PMI cites e-cigs as reason for 10.8% decline in cigarette consumption in Poland, cites declining e-cig sales as reason for .1% cigarette decline in It

[Bill Godshall]

Philip Morris International reports .4% ovreall cigarette volume decline (i.e. 41.2 million pack decline) in 3Q14
PMI.com Event Details

But note that PMI reported the following impact of e-cig sales on cigarette consumption in Italy and Poland.

“In Italy, the total cigarette market of 20.1 billion units decreased by 0.1%, mainly reflecting a lower incidence of e-vapor products and continued growth of the low-price segment.”

“In Poland, the total cigarette market of 11.3 billion units decreased by 10.8%, reflecting the prevalence of e-cigarettes, illicit trade and non-duty paid OTP products.”

 

[Bill Godshall]

Per my posting above, does anyone know if Italy implemented a tax on e-cigs (as one was previously proposed), and if so, how much?
Also, has Italy banned vaping in workplaces, or has Italy imposed any other regulations on e-cigs?
Something has caused e-cig sales to either stagnate or decline in Italy during the past quarter.

It is my understanding that Poland hasn't taxed or imposed any other unwarranted regulations on e-cigs, and that e-cig sales continue to skyrocket in Poland.

If anyone has additional information about e-cig regulations or news media coverage of e-cigs in Italy or Poland, please post.

 

[LoveVanilla]

Per my posting above, does anyone know if Italy implemented a tax on e-cigs (as one was previously proposed), and if so, how much?
Also, has Italy banned vaping in workplaces, or has Italy imposed any other regulations on e-cigs?
Something has caused e-cig sales to either stagnate or decline in Italy during the past quarter.

It is my understanding that Poland hasn't taxed or imposed any other unwarranted regulations on e-cigs, and that e-cig sales continue to skyrocket in Poland.

If anyone has additional information about e-cig regulations or news media coverage of e-cigs in Italy or Poland, please post.

Yes, please post. This is potentially HUGE information.

 

[Nate760]

From The Lancet (31 May of this year): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60908-9/fulltext

The Italian legislation on e-cigarette use in public places turned over three times within 6 months, during which time the evidence on the indoor pollution related to electronic smoking did not vary substantially. In June, 2013, e-cigarettes were banned from public places by a law decree. In September, 2013, a new law allowed e-cigarette smoking both indoors and outdoors, with the exclusion of schools. 3 months later, the Italian Parliament approved another e-cigarette ban, together with a 200% increase in taxation. Finally, because of controversies around norms included in the Government decree, unrelated to smoking, such regulation was then withdrawn by the government.

From nicotinepolicy.net (18 August this year): E-cigarette taxation threat in Italy

The Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance is currently considering a new decree that will tax e-cigarettes and drive up their costs, making them less financially attractive for users, and damaging the e-cigarette market.

The positive aspect of the tax proposals is that non-combusted tobacco and other inhaled nicotine products will be taxed and treated differently to regular cigarettes, due to their potential reduced risk profile. This means that current tobacco regulations will not apply to e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products (although these are not yet on the market). Manufacturers will thus be free to advertise products, and consumers will be allowed to use them in public places.

The decree was discussed on 31st July 31 by the Council of Ministers and will be discussed by the Parliament for formal approval in September. This should be good news to advocates of tobacco harm reduction - those in public health who believe that smokers can benefit by switching to consuming nicotine without the accompanying smoke from cigarettes.

In brief, the decree arbitrarily equates 10 ml of e-liquid to 80 cigarettes, and then proposes a tax for e-cigarettes equal to 60% of the excise paid on regular cigarettes. As cigarettes are taxed at 133.12 Euro per 1000 cigarettes, the excise on 80 cigarettes is around 10.65 Euro. Therefore, the tax on a 10 ml e-liquid will be 6.39 Euro (60% of 10.65 Euro). Given that the retail price of a 10 ml e-liquid bottle is currently around 6 Euro, the price including the new tax will effectively double the price and be devastating for e-cigarette users and a deathblow to the liquids’ businesses that feed the predominantly 2^nd and 3^rd generation e-cigarette market in Italy.

 

[DrMA]

So, FUD and arbitrary alarmist regulation of PVs in Italy have successfully protected the cigarette market. Whereas, the absence of regulation and propaganda in Poland allowed the vapor market to expand at its natural pace resulting in one of the largest year-to-year decline in the cigarette market ever posted.

Now look at the graphic for Spain (slide 7), where a large decline for cigarettes was recorded for 2013, and that decline dropped dramatically for 2014 following the sustained negative and disingenuous PR campaign perpetrated by the Spanish ANTZ.

What does all of this add up to? Incontrovertible proof that ANTZ lies and misinformation and misguided regulations cause people to go back to or continue smoking rather than switching to an alternative that's 100-1000 times safer. Thus, more evidence that any anti-vaping activity is gross public health malpractice, tantamount to the attempted murder of 1.24 billion smokers worldwide.

 

[Nate760]

What does all of this add up to? Incontrovertible proof that ANTZ lies and misinformation and misguided regulations cause people to go back to or continue smoking rather than switching to an alternative that's 100-1000 times safer. Thus, more evidence that any anti-vaping activity is gross public health malpractice, tantamount to the attempted murder of 1.24 billion smokers worldwide.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when a policy has the exact opposite of the intended effect, it's probably a bad policy. In every country and every jurisdiction, when onerous restrictions are placed on vapor products, decreases in cigarette consumption either level off or stop altogether. This is not a matter of creatively interpreting study results or cherry-picking of data. We're talking about hard statistical evidence that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that anti-vaping policies result in more people smoking and fewer people quitting.

 

[DrMA]

That's right, Nate. These facts go beyond simple correlation. They are definitive proof of a causal relationship between interference with the vapor market and maintenance of the cigarette market.

 

[Kent C]

The Italian legislation on e-cigarette use in public places turned over three times within 6 months, during which time the evidence on the indoor pollution related to electronic smoking did not vary substantially. In June, 2013, e-cigarettes were banned from public places by a law decree. In September, 2013, a new law allowed e-cigarette smoking both indoors and outdoors, with the exclusion of schools. 3 months later, the Italian Parliament approved another e-cigarette ban, together with a 200% increase in taxation. Finally, because of controversies around norms included in the Government decree, unrelated to smoking, such regulation was then withdrawn by the government.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60908-9/fulltext#bib1

 

[Spazmelda]

I wonder if someone could do a research paper analyzing smoking rates/declines over time in different countries and correlating with severity and dates of bans and restrictions on electronic cigarettes?

 

[DrMA]

I wonder if someone could do a research paper analyzing smoking rates/declines over time in different countries and correlating with severity and dates of bans and restrictions on electronic cigarettes?

Careful, though. Official smoking stats are a propaganda tool twisted by ANTZ to serve their agenda and cannot be trusted. Cigarette sales from BT quarterly reports are quite likely far more accurate.

 

[pamdis]

Apparently, according to ANTZ, the BT sales figures are lies. I got into an arugument with an ANTZ on a facebook page (don't remember where, probably CTFK). They were trumpeting how plain packaging in Australia was working and sales declined, but when I posted an article showing the actual sales figures and how sales increased, I was told that since the numbers came from BT, they were obviously lies.

 

[Nate760]

Careful, though. Official smoking stats are a propaganda tool twisted by ANTZ to serve their agenda and cannot be trusted. Cigarette sales from BT quarterly reports are quite likely far more accurate.

This is why I so often argue that it's actual cigarette consumption we should be looking at, rather than smoking rates (which is all the ANTZ ever want to talk about). The criteria used to determine what constitutes a "smoker" vary so wildly, and are often so wrongheaded and misleading ("x" number of cigarettes smoked in the last month/year/ever, irrespective of whether you actually smoke currently) as to be effectively useless for drawing meaningful conclusions.

 

[Nate760]

Apparently, according to ANTZ, the BT sales figures are lies. I got into an arugument with an ANTZ on a facebook page (don't remember where, probably CTFK). They were trumpeting how plain packaging in Australia was working and sales declined, but when I posted an article showing the actual sales figures and how sales increased, I was told that since the numbers came from BT, they were obviously lies.

If a company (tobacco or otherwise) knowingly publishes false sales figures, they're going to wind up in hot water with a host of regulatory and law enforcement agencies, not to mention their own shareholders.

 

[DrMA]

If a company (tobacco or otherwise) knowingly publishes false sales figures, they're going to wind up in hot water with a host of regulatory and law enforcement agencies, not to mention their own shareholders.

That's right. The FTC and IRS have probably been looking to sink a hook into BT ever since the witch trials in Congress. BT must know Al Capone's story - one can get away with anything as long as they don't mess with the IRS.

 

[Anjaffm]

very interesting, Bill, thank you for posting this!

And yes, cigarette sales are real figures. To be reported honestly to shareholders and the IRS.
Whereas "smoking rates" can be manipulated in accordance with the desired outcome.

 

[Katya]

It is my understanding that Poland hasn't taxed or imposed any other unwarranted regulations on e-cigs, and that e-cig sales continue to skyrocket in Poland.

If anyone has additional information about e-cig regulations or news media coverage of e-cigs in Italy or Poland, please post.

I found some information about Poland. Their e-cigarette market is free and unrestricted--as of now, at least. E-cigarettes are not considered to be tobacco products and thus are not subject to taxation. However, taxes on traditional tobacco cigarettes have been skyrocketing. Poland has the 4th highest tax on tobacco cigarettes in Europe (after Bulgaria, Hungary and Estonia). As of January of this year, 85% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes in Poland is tax.

E-cigarette sales have been growing steadily in Poland and that growth is attributed to substantial cost savings for people who switch from smoking to vaping. Anyway, according to Polish newspaper reports I've been able to find online, like this one from May 2013:

E-papierosy zdobywaj

85% ceny papierosów będą stanowić podatki - Porady - Taxcare.pl

 

[Spazmelda]

Ah, interesting. Sounds like Poland is sort of a test case for the idea for pushing smokers to ecigs. Not that I love the idea of high taxes on cigarettes, but if you are looking for cases where economic factors are pushing people to harm reduction, that's probably about the most effective way to do it.

and, you guys are probably right, looking at cigarette sales would probably be a more accurate indicator than looking at smoking rates.

 

[jpargana]

So, FUD and arbitrary alarmist regulation of PVs in Italy have successfully protected the cigarette market. Whereas, the absence of regulation and propaganda in Poland allowed the vapor market to expand at its natural pace resulting in one of the largest year-to-year decline in the cigarette market ever posted.

Now look at the graphic for Spain (slide 7), where a large decline for cigarettes was recorded for 2013, and that decline dropped dramatically for 2014 following the sustained negative and disingenuous PR campaign perpetrated by the Spanish ANTZ.

What does all of this add up to? Incontrovertible proof that ANTZ lies and misinformation and misguided regulations cause people to go back to or continue smoking rather than switching to an alternative that's 100-1000 times safer. Thus, more evidence that any anti-vaping activity is gross public health malpractice, tantamount to the attempted murder of 1.24 billion smokers worldwide.

This !!

Those people are so worried and vocal about negletible / hypothetical e-cigarette "dangers", and yet they cannot see the very REAL danger insane regulation can bring: more people returning to smoking, or being reluctant in quitting by using e-cigarettes.

Anyone with half a brain could see that 0.1% decline in cigarette smoking, vs 10.8%, is a BAD thing. Anyone with half a brain would realize that tobacco politics leading to a 10.8% decline are GOOD public health politics.

Conclusion: people who believe they have the right to tell us what's best for us, people who believe we should not trust our OWN judgement, do NOT even have half a brain...!

 

[Uma]

If I remember correctly, between the ANTZ demonizing eCigs with their "potentially dangerous" quotes, the WHO literally stating that it's safer to smoke than vape, the CDC promoting that the percentages doubled (from one to two woopy doo), and the people, real people, fighting for their right to choose, the powers that be decided to ban the bans and start charging businesses by the square foot open to smoking.

 

[DrMA]

Interesting perspective from an unrelated study, but going towards the same conclusion: «But the irony is that these groups ["anti-smoking" groups], by disseminating propaganda that is demonstrably resulting in vapers deciding to switch completely back to smoking, are actually helping to promote cigarette smoking. Thus, it is uncomfortable to continue to refer to these organizations as "anti-smoking" groups.»

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-research-suggests-that-anti-smoking.html