Malaysia's anti-smoking movement surely has a long way to go even with the sensationalist Tak Nak (say No) campaign. The tagline would only work to prevent non-smokers from lighting their first cigarette.

The campaign has little, if any real value to compel adult smokers to quit the habit. The real war on tobacco should be fought not through means of discouragement, but rather deterrence.

Increasing cigarette prices is never going to work; in cities like New York, where a pack costs close to US$10, people continue to puff away.

Sure, the Tak Nak campaign is a step in the right direction but it shouldn't just end there. Malaysia needs to do more, and fast.

The campaign primarily targets Malaysian youth, and yet many teenagers are still lighting up. This has always been the case, no?

Smoking has always been glorified as an 'adult' thing and many teenagers conforming to their innate rebellious ethos are prone to pick up the habit; it sends a "hey, I'm an adult so treat me like one" message. Plus, teenagers who have grown up in households where one or both parents smoke are more likely to pick up the habit.

The problem is perpetuated not only because of the images that surround smoking, but also because it is extremely easy to buy a pack of cigarettes. The availability of small packs (7's/10's and 14's) enables students to hide from cigarettes from their parents - this is what I did.

Although technically cigarettes can only be purchased by individuals aged 18 or older, many vendors sell cigarettes to school kids without any sense of guilt. This practice must be stopped.

It would be a landmark initiative to prevent under-age smokers from having access to cigarettes.

Curb advertising

Proposal 1: Impose tough restrictions on cigarette purchase, and punish both the buyer and seller if they violate the minimum age of purchase rule. Require everyone, without exception, to show their IC to prove that they're at least 18 on the calendar date. And no more saya beli untuk bapak saya (I'm buying for my dad) kind of deals. Also ban all 'kiddie packs' and sell cigarettes only in packs of 20s or the maximum possible quantity, whichever is greater.

The ban on tobacco advertising in Malaysia is a joke. The laws are so loosely enforced that one can still see cigarette posters with graphics of actual cigarettes on the walls of food and beverage outlets. And no, just because such an establishment is located in the rural areas is not an excuse.

As the case in other countries, tobacco companies hide behind slick images of 'travel advertising' and 'exclusive men's wear' to bend the rules against direct advertising. Worse, Dunhill billboards in our soccer stadiums are making a mockery of the law, and sending out the wrong message to the public.

Such things would have never been tolerated in other countries, and Malaysia needs to be more effective in enforcing cigarette advertising laws. In many countries, brand-name advertising is banned and the only advertising allowed is by tthe parent company (for example, Phillip Morris) on support programmes for smokers who have decided to quit. Quite an interesting possibility, eh?

Proposal 2: Ban all forms of cigarette and cigarette-brand advertising, and everywhere. In fact, the only place where such advertising should be allowed is on the display boxes that vendors use to sell cigarettes. Contrary to what people might say, the other commercial interests of tobacco firms - like apparel or travel and tour services are only affordable to the top 1 percent of consumers - those in the higher echelon of society. As such, a ban is not a big deal.

Since the Tak Nak campaign is limited in its scope, there must be more diverse efforts to urge Malaysians to quit the habit completely. This is especially considering the target market of the campaign seems to focus on individuals up to the age of 35, and ignores other smokers. As such, an all-out effort must be launched to compel more middle-aged individuals and senior citizens to quit smoking completely. Say, a Dah Tak Nak Dah campaign?

The best way to ease the financial burden of mounting anti-smoking campaigns is to engage tobacco companies head-on and require them to be active participants. Phillip Morris USA has quit-smoking resources on its website, which also includes debunking the 'lights and ultra-lights cigarettes are less harmless' myth. The website features a support programme for smokers who have chosen to quit in addition to other useful information.

If tobacco companies can be forced via legislation to essentially advertise against their own products in the US, there is no reason for them not to do it in Malaysia. Tobacco companies must also be forced to engage in responsible marketing, and the government must require their products to feature harsher and more graphic warnings instead of the Merokok Membahayakan Kesihatan (Smoking Endangers Your Health) warnings. It is important to make smokers understand that there is no excuse for smoking, only grave consequences.

Quit-smoking services

Proposal 3: Require all tobacco companies to fund and manage quit-smoking programmes and provide resources to their clientele both online and by establishing support centres. Print disturbing images on cigarette boxes to drive stubborn smokers to the point of nausea. Launch an all-out media campaign to drive sense into smokers.

Remember all the talk about a smoking ban in public areas? No one knows for certain if it was ever implemented. If the government is committed to creating a smoke-free and healthy nation, a ban on smoking in all public establishments must be seriously considered.

At present, one can smoke pretty much where ever he or she pleases, even in office buildings and convention centers where Dilarang Merokok (No Smoking) signs are found in abundance. In fact, some teachers in our primary and secondary schools even smoke within the school compounds.

How can we seriously expect our children not be tempted if their teachers smoke openly at school? Also, the negative health effects on second-hand smoke are indicators that smoking should not be limited to the outdoors. If Ireland can ban smoking even in its pubs and bars, what excuse do we have not to ban smoking in public?

Proposal 4: Ban smoking in indoor public establishments, which should encompass government buildings, office buildings, places of worship and nightclubs/bars/pubs. Smoking should only be done outdoors, and smokers must be 10-20 metres away from any entry/exit doorway at all times. The only place one can smoke indoors is in the privacy of their homes.

Smoking should still be banned in food and beverage outlets even if a) its walls are removed (like mamak restaurants) or b) it is not air-conditioned. Business proprietors must provide an patio or an outdoor smoking section to patrons who wish to smoke and businesses that are unable to do so must then be completely smoke-free.

Sure, there will be many who will claim that these actions to be in violation of an individual's right to choose; however, the reality is smoking is a matter of serious concern. There should be no compromise when it comes to public health and safety, especially when Malaysia offers universal public healthcare to its citizens.

The government funds all public hospitals and clinics; thus, it should also have the right to enforce legislation that will reduce the unnecessary and excessive costs of treatment and care for smokers with severe health problems.

Let us also not forget, an individual's right to freedom of choice ends the very moment he/she puts another individual in harm's way.

HAFIDZ ISMAIL is a final-year student in mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota, USA.