We assume that the government is at least as aware of the health risks of smoking, both for smokers and non-smokers, as any informed and informed human being:
There is already indisputable evidence of medical research on the link between smoking and the big three: lung cancer, heart disease and chronic bronchitis. That the lung cancer mortality rate is 1000 times higher for smokers than for non-smokers. That three out of four deaths from bronchitis are caused by smoking (not from air pollution, as is often believed). And that in the age group 45 to 55 years, the rates of death from heart disease are 50% higher for men who smoke than for men who do not smoke; and 100% higher for women.
that smoking is also involved in other diseases such as cancer of the mouth, throat, pharynx, larynx, pancreas and bladder; emphysema; and paralytic strokes;
that smoking in pregnant women is associated with premature babies / stillbirths and low birth weight babies. That, according to a WHO study, one in five babies who would have died would have been saved if their mother had not smoked.
that a non-smoker exposed to the atmosphere of a room full of smoke for an hour inhales as much smoke as if he had actually smoked between one and two cigarettes.
We also assume that the government knows these additional facts:
that the area dedicated to tobacco cultivation has grown steadily in recent decades.
that the number of drug addicts among young people and women has also steadily increased in recent years. According to a recent study, the average number of cigarettes smoked by a male student is now 16 per day, for a female student, six.
That the cigarette industry is also increasingly extending to rural areas.
Given these frightening facts and these disturbing trends, we wonder why the government has not taken a decisive position and has not taken firm measures to protect the country's health. We wonder why he favored the cigarette industry (and merchants) with the treatment of children's gloves. And why even their shy smoking bans (in specific public areas) have been poorly applied.
The insidious attraction of young people to this harmful habit by merchants who romanticize and glamorize smoking is particularly worrisome. Check out a typical cigarette ad. The man who turns on is "virile", virile, male. He is young, attractive, sophisticated and, most deceiving of all, he looks healthy. He is also the lucky guy in love, successful at work and fun (the adventurous and nature-loving type).
The truth: a four-year study of university students in the United States found that their weight, height and chest size were consistently lower in smokers than in non-smokers. In another study of young smokers, it was found that they participate less in sports and games, get tired more easily and have a lower IQ, on average, than non-smokers. It has also been discovered that smokers suffer more from chronic colds, headaches, insomnia and sinusitis. Because smoking is a big burden on the heart, chronic smokers have shortness of breath and shortness of breath. There is nothing manly in the cough of smokers who wakes them every morning. Their taste buds are depressed by nicotine, so they don't enjoy their food. As for the attractive appearance, chronic smokers have a certain degree of skin wrinkles suitable for nonsmokers over 20 years. Your teeth and nails are stained with nicotine. Smokers also smell: the stench adheres to their clothes, their hair and their breath. Even your sweat smells because some of the smoke products are absorbed into the bloodstream and excreted through the pores.
So what is the young smoker attractive or robust? And why doesn't the government prevent marketers from spreading a deceptively attractive image? In some countries, the industry is escaping with phrases such as "Made for each other" (wills) and "For kind people" (Gold Flake).
If the cigarette trade has forgotten the meaning of the word "ethics," shouldn't the government remind them with a little help?
I realize that "economic considerations" weigh on the government on an issue like this. But I think that "consideration for health" should come first. By collecting `` contaminated '' income (from the f
No comments:
Post a Comment