U.S. News Article

[Caesarea]

FDA quoted in the first article:


If that isn't among the stupidest goddam things I've ever heard I'm a monkey's uncle, notwithstanding Bob's, erm, mini conspiracy theory, with which I somewhat agreeing.

I don't think Bob's theory is a conspiracy theory. Look at the millions Next has poured into their research. They will want to harvest the fruit of it.

[Kitabz]

Law by law, users will be driven from tobacco addiction to Big Pharma products that will sustain nicotine addiction.

The only flaw with this argument is what happens when the present day generation dies off? If we follow the argument that traditional tobacco will become weaker (less nicotine), be less available (social restrictions) and be more expensive (taxes), how/why will future generations even start? Without a steady stream of nicotine addicts, big pharma has no consumers.

In many ways the present situation (arguably 10 years ago was better) is ideal because you've got tax revenue, tobacco revenue & NRT revenue all from the same group of people. With further restrictions all of the present day beneficiaries lose as smoking passes into history.

[Caesarea]

The only flaw with this argument is what happens when the present day generation dies off? If we follow the argument that traditional tobacco will become weaker (less nicotine), be less available (social restrictions) and be more expensive (taxes), how/why will future generations even start? Without a steady stream of nicotine addicts, big pharma has no consumers.(big snip).

Think of the worldwide picture.

Also think of the many secret consumers who lie or are lied for in order to preserve themselves from stigma.

smoking passes into history.

Might take quite a while....people are still growing tobacco...

[Kitabz]

Think of the worldwide picture.

Also think of the many secret consumers who lie or are lied for in order to preserve themselves from stigma.

Might take quite a while....people are still growing tobacco...

Yes, that's rather my point (well not the worldwide bit necessarily).

What I was trying to say (badly) was that the view that tobacco will become increasingly unavailable/unacceptable/unaffordable and that addicts will be driven into the NRT arms of big pharma is NOT LIKELY.

This is because it would ultimately [long term] be the end of revenue for BP, BT & BG (who presently enjoy a symbiotic relationship). Big pharma needs big tobacco to supply the next generation of their consumers. No-one is going to take up chewing Nicorette for the fun of it (unlike smoking).
Big government needs the taxes just 'cos they always do!

[Caesarea]

Yes, that's rather my point (well not the worldwide bit necessarily).

What I was trying to say (badly) was that the view that tobacco will become increasingly unavailable/unacceptable/unaffordable and that addicts will be driven into NRT arms of big pharma is NOT LIKELY.

This is because it would ultimately [long term] be the end of revenue for BP, BT & BG (who presently enjoy a symbiotic relationship). Big pharma needs big tobacco to supply the next generation of their consumers. No-one is going to take up chewing Nicorette for the fun of it (unlike smoking).
Big government needs the taxes just 'cos they always do!

I can't see anything to stop BP, BT, BG and BigPsy fusing. Their interests are becoming identical.