KEY POINTS:
Voicing her support for a ban on the display of cigarettes in shops, Helen Clark enthused about the many anti-tobacco measures introduced since she, as Minister of Health, marshalled the first smoke-free law. "I've seen the legislation improved, improved, improved over the years and I think it is inevitable that law and regulation around tobacco control will tighten," she said. Restrictions have, indeed, flowed thick and fast - the halting of tobacco company sponsorship of sport, warnings on cigarette packets, increased funding for quitlines, the ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants and casinos. In a relatively quick time, smoking has been transformed from an acceptable practice to a widely reviled habit.
But through it all, people have continued to smoke. Government regulation and concerted anti-smoking campaigns led to an initial decline in the number of smokers, but that has been stalled for several years, as new young smokers replace adults who have quit. Almost a quarter of people overall, and most notably Maori, have not heeded messages about the health risks of smoking, no matter how well-meaning these have been and how they have been delivered. A doubling of Government funding since 2001 has yielded little profit. So it is reasonable to ask whether even more radical action along the same lines, such as a ban on the display of cigarettes in retail outlets or the graphic pictorial warnings on packets being introduced next year, will have any effect.
The ban on displays, advocated by the Cancer Society and the anti-smoking group Ash, seems particularly over the top. History shows this sort of approach usually fails. Those who want a product will generally find a way to get it. Prohibiting it or hiding it from the public gaze has little deterrent effect. It is naive of the Green Party to say that "the only way to protect our children and young people from the attraction of these displays is to keep these products out of sight". Already, there are restrictions on how cigarettes can be displayed. This has had minimal effect.
That may not stop the Cancer Society and Ash getting what they want. The continuum of anti-tobacco measures is evidence of a strong head of steam. And those advocating further action can always point to polls that show backing for their policies. The Cancer Society suggests 66 per cent of adults back a ban on retail displays. A similar percentage supported the ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants, and believes it is not acceptable to smoke.
Such backing may encourage a course of action, but it does not guarantee success. Smoking may be becoming less acceptable to the public, but the ever-increasing number of sanctions has not eradicated the habit. The many nudges, individually and collectively, have not, as their advocates predicted, led people to abandon their tobacco. Clearly, any progress will require a more intelligent, sophisticated and probably more tolerant approach.
That may be difficult for anti-smoking zealots to accept. Their instinct seems to be to pursue the same measures, only more assiduously. If restrictions on retail displays do not work, ban them altogether. Ensure, also, that all punitive avenues are pursued. Thus, when the Ministry of Health saw cigarettes bought from a supermarket earning fuel discount points, the practice was scotched. Never mind that other products bought over the same counter might, if used recklessly, be hazardous to the buyer's health. Where, it might be asked, will it all end? Hopefully, in a recognition that more of the same will not work.
