The New Straits Times, June 13, 1997
The tobacco companies have always claimed that smoking is for adults. Indeed, some of the legislation in this country lends some credibility to the same fallacy when it prohibits those under 18 years of age from smoking or possessing the stuff.
However, we tend to forget that all, if not most children, what to be adult and behave like adults. If smoking is an adult thing, then that is exactly what they want.
In other words, by saying quite the opposite, the tobacco companies are reaching into the greater depths of children's psychology for their own benefit. Moreover, when tell children not to smoke but keep doing the opposite, it only serves to increase their curiosity.
Again we are placed in limbo. How, there is yet another new ruling for the children this time in schools - four times and they are out. Yet similar rulings are not articulated for teachers who are also prone to the same addictive habits.
Hence, these half-measures based on half-truths are no more than a fuss because we are playing into the hands of the tobacco industry.
They are willing even to sponsor some of these half-measures because they know too well that half-truths do not work. The truth remains, however, that tobacco companies are targeting children despite claims to the contrary by their executives, at home and abroad.
Even today, evidence about cigarette companies intentionally targeting children is mounting. Not only are the many lawsuits against the tobacco companies quite explicit about this, there are others that could serve to add more weight to these allegations.
The latest seems to be yet another piece of credible evidence because it was brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its Press release dated May 28 (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9705/joecamel.html).
The Commission charged that "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Companies promoted an addictive and dangerous product through a campaign that was attractive to those too young to purchase cigarettes legally.".
This is, of course, not the only time that similar charges have been made towards the tobacco industry, especially with reference to the same case.
Early this year, in an unprecedented one-hour programme on the tobacco industry entitled "Never Say Die: Hoe the Cigarette Companies Keep on Winning," Peter Jennings of ABC TV provided even more evidence that tobacco companies deliberately target children.
According to the programme researchers in tobacco companies did understand, as their own documents suggest, that "most beginning smokers were 18 or younger". A case in point perhaps is when some 20 years ago, in 1976, when R.J. Reynolds was preparing its business forecast, its researchers wrote, The 14 to 18-year-old group is an increasing segments of the smoking population. R.J.R must soon establish a successful new brand in this market."
All these are intriguing for Malaysia, because the same company reaped a nett profit of over RM100 million last year.
It is considered to be the fastest growing tobacco company, poised to be the Asia Pacific sourcing/production centre with an increased production of about 18 billion cigarettes, a four-fold increase from previously.
One wonders who the tobacco companies are ripping off to fatten their coffers?
Who will eventually be duped into puffing up the 18 billions butts? Could they include our children too?
Going by the experience in the US, there is no reason to believe otherwise.
Already today, the population of children lighting up is causing much concern. Indeed, the marketing devices may be different but the messages are always the same and consistent, after all, as the Ligget documents said, cigarette marketing tends to vary based on "racial" bias.
In the above-mentioned case, the company created for the US children and image called "Joe Camel", launched in the late 1987.
In 1994, a study by the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta concluded that the popularity of the cigarette brand, Camel, had "shot up among teenagers 18 and under".
Indeed, FTC's charges this time around relates to this as well, namely, the Joe Camel advertising campaign violates federal law.
Also, the FTC said, after the campaign began, the percentage of children who smoked Camels became larger than the percentage of adults who smoked the same brand.
The campaign, according to FTC was successful in appealing to many children and adolescents under 18, induced many young people to begin smoking or to continue smoking cigarettes and as a result caused significant injury to their health and safety.
Thus, it's not surprising if some of the excerpts in the ABC TV programme reported that for most regular smokers in the United States, eight out of 10 begin to smoke when they are younger than 18.
A month prior to the programme, ABC News conducted its own poll of smokers under 18 and found roughly the same pattern that researchers have been turning up for more than 20 years.
The average age for beginner smokers was 12½ years old.
This, too, seems to reflect similar findings in our survey conducted on about 180 students in a campus in 1992.
So let us not for one moment be persuaded that since there is no Joe Camel in Malaysia, therefore our children are safe. It is worth repeating that tobacco companies are subtle in their ways.
Recently, they even sponsored a campaign discouraging their potential consumers (schoolchildren, that is) from smoking.
They know what they are doing and how best to achieve results. Joe Camel is not the only way.
What is explicit about Joe Camel is that it is one of the many well-launched advertising and promotional campaigns, built on images and themes, that could make it attractive to younger audience.
In short, if we are really interested in protecting our children and their health, a ban on all cigarette advertisements and promotions, as suggested in an editorial in the NST (May 21) is the only way.
And that is why too, in the name of the future generation, we need to draw a battle line between those who are really concerned about our children and those who merely pay lip service with all their hypocritical innuendoes.
We have had too much of the latter since the Government declared its intention to create a smoke-free society.
It is time to act before many more of our assets are blown away by the deadly smoke.
