Mwiti Marete
11 June 2006
column
Kigali — The world over, what is vogue is fighting against this or that. Now the fighting spirit seems to be concentrated on the addictive vegetable introduced to the world by the Native Americans (Red Indians) centuries ago: Tobacco.
Recently in Kenya, the Minister for Health announced an anti-smoking ban that has caused uproar from both smokers and tobacco manufacturers. According to the directive, those who violate the new law face fines of up to 50,000 Kenya shillings (around US$700) for smokers and a lot more for the manufacturers.
But Kenya was not the first or only country to attempt to go the whole hog about banning smoking. Several other countries the world over, including Rwanda, have passed legislation that is aimed towards a smoke free world. No airline offers "Smoking" tickets anymore, and smokers sometimes have to endure twelve hours of 'fresh air'.
The Kenyan directive covers not only the earlier restricted areas like public vehicles and offices, but also streets, pavements, roads, parks and any other "public place". "Public", of course, means where the smoker is not alone (including homes?).
The manufacturers were required to have changed the Ministry of Health warning on the cigarette packets from the earlier somewhat subtle "Cigarette smoking is harmful to your health" (before that was "cigarette smoking may be harmful to your health") to a more scaring "CIGARETTE SMOKING KILLS". They have since confronted the government over losses they would incur as a result of the abrupt change of packaging.
Anyhow, this article is not about whether smoking "is harmful" or actually "kills". What worries me is whether the smoker is slowly but surely having their fundamental rights violated. Well, one may be infringing on others' rights by blowing the toxic smoke in their face, but surely, doesn't one have space from where to 'enjoy' his legal poison anymore?
Many years back when I was still a banker, we received a circular to the effect that all the bank premises had been declared "No Smoking Zones". Whereas in the past smokers would enjoy their 'cancer stick' from the comfort of their desk, they would henceforth have to interrupt work several times to assuage the strong urge that smoking is.
Ashtrays withdrawn
The smokers' arguments were -- guessed right - beaten ten-nil by the 'green' camp, comprised mainly of fanatical health watchers and religious zealots. The ashtrays were promptly withdrawn.
But in their ingenuity, the smokers sought other ways of 'balancing smoke and work': they invaded the toilets and annexed one of the Gents, turning it into an unofficial smoking zone. Those who could not stand the fumes relocated to the 'no smoking' ones.
But this, too, was thwarted. A few days later, the 'toilet smokers' were accused of breaking the regulations. Another circular promptly went up.
After days of suffering, the smokers again 'discovered' virgin grounds: the staff car park. But due to the security consciousness of banks, this too elicited another circular on the notice board. The argument was that, although smoking was dangerous enough to smokers and non-smokers alike, frequent opening and shutting of the back door was a security risk to all. Of course no one wanted to compromise security (luckily there was no Osama bin Laden then!)
So the disbanded group had to seek their pleasure from outside. In order not to look idle, they would light up and walk around the block, and by the time they were through with the stroll the butt would have gone into the storm drain outside the main door.
As planned, the bank became one big no smoking zone. Horray!
When I joined The New Times, I found a similar environment as the one preceding the 'Big Ban'. But it would be only months before the newsroom was turned into a green zone. That meant smokers would stand on the veranda and puff away. But recently that 'right', too, was withdrawn and the poor souls pushed farther into the suffocating (pun intended!) backyard.
Which brings me to the question: Does the smoker have rights anymore in this world?
I am not an advocate of tobacco consumption. In fact, the reverse is true. But what amazes me is why, despite there being many other substances - including foodstuff - that have been scientifically proven harmful to human health, when it comes to smokers the society is so harsh. Just imagine what it would be like if, for instance, coffee drinkers were subjected to similar treatment - although we all know the harmful effects of caffeine! Or sugar, or alcohol, or animal fat....
My humble opinion is that the world community should come up with other, humane ways of achieving the 'clean air' goal. Taking a cue from the HIV/Aids fight, I am very convinced that we are winning the war because we have managed to beat stigma and discrimination first. Even with leprosy and polio, we would not have come this far if we had continued our ancestors' ways of banishing lepers and cripples to the forest to be devoured by wild beasts.
So why don't we try the same approach to smoking? Why don't we, instead of enacting laws that overtly discriminate against a particular group of people, put more emphasis on mass education, 'smokers anonymous', incentives, and price and tax increases to deter smoking? Discrimination breeds resistance. (By the way, what new grand scheme did 'they' come up with on World No Tobacco Day?)
Methinks the world community ought to drop the 'clean-air-end-justifies-murky-means' approach. Probably the reason we are not winning the tobacco war is our double standards.
Mr Marete is The Sunday Times Editor
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2006 The New Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
