I posted this on Globalink, so why not here, right?
I respectfully take issue with the perspective that tobacco free advocates are being “absolutist” about smoke free public space. Strict adherence to tobacco free space is simply consistent with what we know to be evidence based to effectively reduce tobacco use and nicotine adduction. Saying that outdoor tobacco policies need be “reasonable and fair” is little more than the accommodation argument the industry uses to delay clean indoor air in bars and restaurants. We are accommodating the tobacco industry not nicotine addicts. One reason that so many have quit using tobacco is because there have been regulations in place that make smoking less convenient; quitting easier. Enabling smokers is doing no one but those that profit from the sale and prevalence of nicotine a favor.
Are there limits to which we should regulate public nicotine addiction? Perhaps. But given the present almost unbelievable mortality and disease associated with the products the industry purveys that time is not yet here. We have evidence based incremental approaches to de-normalizing the tobacco pandemic: market reform, significant increases in the price, tobacco free space, and inclusive of the first three, support for cessation. Saying that regulating tobacco out of doors is unreasonable neglects the tragic subsidy we allow Big Tobacco when they foul our air, litter our public spaces, and prey on our youth.
Advocates should challenge the tobacco industry not collaborate. I see little reason to accommodate the tobacco industry. Communities have a justifiable and compelling interest in regulating rogue capitalists right out of town.
No comments:
Post a Comment