By Alaba Cole- Abuja
It is no
surprise that the NGOs are able to devote a lot of energy into publicising the
issue, considering that they receive backing and funding from powerful international
organisations committed to tobacco control. In 2011 Michael Bloomberg committed an
additional $220 million to the fight against tobacco around the world, bringing
his total commitment to $600 million over several years. Michael Bloomberg is
the founder of the Bloomberg Foundation which, along with the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, is one of the prominent benefactors of the anti-tobacco
campaign in Africa. Both powerhouse
foundations joined forces when in 2008 they announced a combined investment of
$500 million to increase funding for tobacco control.
That sort of
money committed to a single cause brings to mind a similar campaign that has
been ongoing for over half a century. This campaign, often described as a war, has
not only turned out to be an expensive, futile and ineffective series of
battles, it has become a war that even those fighting now concede should be
fought in another way – the war on drugs.
It has been
fought around the world for decades and cost billions of dollars and has been a
big headache for governments because there is no structured, legally
incorporated organisations that can be regulated and controlled - it is a war
against thousands of nameless, faceless individuals and organisations and a
pointless situation where, for every crackdown on a major supplier, hundreds
more pop up.
This is why
many organisations and even politicians in Europe and the US are now making
controversial calls for a change in drug policy and a move to legalise drugs.
Why? Because they have recognised that if the industry is legalised, it will be
easier to control. It sounds scandalous but if deeper thought is applied, it
can be seen to be an argument that makes sense.
A commentator,
writing in the UK Guardian newspaper reported that two European countries,
Portugal and Czech Republic, have decriminalised drugs, taking moves to ensure
that supply is controlled, products regulated and profits taxed.
An
organisation called Count the Costs is campaigning for an alternative to the
current approach, arguing that although the ‘war on drugs’ has been fought for
50 years, it has not prevented the increase in drug supply and use. Count the
Costs also argues that ‘the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has identified the many
serious unintended negative consequences of the drug war.’ These consequences
listed include a threat to public health, the enrichment of criminals and the
waste of billions on ineffective law enforcement.
The Economist
magazine recently ran a commentary on Uruguay’s controversial decision to
legalise cannabis (marijuana), as part of the South American country’s attempt
to try an alternative approach to the drug problem. Other Latin American countries are also
tending towards the consideration of such alternative approaches to the drug
challenge. The magazine also reported that although this approach has met with
opposition, supporters of have argued that “drug prohibition has caused more
problems, in the form of organised crime and clandestine consumption.” Needless
to say, the supporters’ views held out.
But even
before Uruguay, the US states of Washington and Colorado were the first, in
2012, to legalise marijuana use. This decision to adopt such a bold approach
was described by The Economist magazine as “a sensible drug policy decision
from the federal government, for once”
Although there
is a clear difference between illegal hard drugs and legal tobacco production,
a parallel can be drawn in the way that a war that is declared on a so-called
public enemy, could end up creating undesirable outcomes and a situation that
spirals out of control.
There is
currently a lot of money flowing in and around tobacco control in Nigeria, so
it is understandable that the civil society campaigners and NGOs who receive
grants from the international multimillion dollar foundations would dive enthusiastically
into the task of demonising tobacco. However, they should not, in their
excitement, overlook some of the unanswered questions that surround this
subject. The questions are: will the government be able to control the
nameless, faceless individuals and organisations that will step in to supply
the demand for tobacco, after the legitimate companies have been legislated out
of existence in the country? Who will be the target of anti-tobacco campaigns
if all the legal producers are run out of business? Will smugglers be held
accountable for quality standards? Will counterfeiters care about the
government’s opinions on their activities? Are we blind to the fact that
criminals around the world are waiting for legal, regulated tobacco producers
to be run out of business so that they can step in to take over?
Tobacco
control is what the campaigners and international foundations are after by
pressuring governments to be rid of tobacco companies. Control is defined as “the power to influence the course of events
“but looking at the example of the war on drugs it becomes apparent that real
control is practically impossible where there is no entity that can be
regulated. How will the government influence the course of events around
tobacco supply if they are dealing with hundreds if not thousands of cottage
industry tobacco producers with no hygiene or quality standards or controls?
It is unlikely
that smoking will cease to be a human activity (even in our grandchildren’s
lifetimes), so it is not unreasonable to imagine that even if tobacco control
campaigners around the world achieve their goals, people will still smoke whatever
is available to them. If we don’t stop
to consider these questions seriously we risk waking up one day, decades from
now, to look back and wish we had protected the legal tobacco industries if
nothing else just so we could control them. We do need the tobacco control campaigners,
but we need tobacco control campaigners that think.
0 comments:
Post a Comment