Two sides to a coin: Single cigarette sales ban needs deeper deliberation

Before we discuss how a single stick sales ban could negatively impact a nation, let us briefly consider why certain agencies periodically gather steam to promote its acceptance

By Ajith Perera

The past couple of weeks saw a visible increase in articles proposing a ban on sale of single cigarettes in the country. 

These articles led primarily by researchers purportedly from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) lament Sri Lanka lags behind 107 nations in implementing such legislature, adding claims this factor alone encourages smoking amongst youngsters and low-income groups. 

The IPS together with sponsors of this proposal calculatedly turn a blind eye to several ground realities in their bid to see its implementation, which could result in grave consequences for the nation. 

Money matters

Before we discuss how a single stick sales ban could negatively impact a nation, let us briefly consider why certain agencies periodically gather steam to promote its acceptance. As the old saying goes, ‘money makes the world go round’. Somebody somewhere is paying someone to see it through, so they could tick a box and receive more funding for the purpose of profit. This is true for the tobacco industry just as it rings true for pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, human rights, and everything else. A closer look at the operational strategies and agreements of these said institutions will reveal more. 

But why would others venture to state this is not time for Sri Lanka to pursue what is presumably a worthy cause? The devil is in the detail, and a closer look on the ground reveals factors that need deeper careful consideration from a broader national perspective. Single cigarette sales bans are relevant for sophisticated developed markets, but this does not in any manner imply their relevance for every other market. There are numerous examples from around the globe with failures of single stick sales bans, and what is more important is to consider their fallout on communities and nations. 

Pack purchases promote more puffs

Mexico banned the sale of single cigarette sticks as far back as 1999. But a three-year long research piece published subsequently in the prestigious BMJ shows single cigarette purchases grew almost 10% annually, whilst 60% of residents in neighbourhoods saw singles sold daily in 2012. The study concluded that single cigarettes remain widely available, and a potential explanation for the continued prevalence of singles were margins and livelihoods of vendors, whilst some were even selling singles for higher the standard unit price.

Another study on Mexico published in the US National Library of Medicine found that some smokers bought single cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. It concluded: “Some adult Mexican smokers purchase single cigarettes as a method to limit, cut down and even quit smoking. One person typified this perspective when she stated: I used to buy packs but having the pack I would smoke one after another. So, I began to buy singles to smoke less.”  

The Mexican experience highlights three significant factors that are very relevant to Sri Lanka. Starting from the bottom; smokers when compelled to purchase whole packs end up smoking more than they do when they buy singles. Therefore, it is important to consider that by pushing pack sales we could drive people to smoke more, defeating the purpose of encouraging a healthier society. It also highlights the socio-economic impact on tens of thousands of vendors and retailers, and the capacity for illegal activity. 

Genuine intent or not?

Digressing briefly to the topic of illegal activity and illicit cigarettes, it is noteworthy that Sri Lanka’s anti-tobacco agencies and related institutions here such as the IPS continuously turn a blind eye on the prevalence of illicit cigarettes and beedi in Sri Lanka. 

The total of volume of beedi smoked in Sri Lanka annually exceeds five billion according to published reports, but these alongside illicit cigarettes draw next to no action or interest from the lobby. As beedis are tobacco products manufactured under license from government, they should be brought under the same degree of control. But, perhaps clamping down on a purported cottage industry delivering the same degree of harm doesn’t derive profits or interest to these socially conscious agencies. 

Bhutan presents an interesting example in this respect. The nation had banned the manufacture or sale of tobacco in 2010 but allowed smokers to import tobacco products at high prices. This fuelled a thriving black market from India, and during the lockdown due to COVID-19 smuggled tobacco prices soared four-fold generating ill-earned profits to racketeers. When a smuggler tested positive for COVID-19, the Bhutanese Government – led by a medical doctor – considering ground realities lifted the ban on tobacco sales to control the spread of illicit and lessen the social and health risks posed to the country.

The spread and threat of illicit sticks and illegal activity is a very real threat to Sri Lanka due to its high price on cigarettes. A ban on stick sales could propagate a black market in the country as seen in Mexico where retailers will continue to sell single sticks for higher values, whilst racketeers would stand to gain significant profits using counterfeits which are already prevalent in the market.  

Combatting illegal activity

Draconian regulations produce hotbeds for illegal activity. South Africa had a similar experience when it banned the sale of tobacco products earlier this year, when very few smokers were deterred due to the presence of a thriving illegal market. Despite the ban being lifted, manufacturers point to lower sales than before due to the high prevalence of illicit that infiltrated the market during the ban. The University of Cape Town estimated that 93% of smokers obtained cigarettes from illegal sellers during the period. 

The risks posed here are two-fold. On one hand is the obvious question on law and order, and together with that comes significant loss of revenue to Government. The tobacco industry in Sri Lanka contributes well over Rs. 120 billion to State coffers annually, and a stick sales ban will significantly impact revenue to government from the outset, which the country can ill afford at this point in time. 

Alongside is the economic contribution to society in terms of the industry value chain of retailers, distributors and farmers which also amounts to billions. If illicit begins to dominate the cigarette landscape, the country together with its socio-economic framework and stability will slide down a slippery slope of no return. 

Regional experiences

This was evidenced in Pakistan, one of the first countries in the South Asian region to implement a stick sales ban. The All Pakistan Cigarette, Pan and Beverage Retailers Association charged that the livelihoods of over 700,000 retailers around the country and their families were impacted by the ban. In Pakistan too, retailers and stakeholders observed the ban would increase smoking and the government will find it difficult to implement and police the law at ground level. Accordingly, such pieces of law are reduced to mere pageantry and achieve nothing. 

Last week, Maharashtra in India became the first state in that country to ban the sale of single cigarette sticks and beedis. India’s Central Government and stakeholders have been debating this piece of legislature for close to a decade, and the move according to the State is to promote customers to see the graphic health warning on packs. In addition, it hopes to prevent youngsters from taking up the habit by hitting affordability. 

But not everyone is convinced, as espoused by the Neha Cadabam, Consultant Psychologist, who states the more people have something, the more they will consume it. Drawing parallels to the Mexican example, Dr. Cadabam said: “If someone wants to cut down on smoking, they would only buy one stick as their quota for the day. But if you have to buy an entire packet, then you end up smoking more. I am not sure how this helps.”

A mangle of myths 

Another pertinent point to ponder is why people smoke. Every smoker is aware of the ills of smoking from school days, where it is drilled into their heads that smoking kills and commits considerable harm to the body. Accordingly, it is safe to state that everyone who chooses to continue smoking as a habit or leisurely pastime does so making an informed choice.

The IPS talks about several myths that are stifling the imposition of such a ban in Sri Lanka. One purported myth according to the IPS is that a ban would reduce tax revenues, claiming this has never been proven in any other country. 

On one hand, this goes to show that stick sales bans have failed to achieve their objective of reducing smoking at all levels of society, as any reduction in volume would impact revenues to the state and industry. Stick sales ban are largely prevalent in sophisticated developed markets, where people readily purchase cigarette packs and stick sales are not social norm. Sri Lanka is a developing market, with 70% of the population earning less than $ 2 a day. 

The IPS also states that smoking increases the risk of non-communicable diseases and adds 6.1% in costs to government annually. But how could this figure be corroborated? The Maharagama Cancer Hospital has several lung cancer patients who never smoked a cigarette in their lifetime or been exposed to second-hand smoke – such as Buddhist monks domiciled in temples. 

How do we differentiate? There is no available record in Sri Lanka’s State or private health sector that quantifies in any scientific measure the cost to the system from tobacco smoking. It is therefore incorrect to club every cost attributed to NCDs under tobacco smoking.

The above statement does not in any manner detract from the ills of smoking, but what is important is that policymakers and the public make practical, timely and relevant observations when deliberating on such policy. Prudence must prevail over pageantry and profit. Sri Lanka’s time – the right time – will come, it isn’t just yet.  

(The writer is a retired Administration, Shipping and Maritime Security Consultant with extensive experience in anti-smuggling operations in Sri Lanka and the Middle East.)