Don't assume all smokers are dying to quit

Few things are as vilified and demonised as smoking. No other legally available product or service is as explicitly linked to death.

This is sufficient reason for concern. No wonder smoking has inspired unceasing threats and vigorous push towards restrictive business practices and even fervent calls for a total ban. At some point, smoking in public was banned in this country, and special bays designated for this.

It even became fashionable for buildings, mostly government offices, to erect billboards declaring themselves 'smoking-free zones'.

So vilified are cigarettes that they are the taxman's easiest target every other year, slapping them with the so-called 'sin tax'.

The irony is government pretends the prohibitive prices are meant to deter smokers, but they have no qualms bingeing on cigarette tax.

The actions by government types are not just from a tax angle.

It comes with demands for prominently displayed, screaming health messages that are targeted at the smoking population, which have been evolving with the times. Once upon a time, just like the ones on alcoholic beverages, health authorities' warning on cigarette packs was that excessive consumption is harmful to health.

Today, it is curt: smoking kills.

Isn't it strange that all these actions have done little to inspire as little as a twitter trending topic amongst the targeted smoking community? It appears, it is other people grimacing for smokers' pain.

That it has done little to bigger a denunciation at the very least, or a mass cessation at best, suggests we could be barking up the wrong tree. It reeks of excessive force against an industry kept afloat by millions of smokers with money to burn.

Do people smoke just because cigarettes are on shelves and are attractively shoved to their lips?

Or are manufacturers just following basic capitalistic instinct - having spotted a business opportunity to produce a commodity for a sizeable population? The jury is out on this one.

In an ideal world, there would be no smokers and maybe these diseases of the respiratory system would be history. Unfortunately, such a world does not exist in reality.

The real world has smokers who are a risk unto themselves and others around them, yet remain willing or unable to quit.

This real-world also happens to consider itself civilised and expects respect for individual choices. This includes the decision to smoke or not. Everyone knows what is best for them, the rest of the world can only respect whatever they choose, even if it is self-destructive.

Because smokers have consciously chosen this way of life, the best way the world can help them is by offering less harmful alternatives. Remember, some of these folks' attempts to quit the habit have come to naught, necessitating safer alternatives so that they can continue indulging at minimized risk.

Like many other facets of life, innovatively thinking out of the box has always fashioned safer, faster, and more efficient solutions.

When illicit brew became a headache in Kenya, killing and blinding youth, who could not afford a proper drink, the answer came from a cheaper, decent alternative. The result has been a dramatic rarity of heart-wrenching news reports about entire villages being wiped out by illicit alcohol.

It could just be the turn of the tobacco industry that is grappling with accusations of dispensing harm. The industry needs to take a lead in this, self-regulating by making safer alternatives available. Science has birthed innovations such as e-cigarettes and other harm-reduction alternatives that need to be made more available.

Then there is the need for f or education. Alongside the warnings, smokers could perhaps benefit from a brief lesson on daily limits or practical ways of consuming the cigarettes in moderation or being encouraged to puff away with friends.

Si.nee we cannot make all people who are smoking to stop, why not at least encourage consumption in moderation?

[email protected]

@butunyi