Opinion
Any Need For Designated Smoking Areas?
It cannot be disputed that while smoking is optional,
breathing is not. Ban on smoking in certain public places has therefore been recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke which include heart diseases, stroke etc.
A Global Health Observatory data reveals that second-hand smoke is one of the most harmful and widespread exposures in the indoor environment. It notes that more than a third of the population are regularly exposed to the harmful effects of smoke with fatalities put at 600,000 per year, and accounting for at least 1% of the global burden of disease.
Because of this, hundreds of countries have introduced laws banning smoking in indoor places as the easiest way to reduce their health care costs.
While the tobacco companies operating in Nigeria bask in the euphoria that the Tobacco Control Act 2015 signed by former president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan did not outrightly ban smoking in all public places, public health advocates believe the legislation has not gone far enough.
This argument finds meaning when viewed from the prism that Nigerians cannot forget in a hurry the barrage of groups claiming to promote smokers’ rights during the Public Hearings on the National Tobacco Control Bill (now Tobacco Control Act 2015) between 2014 and May 2015 when the law finally got the presidential signature. These groups, believed to be fronts for tobacco industry operators, claimed that introduction of Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs) will guarantee the rights of smokers without infringing on the rights of non-smokers.
Experts, however, discountenance the so-called smokers groups as role players of the tobacco corporations only interested in sustaining their profits by maintaining a stranglehold on addicted smokers. On an expanded scale, it is not a deniable fact that, the tobacco industry is in cahoots with the hospitality industry, promoting a lie that the hotels, restaurants and other places frequented by fun seekers will lose customers if smoking is disallowed in such places. Tobacco companies are known sponsors of restaurant owners’ associations which are deployed as fronts to campaign against the ban on smoke-free public places. The industry does this despite the growing body of evidence that smoking is harmful not just to smokers’ health, but secondary smokers as well.
Secret tobacco industry documents show they are ready to spend millions of dollars promoting films where actors are seen smoking to make the habit seem hype. In one of such documents, a leading tobacco corporation is said to have considered investing in a f2.25m ($4.2m) action film with a heroine who smoked, for distribution in Europe as part of an aggressive marketing campaign, according to an article published in the European Journal of Public Health.
In our own Lagos which passed a legislation in 2014 prohibiting smoking in certain public places, public health advocates raised the alarm about attempts by British American Tobacco Nigeria (BATN) to confuse the public through several meetings with implementing agencies of the legislation including the Nigeria Police. The meetings were said to have served as platforms for promotion of DSAs and redefinition of smoke-free environments.
These attempts do not, however, erode global studies that point to smoke-free public places as influencing reduction in demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult. While the tobacco industry advocates limited smoke-free places with DSAs obviously for sustaining profits, medical experts insist total ban on smoking in public places is the way to go as they playa critical role in helping to shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Smoking bans has been confirmed by the WHO as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes.
Researches from the United States and Europe show that banning smoking in public places have helped to cut premature births by 10 per cent.
Ireland is noted as the first country in the world to have instituted a nationwide comprehensive smoke- free workplaces law. The law which came into force on 29 March 2004 expands on an existing outlaw of smoking in public places which began in 1988 and has been enforced in public buildings, hospitals, public pharmacies, schools, banking halls, cinemas, public hairdressing premises, and restaurant kitchens, part of all restaurants, on public transport, aircraft and buses, among others.
On 1 July 2009, Ireland prohibited in-store tobacco advertising and displays of tobacco products at retail outlets and new controls on tobacco vending machines.
Following this successful example, Norway and Italy also did same. Britain, Portugal and Sweden, have drafted plans to establish similar laws.
These countries latch on Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTe) which recommends that Parties to the treaty adopt effective legislative measures “providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.”
The Guidelines state that” approaches other than 100 per cent smoke free laws environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas … have repeatedly shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.”
As of this date, a host of countries have introduced similar laws, prompting the question: If progressive nations have discarded DSAs successfully to safeguard the wellness of their citizens, why can’t Nigeria do it?
It will be worthwhile that the provision in the Tobacco Control Act which permits DSAs in all outdoor public places, work places and on public transport is reviewed to conform to the emerging global standards that has the nod of the WHO. The overall benefits to this nation comes in form of improved work productivity, reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; and an incentive for smokers to quit can surely not be ignored.
Adelabu wrote in from Lagos
Felix Adelabu
Opinion
Professor Kamene Okonjo: A Life Beyond Motherhood
Quote “Professor Kamene Okonjo
Some women leave behind more t
Yet, to remember Professor Kam
Professor Okonjo was the belov
one of the most dramatic chapt
On December 14, 2012, the then
She leaves behind children, gr
Professor Kamene Okonjo deserv
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
On Ancestrial Worship: My Take
Quote: An African who invokes
This is the concluding part
… Given the fact that I was
At the end of the visit by the
Back to my apartment, at abo
Under normal circumstances, yo
That all she asks is that Chie
For some reason that I do not
I believe that everyone in hu
Our ancestors have not gone fa
By: Jason Osai
Opinion
FG’s Transport Support And Rivers Workers
The Federal Government’s approval of a N70,000 monthly transport intervention for public service workers for six months, beginning in November 2026, offers hope to employees struggling with the rising cost of living. The agreement with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), reached at a conciliation meeting in Abuja on October 27, is intended to cushion transport costs and ease pressure on workers’ incomes. But for public servants in Rivers State, it raises a familiar question: will the State Government key into the intervention and ensure that its workers benefit? The agreement provides for N70,000 monthly across all levels, for six months. The Federal Government also approved peculiar allowance arrears effective from May 1, 2026, to be paid in three equal instalments beginning in November.
The parties agreed to reconvene after one month to assess implementation. Ultimately, the value of these resolutions will be measured not by announcements but by whether eligible workers receive the money. Transport costs consume a substantial share of many civil servants’ earnings before they can meet household needs. Support for commuting is therefore not a luxury or political favour; it is temporary assistance to help workers remain at their jobs without sinking further into hardship. For lower-paid employees, transport costs can turn modest salaries into a daily exercise in difficult choices and sacrifice.
The agreement also urges State and Local Governments to participate and unions to press for implementation. The federal agreement does not automatically guarantee that every State and Local Government employee will receive the support. State authorities must clarify how it will apply to their workforce, make the necessary arrangements and publish a payment timetable. Rivers State must approach the arrangement with urgency and transparency. The Government should State whether it will implement the intervention and when payments will begin. Any administrative or financial question should be addressed promptly with organised labour, not allowed to become excuses for delay.
The concern is sharpened by the earlier N35,000 monthly wage award introduced by the Federal Government in 2023 after petrol subsidy removal. It was intended as temporary relief pending a new national minimum wage. While several States negotiated and paid wage awards or related sums, implementation nationwide was uneven. Reports in 2024 indicated that many States had failed to pay the federal award, while others provided different amounts. In Rivers, labour and media reports raised concerns about implementation of the N35,000 award for State workers, amid separate announcements and arrangements concerning Local Government employees.
The wage award was meant to ease the immediate effects of subsidy removal, yet workers faced uncertainty over whether the promised relief would reach them. In February 2024, the Rivers State Government announced approval of the N35,000 award for local government workers, but subsequent reports showed that implementation across worker categories remained a concern. The lesson is clear: approval and implementation are not the same. A declaration at a meeting offers little comfort to a worker whose account does not reflect the promised payment. For workers who travel to their offices daily, the implications of delayed support are significant. Transportation expenses compete with food, rent, school fees, healthcare and other essential household needs.
As fares rise, employees may be forced to reduce spending on necessities or borrow to sustain their families. A timely transport intervention would therefore provide practical relief and demonstrate that government understands the economic pressures confronting its workforce. Its temporary nature makes prompt implementation even more important. It is fair to acknowledge that this transport intervention is a new agreement and that its administrative details may require clarification. Rivers State should not be condemned in advance for a failure that has not occurred. Nevertheless, the earlier experience gives workers legitimate grounds to seek assurances before the November commencement date. The State should avoid allowing uncertainty to persist until workers begin asking why the promised assistance has not arrived.
The NLC and unions in Rivers State should engage the State Government immediately and seek a written commitment, an implementation plan and a process for reporting missed payments. If clarification from the Federal Government is needed, the State should seek it without abandoning the goal of providing relief. Labour leaders must also keep members informed about progress and insist that any agreed arrangements are applied fairly and transparently. The Rivers State Government should treat this intervention as an opportunity to rebuild confidence. Timely support would show that workers’ welfare is more than a talking point and that the State recognises the economic realities confronting its employees.
Silence, delay or selective implementation, by contrast, would revive frustration over earlier relief measures and weaken trust between government and labour. Every month lost to administrative delay leaves workers facing the same transport burden without the intended assistance. The State should consult labour, publish arrangements and pay eligible workers on time. Rivers workers should not have to wonder whether federal relief will reach them. The Federal Government has announced the support; now the State must make its position clear. We hope the N70,000 monthly transport intervention will not follow the troubling path of the earlier wage award. Rivers State should learn from that experience and ensure that this time, relief is not merely promised but delivered.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
Opinion4 days ago
Ancestorial Worship: My Take (1)
-
Education20 hours agoPAMO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY -Nullifies Arrest warrant on VC
-
Niger Delta20 hours ago
PANDEF Seeks 50% Oil Derivation Allocation Increase
-
Rivers19 hours ago
Don Seeks Repositioning Of Tech Education For Dev
-
Education20 hours agoIAUE MOVES TO END GHOST WORKERS SYNDROME AS 400 NEW NON-TEACHING STAFF UNDERGO MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING
-
News21 hours agoFresh Ebola Scare As NCDC Records Two Cases
-
News21 hours ago
Customs Partners EFCC, NDLEA, Others To Tackle Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing
-
News4 days agoFG Must Address Nigerians’ Concerns On Reforms -Shettima …Warns Against Misuse of AI, Social Media
