Hypnotherapy For Smoking Cessation

I GREW UP AMONG SMOKERS. MY FATHER AND four brothers smoked throughout my childhood (as did most of my male relatives), but one by one each decided to stop. Papa stopped smoking only after he had his first stroke, my older brothers only after they began getting sick, while my younger brother, the priest, reports that months after he quit cold turkey, he would find himself salivating just by sniffing cigarette smoke.

So while I know how hard it is to quit the habit, I also know that it is possible. And I believe that anything that encourages smokers to stop smoking, or discourages non-smokers from picking up the habit, deserves to be and should be supported. Lately, public opinion has been divided over the efficacy, or wisdom, of a recent Department of Health directive imposing what have been euphemistically called graphic warnings on cigarette packaging. These graphic warnings are actually picturesquite icky pictures, if I must say sothat are meant to depict in visual terms the old hackneyed warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health.

The graphic warnings on cigarette packs are already in use in other countries, but apparently the jury is still out on whether they can actually convince smokers to give up their habit. The claim is made that, after some time, smokers would become inured to the icky pictures of black lungs and ulcerated mouths and simply ignore them when they buy their daily ration of nicotine.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance Philippines (FCAP) disputes this assertion, asking that if the pictures wont make any difference to smokers, why did the (tobacco) industry oppose (the administrative order) and went all the way up to the Regional Trial Court of Marikina, seeking declaratory relief for the AO?

* * *

FCAP, an NGO allied with other groups seeking to implement an international convention on tobacco control (to which the Philippines is a signatory), says that what tobacco firms want to conceal is the fact that the pictures work too well for the youth who are the primary target of tobacco marketing.

The point of tobacco marketing, after all, is not to convince smokers to buy more cigarettes, but rather to convince non-smokers to start smoking. And given that studies show that if a person hasnt picked up the habit by age 18, chances are he or she wont start smoking at all, it makes sense for marketers to go after young people. This even if cigarette manufacturers say they, too, want to confine cigarette trading to adults.

Veteran smokers may be able to ignore the diseased organs and amputated limbs on their cigarette packs, but can teens relate to such uncool products?

Not likely, says FCAP. People can relate to the picture(s) because theres a human element in it. Todays young generation doesnt like to read books because of the proliferation of visual media. They tend to shy away from anything that will require them to be more analytical and process information, the group says in a statement.

FCAP says it conducted a survey in 2007 about the effectiveness of graphic information in cigarette packs with 400 respondents nationwide, including Metro Manila. Graphic warnings were preferred by 64 percent of the respondents as an effective way to keep people from smoking. Of those within the age bracket of 15-20 years old, 75 percent preferred graphic health information over the health warning in text. The survey respondents, aged 15-60 years old, were smokers, had planned to smoke, or favored smoking.

The actions of the tobacco industry regarding the DOHs administrative order confirm the effectiveness of pictures to control tobacco and cigarette use among the youth, asserts FCAP. Reaching out to the younger generation was touted by the industry itself as the way to heftier profits. They are called replacement smokers as more adult smokers are dying due to smoking-related diseases.

* * *

REFERRING to critics claims that the Department of Health had overstepped its bounds by moving aggressively to stem smoking, the FCAP declared that the Filipino people deserve a health agency that is eager to stamp (out) this deadly addiction from the face of the earth.

The public, the group says, deserves a health agency that will rightfully uphold the primacy of public health and reaffirms its primary function to promote, protect, preserve and restore the health of the people.

Apart from health considerations, the tobacco industry and its spokespersons have also brought up economic arguments, claiming more controls on tobacco marketing would impose higher costs on cigarette manufacturers and disadvantage consumers, who would end up paying more for their cigarettes.

But making cigarettes more expensive is in fact one means of preventing more people from becoming smokers, and preventing smokers from smoking more cigarettes.

As expected, the tobacco companies cited the poor tobacco farmers and workers dependent on this industry for their families livelihood, FCAP notes. If the industry is really concerned about the fate of these marginalized sectors in the tobacco industry, here is an unsolicited advice for the tobacco industry: Why dont they train their legal armory and lobbying machinery on the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the local government officials in the tobacco-producing provinces? They were mandated to provide alternative livelihood to tobacco farmers who will be disadvantaged by the implementation of the Tobacco Regulation Act or RA 9211.

The law was passed in 2003. Seven years later, the industry is conveniently using the same problem to extricate itself from the health agencys inherent mandate to protect the health of the people.