BY MOSES OBALOJU
While the Tobacco Control debate increases in
momemtum, it
appears to be paying more attention to dealing with tobacco
companies than anything else. One cannot help but ask if this is the right
approach to reducing tobacco consumption and stemming the tide of possible
increase.
There
is an inherent danger that the global drive to eliminate tobacco use and
manufacture will take on the same outlook that the drive to eliminate poverty
took in developing countries. The attempt to eliminate poverty through the use
of aid granted to many countries in Africa did not achieve its intended
objectives. After pumping huge amounts of funding into different projects all
in a bid to reduce poverty, , multi-lateral agencies and others have changed
their strategies, believing more in socio-economic growth or poverty reduction
enabled by either foreign or local investment.
As
funding for tobacco control increases, so also have the organisations involved
in the race to address tobacco related issues. The demand for smoking has
persisted despite the increase in funding and tobacco control advocacy. Smuggling
of tobacco by criminals and terrorists has also increased tremendously in
countries where stringent regulation have been enacted, leading to a decrease
in government revenue with no protection for public health.
Understandably Tobacco is a product that must
be regulated. This is an incontestable fact. However, what can be contested is
the form of regulation that will be most
effective in protecting people from the harm related to smoking. It is
extremely important for all tobacco policy formulators to understand the
critical importance of drafting laws and policies which will have the effect
they should have, within the context of its operating environment. Copy and
paste laws do not work anywhere in the world, least of all in developing countries.
Tobacco
policy making must also be all inclusive, everyone must state their case. It is
expected that those who are charged with the affairs of formulating these laws
are trust worthy enough and have the requisite expertise to make the right kind
of calls that will protect public health. There is, therefore no basis for
excluding the tobacco industry from deliberating on issues that will affect
them. Attempting to exclude them from such discussions by engaging in
unnecessary media sensationalism is mere
whitewash. Funding used in this regard if any should be used to educate
consumers on the ills of smoking.
For
laws to be properly drafted all issues and stakeholders must be considered,
with the aim of having a robust process of deliberation which can lead to sound
policies and laws. Not listening to all concerned parties can invariably affect
the soundness of decisions made and will also encourage adapting laws and
policies which are borrowed from foreign parties and will not be effective
within the local context.
Developed
countries are domesticating the FCTC articles not only through inclusive
strategies but also in the context of their operating environment. A recent
move by the UK health department to introduce plain packaging in the UK was
aborted after extensive deliberations with all stakeholders, including the
tobacco industry, simply because such a move would have other unintended
consequences such as increased smuggling and the loss of revenue and jobs for
small businesses.
We
need to be careful in Nigeria. We must not copy and paste recommended
guidelines that are not mandatory but can further jeopardise the public health
debate and create bigger problems in the long term. Tobacco sales and
manufacture is a lucrative business for criminals and terrorists who smuggle
the product into countries where policy or enforcement gaps allow the illegal
trade of tobacco to thrive. The insecurity issues, lack of adequate resources
and many other problems we are currently facing in Nigeria must all be put on
the table with advocates thinking logically and working in the best interest of
everyone. The
recent allusions to the issues of tobacco smuggling must not be swept under the
carpet but should be weighed alongside the impact of legislating these
companies away and the attendant rise in the use of illegal tobacco which will
have consequences that are far worse than we could have imagined.
While
industry practices must be monitored, there are benefits associated with the
existence of tobacco companies. The reality is that it is the tobacco
companies, and not the tobacco control advocates, who have over the years
assisted the country to reduce smuggling, replacing counterfeit tobacco
products with products that several regulatory agencies can now monitor and
regulate. These legally produced and properly regulated products also generate
revenue for the government. There is definitely a benefit to having structured,
legal tobacco companies around, versus having a situation where faceless and
nameless entities flood the markets with smuggled counterfeit tobacco products.
It is important to look at these issues holistically and also compare the
successes recorded in other places. Each country must on its own look at how to
address the issues affecting them, and so far this has been the case for most
developed countries.
The
failure to reduce the effect of tobacco use on public health should be seen as
a need for the advocates to take another look at their strategies, although it
is the norm for corporate activists world-wide to attempt to shame the
businesses they attack. This strategy cannot be employed in all situations
especially when you have a teeming population of consumers who say smoking is
their choice.
Globally,
huge sums of money have been pumped into tobacco control advocacy over the last
few decades by philanthropists and many others, however, the demand for tobacco
consumption persists and illegal markets continue to thrive. As the advocates continue to focus their
energies on the tobacco industry, so do the criminals, smugglers and illegal
marketers who continue to smile to the bank, to the detriment of public health
On one hand, tobacco control advocates report that the
incidence of smoking in some of countries has declined, while on the other hand
the media and enforcement agencies continue to report increased incidences of
smuggling. Tobacco smuggling is often linked to the funding of terrorism and
other criminal activities. Countries like Canada, Ireland and even New York,
USA are some of those affected. A CNN online report of 17th May
2013, stated that “A cigarette smuggling scheme that
cost New York State millions of dollars in sales tax revenue may have raised
funds for militant groups…” The reality is that the strategies deployed by
tobacco control advocates are attempting to push the legitimate businesses out
of the picture yet these same strategies are consequently fueling the entrants
of smugglers into the same space. .
Over the last few years we have
seen an increase in the number of tobacco control advocates who have shown
interest in tobacco control, the bills introduced into the National Assembly
have increased and there is also a doubling up of efforts on other fronts
including the State, Executive level and the judiciary.
The global drive to wish tobacco demand away is
the same as was done for alcohol in the USA in 1920. Referring to historical
antecedents can be a useful way of developing effective strategies. The introduction
of alcohol prohibition in the USA in 1920 made the production, distribution and
consumption of alcohol illegal and the enforcement of this law was a hotly debated
issue. “The contemporary prohibitionists presented it as a victory for public
morals and health, but once the laws were passed they did little to help
enforce them.” Alcohol simply became a product used and traded by criminals, which made
the situation worse and during this
period people’s lives were put at jeopardy because of the increase in
sub-standard alcohol that was available on the market. The government lost
control and nothing could be done about it until the laws prohibiting alcohol
were changed.
In
the case of Nigeria, what needs to be considered is how we are going to tackle
the issue of smuggled tobacco products when the legitimate tobacco businesses
have been driven out. Are there benefits from legitimate tobacco business?
Definitely yes. Does this mean that tobacco regulation will be subverted and
public health put at more risk? The answer is a resounding no. Can the problem
of smoking be solved through the current strategies without proffering
alternative approaches? Definitely not! The simple logic as we have seen with
other controversial products is that millions of people will still smoke, law
or no law.
Beverage companies are giving
their consumers healthier choices, so also are the tobacco companies attempting
to proffer alternative options which may be considered less harmful and we
should support this. The European smokeless tobacco council on their site
stated that “the risk of dying from a tobacco related illness is lower in Sweden than in any other
European country despite tobacco consumption being on a comparable level with
other European countries. This paradox is often referred to as the Swedish
Experience and is primarily explained by the fact that snus, a smokeless
tobacco product, has served as a viable and less harmful alternative to
cigarettes for Swedish men.” More funding should, therefore, be devoted to
assisting tobacco companies come up with products like this that smokers will
enjoy. The European Commission also recently declared that e-cigarettes can be
regulated as general consumer goods which is a good start to assisting
consumers to switch to a less harmful option.
The
advocates must ensure that the confusion and distraction that has arisen
recently must not divert all concerned from simple logic, which is to protect
the man on the street who has chosen to smoke irrespective of the harm
associated with doing do. For this to happen their focus and strategy
must change and the existing funds received must be devoted to less complex
areas which will achieve the results. If the legislators or government are
pushed into drafting a bad tobacco law, they will invariably make matters
worse. This is the message we should all
walk away with.
0 comments:
Post a Comment