The Boston vote comes quick on the heels iof a similar measure taken by San Francisco. But the question being debated here is that whether it will be possible to achieve the goal of making ” the US and the UK smokeless by 2025″. There are a number of roadblocks and the biggest hurdle could be the retaliation by tobacco companies. Already, it is learnt thatr “Walgreens”, nation’s 40th ranked Fortune 500 company has filed a suit to block the San Francisco ban.
Other tobacco biggies are likely to take a cue from “Walgreens”. The executive director of Boston Public Health Commission, Barbara Ferrar, has held the tobacco companies responsible for creating new smokers. One can have an idea of the roadblocks from a recent report of the National Cancer Institute which says taht des[ite restrictions, cigarette companies had spent 13.5 billion dollars (37 million dollars a day) on advertising and promotion of tobacco use in the US in 2005.On the other hand, the Royal College of Physicians of UK, a 490-year old professional body. which has vowed to rid the UK of tobacco smoking by 2025, has projected tthat despite existing restrictions,there will be five milion smokers in the UK two decaes from now.
According to the Royal College of Physicians, smok ing is being depicted in 75 per cent of box office hit movies and one-third of the movies are even showing identifiable brands of cigarettes.Not only this. Twenty per cent of TV shows and 25 per cent of music videos depict smoking in one manner or the other.What is worrisome is that the negative heatlh effects of smoking are routinely never shown. The Royal College has suggested anti-medicinal products should be madde available at the counters. The taxes on cigarettes should be increased by 10 per cent on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products. The sale of tobacco products should be completely banned where children are permitted. Also, TV shows which glamorize smoking should not be shown after 9 PM.