Attitudes towards the smoking of cigarettes and the consumption of alcohol may be used to illustrate typical African ethics. Apart from the fact that smoking has now been linked with the lung cancer disease, the African moralist has always regarded smoking as an indication of moral degradation. A number of people have accepted the moralist ideaon smoking. Some have refrained from smoking and those who could influence others, such as parents and religious leaders, have also exerted their influence to prevent others from smoking. On the other hand, a good many people have remained indifferent to the moralist view and have continued to smoke. The same argument has been applied to the consumption of alcohol. The African moralist, basing his judgement on the behaviour of a few alcoholics, tends to regard the habit of taking alcohol as a sign of wretchedness. The moralist holds the view that anybody who forms the habit of consuming alcohol will never do well in life. While this may be true in respect of a few people in the society, the fear of the moralist has not been justified. However, the economist is primarily interested in the habit of smoking and the consumption of alcohol and alcohol in so far as they give satisfaction to smokers and drinkers and so generate supply of and demand for tobacco and alcohol. The economist is interested in knowing how many packets of cigarettes are consumed and to what extent an increase or fall in consumption could affect production that is, supply. Similarly, he is interested in how much beer is consumed and how the supply of beer will adjust to the demand for it. He examines the habits and the pressures which can lead to the readjustment of wants and the reallocation of resources to cover the wants.

  Some moral principles associated with religion tend to lead on to economic problems. Followers of certain religions are expected not to consume pork, take alcohol or smoke tobacco. Devotees of some religious groups, on the other hand, can eat pork, while others are expected to abstain from alcohol and smoking. Strict observance of these moral rules could cripple the breweries, the cigarette factories and some businesses however, there seems to be a growing number of alcohol consumers and cigarette smokers- a development which should be of interest to the economist.

Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill more teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost doubled for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.

Who could disagree with Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable'? In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?

It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasised violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young, then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effect. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?