Much ado about tobacco

-Mobolaji Sanusi

What is the big deal about a Tobacco bill? This is the multi-million Naira question that followers of controversies trailing the above bill before the Senate Committee on Health may be seeking answers for. The bill is aimed at repealing the Tobacco (Control) Act 1990 and to enact the National Tobacco Control bill 2008. Its stated goals like the 1990 one are laudable – to provide for the regulation or control of production, manufacture sale, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco or tobacco products and other related matters.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Adeleke Mamora, a medical doctor, ostensibly in tandem with some groups of lawyers in the country. Ordinarily, this kind of bill should be seen as a good thing considering the fact that since the tenure of military president Ibrahim Babangida, the late Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti who was then Minister of Health, championed the battle for regulation of tobacco smoking. It was then that the issue of public smoking and compulsory inscription of ‘tobacco smoking is dangerous to your health’ on packet of cigarettes, on billboards and other forms of advertisement were enforced.
Thus, the current bill is not out to achieve any significant goal different from what Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti achieved during the military era. But the bill that is still at the public hearing, stage in the Senate is generating so much controversy and this has attracted intense public attention. Many are wondering why there is no much ado about this new Bill for an Act to repeal the Tobacco (Control) Act 1990.
For this reason, I have taken time to look for the bill, got a copy and have since realized that the bill is as needless as the artificial controversy surrounding it. Certain provisions of the bill (sections 40-45) question the professed altruistic motive of most promoters of the bills: it is important to ask whether most promoters of bills put national interest over personal gains in their pursuits of legislative enactments. Whatever their motives, it is also germane to point out that that is why there are levels of checks in legislative drafting – first, second, and third readings and even the stage of public hearings in legislative enactment processes. But does the National Assembly legislators adhere to this in the overall interest of the nation or just see it as something just there for being there sake? Could it be that the effort by the Senate Health Committee to play by the rules and not allow arm twisting actually led to the on-going controversy on the matter?
What I do know is that there is something sinister about the purport of the bill which might not completely be in the overall interest of the nation. The issue of Child Rights that came out of the bills public hearing that has generated heated debates between Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello and Mrs. Maryam Uwais might be a decoy aimed at blackmailing somebody so that the bill can enjoy easy passage.
Let us get it right ab initio that cigarette smoking is without equivocation dangerous to the health of both young and old persons. This is acknowledged by the Tobacco companies that agreed with the legislation that compels them to inscribe the warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. Professor Ransome-Kuti himself was a chain smoker of cigarette and this warning would not even deter him and many others in his shoes from smoking. There are several people in high places, including state governors whose governments are suing Tobacco companies who are today chain smokers too. What moral right do these sets of people have to sue the cigarette producing companies? Among the downtrodden in this country, millions engage in legal cigarette smoking. It is at least better than smoking of marijuana and other illicit drugs. The present cases before the court are stalled because of unfavourable rules of evidence which the bill is avariciously planned to cure when passed in to law.
Some of these curious provisions in the bill attempt to empower the government to sue and make claims from tobacco companies for cost incurred from treating tobacco related ailment victims. For example, this provision presupposes that there are free medical services in the country. This is a fallacious assumption as the social safety nets in the country are almost zero. So, the proposed recourse to legal actions by states through the services of certain group of lawyers is laughable. This is not within the jurisprudential sociological theory of law espoused by Rosco Pound. These state governments and their ambitious lawyers behind the bill should also study more of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Realistic School of legal Jurisprudence. Any piece of law worth its salt should be made for the society and not vice-versa. Any law or provisions of it that is out to force itself on the society would only benefit few individuals for a short while before subsequently roiling into oblivion.
The all important legal principle; volunti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) in the Law of Tort applies in the case of smokers of cigarette. If after the warning and other precautions, people still go ahead and smoke, nobody or entity should be blamed but the smokers themselves.
Morally, some of the state governors who engage in smoking with some of their cabinet members should not have approved the suits being pursued on their behalf by some lawyers in the first instance. Within the Presidency today, there are smokers who are not ready to quit the habit. Would the state be right to claim compensation on behalf of leaders and others no matter their ages who voluntarily take to smoking as habit? I hope this bill is not out to benefit few lawyers who are its covertly promoters?
Most parents smoke cigarettes and even send their wards to buy same for them. These children copy the habit from them. Should anyone or an entity be blamed for this? This is why the issue of prohibiting communications of any form by entities producing cigarettes becomes deluding or the selling of cigarettes within particular radius from certain public places hypocritical. One, it is through advertisement on the danger of smoking that smokers can be more aware of the risk they voluntarily put upon themselves.
Not allowing sale within a certain radius or outright prohibition would make illegal tobacco sale business thrive thereby making monitoring difficult. Tobacco smoking would be a difficult thing to eradicate in any country. In Christianity as well as Islam, it is one thing that is not prohibited but strands condemned because of its hazardous health implications. There should be moderation in the mode of its legislation. What the country should bother about is the creation of standard and effective monitoring through agencies like the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and the Consumer Protection Council (CPC). One of the tobacco companies, British-America tobacco, reportedly had paid tax in excess of over N80 billion since 2001 and gives employment to hundreds of Nigerians from its 150 million dollar factory. This is aside its corporate social responsibilities that gulped hundreds of millions of Naira too.
The question is: Can Nigeria afford to trade off the sector at this point through this draconian bill that might send companies operating therein out of business via needless, avoidable law suits- at a time most big companies are relocating to neighbouring countries? The answer is in the negative

SOURCE

Do you watch your intake?

Nigerian parliament debates tobacco restrictions

New tobacco control legislation is being debated in the Nigerian parliament with strong backing from anti-tobacco groups and health organisations.

The debate was brought about after an initiative by anti-tobacco campaigners to counter growing cigarette smoking, particularly among teenagers.

It is believed about 25 percent of Nigerian teenagers, which is double the smoking rate among men, are hooked on tobacco,

Individual cigarettes in Nigeria sell for seven cents each, and the Nigerian parliament is responding with a tobacco control bill that would impose smoking bans, increase taxes and impose advertising restrictions.

SOURCE

Nigeria Considers Tough Tobacco Control Legislation

-Gilbert da Costa

The Nigerian parliament is currently debating sweeping new tobacco control legislation in a bid to break the growing tobacco addiction in the country. The bill has strong backing from anti-tobacco groups and health organizations.

"Change starts from now. I dare to be different. I will remain smoke-free. I am the future, and the future starts now, So help me God. I am smoke free!!!," recite students at Shepherd Secondary School in Ketu in Lagos.

Students of the Shepherd Secondary School in Ketu, a poor neighborhood in Nigeria's sprawling city of Lagos, recite a "no-smoking pledge" at the end of a two-hour anti-tobacco lecture. The program is part of a grassroots initiative by anti-tobacco campaigners to counter growing cigarette smoking, particularly among teens in Nigeria.

About 25 percent of Nigerian teens, some as young as 10, are hooked on tobacco, double the smoking rate among men.

Salau Moshood, a 17-year-old student, told VOA what he learned."

I heard that smoking is not good for people at the age of 10 years and upwards," said Salau Moshood. "It makes them to die young, and makes them not to reach the place they supposed to reach. My advice for people that smoke is that they have to stop it because, if they don't stop it, they will have something that will affect them in their future."

Individual cigarettes sells for as little as seven cents each, and analysts fear that tobacco use in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation of 140 million people, could continue to rise.

The Nigerian parliament has responded with a tobacco control bill that would impose smoking bans, increase taxes and impose advertising restrictions. If passed, this could be the biggest tobacco crackdown in the history of Nigeria.

The sponsor of the bill, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, told VOA that the assembly has a duty to protect the health of Nigerians."

Under Section 14 of our constitution, we have an obligation, which we all swore to, in terms of upholding the provisions of the constitution," said Senator Mamora. "That section says, the welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. So, we just need to safeguard the welfare of the people. It is important to us."

Even the Nigerian government, which previously granted generous concessions to tobacco companies, has withdrawn its support and filed a $45-billion suit against tobacco companies for allegedly targeting young Nigerians.

Senator Mamora says of the tobacco industry:"

They are no more than merchants of death, as far as I am concerned," he said.But not everyone is enthusiastic about a tobacco crackdown in Nigeria. A group of tobacco farmers from the southwest issued a passionate appeal to the senate committee on health during its just-concluded public hearing on the bill. The farmers asked legislators to consider the plight of thousands of poor tobacco farmers. Okeke Abiola spoke for the group.

"Our concern is that, if tobacco growing is banned without any alternatives - and I must mention quickly that we don't have any industry in Okeogu area, nothing other than this tobacco growing - we are concerned that without any alternatives, we will be the ones to bear the brunt," said Okeke Abiola. "For instance, if tobacco growing is banned, instantly 300,000 farmers will be affected.

"The World Health Organization says more than 80 percent of tobacco deaths will be in developing countries by 2030.

SOURCE

Nigeria: Fast Track the Tobacco Control Bill

DailyTrust: Editorial

Abuja — The Senate's decision to commence public hearing last week on the Nigeria National Tobacco Control (NNTC ) bill, which is aimed at domesticating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control ( FCTC ) has once again brought to the fore the debate on the societal cost of tobacco production and consumption in Nigeria. Nigeria ratified the FCTC treaty in 2005, but little is being done to regulate tobacco production and consumption in the country.
Sponsored by Senator Olorunnibe Mamora ( AC, Lagos ), the proposed law which is an upgrade of the existing, but defective Tobacco Control Act of 1990 seeks to control the production, sale and use of tobacco products in the country. The bill would also, among other provisions, seeks to regulate the involvement of tobacco companies in corporate social responsibility ( CSR ), a tool many tobacco firms use as part of the arguments to justify their presence in any community. More interesting is the provision which requires tobacco firms to go beyond the written warnings on cigarette packs, to using picture of people harmed by smoking, and this will occupy at least one- third of the pack to warn consumers. Similarly, if the bill is passed, it will be against the law to sell tobacco products within one kilometre of churches, mosques, schools and hospitals.
Indeed, over the years, attempt by pressure groups to convince governments at all levels to take stringent measures against tobacco production and its consumption fell on deaf ears following spirited fight from tobacco firms and other pro-tobacco lobbyists who argued that such actions would lead to the loss of 500,000 jobs across the country. But as the Senate president, David Mark pointed out at the public hearing, "Although the tobacco industry is economically significant, it is only the living that can enjoy the wealth". It is against this background that we support the proposed bill, more so that it is coming at a time when some state governments have taken the initiative to institute legal actions against tobacco companies whose products are alleged to be causing the deaths of many Nigerians and of luring youths into smoking in order to enhance profits margin. Already, the Federal Government and some states like Oyo, Kano, Osun and Gombe are pursuing anti-tobacco cases both at the state and national assemblies.
Though the nation presently lacks a comprehensive data on the deaths caused by tobacco-related illnesses, a research recently conducted by a non-governmental organisation, the Coalition Against Tobacco (CAT) indicated that 280,000 Nigerians died annually as a result of tobacco-induced sicknesses, warning that the number may double in the near future if not checked. Also, in 2006, a research carried out in Lagos revealed that at least two people die daily from tobacco-related diseases; translating to 60 persons losing their lives monthly. These figures exclude passive smokers (who inhale the smoke of others and end up having heart disease, lung cancer and a host of other illnesses).
It is important to note that tobacco smoking and the industry itself is in retreat in developed economies. In fact, in the last two decades, tobacco firms began to relocate their operations to Africa and other under-developed nations due to the stringent regulations introduced in Europe and North America. This is aimed at curtailing the rise in tobacco- induced illnesses, resulting in a number of deaths, especially among youths who constitutes the productive base of any nation. We therefore need to borrow a leaf from the west and regulate the infiltration of tobacco firms into the country under the guise of industrialisation. Though we know it would be a tough decision for the Senators to choose between the economy and the health implication of tobacco, there is need however for the lawmakers to demonstrate courage and show commitment in this direction.
As the nation awaits the passage of the bill, government at all levels must also intensify public enlightenment campaigns on the health implication of tobacco consumption. We also expect the health ministry to carry out a comprehensive research and analysis on the impact of cigarette smoking in order to produce a data that would serve as a reference point in the future when the need arise. This is imperative because it would be foolhardy for the country to always rely on data produced by foreign organisations for our national development.

SOURCE

Ondo battles Big Tobacco

Damisi Ojo

Ondo State Government has joined the crusade to reduce tobacco-induced illnesses and deaths occasioned by cigarette smoking. The state is on the verge of instituting a legal action against tobacco companies for allegedly luring youths into smoking in order to enhance the companies’ profit margin. Ondo believes smoking habits seriously hamper public health and strain government’s financial base. Already, some states including Oyo, Kano, Osun, Gombe and the Federal Government are pursuing anti-tobacco cases both at the state and national assemblies. A bill to this effect is sponsored at the Senate by Lagos Senator, Olorunnibe Mamora.
A non-governmental organisation, the Coalition Against Tobacco (CAT), at a workshop it organised recently in Akure, the state capital, said the programme was meant to sensitise the citizenry on the ongoing court action against tobacco industries in the state.
A resource person from the State Ministry of Health, Mr. O.O. Akinsote said the World Health Organisation (WHO) statistics showed that about 5.4m people died of tobacco-related diseases in 2006. This makes it one death in every 6.5 seconds. Akinsote also stressed that a survey conducted on 12 government-owned health facilities in Lagos indicated that at least two persons died everyday from tobacco related diseases. According to him, this is more fatal than AIDS branded the "killer disease".
He revealed that a recent annual report of the British-American Tobacco Company (BATC) stated that major profits raked in by tobacco companies came from Nigeria, while over 20 brands of cigarettes were on sale in the country’s open market.
The expert urged the state lawmakers to pass a bill prohibiting tobacco smoking in states like Osun, Oyo, Kano and others. He said the group would soon sponsor a bill at the state parliament apart from the litigation process that would commence soon.
The Former Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Prof. Yemi Osibajo had on April 30, 2007 sued five tobacco companies in the country seeking special and anticipatory damages against the tobacco companies.
Akinsote disclosed that Lagos State government spent N216,000 each on two persons that died of tobacco related diseases in its state hospitals while individuals spent an additional N70,000.
Scores of other resource persons on anti-tobacco crusade made presentations at the sensitisation workshop.

SOURCE

The continued fight to control smoking (2)

-Emmanuel Ogala

There is no up-to-date data showing how many Nigerians are smokers or how many die of tobacco related illnesses, but the floor of the senate has been gripped with excitement since it started hearing on a bill to control the sale of tobacco last week.
Research conducted in 1988 by the Federal Ministry of Health showed that nine million Nigerians were smokers, out of which 3.5 million smoked an average of 20 sticks daily. This led to the promulgation of a decree banning smoking in public spaces. In 2006, research carried out in Lagos revealed that two people die daily from tobacco related illnesses in the state.
The tobacco industry is a bug-bear for many health activists and government institutions, locally and internationally, so it was no surprise that a National Tobacco Control Bill which seeks to control the production, sale and use of tobacco in Nigeria was debated by the public in the senate chamber early last week. The bill is sponsored by Adeleke Olorunimbe Mamora (AC, Lagos state).
The National Tobacco Control Bill 2009 is an upgrade of the Tobacco Control Act of 1990 and a replica of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Nigeria ratified the FCTC treaty in October 2005.
The bill was welcomed by health organisations and environmentalists but, as expected, there was solid opposition from tobacco companies, their suppliers, traders, community associations of tobacco producing communities and others connected economically to tobacco production.
The bill is a double-edged sword: while it promises to save the lives of about 6.5 million Nigerian smokers whom activists from the Environmental Rights Action (ERA) say are on the ‘death row’ due to tobacco addiction, it will also lead to the loss of about 500,000 jobs across the nation, according to pro-tobacco lobbyists.
“We stand between health and economy,” David Mark, the senate president, said while declaring the public hearing open. He, however, noted that although the tobacco industry is economically significant, it is only the living that can enjoy the wealth.
The case for production Oloye Gbade Isola, national secretary of the Central Council of Ibadan Indigenes, said British American Tobacco Nigeria (BATN) is a major business concern in Ibadan. He said the company might find it difficult to operate under a regulatory legislation that is choking.
“The company will eventually wind up,” he said. “To those who have benefited from BATN’s presence, its exit will be a calamity.” Saka Muniru, representing the Ibadan Progressive Union, also told the Senate that the closure of the BATN factory located in Ibadan would lead to the loss of more than 500,000 jobs. In his view, the bill will drive away investors. He therefore pleaded that the new bill should only include measures to regulate the production of cigarettes in the country rather than strangle existing companies.
Tony Okwoju,Area Head Regional Affairs at BATN, the largest cigarette producing companyin Nigeria, promised that his company will comply with the provisions of the bill whenever it is signed into law.
However, he said there are components of the proposed bill that are extreme and would have ‘unintended consequences’ on the industry or even make it impossible for legal companies to operate yet will not achieve the desired goal of reducing the impact of tobacco on public health.
“We have seen cases where extreme regulation has resulted in an increase in the levels of illicit trade,” Mr. Okwoju said. “We believe that the purpose of a tobacco control law should be the reduction of the impact of tobacco on public health. It should not be to force legal tax-paying tobacco companies out of business.”
The case against Environmental and health activists argue that the hazards of smoking far outweigh the benefits, as few Nigerians are directly or indirectly on the payroll of tobacco companies.
. They insist that tobacco farmers in Nigeria could easily shift to other crops, such as cassava, which has high demand in the international market.
“Besides, Nigeria still imports tobacco leaves at a mere 5% duty, which makes locally produced tobacco unattractive,” Uche Onyeagocha of Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (FoEN) said.
The bill, amongst other provisions, seeks to regulate the involvement of tobacco companies in corporate social responsibility (CSR), a tool many tobacco companies use as part of the arguments to justify their presence in any community.
“It is simply a decoy to replace the dead smokers and keep the government’s eye away from regulating its expansion,” Adeola Akinremi, African coordinator of Framework Convention Alliance (FCA), an intergovernmental policy
organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, said. “What social responsibility can a company whose product kills offer?” The bill also seeks to establish a National Tobacco Committee (NATOC) to monitor the implementation of the restrictions in the bill. The Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) presently has the responsibility of regulating tobacco sale and distribution.
The devil is in the bill When the bill is eventually passed, tobacco companies will be required to go beyond the written warning on cigarette packs, to using pictures of people harmed by smoking, and this which will occupy at least one-third of the cover to warn consumers.
It will also be against the law to sell tobacco products within one kilometre of churches, mosques, schools and hospitals when the bill is passed.
This provision particularly angered a group called Concerned Tobacco Retailers. “This means we cannot sell at all in this country!” Luka Vindi, secretary to the organization, said.
Other provisions in the bill include: prohibition of smoking in public places, ban on the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18, and prohibition of the sale of tobacco in single sticks. When passed, cigarettes will be sold only in a pack of 20.
Also, the bill prohibits mail delivery of cigarettes to consumers, and provides that all tobacco meant to be consumed in Nigeria must bear a mark indicating that it is for the Nigerian market only; while those meant for export should be clearly marked too. This, they say, will help curb smuggling of tobacco products.
Although it will be a tough decision for the senators to choose between the economy and the health implications of tobacco, the senate president has promised to make every senator declare his/her stance publicly when the bill is up for passage.
Legislative drama Part of the drama at the emotive public hearing was the altercation between the chairman of the senate committee on health, Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello, and Maryam Uwais, wife of the former chief justice of Nigeria, Muhammed Uwais.
Mrs Uwais was angry that Mrs Obasanjo-Bello refused to allow some children present on the floor to speak. She later sent a letter to the senate to complain aboutthis.
In an interview with NEXT, Mrs Uwais said:“What happened was that there was a hearing on the tobacco and I have been involved in a related litigation. We’ve been suing tobacco companies and trying to get them to stop selling to children, and around sport centres and schools.
“We have also been supporting Senator Mamora who had produced a bill for tobacco control which is more effective than the other law that has been in existence.
We went for the public hearing and I was able to speak on the first day. I spoke about my role as a child rights advocate and how tobacco affects children.
“I was allowed to speak. But the following day, other members of ourteam were going to speak, so I went. I noticed in the audience, the three children. I don’t know them and I have never seen them before.
They attempted to speak but the chairperson said no. I stood up and she said ‘sit down, I am not going to allow you to address me on this issue, as a mother I am to protect these children. They are being brought here to be paraded.’ Meanwhile a lot of people had come to testify that children are stakeholders. All I wanted to do was make her realise that she was wrong.”

SOURCE