To smoke or not to smoke

Despite the importance of the contest for the Nationalist Party leadership, the smoking regulations have still made it at least to the inside pages of newspapers. Though the legal notice was published in September, it is only lately that its provisions have been described as draconian.

Our Health Promotion Department has long been making vigorous campaigns on the dangers of smoking. Over the years various governments have banned smoking in various public places notably cinemas and buses.

As scientific evidence became more categorical, it became clear that education was not enough. The World Health Report of 1999, Making a Difference, proclaimed tobacco addiction as a pandemic. The tobacco epidemic was claiming a large and rapidly growing number of premature deaths every year, 1/12 of deaths in 1990 expected to grow to 1/7 in 2020. The threat was so great that the Tobacco-Free Initiative was to become one of the two key initiatives to be taken up by WHO at Cabinet level in that year. Tobacco control would result in net economic but greater health benefits. A coordinated approach was needed and a WHO Convention on tobacco control was drawn up. Countries were urged to act in a concrete way.

The devastation resulting from tobacco addiction is well recognised even locally. MAM was correct in its support of the regulations. Millions of liri are spent annually to treat lung and heart disease, and many other conditions aggravated by tobacco related addiction. In spite of the expense as well as the quality treatment, however many premature deaths occur. If we take lung disease the male population is the main victim. This is clearly the result of a past culture. Smoking was almost the preserve of males. It had become a symbol of male adulthood. A negative outcome of gender equality manifested itself in girls aping boys even in their bad lifestyle. Smoking is today as popular among girls as it is among boys. Lung cancer incidence will in due time become as common among women as among men. The gap is already starting to close.

To protect the health of the population we had to act by declaring more public places smoking free. Since smoking is legal, smokers have rights. That right we will still protect but not to the detriment of non-smokers' health. It is true that the public exchequer has to pay for smokers' risky habits. But this burden is somewhat lightened through taxation on tobacco products. As of this year all revenue from tobacco taxation, as well as taxation on alcohol, will go entirely to the health budget. However we will continue to educate smokers through various means about their risky lifestyle.

We have, however, a far greater duty to protect the health of non-smokers, the innocent victims of others' habits. It has been proven beyond doubt that passive smoking is just as deleterious, if not more, to good health as much as active smoking. That is why we are justified to restrict smoking further in public places, especially in places which one attends out of necessity rather than choice. It happens to be true that non-smokers are in a majority but that is not the justification why they have greater reason to be protected. They too have rights. They have a right to be protected from the ill-effects of the harmful habits of others. No one is contesting this fact. Surveys have shown that we have the support of more than 80 per cent of the population. A good percentage of these must include smokers.

So we will remain firm on these restrictions.

For months on end nobody complained. Recently all hell broke loose. We have had statements by the MHRA and by the GRTU. The latter have even threatened to break the law. This is outrageous even if childish behaviour. Sabre rattling and chauvinism will lead us nowhere. This is a throw back to the dark era of our history. This is a democratically elected government. The tobacco industry called for consultations and was duly consulted. The Gozo Restaurants Association has asked for an appointment and I will meet them soon. As I am writing, I received a similar request from the GRTU. Its tone makes me wonder what their agenda is.

We understand that the regulations may cause problems especially to small bars and restaurants and we will listen to their complaints. We do not want to damage business in any way. But the health aspect is paramount. Ireland, a country where the pub culture is definitely much more deeply ingrained than ours, will be introducing a complete ban on smoking in public places by the end of March 2004.

Not surprising at all was the knee-jerk reaction of the opposition or rather of the spokesman on health, of all persons. Various opposition speakers had urged us to legislate in favour of non-smokers. They even taunted us that we were more interested in the revenue aspect of smoking. Some even suggested that we should legislate to make it illegal for anybody, including teachers, to carry on them cigarettes while on school premises. To the credit of most they did not criticise the measures we have enacted. But now the Labour spokesman on health has smelled blood and thought it politically wise that it was now opportune to intervene. He is predicting that tourists will stop coming to Malta. Doesn't he know that most tourists come from countries which have already introduced similar regulations? And what about the non-smoking tourists? Is he perhaps suggesting we turn Malta into another Ibiza? He also championed the legal rights of smokers, yet no one is denying their rights. But why does he try to politicise the issue? Does he genuinely believe that in so doing he will garner any political points?

Why are some Labour politicians so damned determined to prove that the Labour Party has not changed? Why are they so unwavering in their task of keeping Labour on the same old tracks that have earned the party nothing but serial defeats?

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health.