No subject

If cigarette consumption per capita in 1994-95 had remained the same as in 1992-93, and the money that was spent on cigarettes in that year had gone to food, Dhaka residents could have consumed almost 15% more meat, 14% more milk or 79% more eggs. 

Discussion
If national economic improvements lead to greater expenditure on tobacco but not on food, then the benefit of the economic growth will be erased. Increased spending power is not sufficient to guarantee improvements in well being, particularly where tobacco companies advertise their products freely to an uneducated public. In Bangladesh, where tobacco prices remained low and advertising proliferated, the most significant spending change over the years was in more money going to cigarettes, rather than food. In that situation, reducing taxes on tobacco products may be regressive, as it provides an incentive for more poor people to use tobacco and to spend more of their income on tobacco.12 13 As others have also observed, since the poor are more responsive to price and thus more likely to reduce usage or quit when prices increase, they may actually save money when taxes increase.14-16 

UNICEF estimates that Bangladesh loses the equivalent of more than 5% of its gross national product in lost lives, disability, and productivity caused by malnutrition.17 Malnutrition is blamed for the deaths of over 700 children under age 5 each day in Bangladesh.18 In 1995-96, 60% of Bangladeshi children aged between 6 months and 6 years were malnourished (deficient height-for-age, weight-for-height, or both).11 For those who survive, lifelong impairment can result, including poor physical and mental ability, more illness, and little ability to be economically productive. 

Half of the poor consume between 1805 and 2122 calories per day.8 For this group, 400 additional calories or less per day would bring them into sufficiency. For those consuming less than 1805 calories, more than 400 additional calories are needed. In either case, the average tobacco user could provide sufficient calories to cross the poverty line as measured by caloric intake. This means that each tobacco user represents one or more peoplewhether the smoker or his wife or childwho is needlessly going hungry. 

If the poor stopped using tobacco and re-allocated just 69%the percentage of income going to food in the lowest income groupsof their tobacco expenditures to food, then over 10.5 million fewer people would be malnourished, about half of whom had been below the "hard core" poverty line of less than 1805 calories/day. In addition, half of the children currently dying daily from malnutrition350 childrencould be saved if their parents redirected their tobacco money to food. This translates to 127 750 fewer deaths of children under age 5 per year. 

While it is true that not all savings from tobacco would be reallocated to basic needs if a poor person stops using tobacco, it is also certain that the money spent on tobacco will not be spent on food. Given the high rates of tobacco use among the poor, even if a fairly small percentage reallocated their spending to food, the benefits in terms of improved nutrition and children's health would be considerable. 

Some economists, particularly in the USA,14 would argue that people should be allowed to make free choices about their personal expenditures, no matter how it affects them and their families. However, there are various flaws to that argument. First, increasing tobacco taxes does not represent coercion; there is no clear conflict between raising taxes and respecting people's free choice. Second, a conflict with free choice comes with the addictive nature of tobacco: once a person becomes addicted, he or she can no longer be said to choose freely whether or not to spend money on tobacco. Tobacco advertising, while not coercion, influences purchasing decisions, particularly in the absence of information about the harm of tobacco; the combination of a comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion, some mass education, and increased taxes would encourage the poor to spend their money more wisely. Third, freedom of choice does not supersede other human rights; governments have the right, and one may even suggest the obligation, to encourage the poor to utilise their scarce resources for basic goods for themselves and their family, rather than on items like tobacco and alcohol. More emphasis needs to be paid to the need to increase tobacco taxes while safeguarding the situation of the poor.13 

CONCLUSION
The tobacco companies argue that increasing tobacco taxes is regressive. This is not necessarily so, as economists have shown.12 13 It is no service to the poor to encourage them to become addicted to tobacco products, by allowing advertising and maintaining a low price. Despiteor in fact because oftobacco prices remaining fairly stable in Bangladesh, per capita expenditure on tobacco has increased significantly. The tobacco companies argue for the right to smoke, but such a right needs to be balanced against the right of smokers' wives and children to eat. Industry officials argue that tobacco consumption is not a problem in Africa because life expectancy is low in many countries.19 20 Part of the reason for this is poverty. Long before serious tobacco related illness sets in, tobacco wreaks its damage via the pocketbook. If the price of tobacco were raised, the poor would be likely to consume less tobacco and spend less on tobacco. Banning tobacco promotion could further enhance this effect. The poorest tobacco users who continue to smoke could switch from cigarettes to bidis or other cheaper tobacco products, so the taxes would not further harm their already precarious financial situation. While the government of Bangladesh is not currently considering raising the tobacco tax, it is considering tobacco control legislation. Governments should be made aware of the beneficial fiscal aspects of tobacco tax increases, and of strategies for ensuring, in situations where cheaper tobacco is not available, that such increases will not harm the poor.