The future of E figs ?

[inclination]

In the EU / UK ecigs will be gradually strangled in order to kill them off, the legislation is already in place to do that (TPD Article 20). This comes in May 2016 at the latest. After that they'll take about a year to get the enforcement running properly. The idea is to make it too expensive for anyone except the cigarette firms to sell ecigs, and shut down websites as they are 'advertising' (no advertising will be allowed, as is the case for tobacco products). Then vape shops will close up as there is no business in selling cigalikes with 3 flavours. Then the cigarette firms will control the market, and obviously they will strangle it themselves in order to protect cigarette sales.

There is a legal challenge coming up to the EU law, vapers are banking on that working otherwise legal vaping in the UK / EU is finished.

In the USA, the FDA are still working on their 'deeming proposals', followed by their regulations. It is easy to imagine they want to do the same as the EU - kill vaping in order to protect cigarette sales. Governments need the tobacco tax revenues together with the savings on care of the elderly - if smokers die on average 10 years early as they claim, then clearly there are huge savings on the backend as well. The pharmaceutical industry exerts strong influence on government, and they also need to protect cigarette sales in order to protect their drug markets for treatment of sick smokers.

Then you have to add in the US States: they need to protect smoking more than anyone else does.

Increased price reduces demand. What about anti-smoking ads funded by the FDA and CDC? I am confused as why the governemnt would attempt to collapse itself in relation to cigarettes. Where are your facts? Cigarette consumption has seen a decreasing trend over the years - and its not entirely to vaping. Higher taxes, more ads, more regulation of tobacco companies. It sounds like one big conspiracy.

Do you really think removing the vaping community is going to spike cigarette sales? It may, but it won't be substantial. In the long run, the cigarette industry will collapse in itself. Less and less people of newer generations DONT smoke. And in the long run, smokers will be an extinct species.

 

[stevegmu]

Increased price reduces demand. What about anti-smoking ads funded by the FDA and CDC? I am confused as why the governemnt would attempt to collapse itself in relation to cigarettes. Where are your facts? It sounds like one big conspiracy.

That's just it. Governments have done nothing but try to curb smoking...

 

[crxess]

That's just it. Governments have done nothing but try to curb smoking...

while maintaining a revenue balance

 

[HazyShades]

Electronic figs? Sounds delicious! Stupid government trying to stop our love for electronic fruit products.

Thank you. Now I don't have to point out the figs.
I must say I find the thought of electric prunes and figs quite appetizing.
Think I had too much to dream last night

Regards,
Hazy

 

[rolygate]

If smoking and BT were the darling of governments, wouldn't they have fewer restrictions on where one could smoke, rather than more and more every year?

Doesn't matter what anyone does after the 20% Prevalence Rule operates - smoking prevalence can't be significantly reduced except by THR. That's why they're all going nuts trying to block ecigs. In Sweden, 66% of tobacco users are snusers and 33% are smokers (Snus is their specially-processed oral tobacco).

Imagine what it would do to State budgets if 2/3rds of current smokers switched to ecigs and/or quit, and 1/3rd stayed as smokers. It would basically remove the current administrators from office as they couldn't cope economically - every State would look like Detroit.

Also add in the fact that male smoking prevalence, and disease, is moving toward a zero point in Sweden. That is a disaster of unimaginable proportions for national and regional governments.

 

[caramel]

Increased price reduces demand.

Not always as much as one would generally expect:

Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check the other over taxed products too, alcohol and gasoline.

What would be really telling is a chart of BT's profits over time.

 

[rolygate]

Increased price reduces demand. What about anti-smoking ads funded by the FDA and CDC? I am confused as why the governemnt would attempt to collapse itself in relation to cigarettes. Where are your facts? Cigarette consumption has seen a decreasing trend over the years - and its not entirely to vaping. Higher taxes, more ads, more regulation of tobacco companies. It sounds like one big conspiracy.

Do you really think removing the vaping community is going to spike cigarette sales? It may, but it won't be substantial. In the long run, the cigarette industry will collapse in itself. Less and less people of newer generations DONT smoke. And in the long run, smokers will be an extinct species.

See my post #25. Doesn't matter what they say, doesn't matter what they do. Conveniently, any country which had high smoking prevalence can't get substantially below 20% smoking prevalence. There is no country anywhere that is an exception once 20PR operates. All they have to do is block ecigs and oral tobacco. If ST (oral tobacco) already exists, then they need to block better, newer ST products such as Swedish Snus.

Snus consumption in Sweden has no reliably measurable health impact. The health outcomes for smokers who either quit totally or who switch to Snus instead are the same. No government or State wants that - you can't put massive taxes on something that does no measurable harm, and pharma sure doesn't want any products sold that kills off the monster drug trade for treating the sickness from smoking. ASH UK say that for every smoker that dies, another 20 are sick. Work that out.

 

[caramel]

Doesn't matter what they say, doesn't matter what they do.

It does. From a liability pov they're now asbestos suit. Can't sue for anything, not even the faintest side stream.

 

[Froth]

Electronic figs? Sounds delicious! Stupid government trying to stop our love for electronic fruit products.

This is exactly what I clicked the link for, thank you so very much for the best laugh I've had tonight.

 

[Bad Ninja]

That's just it. Governments have done nothing but try to curb smoking...

Not really. All those no smoking ads and propaganda are paid by tobacco companies as part of a civil settlement.
The government knows smokers are addicted, so the can keep slowly adding taxes to tobacco products.

Vaping challenges the system, and they don't like changes this late in the game.
Tobacco companies will begin to seriously recognize vaping as a viable future option only when lobbying against it is no longer financially viable.
Them we can deal with a whole new host of issues.

 

[rolygate]

It does. From a liability pov they're now asbestos suit. Can't sue for anything, not even the faintest side stream.

I meant state and fed governments?

The tobacco industry won a huge victory when they got the MSA deal - they are cast-iron guaranteed a future at low cost. Is that what you meant?

As Bill Godshall says, the MSA is a bad deal for the public. Cigarette firms' profits are guaranteed. Also, because their take is such a small percentage of the retail price in many places - most of the pack price is tax - they can put their price up substantially and the consumer doesn't notice. BT wins, gov wins. Only the public pay.

 

[stevegmu]

while maintaining a revenue balance

They just keep increasing the taxes to compensate for those who have quit...

 

[stevegmu]

Not really. All those no smoking ads and propaganda are paid by tobacco companies as part of a civil settlement.
The government knows smokers are addicted, so the can keep slowly adding taxes to tobacco products.

Vaping challenges the system, and they don't like changes this late in the game.
Tobacco companies will begin to seriously recognize vaping as a viable future option only when lobbying against it is no longer financially viable.
Them we can deal with a whole new host of issues.

All the public smoking prohibitions aren't to curb smoking?

 

[stevegmu]

Doesn't matter what anyone does after the 20% Prevalence Rule operates - smoking prevalence can't be significantly reduced except by THR. That's why they're all going nuts trying to block ecigs. In Sweden, 66% of tobacco users are snusers and 33% are smokers (Snus is their specially-processed oral tobacco).

Imagine what it would do to State budgets if 2/3rds of current smokers switched to ecigs and/or quit, and 1/3rd stayed as smokers. It would basically remove the current administrators from office as they couldn't cope economically - every State would lo
ok like Detroit.

Also add in the fact that male smoking prevalence, and disease, is moving toward a zero point in Sweden. That is a disaster of unimaginable proportions for national and regional governments.

So why not just lift smoking restrictions and reduce the tax? Vapers who quit to save money could go back to smoking and smokers would smoke more. They would generate more revenue over time by having a lower tax and a lot more sales and more smokers.. Ever been to Russia? Cigarettes are cheap and allowed almost everywhere. My guess is the government brings in a healthy amount of revenue based on prevelance and usage, rather than high taxes...

 

[caramel]

I meant state and fed governments?

That too. They were officially against since the "Surgeon General's" notice on the cigarette packs. Meanwhile they figured out that someone could still sue for negligence - like in "I got cancer from side stream while inside a government building / government public place / something owned/run by government". Now they're asbestos.

 

[caramel]

So why not just lift smoking restrictions and reduce the tax? Vapers who quit to save money could go back to smoking and smokers would smoke more. They would generate more revenue over time by having a lower tax and a lot more sales and more smokers.. Ever been to Russia? Cigarettes are cheap and allowed almost everywhere. My guess is the government brings in a healthy amount of revenue based on prevelance and usage, rather than high taxes...

Cause liability, see previous post.

As for Russia, suing Putin is not an option.

 

[inclination]

I see interesting perspectives on this. I believe that only time will tell with what will happen. I am interested to see where this heads in a couple decades.

 

[edyle]

It's the bond issuer - the State - that is screwed in this situation. Although the MSA payments to the State may drop, the contract to pay the value of the issued bonds does not. I haven't worked with this in a long time - there are ways for the State to get around this by recalling the bond(s) early, prior to maturity date, but it sure won't put them in even a break-even position either. Especially if the State spent the capital raised by the bond issuance.

Oh, oh oh, yeah; the tricky words;
they "sell" bonds, but the reality is they are really taking a loan which they have to pay back;
I was confusing it with the mortage fiasco, where banks actually sold mortages, and when the mortages failed, it seems there was confusion about who owned what.

 

[rolygate]

My guess is the government brings in a healthy amount of revenue based on prevelance and usage, rather than high taxes...

Yeah, it's interesting to work out which way to go for a regional or national government to generate the most cash out of smoking.

Low prevalence and high taxes works (UK is the best example - really high taxes on cigarettes and fuel). High prevalence and low taxes works (the Russia / China model). Backend savings for a socialised state need the highest prevalence allowable - this is where they save on pensions, healthcare for the elderly and social care for the elderly by virtue of smokers dying early; but there is an incompatibility issue here.

Biggest earnings for pharma come with high prevalence and a socialised state - the state pays for healthcare so pharma coins it. However this is incompatible with modern values, so the best deal is a hard lower limit on prevalence @ 20% - this can be achieved by blocking THR.

Looks as if the best route for a modern state is to maximise frontend earnings and backend savings by creating a hard limit on lowest smoking prevalence - it can be fixed around 20% by blocking THR. Raise taxes to the maximum the market will bear before smuggling levels affect state earnings too much. Help pharma by ensuring smoking is protected, then tax pharma earnings at every stage to create more income.

US States just need to keep smoking prevalence as high as possible, the cigarette sales volume related MSA payments are so immense they distort the balance massively in favour of protecting smoking no matter what. The downside appears to be the cost of funding treatment for ill smokers, but that is low compared to the MSA funds and in any case someone else pays half the time.

 

[stevegmu]

US States just need to keep smoking prevalence as high as possible, the cigarette sales volume related MSA payments are so immense they distort the balance massively in favour of protecting smoking no matter what. The downside appears to be the cost of funding treatment for ill smokers, but that is low compared to the MSA funds and in any case someone else pays half the time.

Then why do the states keep restricting where smoking is allowed? Shouldn't those restrictions be pulled back to increase the prevalence of smoking and smokers?