The federal government has said it needs more time to consider how to move forward with more aggressive anti-smoking advertising measures.
The statement was prompted by a letter written by a group of anti-smoking organizations in June.
The letter called for the government to introduce larger and more graphic warning labels on cigarette packs, which would also include a mention of a 1-800 helpline and website aimed at those trying to quit. Cigarette warning labels almost exclusively target those who already smoke, but it’s too easy to avoid the advertising on cigarette packages, simply by asking for the least graphic one on display or by carrying cigarettes in a case.
Once a pack is purchased, the effectiveness of the advertising becomes questionable—smokers need to look at the advertising for mere moments, while the process of smoking a pack takes far longer.
It’s interesting to note that this problem may be exacerbated by a different, though more effective, anti-smoking measure. Previously introduced “power wall” legislation requires all tobacco products sold in convenience stores in Ontario and Quebec to be covered by shields.
While the power wall shields keep cigarettes out of sight, it also reduces the effectiveness of the anti-smoking ads, ensuring that cigarette packages remain invisible until someone has already decided to buy one.
While the fact that smoking kills is almost common knowledge, individuals across Canada and around the world continue to smoke. Anti-smoking groups should focus on reaching individuals before they start smoking—or those who are already in the process of quitting.
More emphasis should be placed on reaching young people before they or their peers start smoking. Further restrictions on smoking in public would ensure that smoking becomes less convenient and less visible.
If anti-smoking groups want to target smokers directly, they should lobby for measures that smokers can’t avoid. Aggressive “sin” taxes on cigarettes would hit smokers where it hurts—their wallets.
While the push for more visible warnings is certainly guided by good intentions, it doesn’t seem like the most practical way to spend money in an effort to combat smoking.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].