Back 'newspaper articles' index.

All over the country non-smoking Kenyans are suffocating to death not only from the effects of passive or secondhand smoking but by being forced to hold their breath as they wait for the Government to table the Tobacco Bill that will, among other things, ban smoking in public places.

This does not seem to be forthcoming as the powers that be drag their feet and procrastinate and fudge over the issue even as all the while hapless Kenyans continue to suffer.

The time has therefore come when lon suffering citizens realsie that through the courts and other methods such as mass action long used for political ends, they can bring an end to their suffering, ill-health and in many cases death.

Why as a ntion have we continued for solong to feel helpless or that there is nothing we can do is probably due to ignorance. Ignorance about the effects somebody eles's smoking has on us and ignorance for the few who have realised the dangers they are exposed to, of what options we have to seek redress.

It is time that non-smokers rose up to protect not only their health, but that of their families by demanding their right to a smoke-free environment free from all the pollution of cigarette smoke. What they need now is a "non-smokers bill of rights"

What would this bill of rights be about, what should be included in it, who would draft it? Well instead of re-inventing the wheel we could just borrow from the National Interagency Council on Smoking and health's who are based in the United States version.

It is headed the Non-Smoker's Bill of Rights and in a simple preamble states "non-smokers help protect the health, comfort and safety of everyone by insisting on the following rights: The right to breathe clean air. Non-smokers have the right to breath clean air, free from harmful and irritating tobacco smoke. This right supersedes the right to smoke when these two are in conflict.

The Right to speak out. Non-smokers have the right to express - firmly but politely - their discomfort and adverse reactions to tobacco smoke. This right supercedes the right to smoke when these two are in conflict.

The right to act. Non-smokers have the right to take action through legislative channels, social pressures and other legislative means - as individuals or in groups -t to prevent or discourage smokers from polutting the atmosphere and to seek the restriction of smoking in public places."

Not only does this "bill" talk about a non-smokers rights but gives clear guidance on a plan of action. Individuals or groups can do this - how simpler does it get? We have church or other religious groupings or why not have all the religions getting together on this one and talking to their flock and thus mobilising them to take action.

A group of lawyers could be prevailed upon to take this case pro bono or without charge and any individual let alone group can go to court to seek a ban in their place of work while another individual could go to court to seek orders to compel cigarette manufacturers to put warnings on the cigarette packets indicating some of the consequences of smoking.

For as far as the tobacco industry is concerned they are safe and literally untouchable because they feel they are dealing with two kinds of addicts and as long as they are supplied with their drug of choice they would not dare rock the boat for fear of interfering with their supply.

So while the smoker is addicted to the tobacco products, and the Government is addicted to the taxes they earn from tobacco companies, it is as usual the non-addicts who suffer the most when taken into consideration that they do not smoke.

Indeed another group of non-smokers could take the Government to court for failing to protect them from the harmful and even fatal effects of tobacco products even after being adequately informed what these were.

As the government is an amophous figure hard to pin down, groups can target their members of parliament and hold them accountable for why they are allowing their constituents to continue suffering because of not calling loudly from the rooftops for the tabling of the Tobacco Bill.

Kenyan MPs know they need their constituents to hold on to their lucrative jobs yet the constituents are yet to realise this crucial point. Maybe the straw to break the camels back can be the non-smokers bill of rights, by pinning their MPs down and stating simply that if they are not going to act on the fiery issue of tobacco and cigarette smoking, then they might as well kiss a reurn to bunge (Parliament) goodbye.

To take this a notch higher thos MPs who are actually on record for having encouraged tobacco growing in their constituencies should not only be in the sights of their constituents but of the country as a whole as we assert the non-smokers bill of rights.

For we are all familiar with the age-old adage "where there is smoke, there is fire", so where there is tobacco growing, there will be cigarettes and where there are cigarettes, there is illness and death.

The non-smokers bill of rights should also cover the farmers with drug abusee=awareness, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community based organisations (CBOs) and other groups targetting the farmers and explaining to them the dnagers in growing tobacco to themselves and their families.

Child-abuse groups could use this non-smokers bill of rights to lobby parents to stop smoking near their minors and prosecute those who continue to do so.

Ultimately there can be no downplaying of the deleterious effects of non-smokers inhaling cigarette smoke from the environment put there by smokers. This was very clear as long ago as 30 years this year as is evidenced by the 1976 court ruling in New Jersey in the USA.

One Mrs. Shrimp who worked for a telephone company and was allergic to cigarette smoke and who worked with smokers in the same office had taken the company to court.

The Superior Court of New jersey made the following ruling: "The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Cigarette smoke contaminates and polllutes the air creating a health hazard not merely to the smoker but to all those around her who msut rely upon the same air supply. The right of an individual to risk his or her own health does not include the right to jeopardise the health of those who must remain around him or her to perform the duties of their jobs.

"The protion of the population which is especially sensitive to cigarette smoke is so significant that it is reasonable to expect an employer to forsee health consequences and to impose upon him a duty to abate the hazard which causes discomfort.

"In determining the extent to which smoking must be restricted the rights and interests of smoking and nonsmoking employees alike must be considered. The employees' rights to a safe working environment makes it clear that smoking must be forbidden in the work area. The employee who desires to smoke on his own time, during coffee breaks and lunch hours should have a reasobaly accessible area in which to smoke."

Since it is now Easter, cut out this article and take it to your church leader. Ask them to read it out during the service this easter and make copies available to the congregation to go and read to others. By doing this you will not only celebrate Easter, but the beginning of better health courtesy of the "non-smokers bill of rights." Happy easter.

David Ogot is a journalist/producer and the programmes director of the goinghomedotcom Trust a media NGO involved in drug absue awareness. A recovering alcoholic, he can be reached at goinghomedotcom@yahho.com website: www.goinghomekenya.org

This site is designed by David Ogot snr. and hosted by
Science & Engineering Research Center
©goinghomedotcom 2001 - 2006
Disclaimer Privacy Policy