I've often wondered why the horrific image of cancer on cigarette and pan masala/ gutka packets doesn't deter the consumers from consuming them. Are they so eager to have a painful death? If we dissect the motive behind it, some usual suspects can be found. Smoking cigarette is a status symbol for many (they're rich enough that they purchase cigarettes and not beedi). For others, it's a way to express their liberalism. And then there are people for whom it's a stress reliever. All of these give them a feeling that they are handling their lives well. Disease and death might be imminent, but why would they stop themselves from an immediate reward? In the clinical setting, we see patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) having a poor quality of life. Is the public aware of the severity of this issue? Maybe an advertisement which depicts how soon tobacco can start ruining their lives can help them realise. I suppose they also underestimate how quickly cancer can progress and how difficult the treatment is. As far as the health of others is concerned (in the context of passive smoking), the last two years of the pandemic have shown how insensitive people can be.
The lower middle class and the lower class are addicted to chewing pan masala and/or gutka, which also has tobacco. For some, it starts as a recreational activity. For others, it's a mouth freshener (the irony). I have seen a lot of drivers who chew on them to stay awake during the long tiring journeys. Again, a similar pattern emerges. The immediate reward of getting through the end of the day overpowers the thought of 'probable' painful death. Understandably, the lower class gives more importance to the present. Then who is at fault? The companies that sell and promote it. You might not find water in the most remote areas, but you'll definitely find gutka. Who runs these companies? Upper-class individuals. One inevitable question is, why not ban it? Tobacco is a clear threat to societies. When the government holds power to place a complete ban, why not completely stop the manufacture of these products? This has been done but each time met with resistance. These upper-class individuals cite the plight of poor tobacco farmers. "It is their source of livelihood". Doesn't it sound absurd? Bans are not blindly imposed. It is done after making sufficient arrangements for the rehabilitation of the affected.
So the pressing issue is rehabilitation. We see ads for tobacco products, hospitals, and companies. Is it common to find ads for Nasha Mukti Kendra or rehab centres? When the problem of tobacco is so big, why isn't advertising rehab centres a mainstream thing? My understanding is that just the advertisement of a few forms of cancer isn't sufficient to deter people. We're dealing with addiction, and it needs to be handled at psychological, pharmaceutical and sociological levels. Right now, the sociological aspect seems to be lacking. Let's develop policies that work on the "pseudo essential need" of tobacco.
Comments