Wellness & Fitness

Cigarette and beer companies must support quit-campaigns

cigarette

Long-term use tobacco and alcohol should worry Africa. PHOTO | FILE

Last week, the highest priced stock in the NSE was a cigarette manufacturer. Previously, this record was held by a beer manufacturer.

There is nothing wrong in this given liberalism, but the ramifications on the health system cannot be ignored because smoking and alcoholism are addictive precursors to numerous health conditions. Travelling through Europe and seeing first-hand how big this problem is, African nations should strive to avoid getting where Europe is.

From an epidemiological perspective our concerns arise from the long-term effects of use of these two substances. In particular, the implications on our future health care expenditure for associated medical conditions are not encouraging. The toll they cause usually arrives years later after commencement of usage.

The WHO statistics on alcohol and cigarette usage in Europe are grim. Sixteen per cent of mortalities for Europeans over 30 are attributable to tobacco whereas in Kenya it is at three per cent. Our numbers for both of these statistics are rising, though, and for a poor nation it is not good.

Globally, another worrying statistic is the number of female smokers which currently stands at 22 per cent in Europe compared to three to five per cent in Africa. Approaches taken are aimed at reducing consumption by targeting the users without much effort going to dissuading manufacturers.

“Sin taxes” as they are called only raise revenue collection if they are not punitive enough to dissuade production. On this basis, their contribution to state coffers have “permitted” growth of these industries.

In 2012, for instance, only telecommunications beat beer and cigarette vendors as the top 25 taxpayers to the Kenya Revenue Authority. For the state, the sums may appear large. However, this is only in the short-term. When the problem finally hits home the impact of these funds as a proportion of state contribution to treating associated conditions in public hospitals would make no sense.

On this basis, then we ask whether their growth should be encouraged or tougher steps taken to curtail their growth. Liberalists argue about the “choice” question. The given right for people to choose what is desirable to them.

Here, the great question arises whether smokers and beer addicts are really in control of choice or victims of these products’ addictive powers.

Right to intervene

Secondly, how do these individuals’ actions contribute to society’s general healthcare and finance issues?

In this argument based on the principle of social welfare and healthcare where citizens contribute funds to an insurance pool, minimising expenditure from the pool ideally offers maximum benefits for many. Here is where our right to intervene as health managers comes in.

Of interest in particular would be statistics on the number of smokers or alcohol consumers locally with adequate medical insurance. These I am sure would be very low and by extrapolation therefore are candidates for consumption of state health services.

As a developing nation, the cost of managing conditions associated with cigarette and alcohol consumption must be taken seriously because even rich nations in the West are having difficulties. On this basis, therefore, managers of health systems have a right to meddle in this sin taxes debate.

By suggestion, these firms ought to also be made to assist those willing to “exit” or quit consumption of their products. Specific and further taxes to directly go towards health programmes like these should be initiated.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @edwardomete