Sweeping assertions!

Ms Maria Ellul, from the Department of Health Promotion and International Health, has made a number of statements (The Sunday Times, September 1) that need some input from the tobacco industry, lest her sweeping assertions become statements of fact by remaining unchallenged.

Ms Ellul states that "these alarming results (the ones to which she refers in her long letter) give further proof that education alone is insufficient to keep our young people away from addictive drugs, like nicotine and alcohol". She fails to refer to the real problems facing our youth, the ones associated with illegal and really addictive drugs. Narcotics exist and proliferate in Malta as in every other society and no-one talks about advertising or vending machine bans because everyone realises that this would be ridiculous.

Why should advertising bans and other restrictions work with alcohol and tobacco when they, patently, haven't worked with narcotics? Does the anti-tobacco lobby not perceive an inherent contradiction in its obsessive identification of alcohol and tobacco with illegal narcotics?

Ms Ellul goes on to say that "it is an established fact that the tobacco industry has excelled in enticing youths to smoke their first cigarette well before their 16th birthday, which is the first step to a lifelong addiction..."

She fails, however, to give any evidence of this enticement, which she would be unable to do because it is clear, if you look at the facts dispassionately, that the industry refrains from promoting its products in such a manner as, to use Ms Ellul's words, entice youths.

Ms Ellul makes a number of proposals that, in her view, would, if adopted, prevent youth smoking. If your readers would bear with me, I shall give a brief reaction to each.

The protection from environmental tobacco smoke for non-smokers in workplaces and public places is advocated. Precisely what this has to do with preventing youths from taking up smoking is unclear but, this notwithstanding, the industry agrees that smokers and non-smokers should interact reasonably to prevent any mutual annoyance.

Bans on advertising, sponsorship, marketing and vending machines are suggested. Again, this would achieve virtually nothing. As to the increase in the legal age for the sale of tobacco products, one assumes it is meant that the purchase (rather than the sale) of such products should be reserved to persons over 18. The industry is on record as agreeing with this.

Why improved labelling and health warnings on tobacco products, which should also contain graphic depiction of the harm attributed to using the product, should be resorted to escapes me. Is there anyone who does not know that choosing to smoke is a potentially dangerous activity?

The increase in the funding for tobacco control efforts from duty paid on cigarette sales proposed is nothing but a cosmetic measure that already lies in the control of the Treasury Department, as does the proposal that there should be free access to smoking cessation aids for smokers seeking to quit the "addiction", a description undermined by the large number of people who give up smoking on a daily basis.

Also, updating the existing Tobacco (Smoking Control) Act of 1986 is a matter within the control of the government and I shall forebear from commenting other than to augur that any such up-date takes into consideration facts rather than unfounded assertions.

I apologise to your readers for taking up so much of their time, but sometimes one has to respond in kind.