We assume that the government is at least as aware of the established health risks of smoking, for smokers and non-smokers, as any conscious and enlightened human being:

• that there is already incontrovertible evidence from medical research of the link between smoking and the Big Three: lung cancer, heart disease and chronic bronchitis. That the death rate from lung cancer is 1,000 times higher for smokers than for non-smokers. That three out of four deaths from bronchitis are caused by smoking (not by air pollution, as is commonly believed). And that, in the age group 45 to 55, death rates from heart disease are 50 percent higher for male smokers than for male nonsmokers; and 100 percent higher for women.

• that smoking is also implicated in other diseases such as cancer of the mouth, throat, pharynx, larynx, pancreas and bladder; emphysema; and paralytic strokes;

• that smoking in pregnant women is associated with preterm/stillbirth and low birth weight babies. That, according to a WHO study, one in five babies who die would have been saved if their mothers had not smoked.

• that a non-smoker exposed to the atmosphere of a smoke-filled room for one hour will inhale as much smoke as if he had actually smoked between one and two cigarettes.

We also assume that the government is aware of these additional facts:

• that the cultivated surface of tobacco has been increasing steadily during the last decades.

• that the number of cigarette addicts among young people and among women has also been steadily increasing in recent years. According to a recent study, the average number of cigarettes a male student smokes today is 16 a day, and that of a female student, six.

• That the tobacco industry is also expanding, increasingly, to rural areas.

Given these frightening facts and worrying trends, we wonder why the government has not taken a decisive stand and firm action to safeguard the nation’s health. We wonder why you have been favoring the cigarette industry (and merchants) with the silken glove deal? And why even his half-hearted bans on smoking (in specific public areas) have been poorly implemented.

Of particular concern is the insidious enticement of young people into this harmful habit by merchants who romanticize and embellish smoking. Take a look at a typical cigarette ad. The man who turns on is, well, ‘manly’, virile, macho. He is young, handsome, sophisticated and, most deceptive of all, healthy-looking. He’s also the guy who’s lucky in love, successful at work, and fun to be around (the adventurous, outdoorsy type).

The truth: A four-year study of college students in the United States found that their weight, height, and chest measurements were consistently lower among smokers than nonsmokers. In another study of young smokers, they were found to participate less in sports and games, tire more easily, and have lower IQ levels, on average, than non-smokers. Smokers have also been found to suffer more from chronic colds, headaches, insomnia and sinusitis. Because smoking puts a heavy burden on the heart, chronic smokers also get breathless and out of breath easily. There is nothing manly about the smokers’ cough that wakes them up every morning. Their taste buds are depressed from the nicotine, so they don’t enjoy their food. When it comes to looking attractive, chronic smokers have a degree of skin wrinkling that is typical of non-smokers who are 20 years older. His teeth and nails are stained with nicotine. Smokers smell, too: the stench clings to your clothes, your hair, and your breath. Even your perspiration smells bad, because some of the smoke products are absorbed into the bloodstream and excreted through the pores.

So what is attractive or robust about the young smoker? And why doesn’t the government act to prevent sellers from spreading a falsely attractive image? In some countries, the industry gets away with slogans like ‘Made for each other’ (Wills) and ‘For funny people’ (Gold Flake).

If the cigarette trade has forgotten the meaning of the word ‘ethics’, isn’t it the government’s business to remind it with a strong nudge?

I am aware of the fact that ‘economic considerations’ weigh heavily on the government on an issue like this. But I think ‘health consideration’ should come first. By collecting the ‘tainted’ revenue (from taxes), while placing the moral responsibility between the smoker’s fingers (with a take it or leave it warning that ‘cigarette smoking is injurious to health’), the government is just eating its cake and have it too.

And simply admitting that “smoking is a social evil that should be discouraged at all costs” is not enough. The government will have to match its actions with its fighting words if we want to banish the specter of thousands of people ‘dying for a cigarette’.