It isn’t just the tobacco industry arguing that smoking ought to be a matter of personal freedom of choice.
Smokers do.
The bill banning those who were born after 2007 from tobacco products being introduced claimed it strives for a tobacco-free society in the future.
In the future, it might even lead to a complete cigarette ban.
Smokers and those who worked in the supply chain for the tobacco industry are worried.
How far should tobacco control go?
There's more at stake in smoking rules than solely the expression of personal freedom.
The value of freedom is not primarily about the government promoting freedom but about the government respecting individual freedom.
Many tobacco control measures limit our choices.
For example, before the introduction of the bill, measures were already introduced determining where people can or cannot smoke. Before that, they made cigarettes less affordable by imposing a significant excise tax on cigarettes.
Now with the ban, it is making smoking illegal across the board for those born after 2007.
So, the ban would, other things being equal, restricts freedom of choice.
At a given point, people will thus have less overall freedom.
Haven’t limited restrictions already been tried and failed?
During that period, smuggling and illicit cigarettes increased, with a corresponding increase in organised crime groups.
Is this yet another failed war on drugs?
Tobacco use is a choice. It is a personal choice.
A tobacco-free policy does not eliminate a person’s choice to use tobacco products.
It would simply prohibit the use of these products in public spaces where they negatively affect members of the public.
Risks attend to the ban. In fact, it will inadvertently spur the growth of the tobacco black market, confuse tobacco control supporters and steer away foreign investors.
Denying people the freedom to do as they wish, even if they may be physically or psychologically addicted, or their actions are harmful to their own health, is not a step to be undertaken lightly.
Even some who see grave risks in smoking find it hard to justify such steps, likening them to paternalism.
Tobacco control advocates appear in the public’s mind as elitists who use “social engineering” to impose their values on the vast middle and lower classes, where they comprise most of the smokers.
The Minister may have forgotten that a person can vote, enter into a contract, and marry when he is 18. He can join the military at 18 and die for his country.
Then, why can’t these individuals not be allowed the choice to smoke?
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that every person shall be equal under the law and have equal protection of the law.
The proposed ban discriminates against adults based on birthdates.
The government should first act against those selling tobacco products to children.
In its current content, the ban is obviously interfering with individual freedom in the country.
Please give this proposed ban a lot of thought. Was the rush into it to claim that Malaysia is the first country to date to implement this? But New Zealand has already moved ahead with this ban a few days earlier than Malaysia.
The objective to reduce the impact of smoking on society needs to be executed well to get the desired outcome. What seems like a smart move today may be a new problem tomorrow.
It is seen as the Health Ministry is taking an easy way out to simply impose the ban, without considering its execution of it. How will this be enforced? Will health officers be placed at all retail outlets, coffee shops, clubs and pubs that sell cigarettes to ensure that those born after 2007 could not purchase cigarettes?
While more regulation is better than no regulation, for more regulation to work, an effective enforcement mechanism must be in place to ensure a smooth transition to meaningful, smoke-free society.
And the unfortunate reality is that the country’s enforcers are easily susceptible to corruption and bribes making enforcement highly inefficient.
Any legislative response to social risks should consider constitutional limits and the people's civil rights.
Targeting laws at people who cannot hold lawmakers to account at the polls is undemocratic.
It is also unfair to have one generation telling the other to ‘do as I say, not as I do.’
LK Foo
