UK tobacco revenue appears to be steady or even rising even though consumption is down. link
Perhaps the politicians are managing to have their cake and eat it?
Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public places
- Thread starter The Don
- Start date
UK tobacco revenue appears to be steady or even rising even though consumption is down. link
Perhaps the politicians are managing to have their cake and eat it?
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,323
It took 20 years, but what they're doing just proves my assertion anti-smoking laws in public places aren't really about health but rather taking political advantage of "icky, icky smoke" sybdrome.
The health is the cover story meme while hurting and getting rid of those smokers, stinky guys, is the emotionally-motivating factor.
Nicotine is the addictive part. The cancer part is something else. Neither is really why these laws are here.
A couple of important points to bear in mind:
1) The NHS does not get money from tobacco sales;
2) Wales does not set and collect taxes.
Obviously if the UK as a whole collects less tax revenue the NHS and Welsh assembly may have their budgets reduced simply because there is less money to split between everyone who wants it, but there is no direct connection between the two. So it's rather silly to say that either the public health community or the Welsh government don't want to lose tobacco sales because it would damage their bottom line, since it's not their bottom line that would be damaged.
Still waiting for the evidence that e-cigarettes have an impact on other people's health.
1) The NHS does not get money from tobacco sales;
2) Wales does not set and collect taxes.
Obviously if the UK as a whole collects less tax revenue the NHS and Welsh assembly may have their budgets reduced simply because there is less money to split between everyone who wants it, but there is no direct connection between the two. So it's rather silly to say that either the public health community or the Welsh government don't want to lose tobacco sales because it would damage their bottom line, since it's not their bottom line that would be damaged.
Still waiting for the evidence that e-cigarettes have an impact on other people's health.
I disagree, the banning on smoking in public places is effective in reducing consumption for smokers and encouraging us to stop
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_upon_health
fagin
Philosopher
A couple of mine - don't really look anything like cigarettes, do they?
Don, on a pneumonia website it said it can be easily transmitted by particles like dust and water vapor. I made my comment out of seeming common sense. Air is less dense than any particulate carried by it. It would seem that by upping the particulate count, the more easy any germ, bacteria, etc could ride carried by such air.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
If politicians wanted to radically reduce smoking they'd ban tobacco. They don't, because they like and need the tax revenue. E-cigs are a threat to that revenue.
And unlike other illegal drugs a tobacco ban would be very effective, because tobacco requires lots of space to produce and smokers consume much more by weight per user than any illegal drug. For example an ounce of tobacco is consumed by a pack a day smoker in a single day. It takes even a heavy marijuana user a month to consume an ounce of marijuana. The amount of tobacco that would need to ne clandestinely produced and smuggled to maintain current use rates would be staggering, and order of magnitude over other illicit drugs.
It's generally polite to provide some context to a claim.
Then provide that link and demonstrate the risk.
Also demonstrate that e-cigarettes significantly increase the risk.
BTW, it's The Don, my name isn't Don or anything like it.
angrysoba
Philosophile
My guess is that in some cases (particularly Australia and some provinces of Canada - British Columbia), there really is a concerted effort to stamp out cigarette smoking.
Also, in this case we are talking about the Welsh Assembly and it appears that they do not get funded through tax on cigarettes but get paid by the UK government, suggesting that only very indirectly would the money come from there:
The U.S. experience with alcohol prohibition has shown that unilateral prohibition simply does not work. Unless a significant proportion of the world simultaneously bans tobacco products (and there's no indication that there's a desire for this) then the tobacco business will be in the hands of organised crime.
Politicians are also wary of expending political capital on what is likely to be an unpopular piece of legislation. Even assuming that it could be implemented effectively, banning of tobacco would be widely opposed by smokers, by those who view it as an intolerable infringement on personal freedoms and by those who are wary of the consequences of prohibition in terms of organised crime.
Instead, it seems that by persuading people to quit or never take up smoking in the first place, politicians in the UK are seeking to marginalise smoking and to reduce the impact on national health.
Levels of tobacco use reflect its current status, as a legal drug which is freely available. If tobacco was banned, usage patterns may align with other illegal drugs (most users using infrequently and sparingly) so there's no indication that the ban would be effective. Of course usage patterns could be similar to alcohol during prohibition in which case there will still be widespread use of illegal products.
Production would not need to be clandestine as long as tobacco is legal in most other countries, it then becomes a bulk smuggling challenge, something the UK smugglers seem to have mastered already if reports of the levels of illegal (non duty paid) cigarettes in the U.K. are to be believed.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
New Zealand has dropped it smoker rate from 30% in the 1990's to just 15% now, and is aiming for a smoke free NZ by 2025. It's better to convince people to stop, or never start, than banning it outright and then having to send huge amounts of money in policing said ban. Measures have included No Smoking in Workplaces, Banning of individual cigarette sales, hiding cigarettes from view in shops, serious anti-smoking campaigns along with a Government supported Quitline help service, and higher Taxes. Thy are looking at following Australia's lead into plain packaging.
After being a smoker for nearly 20 years in the US and getting up to a pack a day there, my fiancée took just three years in NZ to quit, and has now been smoke free for a year. These measures do work.
Okay...about The Don.
As far as proving to you, about what i said, just forget it and figure i`m a liar, if you question what i said. I aint going to keep hashing over some little niggly mention. I have many threads and posts to visit.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
These are showy initiatives that won't really cut into tobacco revenues by very much if at all. Smokers already know the product is deadly, but they are addicted. Now the push is on to keep these addicts from moving to less deadly e-cigs, or, failing that, impose the same punitive tax on e-cigs.
WildCat is right. This is all about money... nothing else.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/states-push-to-regulate-tax-booming-e-cigarette-industry/
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2471795/House-committee-approves-75-percent-tax-on-ecigarettes
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
In the US perhaps, but isn't everything in the US about money?
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2471795/House-committee-approves-75-percent-tax-on-ecigarettes
Nicotine is an extremely addictive and harmful drug. E-cigs allow addicts to continue 'smoking' without the expense and restrictions that are applied to regular cigarettes, so how does that help them to give it up? Answer - it doesn't.
E-cigs actually keep people addicted, which only helps tobacco companies. Damn right they should be taxed, and it's not just about the money.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Who do you think is making money here?
What do you say to statistics that already show a drop in rates of smoking because of regulation on smoking, banning in most public places, plain packaging, grisly pictures of dead bodies being mandatory decoration on the boxes, banning of advertising, etc...?
That Fox News article only says that "lawmakers in more than two dozen cash-strapped states are racing to regulate them as a new source of revenue. For some, this means tacking on an excise tax -- which is a fee on a specific product, and often dubbed a "sin tax" when applied to socially shunned products like cigarettes."
It frankly doesn't surprise me that in the US all of these policies are about money. But that doesn't seem to apply here for a very simple reason:
The Welsh Assembly doesn't raise money itself!
ETA: Besides, this initiative isn't about adding tax to e-cigarettes so you are comparing two separate issues.
Last edited:
I know something about cigarettes being an ex-addict. You are addicted to the nicotine, the habit, and....something overlooked... lighting one up. Many smokers like to have a fancy lighter to show off.
If they want to make more money, they need to invent one where you need to light it with a lighter. That way it seem more authentic.
And whats with these e-cigs that are starting to look like a bong?
My friend, whose computer i used to use from like 2003 to 2010 to post here at JREF...he quit and got a cig-looking e-type cig when they first came out, and it looked like a cig and glowed red at the tip, and made nice fake smoke.
You could fit the cig with filters at different nicotine levels to ween you down, if so desired, and filters to alter taste, like menthol, and other flavors.
He went back to smoking real cigarettes though. Lol
.
And i decided to add another idea; that if these were fitted with real, cottony/paper filter replacements, so that they`d feel like you had a real cig in your mouth, that TOO would be a real winner.
If they want to make more money, they need to invent one where you need to light it with a lighter. That way it seem more authentic.
And whats with these e-cigs that are starting to look like a bong?
My friend, whose computer i used to use from like 2003 to 2010 to post here at JREF...he quit and got a cig-looking e-type cig when they first came out, and it looked like a cig and glowed red at the tip, and made nice fake smoke.
You could fit the cig with filters at different nicotine levels to ween you down, if so desired, and filters to alter taste, like menthol, and other flavors.
He went back to smoking real cigarettes though. Lol
.
And i decided to add another idea; that if these were fitted with real, cottony/paper filter replacements, so that they`d feel like you had a real cig in your mouth, that TOO would be a real winner.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
Western countries have substantially reduced tobacco consumption over the past 50 years, but a rump population of smokers remains. They pay exorbitant taxes. In the US, under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco companies further contribute to public coffers in line with sales. The more cigarettes they sell, the more they pay.
E-cigs became a billion dollar industry last year, and growth is expected to continue to the point where sales will eventually surpass those of traditional tobacco products.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalie...es-surpass-1-billion-as-big-tobacco-moves-in/
Policy makers are alarmed by this trend. I see an overall strategy with two components:
One is to reduce the incentive for people to choose e-cigs over regular cigarettes, through public bans and similar measures.
Two is to demonize e-cigs so as to justify taxation at the same levels as tobacco products.
I have looked into this more or less carefully. I started a thread about this months ago, with quite a few links, and it is buried in the archives.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
More e-cig news:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57770988-78/cigarette-poisonings-calls-poison.html.csp
E-cigs are poisoning our children!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-fda-ecigarettes-idUSBREA321SC20140403
E-cigs are "an insidious strategy to addict our children to nicotine."
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57770988-78/cigarette-poisonings-calls-poison.html.csp
E-cigs are poisoning our children!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-fda-ecigarettes-idUSBREA321SC20140403
E-cigs are "an insidious strategy to addict our children to nicotine."
And yet public health bodies (in the UK at least) are working hard to get these people to quit. If it was just about money then taxes would be raised and nothing would be done to support people while they quit.
As Angrysoba points out, the measures you are deriding have had a significant impact on the rates of people quitting and far more importantly on the rates of people taking up smoking in the first place.