The Editor, Sir:

The issue of presenting the benefits and risks to potential consumers and allowing them to make decisions on whether to consume a particular product may be viewed as informed consent. The conspicuous warning that "smoking kills" on some packages of cigarettes is an elicitation of informed consent.

It is reasonable to suggest, contrary to popular belief, that this warning, while there is truth to it, will not readily reduce the consumption of cigarettes. It would more likely be overlooked for the sake of social leisure and "self-care", which is ironic. Before such warning on the packages, smoking was always known to be a health risk factor, but consumption was never drastically affected by such knowledge.

Therefore, the principle of harm reduction should be implemented in an effort to reduce the health effects. Many people will still smoke, even if, "smoking kills." The question was asked, if Carreras was aware of the risk factor, and perhaps continued to contribute to it, despite the informed consent, then should the Carreras group also contribute to the treatment of cancer and other smoking-related health issues?

This question was asked during a recent presentation by representatives of Carreras, at a public forum for its shareholders side-tracked and pushed into the taxation issue, it's a question that Carreras should consider. The informed consent is good, but the problem of health risk, and death, will still be around as a result of cigarette consumption - "who cares if smoking kills." The smokers do not care, so Carreras, please consider the treatment.

I am, etc.,

CANUTE WHITE

superpower342002@yahoo.ca

Kingston 11

Via Go-Jamaica