<B>By Touria PRAYAG</B>

The delightful, big and hearty smile Ms. Lingachetti, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs Manager of BAT, displayed (l?express 16th January) is symptomatic of the mood of the tobacco industry: it is laughing all the way to the bank. The Minister of Health?s decision to seek views on the provisions made by the new Public Health regulations, and the cacophonic debate which ensued, will likely be the best way to maintain the status quo. Arguments like ?choice?, ?freedom?, ?the right of smokers? are being echoed, dividing the nation into ?smokers? and ?non smokers?. To this, the voice of the tobacco industry has been added to alert to the dangers of unemployment, depletion of the government coffers and, of course, the threat to our hotel industry. In the middle of all this, we will be bogged down in enough confusion to make any decision-making impossible. With a bit of luck, the usual socio-economic and even ethnic factors will enhance the whole debate; after all, how can we be heartless enough to deprive the underprivileged section of our community from the only pleasure they can afford. And the industry of death is home and dry.A healthy debate is an intellectually honest, disinterested and focused debate.

First, it is incorrect, if not intellectually dishonest, to claim that the decrease in the number of smokers will result in a substantial loss of jobs. If we discount the doctors, nurses and undertakers, who owe their jobs to it but their salaries to us, and the few growers, the tobacco industry employs an insignificant number of people, THIRTY, to be more precise. Many of these employees are specialists in Communication or Marketing, two areas where there is an acute shortage of skills.

So, we are far from the apocalypse predicted.

The constant reference to tobacco growing and its importance to the economy is an intentionally misleading argument. The whole agricultural sector contributes no more than 6% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Do the maths and you will find out that the contribution of tobacco growing to the National Economy is infinitesimal.

As for the contribution of the tobacco industry (or more precisely of the smokers) to the government coffers, it is more than counterbalanced by the millions of rupees incurred by our health system every year.

Concerning our tourist industry, it should be based on sound principles; our friendliness as a people, our linguistic advantage, our clean and beautiful environment, our sense of ethics and the safety we should be able to offer need to be our marketing tools. Tourists wishing to visit us to do things they are legally prohibited from doing in their country are not welcome and we should have no qualms about saying it.

In the middle of this debate, we should not lose sight of the real dichotomy: this is not a ?war? between smokers and non smokers; not all smokers are unreasonable and not all non smokers are concerned. Many smokers have been adopting self-regulation as a matter of fairness. Similarly, many non smokers have not been objecting to sharing space with smokers. The debate really is the same old one between ?pro-choice? and ?anti-choice?, made slightly more complicated by the unwelcome voice of the death-peddling industry. The ?pro-choice? are happy to grant the smokers the privilege to do what they want with their body as long as they are aware that their right to swing their fist stops where other people?s nose begins. The anti-choice would like to impose on others what they have chosen for themselves.

Government is there to act as a judge and legislate when negotiation has failed. It has failed in all other countries.

We are unlikely to be the exception.

The Minister of Health asking us for our opinion before legislating is a thoughtful but redundant measure: why, Honourable Minister, haven?t we expressed our opinion through the tobacco-related suffering and painful deaths we have been experiencing? Haven?t we expressed it through the ruined families and orphaned children we see around us? Haven?t we expressed it through our uphill and single-handed struggle to protect our youth?

In the tobacco debate, Honourable Minister, there are virtuous interests and vested interests. The tobacco industry carries a heavy conscience. It has no opinion that we care to hear.