Ashes of change

The “anti-tobacco” law is already a year old – and it hasn’t worked and still doesn’t work.

If the President of the Russian Federation had signed a law that every fifth citizen of the Russian Federation should be exemplarily shot, few would have worried. Because, like most laws—whether good or bad—it would not imply enforcement.

One of the prohibitive laws, which was heatedly discussed and just as firmly forgotten after coming into force, is “anti-tobacco” (full name - Federal Law-15 of February 23, 2013 “On measures to protect the health of citizens from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke and the consequences of tobacco use” ).

Smokers stated that the ban on smoking on trains, trains, train stations and near subways violates their civil rights. The tobacco lobby predicted a surge in the production of counterfeit goods. Those who suffered from “tobacco liberalism,” on the contrary, hoped that the state would protect the health of its citizens. If both of them realized that the country does not have the resources to implement this law, the discussion would immediately fade into meaninglessness. A year has passed.

For whom is the law written?

At the end of April, I was surprised to witness a British American Tobacco promotion. In the Polushka supermarket at st. Sedova, 99/1, a girl, holding a pack of cigarettes in her hands and dressed in a suit that repeated the colors of this pack, approached customers and offered to answer a number of questions. And although, according to the norms of the anti-tobacco law that have come into force in the Russian Federation, “advertising and promotion of the sale of tobacco products” is prohibited, my attempts to call the regulatory body to the head of the violators were in vain. The promoter persistently called the event “informational.”

Then I called the Rospotrebnadzor Office for the Nevsky and Krasnogvardeysky districts to find out if there was a violation of the law here. They couldn’t explain anything to me and told me to call the Rospotrebnadzor hotline. It is open until 17.00, so there is no one to report offenses that take place after 17.00. I honestly tried to call there for two days. No one answered the phone (all my calls were recorded). At the same time, I dialed the numbers of the Main Directorate of Rospotrebnadzor in St. Petersburg - it was busy there all the time. There were no other phone numbers listed there, so I had to write an electronic complaint.

Time passed, but there was no evidence that my complaint had been received. I decided to contact the district office again. Having again called the phone number indicated in the store (by the way, complaints are not accepted on it), I found out from a polite girl the phone number of the department that directly controls retail enterprises. The girl gave me the phone number of a certain Elena Sergeevna (she refused to give her last name). Introducing myself as a journalist, I asked whether the promotion being held at Polushka was legal. Elena Sergeevna replied that she did not give comments over the phone, and advised sending a written appeal by mail, providing it with a video recording of the violation: “We will check and fine if we find grounds.” It turned out that Rospotrebnadzor would be able to take action against violators no earlier than two weeks after the violation of the law (the period for considering citizens’ appeals is a month).

At Polushka, feedback from consumers is no better established than at Rospotrebnadzor. The “press service telephone number” indicated on the website is actually general for all cases. And it’s not a fact that it works at all: within two days the robot’s voice answered me that “at the moment all managers are busy.” Only the hotline number was working. The girl wrote down (?) my question and replied that I would be given an answer in a few days. Still waiting.

I called the St. Petersburg Health Committee. Press secretary Evgenia Semenova said that the committee (as I expected) is incompetent to assess the legality or illegality of such actions. She herself, however, has a negative attitude towards them.

All that remained was to find out the opinion of the interested party - the British American Tobacco (BAT Russia) company. There they honestly confirmed to me that the action in Polushka was sanctioned by this company and that its management did not see any violation in it. According to the director of corporate relations at Bat Russia, Alexander Lyuty, we are talking about “information campaigns”, and they are not prohibited by law. According to him, “the law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” says that we have the right to information about any product, which means that when launching new products, it is legal to resort to the services of information consultants who, at the request of an adult consumer, provide information about the properties of the new product.” . He assured that “the consultant’s task is not to stimulate the consumption or purchase of cigarettes.” In turn, the press secretary of BAT Russia, Alexandra Kreknina, noted that in accordance with the Law “On Advertising”, the mentioned information campaigns cannot be considered advertising, since “advertising is addressed to an unlimited number of consumers, and the information consultant communicates with the person one on one "

Three weeks later I received a response from the Rospotrebnadzor Office. The chief sanitary doctor for the Nevsky and Krasnogvardeisky districts of St. Petersburg, E. Yu. Polyushukovskaya, invited me on May 20 to “conduct a survey in connection with an administrative investigation” on my application. That is, the survey took place a month after the fact of the offense.

It turns out that Rospotrebnadzor opened an administrative investigation and requested an explanation from British American Tobacco. However, all efforts were in vain: lawyers did not see an advertising component in the actions of the promoter. The colors of a tutu in a girl’s suit are not advertising, a management lawyer told me: “For example, I have blue jeans, but that doesn’t mean that I’m advertising Winston.”

According to the requested agreement between the Polushka store and the supplier of tobacco products, the installation of equipment in the sales area and the presence of merchandisers (employees who arrange goods on shelves) in branded suits were expected. Not a word was said about “information consultants.” Or maybe it was a general merchandiser? One way or another, the supervision lawyer assessed the judicial prospects of this case as obviously losing and the investigation was closed.

What else won't work

I travel by train every week - in different directions. I can say with confidence that no one controls the ban on smoking in vestibules. Sometimes I try to persuade smokers, citing the law. Once I tried to use security guards in black uniforms who accompany the cashier-controllers. The security guard explained to me that they are not authorized to control the implementation of the law, since they are not police officers. At the same time, it turns out that the police do not accompany every train. And it’s unlikely that they will come running to such a trivial challenge. However, the security officer, out of the kindness of his heart, rebuked the smokers.

On June 1, 2014, legal provisions prohibiting smoking on long-distance trains will come into force. However, from conversations with conductors, I realized that everything depends on the conductors: if they drive away smokers, the law will be implemented. It is obvious that these particular conductors will not drive anyone.

Also, from June 1, the law requires that packs of cigarettes be removed from store shelves, leaving only a list with price tags, that the sale of tobacco products in metro pavilions and train stations be stopped, and that smoking in cafes be prohibited. I have serious suspicions that, realizing the failure, the government will prefer to “forget” about these norms.

Still, it’s curious, why was it necessary to pass a law whose implementation there is no one to control? Moreover, there are no truly effective mechanisms for reducing tobacco consumption in the law. For example, if you remove trays of cigarettes (or a list with price tags) from the checkout area, sales are reduced by 15%! And if you ban the sale of cigarettes in supermarkets (as in many European countries), then consumption will drop by 30 percent. However, the law does not contain either the first or second option.