The New Straits Times, May 9, 1997
Given recent events in the tobacco business, it's only natural we look at what is to become of the industry locally, particularly the fate of our tobacco farmers and curers. After dedicating themselves to the industry, they are now in an awkward position. At last, it's clear that the produce of their labour is responsible for creating an additive habit among some 1.5 million Malaysians.
Worse, this fact has been concealed form them, like the rest of us, until recently. Although they have benefited financially from the industry, they too have the right to feel cheated and deceived. Hundreds of smokers worldwide are now suing tobacco companies for allegedly having "lied about health risks and addiction caused by smoking."
In a similar manner, tobacco farmers and curers are economically "dependent" on this crop. They have invested much in building their livelihood around the tobacco industry. They must have been shocked to find out that the industry was not entirely honest.
At this critical stage, there are many who want to reconsider their involvement, and perhaps make a more informed choice on how they want to earn their livelihood. Indeed, it is time to reassess the tobacco industry in this country -that means, from the farmers right up to the decision-maker.
For too long, economic reasons have been used to justify the continued cultivation of tobacco plants in some states. Tobacco lobbyists have harped on this frequently enough.
For example, we were told by the industry recently that it contributed RM1.3 billion per year to the country's revenue through the sales of 16 billion sticks of cigarettes annually (NST, Jan 26). This many be true but what does it mean?
On the surface, RM1.3 billion by any count is large. However, when compared to what the 16 billion sticks of cigarettes can do, that amount is minuscule. While our farmer-curers may be earning an income of RM21,520 per six-month season as claimed by the industry, this sum can never "contra" the expenses of victims who undergo medical treatment linked to smoking. Tens of thousands of ringgit in public funds are known to be spent in medical treatment, especially for heart surgery.
In most cases, tobacco related diseases are chronic in nature. As for a life lost due to tobacco related illnesses, how much is that in terms of cash?
The claim that tobacco can raise the standard of living of the "poor" is legitimate but it is a lopsided argument. This is because tobacco invariably lowers the standard of living of millions of others who remain addicted to tobacco products. Others "waste" their savings on tobacco induced disease which are preventable in the first place. These situations delete any economic merit tobacco may have.
The tobacco industry understands the implications of all this. For these reasons, many US tobacco companies are considering negotiating billion-dollar settlements to immune themselves from lawsuits in the wake of the Ligget confession (NST, April 25).
In other words, for as long as it's economically justifiable for tobacco companies to make money, even at the expense of our health, they will do so. Until they are cornered, that is. Until now, the industry took pride in the fact that they had never paid a "dime" to any smoker in any settlement, for as long as one can remember.
Now they are freaking out because things are beginning to change drastically. The economic argument is breaking down. Statistics from international experts have shown that it's no longer economically prudent to keep any industry operating at the expense of our health. It is almost like a bottomless pit.
The little that we recoup will eventually be drained away in health and social damage. There's also economic loss due to absenteeism from work and school (since many youngsters are picking up smoking), potential fire hazard, the cost in cleaning up cigarette butts in public places.
The farmers themselves are exposed to occupational hazards in tobacco growing area. All these, and more, add to the cost of smoking without us realising it. We have not even begun to discuss the 16 billion mobile cigarette "chimneys" - spewing odious fumes and constantly polluting our bodies and the environment, especially those indoors.
Before we consider the economic advantages of tobacco, we ought to ask about the health and social disadvantages which will readily offset revenue accrued from the sales of tobacco products.
The debate about tobacco in the country has reached a new junction. No longer can we examine it through the myopic view of economy per se without looking into greater depth other equally important dimensions including health, social and religion. Only after doing so can we arrive at more balanced and healthy decisions in dealing with this issue.
For a start however, we need to stay "united for a tobacco-free world" as we look ahead to the coming World No-Tobacco Day on May 31.
