AS part of his anti-tobacco measures and onslaught on legal activity, Minister of Health, Aaron Motsoaledi, has planned to ban point-of-sale display of tobacco products in all retail outlets.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) argued that there is little evidence to prove such a ban would have a significant effect on the youth or adult smoking rates.
“Tobacco products should not be displayed in shops,” said Motsoaledi.
Therefore, the FMF has opposed the proposal to criminalise smoking on the grounds that it will arbitrarily remove the rights of smokers in legislation that places the rights of non-smokers above those who do. Banning point-of-sale tobacco displays will undermine the principles underlying consumer rights and cause unemployment and hardship in the informal business sector.
“These tobacco sale restrictions will hit hawkers hard. In South Africa, where millions are unemployed, many citizens survive from informal trading and hawking and tobacco products feature in many displays at the side of the road and on street corners.
“The minister’s proposed ban will make such displays illegal, potentially putting traders out of business and back on the street. Is this to be the latest unintended consequence from ill conceived and bullying anti smoking legislation, that thousands more will join the 40 per cent unemployed in SA?” said the FMF.
The FMF continued to state that the major beneficiaries of a display ban will be the larger retail stores, which have both the space and the staff to provide designated counters where a far greater variety of brands will be available, albeit under the counter. The losers will be smaller retailers, informal traders and hawkers, for whom the potential loss of revenue could be enough to put them out of business.
“Banning point-of-sale displays appears designed to ‘denormalise’ the purchasing of tobacco by placing the product under the counter. It will have little impact on existing smokers (who will simply ask for their current brand). It clearly limits their ability to choose alternative brands and in the long run it will undoubtedly have an impact on the number of brands available to the consumer. Choice will diminish,” the FMF explained.
It further argued that if the primary concern of anti-smoking campaigners were with health issues associated with youth smoking, they would consider alternatives to a ban. Instead, it is typical of the illiberal nature of the anti-smoking movement that campaigners and politicians are deaf to the sort of sensible compromise that can protect young people without restricting freedom of choice for adult smokers.
To the advocates of a tobacco display ban, seeing cigarettes displayed in shops is one of the major reasons why children smoke. To date, there is little evidence that banning the point-of-sale display of tobacco has any significant effect on the youth or adult smoking rates. In Iceland, where tobacco displays have been banned for more than a decade, the number of children who smoke has barely changed.
Meanwhile, human nature being what it is, non-display could make smoking more – not less – attractive to many young adults.
Smokers, like all consumers, have rights. There are eight main consumer rights recognised by the United Nations and its members, including South Africa, which comprise the right to safety: information, choice, representation, redress, consumer education, satisfaction of basic needs and a healthy environment.
What this means is that adult consumers have the right to tobacco and other products available for sale to be properly, visibly, accessibly and attractively displayed, which includes the right to have prices displayed. Existing and proposed restrictions on point-of-sale displays violate this consumer right.
The FMF supports the consumer movement worldwide in that the consumer’s right to information is sacrosanct. Education, as opposed measures that reduce consumer rights and choices, has always been regarded as the best way to protect consumers. ‘Consumer sovereignty’ is a well-established economic and consumer principle according to which consumers should determine by their informed choices what they buy, where and when they buy, on what terms they buy and at what price they buy. In the absence of freely available information, consumers cannot make informed choices.
“Accordingly, government policy should not restrict or ban legitimate marketing and distribution of lawful products and services. Furthermore, consumer choices that do not accord with what health authorities consider ideal should be recognised as being legitimate,” added the FMF.
