Bill, with one Senator even remarking, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

However, that said, we urge all sides in the ongoing parliamentary debate on the tobacco use to avoid flippancy.

On one hand there clearly needs to be a moderating of what many Senators see as draconian measures towards the manufacturers, vendors and consumers of tobacco, while on the other hand those very Senators calling for a relaxing of such stringent measures must be very careful themselves not to downplay the awful effects of this addictive substance.

While several speakers sought to make dazzling contributions in this debate, we say it should not be too hard for a sober consensus to be reached in a joint select committee on the Independent and Opposition Senators’ concerns about the possibility of the Bill granting excessive power to agents of the Ministry of Health to enter private premises without a warrant to combat abuse of tobacco.

We recognise their concerns that Part IV of the Bill that requires tobacco products to be properly packaged and labelled could result in a vendor who splits open a package to sell cigarettes singly incurring a $12,000 fine and six months imprisonment.

However, we must again urge Senators not to descend into flippancy. While we say the Bill must be re-visited to drop the unenforceable and unfair provisions, we also note that the Bill has some excellent intentions. We are particularly pleased that the Bill seeks to protect children from tobacco. We agree with the general principle that people must not smoke around children who can be both harmed by second-hand smoke and lured, consciously or unawarely, into a susceptibility for tobacco.

Senators must decide if it is or is not practical to ban smoking within 15 metres of a facility that caters mainly to children.

We note that the Bill bans toy or candy cigarettes which have long been suspected abroad as being a lure to get children interested in smoking. Last September, the United States banned the sale of cigarettes containing candy or fruit flavours.

Meanwhile we remind Senators of the deleterious effects of tobacco which has been proven beyond doubt to increase a user’s chance of getting heart attack, stroke, diabetes and cancer among other illnesses.

Cigarette-related diseases are among the biggest killers in the world today and a leading cause of premature death, which is preventable. It is said the United States has 500,000 deaths per year due to smoking-related diseases, while one-third of China’s male population will die before their time due to smoking.

We also note that for all the talk in the Senate about constitutional rights and freedoms, cigarettes are addictive and therefore nullify one’s right to choose.

So we urge Senators to put their heads together to iron out questions over the constitutionality of the controversial clauses of the Bill, even as we laud the Government’s attempt to curb the harm done by this very dangerous practice.