Bhutan is the only country in the world where smoking is officially banned. Like most bans, there are slippages. In a tiny, sparsely populated country, such bans are easier to control and distribution costs in the hilly terrain are higher. Compare that with Bangladesh and, despite relatively lower population growth, its burgeoning people numbers. Then consider the idea of a closure of the tobacco industry. It can be daunting. What it all suggests is a love and hate relationship between smoking, governments and the everyday citizen. The 'bidi' industry is alive to such prospects in their latest protest against banning 'bidis' by 2020, just two years from now and 2038 when cigarettes are to be banned in the country. Their argument focuses on the discrimination than the act itself.
Ever since epidemiological studies have overwhelmingly suggested a link between smoking and diseases, the taste of tobacco has become seriously prohibitive. Many will remember the wave of class suit actions that essentially milked billions in damages from the industry in the United States. The litigious nature of US society was a fertile breeding ground for such cases, essentially seeking damages for passive smokers. Strangely enough it only happened there. The right to smoke is hanging by the slender thread of 'freedom' that must be exercised in the wake of punitive restrictions. Smokers still light up, as is clear from the 'smoking areas' at different airports and even in walking distance of the hallowed headquarters of the World Health Organisation (WHO).The jury is still out over whether there is enough awareness of the health risks of tobacco usage in all of its forms. The US and other countries have their own form of chewing tobacco, the sub-continent known for the tobacco embellishment to betel leaf chewing. Neither form has any health practitioner's approbation.
It is usual to fork out massive revenue figures whenever any sort of ban or restriction is suggested. Economists have their own figures that suggest such revenues pale before the cost of implications. Their argument concludes that tobacco doesn't bring economic good. However, for all of their persuasions, no one has of yet come up with realistic and guaranteed alternate crops and crucial employment. Yes, the workforce in the 'bidi' industry is badly denied the basics but they do have jobs. Yes, child labour is used but it supplements family income. And yes, no one forces anyone. From those considerations, the Members of Parliament representing tobacco farmers and 'bidi' workers cannot turn away. Information Minister Hasanul Huq Inu is foremost in saying he is against smoking but tobacco farmers and bidi workers and their income viability are hard reality.
The employment figures are staggering. Sure and safe crop guarantees are unmistakeable. No matter what happens in the economy, tobacco prices always move upwards. It is one crop that was never dumped on roads in protest as did milk and potato producers. Nor is it gathered and set on fire as has been the case with jute farmers. For all the restrictions and punitive measures, tobacco does find willing consumers. And as true for all products of a habitual or addictive nature, banning or over-taxing encourages underground, illegal trade. Had the product been introduced today, it might never have been licensed but that's water under the bridge.
Reality is that the tobacco business is so intricately connected with trade and transportation in urban and rural areas that the idea of an outright ban is scary. Think of Day labourers, storage space, transportation from ox driven carts to sophisticated covered vans and trucks, the milieu of small nay, tiny businesses ranging from street-side sales to little grocery shops and realisation dawns. Political expedience has led to our Finance Ministers declaring that the economy can do without tobacco revenue. That political statements are often at odds with reality, is borne out by the fact that no minister has ever tried to implement this. There is a school of thought that favours quitting smoking cold-turkey. There is another that suggests slow withdrawal. Economists have said money spent on smoking and oral tobacco use, will definitively be utilised in other activities. If that were true there has to be studies on former smokers and tobacco users to see where these individual budgets were utilised.
Year after year, the National Board of Revenue's (NBR) targets are adjusted downwards. No one ever asks if there is a shortfall from the tobacco sector. Like the proverbial bad penny, tobacco, the scum of all scums makes up for the holes from elsewhere. But such has been the demonisation of the industry, that its contribution to the state coffers is never highlighted. Just like the crop, revenue generation is all but guaranteed. It provides stability in government spending plans though policies don't necessarily work that way for business continuity.
Prohibition isn't necessarily the way forward, phasing out is. That applies to farming, manufacture and employment generation that provides for lucrative incentives. Continuous investments in the industry can't be shrugged off. If health is the primary concern then well-thought-through plans must be prepared and implemented, come what may.
