Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

That single cigarette butt could have caused a fire that could have spread through not only my apartment but also the entire building. Who knows how many lives could have been lost that night.

May 31 passed without much fanfare this year. Save for a few articles in the newspapers, and politicians spewing hot air. Many didn’t know that May 31 was World No Tobacco Day.

And why would we care? Friends who smoke, happily and unequivocally declare that they would not celebrate a day that propagates giving up something they love; and those who do not smoke see no relevance in the No Tobacco Day.

I used to rank among the latter category until that fateful day when I was affected by the “smoking gun from heaven”.

We now happily acknowledge that smoking causes a host of complications (like respiratory cancer and impotence) that the tobacco lobby can no longer refute (or hide from).

Also, had my place burned down, where could I stay? So would it be enough to educate smokers to dispose of their cigarette butts properly? Would that solve the problems of smoking, at least as far as non-smokers are concerned?

No. Non-smokers are on the receiving end of second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS), the combination of smoke emitted from the burning end of a cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker.

SHS contains thousands of known chemicals, of which at least 250 are known to be carcinogenic or otherwise toxic.

Evidence on the adverse health effects of exposure to SHS on the respiratory and circulatory systems, its role as a carcinogen in adults, and its impact on children’s health and development, have all been well researched and documented.

According to the findings of the US Surgeon-General, 2006, and the California Environmental Protec­tions Agency, 2005, effects of SHS include coronary heart disease, lung and breast cancer, respiratory ailments and illnesses, and asthma.

Exposure to SHS has also been associated with low birth weight and pre-term delivery.

Mind you, non-smokers are vulnerable to all of these illnesses. And they don’t even smoke! So what is the solution?

Separating smokers from non-smokers? That is one approach being implemented by the Government. But are we not kidding ourselves in thinking that all will be fine if smokers are separated from non-smokers within the same airspace?

Research has shown (though I would have thought that common sense would suffice) that simply separating smokers from non-smokers alone, without any barriers, does not in any way reduce a non-smoker’s exposure to SHS.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has clearly stated that separating smokers from non-smokers does not work.

Increased ventilation or air filtration is also not the answer.

Most of our buildings aren’t even disabled friendly, let alone have effective ventilation or filtration systems in place. Even then, studies have shown that it is impossible to reduce SHS to safe levels.

To be fair, smokers have been on the retreat for many years. Smokers may cry for the right to light up, that their fundamental rights are being trampled upon.

However, I have the right to clean air. Everyone has the right to clean air.

When the not-so-clean air is proven to give me cancer I would like to be able to say no.       

It was in this climate of knowledge and rights that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health, was developed.

Malaysia became a contracting party to the convention in 2003 and hence is obligated to implement its measures and policies. This is in step with the European Union’s and Western industrialised nations’ action to curb SHS exposure.

The solutions are clear and have been extensively outlined. WHO has made several recommendations to protect workers and the public from exposure to SHS, namely 100% smoke-free environments. This is the only effective strategy to reducing exposure to SHS.

However, there is opposition to the implementation of such recommendations and policies at every level of society.

This is borne out of vested interests (be they political or financial), or just sheer ignorance and apathy.

Couple this with lacklustre enforcement, and we have a “can’t do, don’t care” situation.

I once pointed out to a waiter that the person next to me in the non-smoking section (where I was seated for obvious reasons) was smoking.

The waiter then proceeded to give me a free dessert. I believe this is what is known as “salah konsep”.

Smoking is a personal choice for adults, who should have freedom of choice and the right to determine whether they wish to smoke or not to, so long as they are fully aware of the dangers and risks of smoking to their life.

But the “right to smoke” has to be balanced against the right to life, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to a healthy environment and other rights relevant to protection from exposure to tobacco smoke.

I draw the line, and all of us should draw the line when smoking endangers the lives of others.

To this day, the burnt patch of carpet in my bedroom remains a stark visible reminder of the invisible scars from SHS, courtesy of the “smoking gun”.

> The writer is a member of the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC). Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column — a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, please visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/nylc.