Tobacco Bill amendments ill-advised

According to Prof Herman de Jager, legislation is one of the most important instruments of organising society and protecting citizens.

Law not only constitutes the structural framework of the whole of our organised society, it also provides rules or norms of conduct to which society expects adherence. Legislative proposals are, therefore, meant to advance an agenda or correct an anomaly in society.

The recent proposal to amend the Tobacco Control Act, 2007 with, among other proposals, a ban on smoking during the day is an example of defective legislative proposals.

For a legislation to advance a public health agenda, especially on smoking as a risk factor for non-communicable diseases, the legislation needs to effectively influence choices and behaviour since smoking is, to a large extent, a personal choice. We can assume that this is the logic behind the proposal, but can a daytime ban influence the desired behaviour, that is, quitting or reduction in smoking?

Tobacco is not only hazardous due to the many chemicals it contains, but also the nicotine it has, which is highly addictive. To combat dependence, there is a need for strategic and multiple attempts to defeat dependence. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that within 20 years, tobacco dependence could be the largest cause of premature deaths in the world.

Therefore, there is a need to effectively implement the various tobacco control measures espoused in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which include increase of tax and prices, protection of exposure to smoke, effective packaging and labelling, awareness campaigns, and bans on promotion and advertising.

In Kenya these standards have been well captured in the Tobacco Control Act, 2007, which has enabled the country to achieve a lot in tobacco control.

Some of the benefits include reforms in the excise tax structure, leading to tax and price increase for tobacco products, awareness by the public on the harm caused by smoking, and even the recent efforts by KRA to curb illicit trade by introducing the track and trace system.

These efforts are, however, not enough and therefore the need to have regulations to implement other aspects of the legislation, for example, packaging and labelling, provision of information by manufacturers, protection from second-hand smoke, and industry contribution to a fund to educate the public on the dangers of tobacco use and providing cessation services for tobacco users who want to quit.

The new legislation proposes a number of measures that are now in the public domain, most of which have been addressed by the existing legislation and/or regulations.

Restricting smoking to hours when the smoker is likely to be at home with his/her family (6pm to 6am) is dangerous because of the likelihood of innocently exposing spouses and children to the health effects of tobacco use, and clearly does not address the problem.

REHABILITATION FACILITIES

Requiring tobacco companies to build rehabilitation facilities and contribute to a fund to cater for cancers and other diseases are adequately captured in the regulations.

Also, tobacco farmers would benefit more in the long run if they are supported to shift to other economically viable alternative livelihoods instead of building for them more processing facilities.

As long as they are in unfavourable contractual relationships with the tobacco industry, their plight is unlikely to change. The proposal lacks evidence that would link the ban to reduction of smoking or the benefits it holds for tobacco farmers, therefore begging the question what its motivation is.

A background check indicates that the mover of the Bill comes from a tobacco-growing region. He proposes to improve the lives of the farmers by making tobacco companies pay for making kilns for curing and managing the storage of the leaves.

Various researches indicate that tobacco growing is not beneficial to farmers and is even harmful to their health. Why then would you promote it when all efforts are on leveraging on alternative cropping?

The timing of the proposed amendments seems suspect. Currently, tobacco control efforts are at a critical stage where the public is waiting for the regulations to implement the Tobacco Control Act in a week or so.

The amendment is, therefore, a distraction from the main goal, which is effective implementation of the Act. We urge that the focus remain on the implementation through the regulations and that any amendment be considered when the time and circumstances warrant.

Ms Wanyonyi is chief executive officer, International Institute for Legislative Affairs. Mr Gichana is policy and legislative drafting programmes manager at the same organisation. [email protected].