The law was odd because of the way it was implemented. Smoking was allowed outside of public places and importing of cigarettes was allowed in small quantities. The king, it was rumoured, hadn’t given up smoking himself. On arriving, a policeman at the first checkpoint we went through on the way from the airport asked if we had any cigarettes – not to check if we were breaking the law, but to ask if he could have one. Nor was the law enforced particularly well. Many people smoked in the pub we frequented (they’d all bought their cigarettes on the black market), which made it much more difficult to avoid inhaling smoke.
The Tobacco Control Act, a new set of laws, was put in place at the beginning of this year and my first instinct was to be glad that the police were taking them more seriously. Recently, a monk was arrested for carrying tobacco back from India without a tax receipt. The fact that the first person arrested was a monk raises its own questions. How does smoking fit with the philosophy of a religion that teaches its followers that the pursuit of pleasures leads to unhappiness? Should a man who is governed by such strict religious laws be subjected to the additional laws of people who live with excess?
Both these questions are dwarfed by the question of the punishment itself. The accused monk is looking at five years in prison for this breach. That seems like a good way to ruin the life of a man who just indulged in a minor pleasure. It’s been a few years since I was in Bhutan, so I think it’s worth looking at this issue through the eyes of Bhutanese locals.
PaSsu, with tongue firmly in cheek, believes that his whole village will be unable to function without tobacco so they may as well put a prison wall around the whole village. Sonam Ongmo laments the loss of freedom that made Bhutan a Shangri-La before recent attempts to control those freedoms, ironically in the name of creating a Shangri-La. PaSsu believes that the laws were put in place for religious reasons, which violates the constitution, and increases the irony that a monk was first to fall victim to the laws. Sonam Ongmo questions the loss of tolerance, which was such a Buddhist trait, and has faith that the laws will be repealed.
When the laws are driven by international agreements with organisations like WHO, I wonder how easily they can be repealed. Bhutanese laws aren’t on the radar for most of us, but I’m sure leaders from these organisations and from other developing nations will be watching to see what happens. Would the WHO be embarrassed by a repeal? Would their influence be reduced? Will this just be considered an experimental step, with success or failure leading to a refined set of laws for the next country to try banning tobacco? And why hasn’t doma been included? Is it considered cultural in a way that tobacco isn’t or is it just that it doesn’t fall within the global view of the WHO?