Dialogue: Sandy Burgham

Vice is nice, when someone else pays

A friend whose thriving livelihood runs off her cellphone was recently chastised when her phone lay abandoned on her desk; the endless ringing of lost sales alerted her boss to her absence. She'd nipped down to the car-park for a fag. Cellphones don't work well in underground carparks and her need for nicotine outweighed her drive to clinch another deal.

That's the cost to employers of banning smoking in the workplace: lost hours of productivity as smokers down tools to light up. And then there's the negative effect on corporate image when arriving clients wade though the huddle of addicts flushed from the building, now smoking outside instead.

Despite the world closing ranks on them, smokers plough on, admitting they're addicted and choosing to delay the inevitable. But when it's time to face the music in the doctor's surgery, some feel compelled to shift responsibility back to the tobacco companies.

As the Government takes time to ponder the possibility of legal action against tobacco companies to recoup smoking-related health costs, let's consider who should be footing the bill: the manufacturer, the smoker or the Government that represents them both?

We have always rolled our eyes at the hypocrisy of the litigation-addicted United States, where it has become socially acceptable for consumers to stop taking responsibility for their own choices and actions. On the one hand they demand freedom and individual rights, and on the other they shift the blame when the inherent risk of freedom of choice leads to disaster.

New Zealanders have always been a bit more sensible and pragmatic about such matters. But now we consider putting responsibility back on the manufacturer for a vice we readily embrace. Imagine the repercussions.

Breweries should be nervous, alcohol being another readily-available addictive substance which can lead to health problems. And then there's the Dairy Board. Could they get it in the neck for blatant promotion of cholesterol-ridden cheese? I look forward to recouping liposuction costs from Cadbury's, who seem to be turning a blind eye to my stubborn cellulite.

We want it both ways - we want to slap the manufacturers but we also value freedom. Recently there was talk of enforcing a nationwide smoking ban in restaurants, another earnest attempt by the Government to quick-fix society.

Sounds good, but it would brass almost everyone off - smokers, restaurateurs and broad-minded non-smokers who are big enough to make their own judgment calls regarding the establishments they choose to frequent.

Non-smoking vigilantes may think they are triumphing, no longer feeling awkward when they ask guests to smoke outside or smugly witnessing planes and workplaces making a stand. But unfortunately for them it looks as though smoking is here to stay. These days, vice is nice.

While many logical types avoid smoking because of the health risks, there are always others who are irresistibly attracted to bad or extreme pastimes. Take teens, a huge group of smokers. The fact that your parents disapprove makes it even more exciting. And as cigarette companies have taken the rap, the popularity of the more extreme cigar has soared.

Are smokers really helpless addicts? Some say nicotine is more addictive than heroin, but at least you still have your faculties about you and, frankly, how much more warning do smokers need? While older smokers will argue that their addiction was established well before health warnings become widespread and tobacco advertising restricted, the health risks have been actively promoted for many years. Giving up is hard but ultimately achievable. Maybe the buck should stop there.

Forcing the tobacco companies to cough up for medical bills seems logical on first glance. But is it really helpful? It doesn't placate non-smokers and it's certainly not an incentive for smokers to kick the habit. I ask my packet-a-day girlfriend if she feels the tobacco companies should front up with compensation for health costs.

"Legal action against tobacco companies? Hmm ... I'd only sue them if they withdrew the product from the market."