|
|
Heartline Magazine October - December 2004
Controlling Tobacco - An Interview with PAHO's Tobacco Adivsor, Helen Selin
Heather Selin, advisor on tobacco control for the Pan
American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHA/WHO), was recently
in Barbados to promote the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Her
mission was to make the government aware of the obligations that the FCTC carry,
also the benefits, and to let them know what resources exist. She further sought
to investigate other options and opportunities for tobacco control in Barbados
and the region.
During her visit she had discussions with several
governmental, non-governmental and private sector agencies, including the Heart
Foundation of Barbados, the National Council for the Prevention of Alcohol and
Drug Dependency, representatives of the Ministry of Industry and International
Business, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, the Barbados Hotel
Association and the Cancer Society.
Tony Cumberbatch, editor of Heartline, talked to her about
smoking and tobacco controls. He first asked her about the progress made by the
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control globally.
Selin. It’s going very well. After the Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control was adopted by the World Health Assembly, countries had until
the end of June this year to sign it. So far 168 countries have signed on, which
makes it the international treaty with the highest number of signatures. The
FCTC requires 40 ratifications to make the treaty binding. Right now, there are
33 ratifications, so we’re getting close.
TC. What will prevent countries from ratifying the treaty?
Selin. In short, perceived protection of loss of revenue. In
reality, there are really almost no countries that would lose revenue from the
control of tobacco use. The tobacco companies are the ones that would suffer.
But tobacco companies are extremely powerful lobbyists. They have lots of money
and can have lots of influence on countries, plus they spread lots of myths
about tobacco. One is that if you tax tobacco you will get less smoking, and you
will get smuggling, which will lead to a revenue loss. Another is that the
tobacco industry provides jobs and if people stop smoking the economy will be
affected and that jobs will be lost. Neither of these is true,
TC. What effect does tobacco, then, have on the economies of
countries?
Selin. The truth is that tobacco is a drain on the economies
of most countries. There are very few countries in the world that produce
tobacco in large quantities. Most countries import tobacco in the form of
cigarettes, so tobacco is, in fact, an economic drain on the country. The profit
made from tobacco is going outside of the country to a handful of
multi-nationals. There are really only three companies globally that control the
world tobacco market.
TC. Given the pressures that are placed on tobacco
companies, from organizations like yours and others, how do the tobacco
multi-nationals respond?
Selin. They are moving away from the traditional markets and
into countries with huge populations, such as China, Japan and India. These are
large, untapped markets, many of which are now opened up through trade
agreements. One of the unfortunate consequences is that cigarette companies are
allowed to promote cigarettes heavily, and they target women and young people.
There are, for example, three hundred million smokers in China.
TC. Why do young people smoke?
Selin. Young people smoke primarily because tobacco is one
of the most accessible products in the world. Its affordable, its available, and
its considered no less harmful than alcohol. It’s also seen as a ritual of
growing up, and no adolescent wants to do anything more than become an adult in
a hurry. And it is encouraged. Illegal drugs, on the other hand, are harder to
get, there’re expensive, and there’s a penalty to pay for possession, and they
aren’t advertised.
TC. Given the damage that is done to young people by
cigarette smoking, isn’t it a contradiction that so many sports events are
sponsored by tobacco companies?
Selin. Very much so. Sports are a healthy exercise, while
smoking cigarettes is destructive. The hard truth is, however, that sports
organizations are always in need of funds for their activities and events and
tobacco companies have large amounts of money. They go after sports events, and
they win, primarily because of the need. Its great advertising value.
TC. How practical would it be if some countries banned
smoking? Would cigarette companies fold up, or would they go underground, as
happened with the prohibition of liquor in the 1920s in the US?
Selin. You’re right. The industry would simply go
underground. The Tobacco companies are tremendously powerful and have vast
reserves, so they certainly would not fold up. Prohibition would not serve any
purpose. There are about 1.2 billion smokers in the world. That’s a large
market, and they would most likely support the industry underground. The best
methods right now are obviously aggressive education about the dangers of
smoking, and price increases through taxation.
Hopefully prices can be pushed so high that only a few can
afford to smoke, mostly older people, and then we will begin to see results.
Unfortunately, we are a long way away from that.
TC. Devil’s advocate question: If people want to kill
themselves through smoking cigarettes, why bother?
Selin. People don’t want to kill themselves. The vast
majority of those who smoke start when they are very young. It is a ritual that
they tell themselves that they will do for a couple of years and then quit. But
tobacco is very addictive, and they don’t understand the addiction. By 30, 40
years of age they are still smoking. Most want to quit, but it’s very difficult.
They may have tried several times.
We also have to bother because there’s the cost to society.
Studies show that the cost of treating smokers is far higher than treating
non-smokers. Smokers who go to hospital tend to stay longer and the treatment
tends to be more expensive. There’s also the cost in terms of productivity.
Smokers are less productive than non-smokers. If smoking is not permitted in the
building, they have to step outside, and time is wasted. If it is permitted,
they will affect non-smokers. Inhaling secondhand smoke is as injurious to
health as smoking. Plus, of course, smoking is a drain on personal finances, so
that there is less money available to provide food and other essentials for the
family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
