There are a lot of cigarette brand around the world. Some country agrees with its existance. Some opposes and faces to it. As you know, smoking has many disavantages. There are a risk of death from cancer, a chance to transfer to another drugs, waste money to buy it and so on.According to Indonesia Resists the Anti-Smoking Tide Elsewhere, Wilson and Belford report that there should be law or regulation to control widespread tobacco in Indonesia, such as cigarette ads, health warning because the rate of smoker has been increasing, and even children started smoking since they was 18 months old. Indonesia is the fifth-largest cigarette market in which tobacco companies want to distribute their products because everybody, all gender and ages, can easily buy the cigaratte legally without any control from the government. There are a lot of ads to lead people to start smoking, and tell that the cigarette is a good thing. Moreover, Aldi Rizal with 18 months old is shown on the video as a the youngest person who smoke a cigarette and make the authorities in Indonisia realise that it is the time to oppose the distribution of cigarette in Indonesia, especially Dr. Sedyaningsih, the Indonesian health minister, tries to launch the regulation to ban tobacco advertisement though it might not implement.
When I finished to read this news and watch the video-Aldi Rizal, I think it is a weird news I have seen. I don't know why parents let their kids smoke a cigarette. In particular the little boy with 18 months, Aldi Rizal, he started smoking with half pack a day then increased to 4 packs a day within 5 months. He will throw tantrums when he wanted to smoke and his parents didn't agree to buy it for him. They don't know how to help him stop smoking when he addicted until an organization helped him to stop with play therapy, and finally he can give up. Accually, I would like to know how he started smoking because it is impossible that a child with 18 months old started smoking by himself.
The action of the Indonesian health minister, Dr. Sedyaningsih, is a proper way to do this time because we used to do like that in Thailand, and the result has been quite good so far. We don't allow any tobacco company to release any ads. The health organization always releases the short movie to indicate bad effect from smoking, and also tobacco tax increased by the government. Nowaday, most people have realised that smoking can kill everyone who concerns with it even the second smoker. A number of them start to stop smoking permanently, and they can do it.
What do you think? Do you agree with that action?
__________
References
Wilson, D. and Belford, A. (2010, November 13). Indonesia Resists the Anti-Smoking Tide Elsewhere. The New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/global/14indo.html?ref=asia
I thought the weirdest comment was from Indonesia's health minister, Endang Rahayu Sedyaningsih, who said that he didn't want proposals about smoking "to become a public debate ... because I think it will have an ugly impact” (¶ 5).
ReplyDeleteSince the only sure result of not discussing a topic is ignorance about that topic, it would appear that the minister thinks that ignorance amongst Indonesian citizens is a better solution to their problems than knowledge.
The toddler's parents would seem to me to guilty of child abuse. The article states that it was they "who had started him [smoking] at 18 months" (¶ 1); perhaps they should be in prison?
But if the cigarette advertisements are at least as honest as ads for cars, which also kill a lot of people, including innocent bystanders, it's hard to see why any government should interfere to ban them and not the similar promotion of every other dangerous product, such as cars, eggs, beef, motorcycles, and houses in unhealthy areas.
Thank for your comment, Peter.
ReplyDeleteExactly! I would like to talk about the action of Dr. Sedyaningsih also, but I'm not sure the true meaning in paragraph 5. He says as if this problem can't be solved in Indonesia. If the problem became to a topic which is talked widespread in society, a severe and serious effect would happen. It quite scare me that in Indonesia there are a lot of things which is hard to improve or change to be better.
After I read Dr. Sedyaningshi's idea, it makes me wonder what reasons are shown to support their sides. Normally, we will hear about human right. I know that everyone should get the right to do everything under the law, but they should have limitation. For example, if the government allows the citizen to smoke, the government should limit the age of people who get the right.
ReplyDeleteGift,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I oppose bans on smoking in restaurants, I do agree that there should be laws to protect the under-aged. I think someone should have been prosecuted for letting, or worse, for getting, an 18 month toddler addicted to cigarettes, and laws banning the sale of cigarettes to minors under a certain age are justified.
Peter, your last paragraph remains me a moral conflict I have had for the last weeks: banning in advertising.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I believe that when the government bans advertising in products as tobacco or alcohol, they are expanding the foolishness of the society. I mean, the people have to learn that in general advertising is not real. That the fact that someone uses Linx doesn't mean he is going to attract many beautiful girls. If the government think that the people believe in advertising, it means that they believe that the people is ignorant. And when they ban adds, they are saying we are ignorants. Smoke a couple of cigarettes a day or drink a gin tonic is not bad. Even sometimes can be good freeing someone from stress, or in the case of a beer or a glass of wine can be healthy.
And as Peter points, why don't the government ban adds of cars, pills or creams to lose weight, fast food and many more products which can be as or more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol?
In the other hand, most of the researches show that banning advertising decreases the consumption of cigarettes.
What do you think about it? Is it banning a good measure? Peter, I would like to know your opinion because I know that you have studied about these issues as you showed us in your presentation three weeks ago.
I refer to Peter's comment (November 16, 2010 7:08 AM), last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteEven if banning advertising were very effective at reducing smoking or alcohol consumption, I don't think that that would be a sufficient reason to ban it. Just because something is a genuine health concern, such as air pollution from cars, is not a reason to it, although Bangkok would be very different without cars polluting the streets and making life worse and more risky for residents.
Deciding what is the right thing to do based on a single factual criterion, such as health, seems very dangerous to me. The facts are useful for making informed decisions, but by themselves they cannot tell us what is right or wrong.
This is just a quick a response to summarize what I think. Teh support is a longish essay.
I did see your comment here a couple of days ago, but didn't have time to reply immediately.