“Voting Arena” – Smoking heads in the debate on the tobacco advertising ban – News


contents

In the vote on the “Children without tobacco” initiative, no one disputed that smoking is harmful. However, the question of whether an initiative or an indirect counter-proposal would lead to better protection of minors caused heated debates.

Doctors and pharmacists, cancer and lung league support the initiative “Children and young people without tobacco advertising”. But not Minister of Health Alain Berset. In the “voting arena” on Friday, the Federal Council campaigned for votes against the bill. That may surprise you.

Isn’t the state obliged to take all measures to prevent young people from smoking cigarettes because of tobacco advertising? “Smoking is undeniably harmful,” said Berset. But smoking is not prohibited and if a product is sold legally, it should also be possible to advertise it. This vote is all about advertising. He represented the opinion of the Federal Council and Parliament in the “Arena”.

Controversial way to more youth protection

In principle, both sides emphasized in the program that they wanted to prevent the initiators of the tobacco advertising ban and the opponents, young people and children from smoking. But the way to more protection of minors, which was discussed here, is highly controversial.

The initiative wants to consistently ban advertising wherever minors are. The Federal Council and Parliament, on the other hand, have a counter-proposal ready: the new Tobacco Products Act, which will come into force regardless of the outcome of the vote. This provides for a Switzerland-wide ban on the sale of tobacco products to under-18s, but less far-reaching measures with regard to advertising.

Federal Councilor Berset answered questions openly on the show. He would have hoped for more from the counter-proposal. Since 2004, the Federal Council has wanted to ratify the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The counter-proposal is a compromise, but still an important step in the right direction, said Berset.

In the “Arena” the focus was then on what now leads to better protection of minors: the initiative or the counter-proposal.

“Our brain reacts to tobacco in exactly the same way as it does to heroin and cocaine.”

Thomas Cerny, President of Cancer Research, clearly supports the initiative. The former chief physician of oncology says that nicotine addiction is comparable to addiction to heroin and cocaine: “Our brain reacts to these substances in exactly the same way.” He has accompanied thousands of patients during his forty years as a doctor. Many of them would have regretted having smoked. “This advertising discussion is absurd,” said Cerny. In every cigarette there are 80 substances that are directly carcinogenic. It is therefore not appropriate to advertise tobacco, a highly addictive product such as sneakers.

“We are for the consistent protection of minors,” said Hans Stöckli, SP Council of States and President of the initiative. The initiative is a supplement to the counter-proposal, it takes children and young people in particular into account. The proponents are primarily concerned with advertising channels that reach young people in a targeted but rather subtle way. For example, social media or internet platforms, but also certain places such as festivals.

It is a misconception to think that an advertising ban initiative will solve the smoking problem.

In the counter-proposal, everything that the initiators demanded has already been implemented, argued FDP Councilor Ruedi Noser. If you want to protect young people, you need two conditions: Tobacco must not be sold to minors and must not be advertised where minors are. “Both are implemented in the counter-proposal,” said Noser. For FMH President Yvonne Gilli, however, this is an alibi exercise. She calls for an “effective restriction of advertising aimed at young people”.

The initiative is “completely obsolete”, agreed Mike Egger, SVP National Councilor from St. Gallen and co-president of the No Committee, in turn agreeing with Noser’s argument. But he is also concerned with the freedom to form opinions. Everyone knows the harmful effects of tobacco products on health. “I trust our citizens to be able to decide for themselves whether they want to consume such products or not,” said Egger. The left-green politicians want to patronize the population here once again.

Both sides accuse each other of dishonesty

Tempers also heated up when it came to the question of what influence tobacco advertising has on young people at all. “It is a misconception to think that the problem of smoking will be defused with an advertising ban initiative,” said Egger. Finally, the SVP politician even accused the supporters of the initiative of dishonesty. “If you really cared about the health of the population, you would launch an initiative to ban tobacco products,” said Egger. With an advertising ban alone only a very marginal positive effect is achieved.

Brenda Ponsignon, who is on the board of directors of the industry association Swiss Cigarette, said the tobacco advertising is not made for minors in the first place, but for adults who are already smoking, for example to introduce them to a new brand. Advertising is not there as a driver to encourage someone to smoke. «The target group are not minors. We don’t advertise for someone who can’t buy the product.”

Tobacco and Cervelat “in the same basket”

Hans Stöckli disagreed. It is hypocritical to say that the ads are only aimed at adult smokers. The risk of smoking depends massively on the advertising environment you are in. For example, advertising on the Internet is not controlled at all, young people can see it at any time and thus be influenced in their decisions. “Prevention is at the forefront of this initiative and advertising creates poor conditions for prevention.”

The opponents of the initiative are currently drawing attention to their concerns with posters that read “Tobacco today? Tomorrow cervelat?». They fear that this initiative will trigger an avalanche of bans, and that the tobacco advertising ban is just the beginning. The word cervelat was not only mentioned once in the show. Hans Stöckli was at least a little offended that his favorite sausage was discussed “in the same basket as the drug tobacco”.

source site-72