What could possibly pass for the take-off of Anti-Tobacco Campaign could be said to have started in 1632 when it became illegal to smoke publicly in Massachusetts, USA. But this had to do more with the moral beliefs of the time and not the health concerns.
However, in the 1950s, more and more claims linking smoking to lung cancer began to emerge. In 1965, television cigarette ads were taken off the air in Great Britain, and in the USA in 1971. Ever since then, anti-tobacco campaign activities have grown, eventually assuming a global height in the late 1990s.
This has led to countries adopting strict measures to curtail smoking and tobacco use. The most touted reason for this appears to be public health. Canada, Australia and South Africa are among the countries that have latched on to the bandwagon. The State of New York is also known to be pondering the idea of further regulating smoking within the state. Recall that Michael Bloomberg, governor of New York, is one of the financiers of the Anti-Smoking Campaign groups.
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. In recent years, multilateral 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, and in many situations and countries where stringent regulations have been enacted, smuggling of tobacco by criminals and terrorists has also increased tremendously, leading to a decrease in government revenue with no protection for public health. Australia, Canada and South Africa are ready references.
In Nigeria, anti-tobacco campaign groups have established themselves. In fact, they have revved up their activities in recent times so much that they have three Anti Tobacco Bills sitting with different arms of government. While one sits with the Lagos State House of Assembly, another is currently with the Federal House of Representatives, while the third is an executive bill championed by the Ministry of Health.
The bill seeks to ban smoking in public places and forbids persons under the age of 18 to sell and buy tobacco products. The proposed law, which would amend the 1990 Tobacco Control Laws of Nigeria, also forbids communication between the manufacturers and consumers.
The effect of passing a law that is not adequately considered is that it will undermine its own intentions by placing tobacco outside the control of the regulator, thereby leaving those who continue to smoke at the mercy of smugglers who are notorious for manufacturing sub-standard products. Besides economic reason whereby the country stands to lose huge sums both in Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) and revenue loss to governments at different levels, most worrisome is the security challenge that such a scenario poses to the wellbeing of the country and its people.
Drawing from the Canada misadventure with tobacco regulation, many, this writer inclusive, fear that the security implications of allowing the illegal trading in tobacco to return would be enormous. As it is, Nigeria is currently contending with a few security issues ranging from the Boko Haram in the North to kidnapping in the East and armed robbery in many parts of the country, as well as oil theft in some parts of the volatile Niger Delta. To add the security problems that tobacco product smuggling would bring would be most unpleasant, to put it mildly!
It is imperative that the debate on social costs and benefits of smoking be assessed based on empirical economic evidence in the quest to identify the appropriate mechanism for controlling tobacco as the war on tobacco companies has not yielded any meaningful results in countries that it has been introduced.
For laws to be properly drafted, all issues must be considered and all stakeholders heard. 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, among others.
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.
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 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 continue to smile to the bank, to the detriment of public health which the anti-tobacco groups claim to be protecting.
On one hand, tobacco control advocates report that the incidence of smoking in some 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. Canada, Ireland and even the State of New York are some of those affected. A CNN online report of May 17, 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 fuelling the entry of smugglers into the scene.
In the case of Nigeria, what needs to be considered is how to tackle the issue of smuggled tobacco products when the legitimate tobacco businesses have been driven out. Can the problem of smoking be solved through the current strategies without proffering alternative approaches? Definitely not! Millions of people will still smoke, law or no law.
The advocates must ensure that the confusion 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 would invariably make matters worse. This is the bitter truth for whoever cherishes nothing but truth.
By: Akinyemi Williams
