MY TWO CENTS on Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan

There is no denying to good intention behind the Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010 (TCA 2010). I am sure it must have been aimed at keeping tobacco at bay in the country. Given the nature and all the ill-effects associated with tobacco- who would not wish to stay away from it? No tobacco would mean no bronchitis, no emphysema, no lung cancer and no other tobacco-related diseases. No diseases would mean healthy productive citizens and less health-care expenditure to the government coffer.

However it is easier said than done. As much as it is tempting to probe into the fundamentals of how the TCA 2010 came into being, it is equally tempting to analyse the implications of implementing it. So here is 'MY TWO CENTS' on what this Act would entail.

Because there is a provision for people to pay tax and consume in the TCA 2010, -those with riches can consume tobacco products anyways whereas poorer section of the society cannot, even though the craving for it remains the same. It promotes INEQUALITY amongst the society and this is what good public policy should avoid.

Because tobacco products are prohibited from selling and buying within Bhutan, -the country is not only denied of an economic activity and subsequently an opportunity to earn revenue through tax but also provides fertile ground for the black market to thrive. Loss of ECONOMIC GAINS and the NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES of the likes of black market is what a good policy should avoid.

Last but not the least, because most offences in TCA 2010 are punishable with minimum sentence of felony of fourth degree, -it would mean prosecuting and imprisoning every offender regardless of anything. Too many prisoners and criminals would not only distort the image of what we are as a society but also incur huge financial cost in terms of maintaining prisoners and operating prisons. Cost implication or FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY is another important aspect a good public policy would not ignore.

Cheers and let me know if I make sense.