Smoke-free KL and Malacca: Errant Cops, Big Tobacco Tactics and Depressed Passive Smokers

The state of Malacca in Malaysia is a state steeped in history, filled with buildings from the fourteenth century, their red and chrome facades telling stories of bravery and lore. Either that, or it sends us all back to school, where we sat at those wooden desks, passing notes under the table and secretly thinking about how weird the teacher looks, wondering if the history lesson would ever end. But I digress. History never ends. History is supplemented by new stories, improved, manipulated, tweaked. History is made. And recently, I argue, that history in Malacca may have been made again, this time, not in the name of the Queen or King and certainly not in the name of blood. This time, history may have been made in the name of public health.

Smoke-free Malacca was declared on 11 April 2010, and was a joint initiative between MyWATCH, SEATCA and the Malaysian government. The thing is, knowing how a good majority of Malaysians are apathetic to most things involving public health, is this initiative going to end up working? Or will it simply become a part of history to be tossed from smoke-filled mouth to smoke-filled mouth across a dingy mamak shop table? Public opinion is leaning heavily towards the latter. A young Malaysian blogger recently pointed out that cops smoking everywhere isn't really helping the initiative, and I think that she's really recommended something good in that smoking within the force needs to be tackled first and foremost. (Available at http://kcblood2cheep.blogspot.com/2010/05/smoke-free-melaka-bullshit.html) The police, although not very much respected behind closed doors, are seen as figures of authority for the law. If they smoke in public, it makes it 'okay' for everyone else to do so. It ruins the credibility of those non-smoking cops out law who are trying to enforce this new law. Something has to be done.

There is no doubt that people out there are questioning the necessity of this law in the first place. The common perception is that as long as there is a smoking area and a non-smoking area and sufficient (or separate) ventilation, non-smokers are protected from secondhand smoke, hence eliminating the need for a public health hissy fit. Well, here's to bursting your bubble, but the necessity for the public health hissy fit exists, now more than ever. The perception that partitioned areas and separate ventilation can work to reduce harmful effects from passive smoking is perception that has been bred by rhetoric and tactics from Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco - or in other words - Big Tobacco. The fact is, these things just don't work.

In Spain, a recent law has prohibited smoking in many indoor public places but still allows for smoking in partitioned public areas or areas with separate ventilation; and this is a move supported by the tobacco industry. In fact, Monique E Muggli et al in their 2010 article point out: 'Maintaining smoking in public places such as HORECA (hotels, recreational, catering) outlets is extraordinarily important to the tobacco industry because it allows for both the normalising of smoking and affords the companies opportunities to effectively reach consumers.' [Emphasis added.] (Monique E Muggli, Nikki J Lockhart, Jon O Ebbert, Carlos A Jimenez-Ruiz, Juan Antonio Riesco Miranda and Richard D Hurt, 'Legislating Tolerance: Spain's National Public Smoking Law' (2010) 19 Tobacco Control 24 at 25)

So technically, by not tying up the loose ends, we are allowing the tobacco industry loopholes for them to infiltrate our public health efforts and render them ineffective. We know that smoke-free areas help. In fact, the authors of the above article point out that they have been proven to reduce the chances of young people initatiating smoking and decreases health risks to non-smokers. (at 24) Our problem is that we have too many political barriers, and that they are difficult ones to overcome. The thing is, we've already let the tobacco industry bully their way into the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board Act. Why let them bully us into more? What I'm recommending is that smoking within the Malacca police force be tackled, and that in KL (for starters) we start thinking about the fact that partitions and separate ventilation is doing nothing for our health.

Another reason for KL to start thinking about becoming smoke-free - aside from looking friggin good in the eyes of the world - is the fact that a recent study found that exposure to secondhand smoking increases the risk of mental disorders, including anxiety and depression. The authors point out that it is 'biologically plausible' (at E2) that secondhand smoke is linked to mental function, and found that there was a 'robust dose-response association' between the two. (at E5) (Mark Hamer, Emmanuel Stamatakis and David Batty, 'Objectively Assessed Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Mental Health in Adults: Cross-Sectional and Prospective Evidence from the Scottish Health Survey' (2010) 67(8) Archives of General Psychiatry E1)

So we've gotten smoke-free Malacca on environmental grounds as well as lung cancer grounds. I dare say we can get smoke-free KL on lung cancer grounds, environmental grounds, reputation and world-opinion grounds, and mental health grounds. I reckon it's a worthy target. A difficult one, but worthy nonetheless.