FEBRUARY 15 — Less than a decade ago, our cigarette boxes morphed from glamorous colourful packets into, uh, disgusting posters for horror movies. We used to see all the cool logos and flashy brand designs. Now all we see are dead babies, limbs from a mid-air explosion and a throat that resembles the remnants of an assassination attempt.
The US$2.6 billion question, of course, is: Did any of these sexy R-rated photos contribute to a) a drop in cigarette sales and b) smokers smoking less?
I’ll leave item a) to those with access to cigarette companies’ sales figures and jump straight to the second question: Do those nasty photos make existing smokers smoke less? Everybody already knows the answer: No BLEEDIN’ way.
Guilt vs more guilt
A smoker will never be deterred just because the packet reminds him of Freddy Krueger’s victims. It’s the same reason why a mountain climber training to conquer Everest is not at all deterred by news or movies about people dying in the Himalayas.
Chances are, these climbers have a whole stash of “deadly” climbing experiences, in their minds if not on their shelves.
Ditto, one of my ex-students told me (way back in 2008) that he planned to collect all the photos — the leg, the hand, the throat, etc. — and stick them up on his bedroom wall.
A smoker couldn’t give an ash-filled damn about quitting smoking just because he sees a photo of a blackened destroyed lung. Likewise, no Chinese is gonna stop ordering Bak Kut Teh simply because he watches National Geographic and sees all the shite that pigs eat right before ending up in his bowl.
This is also why it’s fruitless telling a gambler that if he keeps driving up to Genting (or down to Singapore) to dance the Black-Jack gig, he’s going to lose everything eventually. That’s only going to make him drive faster.
The logic works the same in all cases: Violating a norm (about health, finance, etc.) is bad, but not violating it is even worse.
Sure, a smoker does feel some “guilt” in lighting up each cigarette; it’s the same amount of “despair” a porn addict experiences right before clicking into 20 hours of tits, tongues and shafts.
The pain of not living up to the standards of society is real (“Be responsible for your health!”, “Be chaste and morally pure!”), but the torture of rejecting a dare of an obscene social standard is even more real(“Are you a coward with s*** for lungs?! Are you so weak you can’t endure a simple fire-stick?!”, “Are you a self-confessed monk who’ll get his balls chopped off by heaven if you spend five seconds watching people have really hot sex?!”).
The choice facing the smoker, the gambler, the porn and food addict, is the same. They’re not choosing between Good and Bad. They’re caught between Punishment and More Punishment.
“We smoke BECAUSE it’s dangerous”
Back to smoking. Nobody who’s already into two packets a day is going to stop because a still-born fetus tells him to. In fact, the more he sees body parts decimated by ash and smoke, the more he’d want to light up. And do not even talk about that chicken-s*** thing called vaping.
That’s what smokers are paying for — the chance to grab life by its horns and tits, live the danger and tell the world to kiss my hairy ass. Why? Simply because they can.
Again, recall the answer to the popular question asked of Everest-climbers on why they want to climb the mountain, “Because it’s there.”
Why do people continue smoking despite knowing it’s dangerously unhealthy? Truth is:
People smoke because it may cause cancer.
Speed demons drive like Vin Diesel because they may die in a fiery crash.
I eat roast duck because I enjoy that space between health and heart disease.
Cyclists ride like the wind because it’s (literally) neck-breaking.
Could this be the unspoken reason why some Malaysian states are banning e-cigarettes? There’s simply no more risk, no more danger, no more oomph.
From dirty smoke to cloudy vapours — that’s not awesome at all. Let’s ban it! No more cancer threat, no more real fire — let’s put a stop to these “lifeless’” nonsense! At least the smokers are risking something. Vapers? They’re like gum-chewers. Arrest them!
Could a similar logic be at work in Malaysian politics? Far from being perceived as a villain, could the politician who dares to take bribes and cheat the system actually be seen as a hero? He’s doing what few others can.
Ergo, letting him continue in his crimes would be bad. But stopping him could be worse? Allowing money politics is criminal, but remove it… and everything collapses.
Only two solutions
When a company discusses professional misconduct and abuse of power, it has two and only two non-cowardly options:
Investigate and punish the guilty parties regardless of how powerful they are and what the consequences to the business may be.
Investigate and punish no one.
The first option puts “zero-tolerance” into real action. Stamp out misconduct entirely. Never allow it a chance to breathe. The second option declares, in no uncertain terms, that it doesn’t care and leave it.
What companies should avoid is the often-used third option: Merely talk about not tolerating abuse of power, but refusing to act when somebody “important” is guilty (because, oh, let’s not rock the boat, she’s still important for our KPIs, etc.).
Ditto with ISIS. Either the United States, France or the Monkey King wipe out these psychos completely or… shut the hell up and let the Middle-East collapse. Indifference, in such contexts, is way better than insincerity.
Likewise, with smoking. Want the community to stop? Ban it entirely. Or let people do whatever they want. Quit the moralising, quit the “campaigns” and, oh God, quit the hole-in-the-lung photos.
Perhaps by now, more than a few folks have figured it out: This piece isn’t about smoking at all.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
