The Tobacco Control Bill and Kenyans Smoking Behavior

Even as Tobacco companies cry foul over civic authorities banning cigarette smoking in public places the real culprit lies with the Minister for Local Government, Hon. Musikari Kombo. His unconstitutional measure on the same seems to be a rather 'political-cum-electoral' stand just like the lifting of the ban on traditional liquor.

The British American Tobacco (BAT) and Mastermind Tobacco companies want a ' fair, sensible and enforceable regulation'.

They are bitter with the elusivity of the Tobacco Control Bill that is still pending in parliament though it is currently in its second reading in parliament. What Kenyans need is to have a national policy to control Tobacco use. In fact the Bill 'specifies where smoking is permitted, where it is not and the means of communicating to the public any new measures'.

Banning of smoking would not be the solution even if the same touches on our health status. Many have gone to that extent of putting blame on cigarettes ' for endangering our lives'. This is an under-statement.

In fact people who receive a brief advice from a medical professional are five times more likely to quit smoking than those who do not. The main channels being through counseling, self-help booklets and nicotine replacement therapy; that is chewing gum for heavy smokers and application of skin patches for light smokers though nicotine replacement therapy is rare in the Kenyan population.

In Kenyan suitable measures would be to put emphasis on the benefits of quitting especially the immediate health and financial benefits of quitting including social acceptability than banning smoking and robbing the public through courts. The commercial and logistical battle between Tobacco companies and the affected institutions including the Ministry of Health ought to come up clean on consumer smoking behavior and cigarette toxicity and which should reflect researched data on global smoking. Consumers need to be specifically advised and protected from the effects of tar and nicotine even without banning cigarette smoking.

On the other hand Tobacco companies ought to capitalize on scientific analyses of cigarette smoke under the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) that regulates green house gases using machines that certify the consumable levels. Many companies do not conform to the ISO standards thereby risking the lives of the same consumers who intern promote the same companies by buying the low-tar, high-tar and nicotinic products.

Kenyan smokers bare the burden of respiratory complications and cancerous diseases due to poor smoking behavior, and not simply smoking, that the government and cigarette companies neglect to avail to consumers.

World over, people smoke low-tar cigarettes differently from high-tar ones while to some the concern lies more on the nicotine content. Kenya lacks this economic advice and health specifications and tastes.

As a matter of fact when a larger volume of air is pulled through the cigarette when drawing a low-tar rather than the high-tar variety the extra volume of air makes up for the lower concentration of the drug in the body. Burning a cigarette or smoke producing substance is a different matter all together.

Also pulling high concentrations of air inhaled through a burning cigarette rather than through the paper sides of it increases the absorption of tar and nicotine (and other carcinogens) per unit volume to the body increasing risks of having health complications. Many become addicted when nicotine is readily absorbed. Nicotine does not cause any major harm to the body other than its addictive effect.

Majority of Kenyan smokers draw 50-70ml per puff and do so twice a minute than the standard 35ml per puff drawn for two seconds once a minute. This fact indicates that most Kenyans smoke heavily and that our cigarettes contain high-tar and nicotine levels. Thus the problem lies with our smoking behavior and not availability of cigarettes.

Poor delivery levels of cigarette smoke that depend on filtration, paper permeability and filter tip ventilation affects the Kenyan smoker. Our main challenge would be to reduce the nicotine and tar that are determined by a dependable standard machine measurement that is limited to our economically disadvantaged population through the Tobacco Bill.

The gazettment of the anti-smoking ban in Nakuru, Nairobi, Mombasa and other towns ought to be consumer friendly, for our tobacco contains far more nicotine and tar levels whether physically handled or inhaled in form of smoke.

In a test carried out in 1987 the Player’s Extra Light (PEL) machine used drew 86% more nicotine and 114% more tar than the ISO machine, although smoke intake was only 27% higher.

Thus the Government and Ministry of Health ought to come clear not only on the effects of cigarette smoking per se but more specifically consumer smoking behavior through awareness creation first than to criminalize smoking and charging innocent Kenyans who have the right to choose their consumables whether inhaled or chewed.

More so deeply inhaled smoke from low-tar delivery cigarettes might be even more harmful than the un-inhaled smoke from high-tar cigarettes and other green house emissions.

In Kenya, the problem lies with poor by-laws that have not been constitutionalized through the Tobacco Control Bill, the unreliability of the ISO system of determining nicotine/tar levels in companies, poor consumer smoking behavior and tobacco handling by the locals. Kenyan smokers are being treated unfairly.

Regards,
Mundia Mundia Jnr.