Editorial

We Have Come a long way since the US Surgeon-General's report, back in the Sixties, warned that smoking is dangerous to health. Since then much more has been learned about the harmful effects of inhaling tobacco smoke. The risks have become widely known - and proved.

Tobacco smoking has been found to contribute to a higher incidence of heart disease and lung cancer, among a string of other diseases, many of them fatal, and to underweight babies in the case of pregnant women. It has also been established, however, that smoking harms not only the smoker, but also those in his or her immediate surroundings, who are 'passive' inhalers. If one smoker can cause harm to those around him or her, just imagine a roomful of smokers and any non-smokers who happen to find themselves in their company.

The growing awareness of the potentially fatal effects of smoking has led governments and health authorities all over the world to restrict the sale and advertising of cigarettes and to impose ever tighter restrictions on where people can smoke. Besides imposing ever higher duties and other taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, many governments have obliged manufacturers to print health warnings on cigarette packets and advertising.

In the European Union, which Malta will join on May 1, these health warnings now all but scream out their sobering and sombre message on every pack (we should soon be seeing them in Malta too), thus ensuring that the consumer who actually buys a packet is truly determined to smoke and thus put his or her life at risk.

Despite all these efforts, however, there are still too many who ignore the mounting evidence at their peril, and indulge their habit of puffing away, either because of peer pressure, or to enjoy other smokers' company or simply to "relax". In certain cases this habit, which is innately addictive thanks to the nicotine content of cigarettes, reaches alarming proportions.

Ironically, though, despite the widespread campaign against smoking, it seems that more young people are taking up the habit, and women proportionately more than men. It is a trend which must be reversed, for the sake of the nation's health.

It is a sign of the times, however, that increases in duty on cigarettes at practically every budget have become predictable and non-controversial, because after all, politicians - and the public - realise that this is one way of discouraging the potentially fatal habit, and also that any drop in revenue from lower consumption is more than amply compensated for by savings on medical and hospital treatment for diseases caused by smoking.

So it is not surprising, in the light of all this, that the regulations restricting smoking in various kinds of enclosed areas accessible to the public, which come into force on April 5, have been generally welcomed. After all, in an enclosed space to which the public - smokers and non-smokers - has access, it is very unfair for smokers to force non-smokers to inhale tobacco smoke and thus face serious health risks in practically equal measure to those who actually smoke.

These regulations will apply to all shops, restaurants, bars, pubs, hospitals, residences for the elderly, schools, institutes of higher learning and vocational training, exhibition areas, sports establishments, ports and airports, and TV and radio studios and other places of entertainment.

The list includes workplaces, except areas designated for smoking, which non-smoking employees are not obliged to enter.

There are tough fines for those contravening the regulations, which also make the employer or establishment owner responsible to ensure that no-one smokes except in areas designated for smokers.

The regulations have, predictably, incurred the wrath of the GRTU, representing owners of bars and night clubs, which has called them "draconian" and said they were being "rushed". It is insisting on talks with the health authorities to mitigate the possible effects of the ban, since it argues that patrons of bars and nightclubs include many smokers, and that these establishments should be the last places to be affected. The argument, of course, also holds for wedding halls and receptions.

The GRTU argues - not without justification - that it is difficult for some establishments, because of their limited size, to provide separate areas for smokers. Perhaps one alternative would be to designate certain bars as "smokers-only"; although this could be seen as a compromise, it would be a setback to Government's campaign to get people to stop smoking.

Having said that, however, Government must ensure that the new regulations are properly enforced. Figures of those prosecuted after being caught smoking in already prohibited public spaces are pathetically low. This must change. Frequent spot checks and unbending imposition of fines are called for.