Creating problems where there are none

I am not a smoker and smoke bothers me a lot when I am around someone who uses tobacco. However, I am opposed to the recent reforms to the General Law for Tobacco Control. Most of them violate rights enshrined in the Constitution and will end up generating bigger problems than they are supposed to solve. The main problem is that the commercialization through advertising, promotion, exhibition and open sale of tobacco products is prohibited, when these are legal products. It is trying to turn something legal into something supposedly illegal with an illegality. Anything that may suggest consumption is prohibited, such as actors smoking in movies or showing scenes where there are smokers. Does this mean that Mauricio Garcés’ films are banned?

By prohibiting the display of cigarette packs in their shops under the pretext of discouraging their consumption among young people, the black market will be encouraged. Contraband cigarettes that are often adulterated are more harmful to health and are sold for a third of the value of the legal product. In small shops, these enchanted cigars will be mixed with the offer of legal ones, facilitating their sale. This “hidden” offer can also be mixed with drugs. It is an ideal situation for extortion.

The reforms to the law create a problem where there was none. For years, the law had been working reasonably well. For example, in restaurants, bars and nightclubs terraces for smokers have been adapted which, when well defined, do not harm non-smokers. No smoking in public spaces is respected. Advertising cigarettes through commercials on television or billboards has also been prohibited for some time. Finally, the warning legend on the packs is a deterrent that surely contributes to health awareness.

By prohibiting the display of tobacco for sale, then the display of alcohol should also be prohibited. It is true that the 65,000 annual deaths from smoking are much higher than the nearly 7,000 caused directly by alcohol. But it also takes lives by inciting violence and causing car accidents.

INEGI registers 15 million smokers while it recognizes 20 million people facing alcohol addiction. Curiously, only 5% of smokers correspond to young people between the ages of 12 and 17. On the other hand, diabetes claims more than 150,000 deaths annually. So from that point of view, it would make more sense to have banned the display and advertising of sweets, soft drinks and many other harmful products due to their high sugar content.

A shower of injunctions against the reforms has already begun by large stores, medium-sized and small merchants. What worries in the background is the right to freedom of people to consume what they want as long as it is legal and does not affect third parties. Economic theory also tells us that taxes can combat a negative externality. Why was that path not thought of?

Twitter: @frubli