Editorial: noble goal, messy method

Photo: Panther Media/Scanpix

In Estonia, 26 per cent of grown-ups smoke daily: 231,000 plus people. It is thought that about a fifth of all deaths may be caused by smoking, directly or indirectly. Smoking is bad for the smoker, his nearest-dearest, and the state health care system.

This is crystal clear. Understandable, also, the society’s desire to fight the harmful habit. But, no matter how hard you try, amounts of smokers are not significantly down since 1994 (regarding ladies, for instance, by mere three per cent). Leading to doubts: have we grabbed the best weapons? 

Obviously, every addict of the poison-pipe may regard himself as manipulated by tobacco companies, one way or another. Tobacco is big business, aiming to earn hefty euros. To bridle the business, we have laws by which legislators are attempting to attain the fragile balance between company interests and lifestyle-impacting decisions. This is needed and this works well.

What may not work as well, one may be pardoned to think, is any counterpropaganda, supported by state or EU. While the goals are noble, such campaigns do not seem to work, really.

Reasons may vary, one perhaps being an observation by social psychologist Roy Baumeister who found that the more we behold the opportunity to satisfy a desire, the more often we experience flash impulses and the more often we yield to these. In other words: in a weird way, anti-smoking propaganda seems to play into Big Tobacco claws – talking about smoking, no matter the context, may at times lead to an enhanced pull to puff.

Another drawback may be the very propaganda-like nature of the campaigns. Like any campaign, even these deal pretty loosely with reality... not painting it prettier, but uglier than it actually is. Regrettably, this serves to undermine intended weight and gravity. While we know that ads lie, why believe the counter-ads using the same methods of distortion?

What might work, however, is deciding to talk as little on tobacco products as possible, keeping them out of sight. Robbing them of all glamour and criticism. And, why not, making them extra difficult to find. 

Laws and taxation work well to curb propaganda by tobacco companies, getting good results. Not sure if counterpropaganda can match that.