Further deductions

It is quite unfortunate that despite all the indirect and direct advertisement being banned by special anti-tobacco legislation, it still continues through medium like television and movies which have a gigantic impact on the young people. Equally unfortunate is the fact that artists and movie producers have without the proper application of their intelligence, allowed them to be used as a mere puppet in the hands of cash rich tobacco companies. There are hundreds of scientific studies which prove only one thing; that; “Movies have a considerable influence on the youngsters and moving images are one of the major factors influencing children and youngsters to start smoking.” 

The depiction of tobacco in movies can not be said to be accidental or ignorance. In 2003, when for a complete year W.H.O. focussed on the issue of Tobacco in movies,” many producers had (then) expressed their ignorance on the issue. Many producers were sensitized on the issue and many had publicly said that they will now (from then on) take care. All such statements proved to be a mere rhetoric. The number of tobacco incidents and brand/product placement have since increased many folds. This is not ignorance but deliberate. 

Under the international commitment of the WHO global health treaty, Article 1(c) of FCTC defines tobacco advertising and promotion as any form of commercial communication, recommendation or action with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly. Tobacco sponsorship in FCTC Article 1(g) is defined as any form of contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly. 

It is known that even without making a direct reference to smoking/tobacco a psychological need-satisfaction relationship can be created.55 Whenever smoking and tobacco images are shown in association with any previous branding philosophy/tactic used by some tobacco company, even though it is scientifically incorrect it clearly amount to advertising and/or promotion of tobacco. All the emotional associations created with tobacco are false and erroneous and not based on any scientific facts. Tobacco, whether shown with product/brand shot or in generic form or not, but if shown in association with any such erroneous emotional emotional/behavioural situation, it amounts to promotion of tobacco. 

Tobacco companies are clearly targeting the underdeveloped countries like India, where the branded manufactured cigarette use is low (approx.117 per capita compared to 1030 globally) for their untapped potential. Movies, television and other mass media and multimedia tools appear to be the most effective vehicle for their objective. Since in India and other such underdeveloped countries the literacy rate is too low so for most of these people, what is seen is often believed and followed. Movies and television is their window to the world. What they see, they believe. Mass media and movies are an unfortunate but very powerful tool in the hands of tobacco companies. It is like a razor in the hand of a monkey. 

False association of tobacco and smoking with glamour, bravery, success, stress etc. needs to put to an end immediately if the tobacco control efforts have to succeed and if millions of lives are to be saved.   

There is no scientific evidence that tobacco consumption makes a person brave, appear machismo; on the contrary and according to scientific evidence tobacco is known to make a person impotent and holding a cigarette in mouth is a psychological indicator of insecurity. It is shown that people smoking lok beautiful and smart whereas the fact is that tobacco deteriorates the skin texture and is responsible for hundreds of ailments. Does it improve the social acceptability of a person as shown in movies; no, not at all rather it reduces the acceptability of a person in certain groups and is forbidden in many societies; tobacco users are known to suffer from a feeling of guilt too. It on no account makes a person successful and rather tobacco consumption adds to the poverty. There is no association of tobacco with glamour too and on the contrary it reduces the quality of life and on an average 22 productive years from one’s life. There is no way tobacco can reduce stress; scientifically it increases the chance of hypertension and vascular and myocardial infraction by many folds.  

These false projections are made popular by motion pictures which must be countered without any further delay. Unfortunately the electronic communication has been used unchecked in past as a tool to promote harmful products like tobacco and this has resulted in great loss of life. The promotion of harmful substances like tobacco through mass media is undeniably against the established research of science’ against the direction provided by the Indian constitution and has the regrettable ability to degenerate the young people and hence the future of India and any civilization of the world. 

Tobacco is not “Just another product.” Tobacco is a deadly product which kills. Though tobacco kills a little slower than other drugs but it surely does kills. The public has a right not to be misled by false speech and expression under the guise of freedom of speech and expression. 

The international commitment and agreement reached among 168 countries of the world was achieved after years of negotiation and evaluation of tons of scientific data. 168 countries have actually signed the FCTC, 113 have ratified it and the international treaty of global dimension specifically provides for a comprehensive ban on “advertising, promotion and sponsorship” as quoted above. Tobacco depiction in movies most of the times amounts to sponsorship and/or advertisement. Pushing tobacco whether in generic form or under a brand name, remains promotion.  

The qualities and characteristics presently associated with tobacco in movies are the same qualities which were earlier associated with tobacco in tobacco advertisements. Movies are proving to be full length advertisement of tobacco products.Movies are primarily commercial products, produced mostly with a motive to earn profits, so it would be naïve to assume that product images and smoking styles sneak into the movie unintentionally and without any commercial interest. When all other product placements are paid for, it is unlikely that the movie producers are so naive as to show tobacco brands for free. If a comprehensive ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship, which 168 countries have endorsed, is justified then banning tobacco in movies is equally correct and even more desirable. 

 It is worth noting that even the freedom of speech is not an absolute right giving anyone a right to spread harmful and deleterious communications. Freedom of speech and expression is governed by many other concerns and the welfare of public is at the heart of it. In the past also legislations have provided for restriction from publishing material and spreading images/speech if obscene in nature (Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Indian legislation) or which is found to be harmful for young people (Young Person (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956: Indian legislation) or even medicines and magic remedies (Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954: Indian legislation) promising miracles. There have been many other reasonable restrictions in public interest in the past too and by a simple common sense extrapolation of the same, tobacco depiction in mass media should have been banned years back.