Editorial

As if the hunters have not been enough, now shop owners openly challenge the rule of law and, whether implicitly or explicitly, demonstrate utter disregard to public health and to the majority of the Maltese people - so far a silent majority - who are against smoking.

How disgraceful that the director general of the GRTU - Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprise, Vince Farrugia, should dangle the ballot paper in front of the politician by recalling that the only government which had "messed" with shop owners' licences was never elected again.

Mr Farrugia is surely aware of what happens to those who blatantly flout laws enacted by democratically-elected governments and supported by the majority of the citizens.

There is no need to go into the provisions of the regulations. They are well known by now. What needs to be pointed out is that such regulations were published in September. The tobacco industry had objected to the new rules and, later, the hospitality and leisure industry joined the fray.

As expected, non-smokers welcomed the move with open arms. Significant was the stand taken publicly by the Medical Association of Malta which gave its full backing to the measures, even encouraging the government to intensify its educational campaigns against smoking.

After pointing out that recent studies showed that only about 30 per cent of adults in Malta were regular smokers, the doctors' association said many scientific studies indicated that non-smokers had a higher risk of lung cancer, heart disease and stroke if they simply inhaled passive smoke.

Thus, two main points emerge clearly. One, smokers constitute a minority. Two, smoking is a major health risk.

Even if smokers are a minority they, of course, have rights too. But democracy demands that the will of the majority prevails, with the rights of the minority being fully respected. And the regulations provide for that. The bone of contention seems to be the way the regulations are proposing how non-smokers are to be protected and who shall be ultimately responsible.

When, years ago now, some airlines decided to introduce total no smoking flights, the rest had no option but to follow suit as they realised what the wishes of the majority of their customers were. They remained in business.

Shop owners may want to post a notice outside indicating whether smoking is allowed or not there. The response should be enough to change their ways. It probably already does, hence, their reaction.

Having said all that, it is still time for both sides to sit around a table and chart the best way to proceed. Both sides must carry their responsibility fully - the health authorities are responsible for the common good, health-wise; the shop owners should feel responsible for the well-being of their esteemed customers.

But the kind of talk and tone adopted by Mr Farrugia is certainly not conducive to consensus. It would not be amiss therefore for him to make a public apology for the affront he showed to the majority of the people who, there is no need reminding, are his members' clients.

At this point in time what shop owners want is a sympathetic public and, on the other hand, the authorities need to secure the shop owners' cooperation. That is still possible.