Four decades worth of political equity

Sometime last year, in the wake of scathing criticisms of the then Indian Health Minster Dr. A Ramadoss bringing in regulations to stop smoking in public spaces, I wrote a blog supporting this public health move. I juxtaposed what the minister did and what the tobacco company, Philip Morris, has been doing for decades, during which it changed its playing field from the developed to developing countries, given that smoking was on a decline in the former. I concluded that, all things considered, the minister was more justified in what he was doing.

Now, we have a different Health Minister, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad. Naturally, I was interested in what he is going to do about the recently and the not-so-recently brought in regulations regarding smoking. I was encouraged because, almost as the first order of business, he said he is going to let stand the smoking prohibitions in public spaces. However, what he said next was not quite so promising: reconsider the ban on smoking in films and TV shows. On this he seems to have gone against the current wisdom against implicit promotion of smoking. Let us see how the minister balances things out. And, while he is at it, he has a few sources that he may want to consult.

The US Senate, after dithering over the matter for more than four decades, starting with the US surgeon general’s report in 1964, empowered “federal officials to regulate cigarettes and other forms of tobacco for the first time.” One must note that the tobacco industry (called a rogue industry in a New York Times editorial) built up enormous political equity during this period that is evident even now – Senator Kay Hagan, a Democratic Senator from North Carolina, the leading tobacco growing state, voted against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, one of only 17 senators out of 99. So says a news report in the New York Times. The Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A) can “impose potentially strict new controls on the making and marketing of [tobacco] products.” Why the sudden change after all that dithering over four decades ?

One company, Philip Morris, and one industry, tobacco and tobacco products. Philip Morris is the biggest of the tobacco companies that was at the forefront of efforts by the industry to obfuscate all the research results that showed a connection between smoking and cancer over all these decades, even going to the extent of sponsoring motivated research to “prove” the opposite.

Suddenly, the Altria Group which owns Philip Morris, got religion and supported the legislation because it figured out that with its “extensive scientific research operation”, it had an effective marketing tool in its hands. Its assessment seems to be that it “may be the company best equipped to deal” with the new regulations. That is, it would use these new regulations as a differentiator within the industry and position itself as a “responsible corporate citizen” vis-à-vis its competitors. The company’s spokesman said that the legislation will bring “greater predictability and stability” to the industry – the risk factors will be diluted.

All the other companies have opposed the legislation. Altria’s competitors are on to this effort at grabbing market share by the industry giant. The industry lobby group is fragmenting just as the “antitobacco (sic) forces came into alignment.” It is no more a unified industry. So bad. But the disconnect between the giant and the minnows is not as clean and crisp as it may appear. A lot of effort is underway to try to undermine the legislation. The advertising lobby has been suborned, with, I am sure, the blessings of the Altria Group, to open up a different front in this war, another battle.

To make the front impregnable what does one do? Go to the Constitution, the First Amendment, no less. “Colorful ads and store displays will be replaced by black-and-white-only text.” No more Virginia Slims’ “You've Come A Long Way, Baby.” The Constitution protects commercial speech, the argument goes, and the restrictions as may be stipulated by F.D.A are bound to be unconstitutional. No wonder then, legal experts say “a court challenge on that ground is virtually certain.”

India takes a positive approach to freedom of speech as supposed to the negative, hence more robust and tighter, one of the US. The Indian conceptualization of freedom of speech gives a lot more leeway for government interference. This is in itself may not be good, but in this issue, I think it is. This is the current state of affairs in this sensitive issue.

Home Minister Mr. Azad really has to consider whether restrictions on implicit promotion of smoking in movies and TVs are strong enough curtailments of legitimate business activities. At first glance they do not appear so. I recognize that the industry feeds into the national exchequer’s till and also provides employment. Yet, recognizing its public good I would stand by what Dr. Ramadoss tried to do. It is on these considerations I would beseech the minister to let stand the prohibitions on showing smoking on TVs and in movies. He is almost duty bound to support overall public good against the business interests of the tobacco industry, even if it be that the industry has accumulated so much political capital over the decades.

Raghuram Ekambaram