Spoken by a true social engineer. Let me break your eugenic based logic down. 1, Increased taxes = increased smuggling. Case in point both Canada and NY
2. Limiting Marketing = what are you going to limit now, it’s almost invisible? It's been done for decades so what doesn't currently work you should expand?
3. Lawsuits against tobacco companies = just another cost passed on to the consumer leading to a larger underground network. Besides gov’t has pretty well wasted that tool with the MSA.
4, Strong public health policies = Oh yes, the ?non-profit?"health" associations increasing their bloated salaries pushing their client, Big Pharma's goods. It's worked well for CEOs Cheryl Healton, American Legacy Foundation ($750,000 + annual pay), Donald Thomas, ACS Deputy ($1,000,000,000+), Matthew Myers, CFTFK ($250,000 +), Nancy Brown/M. Cass Wheeler American Heart Association ($1,500,000 +), or a team of ALA regional executives making $3,000,000 plus in annual salary fighting the good fight. These people have no desire to cut off the money supply by eliminating smoking, just fighting "hard" against smoking.
As a side note, South Dakota was close to banning smoking in the state back in 2003 or there about, Passed the heath committee and went up for a vote, A number of those on the health committee voted for the ban at that level, but changed their vote when it went to the House a few days later. Why? The ?non-profit?"health" associations lobbied against the ban stating it would be counter-productive. In other words, their job security would be threatened.
5, Websites, coupons and promotions, generic packaging = violation of freedom of commerce. They can't even control what's sold on the net for illegal drugs and you want to ban access to legal products and promotions for those legal products? Spoken by a true Tobacco Control extremist.
6. Severely limiting the marketing of alternative forms of tobacco products like smokeless pouches = THE BIG LIE! and part of the blue print to insure smoking doesn't be replaced by products far safer than inhaling combustibles. If you thought the tobacco companies lied, you haven't seen anything when it comes to the lies perpetuated about smokeless tobacco products. I'm not talking some of the less environmentally friendly smokeless products. I believed the lies, as many were led to believe that smokeless was as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous than smoking. It's just not the truth and the anti-smoking, turned anti-tobacco, turned anti-nicotine (other the BP sold nicotine) zealots have perpetuated the myth.
If you truly wish to reduce the harm done by inhaling combustibles TELL THE TRUTH! Publish and promote relative risk. When you promote nicotine and Smokeless tobacco products that have 99% less risk than smoking, you are advancing the smokefree goal. Instead of attacking the smoker you are providing avenues for them to move beyond smoking. Without this approach the ?non-profit?"health" organizations will be around for the next 1,200 years getting rich on the same old story.
Finally, not to find some merit in your post, I see great promise in moving cigarettes out of the convenience store market and into a controlled setting such as with alcohol retailers. This has it's negatives (black market) implications, but it adds a level of security not currently exercised.
As a matter of full disclosure, I don't hide my identity behind a screen name, I have no financial interest other than a significant holding in the pharmaceutical industry (I am not opposed to the BP industry in total, but oppose the ridiculous profits they've made on ineffective NRT products. I was a 43 year smoker who over a year and a half ago went from a 2-3 pack a day habit with the use of E Cigs for a time, then Swedish snus as I educated myself on the risks. In three weeks, I shall not have had a puff on a smoke in a year, a painless enjoyable journey I might add.
