Clarify

Few would argue against Executive Order 26 restricting smoking in public places. The EO protects non-smokers from the unhealthy fumes emitted by those who smoke.

That order, however, direly needs clearer rules to guide implementation. As it stands, it gives too much latitude to local governments and a variety of advocacy groups to enforce unreasonable rules.

For instance, it is not clear from the order if electronic cigarettes (that emit vapors) are treated exactly the same as ordinary cigarettes (that emit smoke). What happens to the new hybrid devices that enable a person to “smoke” tobacco without emitting smoke?

The order does not make it a responsibility for establishments to provide for designated smoking areas (DSAs) where smokers may safely indulge in the habit. The practical effect of this is that it has become impossible to smoke anywhere in some areas.

In Davao, where strict anti-smoking ordinances are imposed, nearly all establishments provide for DSAs. In Tokyo, where regulations are just as severe, comfortable smoking areas where smoke eaters are installed are provided.

In the aftermath of EO 26, however, some municipalities have virtually made smoking a crime. It is impossible to smoke anywhere and stores are prohibited from selling cigarettes.

Other municipalities, however, are more benign. Smoking restrictions are limited to enclosed spaces. Most open spaces are left free for smokers.

EO 26 is inappropriately vague. Therefore, there are wide variances in ordinances that confuse smokers. In one provincial city, some sort of “environmental police” roam around arresting smokers on sight.

Smokers are pleading for a degree of uniformity in the rules. EO 26 should ensure some uniformity. Despicable as some might hold them to be, smokers are entitled, if not the right to indulge in their habit, at least to a predictable framework of rules.

Militant anti-smokers, if they had their way, would want smoking criminalized outright. They do have sound environmental and health arguments on their side. But that is not an excuse to trample on 14 percent of the population who smoke.

It is so easy to overlook the economic considerations as well.

The anti-tobacco lobby was successful in pushing for higher excise taxes under the so-called Sin Tax Law (STL). Higher excise taxes delivered the benefits the health advocates wanted. The Global Adult Tobacco Survey shows a significant decline in the number of Filipino smokers from 17 million in 2009 to 15.9 million in 2015. The decline presumably continues.

All that is wealth and good from a health standpoint. But there are significant effects on the national economy as well.

The National Tobacco Administration reports that domestic tobacco production declined from 68 million kilos in 2013 to only 52 million kilos in 2015. Illicit tobacco trading, including inferior tobacco leaf imports and counterfeit cigarette brands, abets the downward trend.

The number of tobacco farmers declined from 55,000 in 2015 to only 41,000 in 2016. The farm area devoted to tobacco cultivation declined just as dramatically from 38,264 in 2014 to only 28,808 hectares in 2016.

Consequently, government revenues from the tobacco industry declined from P109 billion in 2012 to only P80 billion in 2016. That dramatic decline happens even if the STL dramatically raised excise tax rates.

Curiously, the decline in domestic tobacco production is much more severe than the actual decline in the number of smokers. This is not likely due entirely to smokers consuming less tobacco.

Industry experts attribute the discrepancy to the rise in the volume of illicit cigarettes making their way into our market. Illicit cigarettes, smuggled into our economy using the same web of corruption that made possible the entry of “shabu,” are unregulated and therefore potentially more dangerous to consumers.

The Federation of Philippine Industries estimates the total value of illicit cigarettes entering our domestic market from 2013 to 2015 alone at P9.8 billion. With smuggling reaching epic proportions because of the institutional vulnerabilities of the Bureau of Customs, the Philippines now ranks first globally in terms of growth in illicit cigarette trading according to a study done by Euromonitor International.

If government is truly interested in curbing tobacco consumption, restrictions must be put not only on the demand but also on the supply side. Rampant cigarette smuggling allows illicit traders to sell their contraband at low prices, diving below the excise taxes that they evade.

These traders skirt around the punitive excise tax regime that should create better revenues for government and better protection for tobacco consumers. For as long as they can continue doing that, neither the revenue goals nor the health benefits STL aspires for will be met.

While STL imposes a punitive excise tax rate to curb consumption, it also makes it profitable for smugglers to evade taxation by bringing in illicit tobacco into the country. That is the reason for the spike in illicit tobacco trading plaguing our economy.

It should not be enough to limit the areas where smokers may smoke. Enforcement should be tougher on the entry of illicit tobacco.

Meanwhile, given the numbers pertaining to the decline of our tobacco industry, government needs to put in a comprehensive program to help our surviving tobacco farmers transition to another crop. The erosion of this particular section of our agriculture if happening faster than our policymakers bothered to admit.

Despite all the restrictions imposed, we are not about to see the last of our smokers go. They will find ways to indulge.

But, as things are going, we might be looking at the last generation of tobacco farmers. They are much closer to extinction.