It was billed as "The Great Tobacco Debate." The first day of the recent three-day Media Conference hosted by the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago in conjunction with the West Indian Tobacco Company Limited, at the Cascadia Hotel in St Ann's.
The afternoon panel discussion caught my attention so I journeyed to the heights of St Ann's in pouring rain hoping to hear something really new about the pros and cons of cigarette smoking.
After two hours of presentations by Dr Richard Daynard and Heather Selin, both of whom had been brought to Trinidad by PAHO/WHO from the United States specifically for the debate, and Christopher John Proctor PhD(Head of Science & Regulation, British American Tobacco), United Kingdom, with rather timid questions from a panel of Caribbean journalists, I called it a day. Debates are supposed to be lively and when termed "great" should definitely pack more punch than the lightning which had knocked out the Cascadia's electrical power.
Dr Daynard, a Professor of Law at Northeastern University's School of Law, had worked with a number of organisations devoted to the study of tobacco and public health policy and implementation. And has appeared on numerous television, radio and other public fora including NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC, Fox, Nightline, Crossfire, and This Week with David Brinkley. He has spoken in over 20 countries.
Heather Selin representing PAHO/WHO's Washington office, is Advisor - Prevention and Control of Tobacco Use, PAHO. She has provided expert testimony in Canada and the United States on tobacco prevention and has worked for both the British and Romanian governments on this issue.
Chris Proctor, Head of Science and Regulation for British American Tobacco, holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, and has done post doctoral research both at Cornell University in the U.S.A. and the University of Kent in the U.K. He first joined the Company in 1983. His early research focused on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and, in particular, quantifying real life exposure in various populations.Today his key interests are developments in smoking and health science, reduced risk tobacco products and the regulation of tobacco. He hosts the smoking and health section of the British American Tobacco website, www.bat.com.
Driving away from the Cascadia Conference Room, it was difficult to decide what, if any, earth-shattering points had been made by either the presenters or the panelists, and I was sure that if members of the audience had been allowed to share their experiences on smokers, smoking, and the diseases releated to cigarette smoking, the debate may have become "great."
Having lived with cigarette smokers for my entire life; having seen my father and younger brother both die from diseases related to cigarette smoking, namely, emphysema and lung cancer; having inhaled secondary smoke from two husbands who smoked even in bed; having been around four siblings who smoked; and having now lived with three daughters who all smoked for long periods of time; I could only shake my head in amazement at the panelists who spoke with a great degree or seriousness of suing tobacco companies when a patient dies from smoke-related disease.
I never got a chance to tell the gathering that I had lost two people I loved dearly and never ever did it enter my mind to sue anybody because they were two adult individuals who smoked for their entire lives and totally enjoyed puffing their cigarettes. True in my father's early days as a smoker there was not all the education on the subject or the notices on the cigarette boxes, but he was an adult who lived most of his life uncomfortably clearing his throat from a smoker's cough and that did not stop him from smoking until 17 years prior to his death when he was diagnosed with early signs of emphysema.
How could I dare sue anybody when a nurse/friend at the St James Cancer Center commented15 years ago "I can't believe that its your brother I see coming from his radiation treatment puffing a cigarette?" My reply was "yes, he says the horse is already out of the stable so why lock the gate." My brother smoked to the night before he died at age 46. That was how he saw it - the quality of the time he had left was what was important.
How could I think anybody should be made to pay for what two adults enjoyed doing. It seems to me in today's world that people just do not accept responsibility for their actions, everybody and everything else is to blame but they themselves. I now have a young relative recently diagnosed with asthma, she continues to smoke "because the doctor did not tell me to stop." This is an intelligent individual with tertiary education waiting on a doctor to say smoking is not good for respiratory disease.
On the other hand, I can call the names of about three persons who died from lung cancer and never ever smoked a cigarette in their lives. So where do we really go from here? You can attempt to prolong life by not smoking cigarettes, or you can happily keep on puffing always remembering that those around you do not wish to inhale your smoke and that the responsibility for doing that which is injurious to your health is wholly yours.