Dear director, we read with amazement and regret the intervention of January 24 entitled «A hypocritical prohibition, I will smoke outdoors (without disturbing)» by Antonio Scurati, esteemed journalist and writer. The article criticizes the recent introduction by the Municipality of Milan of the no smoking outdoors less than 10 meters away from the others, for now only at public transport stops, parks and stadiums and, from 2025, throughout the city.
–
For us doctors and researchers engaged in the fight against smoking, this is not a big news: we have been accustomed for decades to having to face the smear campaigns of the tobacco multinationals – and their supporters and sympathizers – aimed at discrediting our studies and the consequent legislative adjustments on the subject of passive smoking and its damage to health. We remember well, for example, the articles by journalists opposed to the approval of the Sirchia law, now one of the most loved and respected among non-smokers but also among smokers themselves. More than 15 years have passed and we find ourselves having to defend another enlightened political decision maker who tries to change the health of citizens for the better.
–
We are surprised that the editorial is signed by Antonio Scurati, a man who had a role as a civil innovator, committed to caring for the soul of the country, and which we consider independent of any conflict of interest. We especially regret that the Corriere della Sera, after the beautiful article – very detailed and well documented – by Gianni Santucci of 20 January on passive outdoor smoking (“Dust peaks at bus stops. Squeeze healthy: Milan is the leader “), felt the need to suggest that the new ban is not only an “unjust” but even “hypocritical” and “ridiculous” rule. On the contrary, we who have been dealing with tobacco control for decades strongly support this new environmental policy that starts from Milan, but which has already extended to other cities, such as Florence. We also hope that it can be adopted nationally and that it can inspire, as the Sirchia law did, other countries in Europe and in the world. This is because we are well aware of the scientific evidence. It is useful to remember, in fact, that passive smoking is a group 1 carcinogen (therefore certainly carcinogenic for humans) as established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO). It has also been shown, also by some studies of the National Cancer Institute of Milan, that the concentrations of fine and ultrafine powders released into the environment by the passive smoke of a single cigarette are higher than those of diesel and gasoline car exhausts. It is therefore important that the more than 11 million Italians who still smoke are well aware that their annual consumption of 65 billion cigarettes contributes significantly to the increase in environmental pollution, regardless of where they smoke.
–
Without rhetoric, the smoker cannot be considered a scapegoat, is the victim of a psychophysical addiction induced by the tobacco industry which, statistically, can lead to an early death of an average of 10 years. Seventy years of research and tens of thousands of scientific studies have shown that smoking, active and passive, not only provokesthe more than 80 thousand deaths every year in Italy alone, but it is the cause of a disability that affects the quality of life. Fortunately, tobacco smoke is no longer considered an “inestirpable vice”; you can stop and today, with the help of psychological or pharmacological supports, it is even easier.
–
And the argument cited by Scurati that Milan and the whole Po Valley are one of the most polluted areas in Europe cannot be valid to support the uselessness of such a measure. Indeed, the opposite reasoning applies: precisely because we are dealing with the two most important environmental risk factors in the same place, we must do our utmost to counteract both., taking up the appeal launched by WHO in October 2018 to act on a global scale against air pollution, responsible for over 7 million anticipated deaths a year worldwide.
–
We know that when it comes to prevention and health promotion, bans are not enough. Above all, prohibitions irritate when we interpret them as deprivation of a right to a choice which, in the case of smoking, seems free. But often they are needed for the good of all. And the right to public health must always prevail over the freedom of the individual smoker, as well as respect for the most sensitive categories, such as respiratory, cardiac and cancer patients, the elderly, children and pregnant women.
–
–
January 26, 2021 (change January 26, 2021 | 22:19)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
– .
