I’ve long wanted to raise a public concern that, every time I think about it, it seems even more serious.
In Kosovo, smoking in closed public spaces is prohibited by law. However, in many locals and environments where people work, serve, or spend their time, smoke continues to be part of the day.
What worries me is not just smoke. It’s how we’re used to accepting law violations as quite common.
We have come to a point where the law – seeking citizen may feel more uncomfortable than the violator.
This, for me, is much more than a tobacco issue.
It’s a matter of law authority, of the responsibility of institutions and, above all, of respect for human life.
I have nothing against those who smoke. It’s a personal choice, with consequences everyone should know about. But no one has the right to impose their choice on someone else.
A child does not choose to smoke adults. A waiter should not choose between his workplace and his health. A pregnant woman or one with respiratory problems should not seek understanding of a right that the law already guarantees.
My right to do something cannot be greater than your right not to suffer its consequences.
Meanwhile, we hear more and more about people who face serious diagnosis. For a family who see life change for one night. For parents who look for every opportunity to treat their children and young ones who, instead of thinking about the future, are forced to struggle for their health and life.
Anyone who has witnessed a family’s suffering in the face of cancer knows the sudden value of what we considered ordinary until yesterday.
One morning without pain. A good analysis. A phone call with news that treatment is working. One more day with the people we love.
Of course, not every cancer is linked to tobacco, nor can any disease be prevented. But science has long confirmed that smoking and exposure to its smoke cause serious diseases, including cancer.
That’s why I can’t understand this contradiction.
How can we spend so much to treat illness and at the same time show so little determination to reduce the dangers we can prevent?
How can we talk about reforms in health, better hospitals, and more expensive drugs as we continue to tolerate violating a law aimed at just protecting health?
I do not claim that applying the Law on Tobacco Control would solve the problem of cancer in Kosovo. It would be inaccurate and irresponsible to say that.
But I am convinced that a state that does not take seriously prevention cannot claim to have put the citizens’ health at the top of its priorities.
This is where the responsibility cannot be left without an address.
The inspectorship was not designed to exist only in organograms. The law has not been adopted to be remembered only during awareness campaigns. Even the fines are not designed to remain threats on paper.
The responsible institutions must show what they have done, how much they have checked, how many violations they have ascertained and what measures they have taken to ensure law enforcement.
We don’t need one day shares that produce pictures for the public. We need a order where law enforcement is normal and its violation has consequences.
Above all, we need to change our belief that public health is solely responsible for the doctor and the hospital.
No. Health is also protected outside hospitals. Schools, jobs, locals, institutions, and wherever a responsible decision may save a person from unnecessary danger.
I know how difficult it is to turn your hope to a family who has just received a serious diagnosis. I also know there is no law that can remove any disease or pain.
That is why the State has no right to be indifferent to the dangers of knowledge, competence, and legal obligation to act.
It is not a citizen’s duty to pray to the State to enforce the law. It is a State duty not to make such a prayer necessary for the citizen.
I would like to talk more about the matter, not only when we mark an international day, not just when we lose someone and not just when our illness knocks on our door.
Unfortunately, we often learn to understand the value of health only when we start to lose it.
What we saw yesterday, then, may take on a completely different meaning.
The state can’t promise us that we won’t get sick. But he is obligated not to leave us vulnerable in the face of the dangers that the law has imposed upon him to prevent.
In the end, I just want to ask one question.
If we do not apply a health – protection law today, what right will we address to families who are struggling for the lives of their loved ones tomorrow?
Loyal R. B ERISHA, lawyer
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal