THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

 

The title of this piece was culled from a 2003 movie featuring Aaron Eckhart, who was portrayed as a chief spokesperson of the tobacco companies in the 1970s. The film caught the divide which the world faced during the growing concerns of lung cancer and other ailments associated with the effects of tobacco smoking. It also tried to a considerable extent to show the politics which played out in drafting laws which we have seen evolve through the ages. The campaign against tobacco smoking was purely an American concern at the time, which started late in 1632 with campaign to ban smoking in public places. However, most countries such as Britain faced the similar scenario which began in the fifties and by 1990 the anti-Tobacco campaign and their activities having grown over the years assumed a global height in the late 1990s, persuading most countries to adopt stricter measures to curtail tobacco use, especially in public places. Some authors have argued that anti-tobacco campaign in coming years could take on the same outlook that the crusade on poverty alleviation currently takes, whose argument would be based on its effects on public health. Nations like Canada, South Africa, and Australia and to some extent Sweden have enacted gridiron laws against tobacco production and use.

Nigeria has always been in the cocoon of such debates for time immemorial.  Currently, politics is being played by the major players in the tobacco industry; the tobacco companies and anti-tobacco rights campaigners with the lawmakers in between, who have been trying to win the age long argument of whose civil rights is being gored. Lagos states, having been one of the first states in Nigeria to pass a law on tobacco use, have initiated a dicey process in the nation’s history. Another bill is currently with the Federal House of Representatives and another is an executive bill pushed by the Federal Ministry of Health. While all the politics plays out in the background and numerous arguments and counter arguments have been put forth by both players, most people have been caught in the muddle of what the real crux of the matter is.  Who are the civil rights organizations gunning to protect; the smokers or the inhalers? The environment or their monetary benefits?

Diverse postulations have actually being put forward by both camps, hoping to curry sympathy from the befuddled, detached, and blithe crowd, many of which predisposes the crowd to more perplexity.

“Why should I bother if he smokes, as long as he doesn’t do it in my house, office or near me?” most people would say. Others feign nonchalance; “So what if he smokes?”Or “I don’t give a hoot if his lung withers, it’s his choice.” Or “Why should I care how they chose to spend their money? These are some of the responses one would get from the Nigerian crowd, when confronted on the issue of tobacco smoking.

Playing the public health card, the anti-tobacco campaigners have always argued that the risk of a lung cancer developing in non-smokers who are exposed to smokers or a smoking environment stand a 1 in 4 chance of contracting the malady. Although, these figures are contestable (and has been actually contested and proved highfaluting) nonetheless smoking has since been banned in public places, like schools, hospitals, public transport, and government buildings. They have also raised concerns about the health of the environment, majorly the ozone layer and has also raised health issues on the side of the tobacco workers, opining that chemical substances used in the processing of tobacco leaves are often toxic and have been known to be carcinogenic (cancerous agents). They went even further to aver that the effects of such toxic chemicals and wastes produced by tobacco companies not only put the immediate environment at risk, by further corroding the brittle ozone layer, but these chemicals alter the genetic composition of individuals, causing mutations in their genes, which is then transferred to their “innocent” progeny, as they now become susceptible to various kinds diseases due to their altered genome. Also is the talk of soil contamination. How true this is, is uncertain because researchers haven’t come to an agreed conclusion of tobacco hazards, so the debates continues.

However, in Nigerian smokers and tobacco companies have continued to fault these assumptions, and economists have continued to insist that the over one billion dollar industry is a significant part of the Nigerian economy. The security agents have their own concerns also, believing that any ban on tobacco would invariably lead to a persistent rise in the demand of tobacco products, which could trigger a rise in smuggling activities and indirectly a rise in terrorist activities which would capitalize on such parallel market to sponsor their nefarious acts. Even the anti-tobacco campaign groups have their own worries, because their funding in tobacco control advocacy would suddenly dry up, which is also another informal multimillion dollar set up. The only group that won’t be concerned is the average Nigerian. After all their primary concerns are provision of pipe borne water, employment, food security, power, and adequate shelter?

Over the years monies have been pumped in by both tobacco companies and philanthropists supporting advocacy groups either for or/and against the tobacco cause, and some elitists are now buying into the stories these advocacy groups latch on. However, most of them fail to note that smoke produced by rudimentary fire stoves is considered to be a major cause of death in developing countries of which Nigeria has an astonishing 8% of the over 4 million deaths recorded from smoke related respiratory illnesses. Researchers say that the noxious chemicals released by wood or coal burning stoves are as lethal as the poisons found in cigarette smoke, so does that mean we should also push for the banning of firewood, kerosene and their likes. In relation to this, the effects of oil spills, gas flaring and indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes have accounted for more deaths in Nigeria than cigarettes, so do we place an outright ban on crude oil, this would not only evoke LOLs’ but would be story for another day.

From 2012 to date figures published by the British-American Tobacco company (BAT) – the sole cigarette producing company in Nigeria, showed that the their profit margin grew over 6%, from 21b in 2012 to 30b in 2013. They currently have over 10,000 direct employees and another 1,300,000 indirect staffers. From salaries made these 40,000 individuals cater for over 10 million dependents and the value of their cash stretches from Otuoke to Barkin Ladi. On the other hand anti-tobacco advocacy groups in 2012 to 2013 have attracted donations of over 1b dollars. The funds are being used to cater for the lobbying and anti-tobacco campaign, which includes seminar organization, printing campaign stickers, posters, tee shirts, and also pay the salaries and run the office of the campaign organizations. At the last count the anti-tobacco advocacy groups numbered 100 and this figure is set to rise over time. When we punch the figures right it wouldn’t be difficult to see that over 5000 people benefit directly from the activities of these groups, and another 1 million people who do indirectly.

The limit of the funds propagated by the two groups is limitless and helps in solidifying the economic backbone of the nation, so a shortfall in either of these money making ventures would deal a huge blow to individuals, families, ethnicities, companies and the nation at large. In addition to its corporate social responsibilities, of which tobacco companies does religiously and donates assiduously, even more than some oil firms and banks, it also keeps a “key” currency in circulation, for its only cigarettes that one can purchase a stick or two using a lone five naira note. Despite the fact that anti-tobacco advocacy groups would feign a frown, in their minds they would all join the tobacco companies in telling all the smokers out there; “thank you for smoking.”