Consumers' right to a smoke-free environment

This issue is close to my heart and I thank Anne Buttigieg (smoking control co-ordinator, Health Promotion Department) for her highly valid contribution:

I believe that it is appropriate to focus on a fundamental consumer's right with readers of this column. All those who choose to have a healthy lifestyle have a right to a smoke-free environment. When socialising, we are in actual fact consumers within the environment where we are enjoying ourselves and relaxing.

The right to a smoke-free environment is a fundamental human right. From local studies it was reported that only one in four people smokes. To put it down in numbers, around 300,000 of the local population have chosen not to smoke and live a healthy lifestyle. So they have a right to a smoke-free environment. Unless immediate steps are taken through proper enforcement, on social occasions non-smokers are currently being deprived of a government health obligation that would eventually reflect badly on the individual's health. I appeal to smokers to consider the risks they are imposing on the health of others. Primarily they ought to try and control their addiction.

Can the government and local establishments contribute to enforce the present laws and regulations to heed the growing clamour for a smoke-free environment? Anyone feeling the pulse of the community can confirm this growing clamour; people are sick of the present social smoking environment and the lack of law enforcement. One can argue that rules are meant to be broken, but if we were to reason this way, then one would question the need for a police force and other responsible authorities in the first place. Are spot checks being made at peak times or when there is the cleaning up the morning after?

Although many establishments are observing the law, others are not and these expose non-smokers to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. In a smoking environment, components of tobacco smoke, which include carbon monoxide, nicotine and benzene, easily penetrate the lungs. Thus passive smoking has the same effect on non-smokers as it has on smokers. Moreover, concentrations of the smoke components depend on the number of smokers, smoking patterns, the space where smoking is taking place and proximity to smokers, particularly when they are smoking.

Not enough is being done to enforce legislation. Laws are meant to protect the public. When are the authorities going to take the bull by the horns and take control? In reality, who is in control - smokers or the authorities? I am aware that politics have a considerable impact and are reflected in all aspects of our culture. However I am also concerned about the negative effects of smoking which have a greater impact on our health, economic, and social aspects, not to mention the taxes everybody has to pay to treat health problems caused by smoking.

An individual's right to risk health through smoking does not include the right to jeopardise the health of non-smokers. Individual responsibility is as fundamental to civilisation as individual freedom.

I agree with most smokers who consider themselves victims. Yes, of course they are. They are victims of the tobacco industry, which is becoming richer through high consumption of tobacco. This is a well-planned business strategy whereby smokers regularly spend money to their own detriment. The tobacco industry was never interested in the smoker's health as long as the money keeps rolling in. Manufacturers of cigarettes and other tobacco products are knowingly selling a product which makes consumers dependent on it. One wonders if smokers are aware that they are being abused by the tobacco industry. If they are and want to continue smoking, they have a right to remain victims. By the same token, non-smokers, as consumers, have a right to a smoke-free environment. Freedom is not to be able to smoke freely but to choose not to smoke!