The Portfolio Committee on Health has successfully hosted the second of three public hearings on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill (B33-2022) at the City of Matlosana’s Ballroom Hall in Matlosana (Klerksdorp) yesterday where residents agreed about the vagueness of the Bill on certain aspects and called for specificity and also emphasised their appeal for the Bill to be more specific on regulations.
While the residents expressed contrasting views on the Bill, there was a common concern that the Bill was not specific in a number of aspects and there was a collective call that it should contain clear provisions and it should clarify the scope of the Minister’s regulatory powers. The Bill proposes in clauses 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15 powers of the Minister to make regulation on various aspects from regulating the standards for the manufacturing, testing measuring and processing of tobacco products, the packaging and labelling of both tobacco and electronic delivery systems, and the appointment of a monitoring committee.
Those who supported the Bill called for harsher penalties against non-compliance with prescripts that are enshrined in the Bill and argued that it is only harsher penalties that will be a deterrent and guarantee compliance. They were of the view that proposals made regarding clause 16 of the Bill were inadequate. Those who were against the Bill opposed harsh penalties proposed by the Bill especially a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or both for anyone that fail to comply with clause 4 (3) (c) which proposes that no tobacco product can be sold or imported unless it is in an intact packaging.
Participants highlighted that a huge component of the tobacco market consists of traders who sell single stick cigarettes and criminalising them would be unfair. Those who expressed opposition to the Bill unpacked the huge and devastating impact it will have on the economy in simple terms. They said that impact will include eradication of economic activities such as manufacturing of boxes and all other packaging materials and that will be a deliberate closure of job opportunities at a time when job opportunities must be opened, a gross contradiction according to them.
Those who support the Bill argued that tobacco producers must adapt and rather produce products that are not harmful to the people. Furthermore, they argued that the Bill carries progressive proposals for the protection of health and wellbeing of society as those proposals will translate in the reduction and end eventually of the use of harmful tobacco products. While they called for stronger enforcement, the opponents of the Bill questioned the capacity of the law enforcement agencies to effectively enforce the implementation of the Bill.
There were also opposing views on the effects of tobacco on the health of users and non-users of tobacco products. Those against the Bill highlighted that singling out tobacco products as a causal factor to cancer was incorrect and misleading as there are other causes of cancer. Those in support underscored that the tax contribution made through the tobacco industry was miniscule compared to funds utilised to care for patients with illnesses induced by the consumption of tobacco products.