A Concise Summation of What the Drug Companies Have At Stake In the War to PROTECT SMOKING

rolygate;12945163 said:

It's worth pointing out that FDA regulations (or anything else similar) has no relation whatsoever to ecig safety, public safety, public health, protecting children, or anything else like that. It's all about money and nothing else.

The smoking economy is worth over $1 trillion a year and will eventually take a massive hit from ecigs. How much is just a guess, but given time (20 or 30 years perhaps) then a 60% reduction in the smoking economy is very likely.

What is the smoking economy? It's all the funds generated by smoking and all the people who depend on that money. The list is very long, and everyone in the chain has a financial interest in protecting smoking - otherwise their jobs disappear or they take big pay cuts. Everyone from State Attorneys General to 'public health' groups such as cancer organizations depends on smoking. National governments, State economies, and city budgets depend on the tax revenues to balance the books. The States are in the worst position of all as they depend on the immense MSA payments to stave off bankruptcy - and those payments are already starting to slide (way ahead of the expected date these payments would react to shrinking cigarette sales caused by growing ecig sales).

All laws banning ecigs, all regulations restricting ecigs, all legislation affecting ecigs, and all voices heard speaking against ecigs are created by or dependent on the smoking economy. Public health is irrelevant, it's all about the money, has always been about the money, and will always be about the money.

Please don't be fooled into thinking that health is important - nothing is of less importance to regulators than your health. Please don't be fooled into thinking that science and evidence are important - these things are completely irrelevant to legislators. All they are concerned with is their mortgage, and the smoking economy pays that. Smoking and pharma are protected, and that's all there is to it.

You need to vote for someone who will do something about it - or just suck it up, it's what you voted for.

Click to expand...

rolygate;12944437 said:

The pharmaceutical industry doesn't care about smoking cessation drugs except as an indicator to how their real smoking-related markets will react.

Yes, NRTs and psychoactive drugs for smoking cessation are a ~$5 billion annual global market, but this is chump change compared to the main channels: (1) sick smoker treatment drugs and (2) the boost to general drug sales caused by smokers. Smoking creates at least 10% of pharma's gross income and it could even be as high as 15% or 20%.

1. The sick smoker drugs are immensely profitable as a near-monopoly situation exists: chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs, vascular drugs etc. All these will take a 60% hit eventually although there is a long time-lag in this market.

2. There is an enormous boost to general drug sales caused by smokers: diabetes, cholesterol, bronchitis and blood pressure drugs are examples. This is because a smoker is >40% more likely to be diabetic. The same applies to other conditions many drugs are sold to treat. These conditions can't be cured so the customers are permanent. Smokers will always need inhalers, diabetes meds etc. This market reacts faster than for example the chemotherapy drugs market.

In addition there are other income channels such as OTC meds that are boosted by smoking.

These huge income channels (possibly worth $200bn a year), plus the close integration of pharma with the legislative and regulatory systems, are the reasons why pharma is the strongest and most effective opponent of THR [tobacco harm reduction] products such as ecigs. It's why they fund a range of front groups to promote their agenda: ban/restrict ecigs, in order to protect their income by protecting smoking. It's why cancer 'health' orgs are in the strange position of protecting and promoting cancer by helping to block ecigs - these groups are controlled by pharma. They pay the CEO $1m a year to keep the faith, so don't expect any honest 'cancer health' orgs anytime soon. They all need to protect smoking, it's the gravy train that pays all their mortgages.

[edit]
And I suppose it's worth adding that the reason why this is allowed is because anything connected to smoking is essentially a free-fire zone: smokers are considered already dead or addicts without rights. Industries can profit from smokers or restrict smokers in ways that would be impossible in other market areas. Smokers are basically considered to be an already-dead tax and profit source. Smokers have no rights, and ex-smokers have no rights either.

Click to expand...