Smoking: No social responsibility? Part 1

Manjari Peiris

Thanks to the tobacco company for pointing out that they are the highest tax payers, but let us remember that they do not pay the taxes voluntarily; this is not an initiative on their part to support the government. Since most smokers are poor, it actually represents a highly inefficient way to transfer money from the poor to the government, while the largest share being grabbed by a very wealthy company.

Dangers

As for planting trees to maintain the ecological balance in the environment, we know that tobacco cultivation itself is quite harmful to the environment: it is far more chemically-intensive to grow than other crops, and regardless of what the company claims, it leads to deforestation both to clear land to grow the crop and to cut trees to cure the tobacco.

We appreciate the company mentioning about the dangers of smoking, however mildly phrased, smoking is a major cause of disease and death, something which even the industry no longer denies.

According to the spokesman of the company, that smoking being "a highly personalized function completely dependent on the person or persons who do so by choice and not compulsion", the sentence would have been true, had there been no promotional factor to tobacco use.

A question arises why then the company feels the need to invest such large sums on advertising and sponsorship tactics, which have given Sri Lanka such a bad name internationally (for instance continuing to have cigarette girls to promote the products).

The sentence, "a highly personalized function completely dependent on the person or persons who do so by choice and not compulsion", would have been true, had there been no promotional factor to tobacco use.

Given that opinion tobacco industry hides the truth about its products, and instead couches it in false and misleading claims of adventure, fame and power, there is nothing like free choice or even well-informed choice for the individual user.

Free choise

As for compulsion, nicotine in tobacco is addictive. Therefore, in addition to the lure of promotions by the tobacco industry, there is compulsive physiological craving that the product places on the users mind. The question of free choice therefore ends after the initial few puffs.

There should be a limit to this so-called "choice". Anybody can rotate a walking stick that he/she carries, but up to the tip of the nose of the person next to him/her there the person's freedom ends is the accepted understanding about "freedom". Smoking affects others in the form of passive smoking, creates habit among potential smokers (children and youth), becomes a burden to the government when they fall sick, to the family when they fall sick or die and to the society as a whole both economically and socially. Annually around 22,000 people in Sri Lanka reach the grave untimely due to diseases caused by smoking.

If one can argue of choice in this manner why not a person use heroine or rat poison? It could also be attributed to "choice"?

The company helping the poor and 10,000 families benefited? On the contrary, as international research has shown, smoking further increases poverty by diverting spending from basic needs such as food to cigarettes.

Substantial part

Tell the hungry child of a poor addicted smoker that it is that parent's choice, not compulsion (and what is addiction if not compulsion?) to buy those cigarettes rather than food. Fortunately the sellers of tobacco probably don't spend a lot of time with the lower-income users of their products.

CTC saying that the taxes on cigarettes now being approximately 80% seem that a substantial part of the taxes could be passing on to the consumers as retail price. Isn't it draining consumers' pockets making them and their families deprived of money for their basic needs? The industry claims that they have only 19% to carry out other functions; does it mean that the mere 19% is adequate for them to sustain a profitable venture? If anything, it simply tells us that there is more room in the industry's profits to increase taxes further to a level that it brings down consumption.

The claims that they work in strict compliance with NATA; the transparency of compliance should be certified by NATA and not by any social audit agency.

We have been observing certain multi-million companies and affluent individuals who earn money in unlawful and inequitable manner throughout their lifetimes, but trying to pretend that they are noble philanthropists by throwing a few rupees for social work such as sponsoring events and educational programs for youth, making tombs for dead soldiers, etc.

There are also people who cut the woods in illegal manner while making documentaries on protecting the environment.

Similarly some people who are engaged in producing products, which are injurious to human consumption, do offer scholarships or hold painting exhibitions for children on Child Safety. Aren't these approaches very funny and hypocritical?

Killer products

The tobacco industry declares or identifies them as an enterprise with "social responsibility".

How do we believe or accept them as a "responsible company" when they are engaged in manufacturing, promoting and marketing a "killer product" for consumption worldwide? The Sri Lankan law actually prohibits CSR by tobacco companies. Articles of this nature addressing on company CSR therefore should not to be published in the first place.

"Sponsorship" means any form of contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use directly or indirectly.

Litigation in courts of law both by and against tobacco companies has had a major influence in the fight against tobacco.

To be continued