EU UK politicians against e-cigs

[Mutts]

Last time I looked the UK govt received £18 billion in tobacco and related revenues (pharmaceuticals etc). Smoking costs the NHS £2.3 billion per year. The politicians quietly trouser the remaining £15.5 billion not that they make a song and dance about it of course.

The truth is no politician worth his expenses would dare lose such a revenue stream even if, rather inconveniently, it costs the lives of 6,000 smokers a year. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

[Mutts]

Further to this post I include this article by Professor Peter Hajek, Wolfson taken from The Times if it is of interest.

"The UK wants to regulate e-cigarettes as a medicinal device to protect the profits of tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. Studies on e-cigarettes prove that all dangerous toxins present in conventional cigarettes are absent in e-cigarettes. Nicotine itself is safer than caffeine. Smokers are killed by the other chemicals inhaled through burning tobacco. Right now e-cigarettes are a little crude but if left to develop rapid improvements will mean that within a few years they will entirely replace conventional cigarettes. Obviously the tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical companies making fortunes out of cigarette and stop smoking products do not want this. They would prefer people die so that they can continue to reap their obscene profits.
So the UK, lobbied hard by such companies, is considering regulating e-cigarettes as a medicinal device. Medical licensing is a very expensive process accessible only to such huge companies and it is likely to freeze all development of e-cigarettes in their present ‘not-very-good-state’ because 1, any changes to the product require exorbitant license renewals and 2, neither organisations want to see the e-cigarettes be improved.
The case for regulating e-cigarettes as medicinal devices is the equivalent of regulating coffee machines as medicinal devices. And if they did regulate them surely conventional cigarettes would also have to be regulated! Cripple e-cigarette devices and the UK will protect the lethal conventional cigarette market – profitable death. Scarcely believable that our government would allow this to happen."

As précised from a letter to The Times by:
Professor Peter Hajek, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicin. Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry

 

[noel18]

No doubt politicians are hypocrites. Unfortunately, the job is very lucrative at the citizens expense. Ben Franklin warned of this.
' Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true source of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.'

 

[Robino1]

Moved from Simple Solutions to EU Legislation

 

[Nate760]

The most wildly successful lie ever promulgated by the "tobacco control" movement is the one that says "Smokers have to be taxed inordinately because they cost the state so much more money than nonsmokers." Not only isn't it true, it's the complete opposite of the truth.

 

[BEARDEDAl53]

I think the UK Govt quoted stats for smoking related deaths (if you believe them!) is 80,000 per year . Makes the illogical lack of genuine support from them even more nonsensical .

We have it better than most countries(UK) ,at least there is not an openly hostile Govt campaign that exists in many countries. That of course excludes government funded campaigning "charities" like ASH et al

 

[Nate760]

I think the UK Govt quoted stats for smoking related deaths (if you believe them!) is 80,000 per year.

In other words, even if that number is accurate, it means the percentage of British smokers killed by smoking each year is less than one-seventh of one percent. Which kind of highlights the absurdity of the ANTZ mantra that says "50% of smokers die as a direct result of smoking." If there are 12 million smokers in the UK, that means 6 million of them should be expected to die from smoking. At 80,000 deaths per year, it would take 75 years to kill all of them. Which means, of course, that you have to take people who lived well into their 90s and 100s and classify them as "premature smoking-related deaths."

 

[BEARDEDAl53]

In other words, even if that number is accurate, it means the percentage of British smokers killed by smoking each year is less than one-seventh of one percent. Which kind of highlights the absurdity of the ANTZ mantra that says "50% of smokers die as a direct result of smoking." If there are 12 million smokers in the UK, that means 6 million of them should be expected to die from smoking. At 80,000 deaths per year, it would take 75 years to kill all of them. Which means, of course, that you have to take people who lived well into their 90s and 100s and classify them as "premature smoking-related deaths."

Another source of manipulation of the smoking related deaths comes via hospitals and coroners (recently + to justify SHS(Second Hand Smoke) arguments)

Questions of relatives could range from

Was the deceased a smoker ? lived with a smoker ?worked with a smoker ?etc etc . Stats can be manipulated to suit the agenda of the day ,depends on the ?

Just on the mention of costs that you made above . The UK NHS was recently bleating about it had helped 146K people quit over a 10 year period

Not only is this a miserable 14,600 per year but cost of successful treatment (quit) which they hid from their statistics worked out at a staggering £74,000/year ($116k)

 

[Nate760]

Just on the mention of costs that you made above . The UK NHS was recently bleating about it had helped 146K people quit over a 10 year period

Not only is this a miserable 14,600 per year but cost of successful treatment (quit) which they hid from their statistics worked out at a staggering £74,000/year ($116k)

I'll bet more than 146,000 people (which would be around 1.2% of the UK smoking population) have quit with the aid of vapor products in the last three years, at no cost to the NHS.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I'll bet more than 146,000 people (which would be around 1.2% of the UK smoking population) have quit with the aid of vapor products in the last three years, at no cost to the NHS.

I wouldn't bet against you. I wonder if any ANTZ would.

 

[Rizzyking]

The tobacco companys both recognise and accept the tobacco product is a dying revenue stream in the west and they are scrambling to get into the electronic cigarette market. Our biggest threat in the UK comes from the pharmaceutical companies they are petrified of losing the huge ongoing revenue stream that is NRT to the NHS a product that has been widely discredited but continues as the pharmaceutical companies sabotage any other option. Most politicians want nothing to do with this issue until there are further studies but even amongst those that are taking part in the issue they favour tax, an age limit and quality regulations on liquid and to a lesser degree on hardware. There is zero chance of an ecig ban in the UK but that threat is one most are happy to encourage as we'll be happy when we just end up with a taxation level and amount of regulation.

 

[rolygate]

Further to this post I include this article by Professor Peter Hajek, Wolfson taken from The Times if it is of interest.

"The UK wants to regulate e-cigarettes as a medicinal device to protect the profits of tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. .........

I'd really like to see a link to this, please.

 

[rolygate]

Last time I looked the UK govt received £18 billion in tobacco and related revenues (pharmaceuticals etc). Smoking costs the NHS £2.3 billion per year. The politicians quietly trouser the remaining £15.5 billion not that they make a song and dance about it of course.

Gov gets about £12 billion a year from tobacco tax revenue at point of sale. No one knows what their total tax revenue from tobacco is, that is to say all the many channels generated by cigarette sales, as there are so many. It's difficult to list them all:

tobacco tax revenue at point of sale

income tax from retail staff whose employment exists because of tobacco sales
ditto transport and warehousing staff
ditto tobacco company employees
ditto pharmaceutical company employees
ditto hospital and health service staff

corporation tax from tobacco companies
ditto retail companies
ditto transport and warehousing companies
ditto pharmaceutical companies
ditto private hospital and health service companies

Add to that insurance staff and companies, as some tax revenue will be attributable to smoking-generated funds.
Add to that other stuff I haven't taken into account as the list is too long.

Now add some very large amounts indeed from pharmaceutical sales generated by smoking: about 15% of all tax received from pharma, in fact. I don't know what this comes to but it's hundreds of millions at least.

£18 billion is probably on the low side once you add it all up.

Now double it - yes, double it - for savings gov makes: in a fully socialised state such as the UK, gov makes vast savings from people dying 10 years early. (People can argue about the loss of lifespan attributable to smoking, the deathrate, and the illness rate - but you can't have it both ways: either smoking kills and causes early death - and thus massive savings for government; and causes widescale illness - and thus massive revenues for pharma, which in addition generates tax for gov; or it doesn't - in which case there is no reason to tax it and ban it in public areas.)

We reckon that gov saves £7.5 billion *just on pensions* due to early deaths. Now add the same again for savings on social care costs for the elderly: that's healthcare, social support, etc. Now add more again for savings I haven't included due to the list being so long.

In the end, you get a gov profit of about £25 billion a year from smoking, maybe even £30bn. That's a hell of a big hole to fill if someone comes along and fixes smoking.

The truth is no politician worth his expenses would dare lose such a revenue stream even if, rather inconveniently, it costs the lives of 6,000 smokers a year. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

According to Prof West, the figure is 6,000 lives would be saved per year per million smokers who switch to ecigs. He reckons there are 8 million smokers in the UK; others say up to 10 million.

He also doesn't appear to agree that 80,000 a year die in England annually from smoking (it's often said to be 80,000 for England and 100,000 a year for the UK in total). By working various figures he has provided backwards, it looks as if he thinks about 60,000 a year die from smoking in England. He seems to think that about 6,750 die per year per million smokers, and a worst-case scenario is that 6,000 of those lives would be saved per million smokers who switch. 'Worst case' meaning that he thinks the maximum possible death rate from vaping would be 750 per year per million vapers.

It's kind of hard to see how a deathrate that high would be possible unless people started vaping plutonium, but never mind. About 100 to 1,000 a year if every single smoker switched is a more believable number, as you first need to find some sort of way these people would develop terminal diseases of some kind. Maybe ecig charger fires at night is the presumed method of death.

 

[rolygate]

And also we need to stop talking about NRT sales and the like as having any real value to pharma - it's a monster red herring and nothing more. NRT sales are just a tiny fraction of the immense revenue generated for them by smoking. I'll try to list all the channels, but the list is so long I'm bound to forget something...

There are multiple revenue channels, and smoking cessation meds is the smallest of all of them (by a long way). Smoking generates *at least* 10% of pharmaceutical industry global revenue and it's more likely to be 15%. That's 15% of the $1 trillion gross pharma will make this year globally. That's $150 billion.

1. Drugs to treat serious illness
This is a hugely profitable channel: chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs etc.
If you've ever had to pay for cancer treatment in the USA before getting an insurance repayment of the cost, you'll know that one single cancer drug treatment can cost over $1,000.

This is probably the biggest income channel that smoking generates for pharma.


2. Overall drug sales boost
This immense income channel is caused by smokers becoming ill and requiring drug treatments for 'ordinary' illnesses.
A smoker is >40% more likely to be diabetic than average. A 1PAD smoker is >60% more likely to be diabetic than average.
Multiply this by numerous other illnesses with highly profitable treatment drugs: cholesterol, blood pressure, etc etc. General drug sales get a massive boost from smoking.


3. OTC drug sales boost
Smokers buy a lot more OTC meds and general treatments in pharmacies than the average person.
Think bronchitis, cough medicines, much higher incidence of coughs and colds requiring patent cold cures, etc.
Smokers make pharmacists rich.


4. Smoking cessation meds
Just chump change compared to the other channels - but the fastest to react to any fall in the number of smokers, *especially* when that fall is due to other cessation methods being used.

Pharmaceutical interventions for smoking cessation are split into two groups: NRTs and similar, and psychotropic drugs.
NRTs include nicotine skin patches, nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler, and meds such as A.cig that include a tobacco alkaloid such as anatabine but no nicotine, or not as the principal active ingredient.
Psychotropics include varenicline, bupropion etc.
Not a huge market but certainly measured in billions globally. Chump change compared to the other channels. Quick to see any effect from 'competitor products' such as ecigs.


MVP
The Most Valuable Property of all to pharma, of course, is their right and their ability to decide health policy. That is something that although intangible is worth more than everything else put together - because it is the key to profitability. They'll fight to the death to protect that.

Not sure what I mean by 'pharma's right to decide health policy'? It means the way they own the people who make health policy, and the way they make policy that suits them, and the way that nothing ever harms them. No major policy decision will ever hurt pharma income, no matter the cost in lives. This is pharma's most valuable property.