Smoke-free home

Back in the first months of 2007, alongside the Edenor electricity bill, came a sticker advertising a campaign called "Smoke-Free Environments." Apparently, it was aimed at kids and young people. And it was sponsored by the Ministry of Health of the Nation's Presidency.
The sticker is divided into two parts: one refers to the home, to the house, and the other to the recipient's bedroom. I imagine it was intended to raise awareness and sensitize a section of the population, its target audience. The sticker recreates, or at least resembles, an Argentine cockade (escarapela).

Several possible interpretations come to mind—for example, the house in white representing a kind of purity or detoxification by not having smoke or residue typical of tobacco smoking. 

The other sticker features five small cockades and may allude to the willpower to allow oneself to overcome the power of cigarettes, identifying what is national (the cockades) with the act of not smoking or confronting tobacco. However, these are merely conjectures based on my own interpretation.

In fine print on one side of the sticker, there is an invitation that reads "Visit the youth against tobacco website." Being curious—and for no other reason, since I do not smoke—I visited the website out of pure curiosity and read through all of it.

Through those strange circumstances for which I never find an explanation, I decided to load the website at an 800x600 resolution, which made it run very slowly. That was going to form my first criticism of the site, but after reloading it at 1024x768, it ran very quickly.

The website, whose URL was, was quite good. It had a dark theme, which carries its own meaning, and was targeted at young people—a smart move, as that is where the most damage is done by creating addiction in the most vulnerable and increasingly younger individuals. It looked like a PC game design; it even had a game to download, although I didn't download it. The idea was good because it engaged young people to get informed—or at least I think that was the intention. What would be great is to distribute the game on free download websites and advertise where young people hang out, rather than just on the stickers they distributed. Unfortunately, the site was online for about a year, from early 2007 until late 2008, and then ceased to exist. Did the campaign end? Was it replaced by other campaigns? Did it fail to achieve its goal? Or did it fulfill its objective and wrap up? Did the funding run out? Back then, the .gov domain was still used, which was changed to .gob by August 2008.

At first glance, I noticed a section that said "Find out how much you know about cigarettes." I smiled and thought to myself that, as a non-smoker, I had it all figured out and knew everything. It turned out to be a big mistake—I wasn't far off, but I didn't know everything either. Ideally, one should first read the entire website and, upon finishing, take the test; then one would—or should—answer correctly. But viewed from another perspective, I don't see it as a bad thing to take the test first (which is very short and simple) and then read the site and take it again. That way, you know for sure what you actually knew and what you didn't know, which is what happened to me.

On several occasions, it reiterated that those who know smoking is harmful but justify themselves with a "it's not that bad" in order to keep doing it shouldn't be judged. Everyone decides what to do with their own body; if they harm themselves, know it, and justify it to themselves with a lie, deceiving themselves, it is a pity for them. I have also heard common phrases such as "I can quit whenever I want" or "now I smoke two or three fewer cigarettes a day" as a way to justify the powerlessness of not being able to face the addiction. When they do want to face it and cannot do it alone, the right thing to do is to seek help or accept the consequences of their actions—which, in short, would be something like: "I smoke because I want to, I know it's bad for me, and I still don't care," all without needing to deceive themselves.

The website had a clock next to a cigarette butt with a phrase that read "every 13 minutes." This stems from statistics showing that every 13 minutes in Argentina, a person dies as a result of a disease originating from smoking. So, every thirteen minutes on the clock, a couple of chimes would sound. It turned out that while I was reading the site, two individuals passed away. It sounds like dark humor, but it is good that it was done that way—not to mock those who passed, but as a way to raise awareness.

Except for a few instances, the site avoided referring to tobacco companies and how they manage to introduce cigarettes into society. After all, it is their job and their source of income, and it is not wrong for them to exist because there are people who want to smoke regardless of the harm it causes. A movie titled "Thank You for Smoking" is very interesting as it raises this issue and leaves one thinking; I recommend watching it. Consequently, the site avoids discussing the subliminal advertising of tobacco sellers and how this type of advertising enters people's subconscious to work on it (although this is also questioned and not fully proven). The site also avoids talking about how advertising and promotions are increasingly targeted at younger kids so that they buy more tobacco at an earlier age.

Despite these facts, which might sit uncomfortably with some people but are nevertheless a reality, the site indicates a significant reduction in smokers in society. Taking a radical stance, one could question the State regarding the care required by these individuals once they fall ill due to cigarettes, given that the harm is self-inflicted. However, it is well known that the State is obligated to care for them, so the site avoids this debate, as it enters rather delicate territory. They did mention some provincial laws regarding smoking bans in public spaces, though I am unaware of the specific laws mentioned. I am convinced that bans are not very effective, except in extreme cases; it is better to inform and educate the population, giving them the necessary tools to prevent or face the problem rather than banning it once it has occurred.

I have always wondered what the point is of informing smokers via the mandatory inscription on cigarette packs: "Smoking is harmful to health." Truthfully, if any positive effect comes from that, I think it's wonderful; but I have never heard, even as a myth, that anyone quit or avoided smoking simply because they read that warning. Nor have I heard of anyone who was informed of its harm, continued anyway, and had an explanation for their behavior—nothing at all. I don't know what the purpose is; the most appropriate thing would be to read that law to see what it says, but to be honest, I don't feel like doing so. It cannot be denied that the phrase "Smoking is harmful to health" informs anyone approaching a cigarette about its harmful effects; after that, it is up to one's willpower to smoke it, but one can no longer claim "I didn't know it was bad." The amount smokers spend, as indicated on the page, is quite interesting.

I remember that back in high school, I did a group project on smoking. Our topic was the harmful components of cigarettes. At that time, the internet did not exist, but most of the harmful components were already known, much like the website detailed. If one thing stayed with me from that assignment, it was a phrase I really liked back then and still do today:
The best way to avoid falling into addiction is to never smoke the first cigarette.