Plain packaging of shops: banned from calling themselves tobacconists

When the tobacco display ban was first suggested I feared immediately that it would result in more illicit trade. I felt it was important that shops should retain the ability to inform customers that they did in fact sell tobacco: since advertising was banned, this would not necessarily be easy. But I thought the authorities would want people to recognise lawful outlets for tobacco if only for the sake of getting the revenue. I didn't really expect authorities to go to the length of banning the word tobacconist from the signage of shops.

This is why:

The Smoke-Free Environments Act prohibits the display of tobacco products, or advertising that a business sells tobacco products.

 A business must change its name to satisfy this legislation, and this article features a business that has been calling itself a tobacconist for 50 years, since its establishment in 1962.

The proprietor's work in establishing and building this trading name and the business has been set at no value by an Act of Parliament that has denied him the right to use it. No doubt they will claim, as plain packaging advocates in Australia claim, that compensation is irrelevant since the government does not gain by depriving businesses of their trading name.

Well actually it does gain: by forcing businesses to change their names, it appropriates more power at the expense of traders. It would be nice to see a challenge to these powers to see if they are legal – while remembering that everything that Hitler did was legal.

The plan is to stop people from associating tobacco with lawful trade and legitimate shops. It it hard to see anything other than a concerted attempt to push the whole business underground and pretend that this will result in improved health.

They can make laws against tobacco but not against people taking risks with their health – especially in times of extreme uncertainty such as we are living in at present. They may succeed in outlawing tobacco but the health outcomes will not change for the better.

NZ Chest surgeon thinks banning tobacco would eliminate black market

This surgeon cites the black market as the reason that a $100 dollar pack will not stop people smoking. The only real option is to ban tobacco.

3

Freedom to grow food in New Zealand

My introduction to this issue in New Zealand was 17:28 minutes into the latest edition of UK Column News:

More detail is available here, a NZ site that urges opposition to both the Food Bill and the Natural Health Products Bill (which seems to echo the European version). Ostensibly on the grounds of food safety it purports to reserve to the state the right to define what is healthy and natural.

Opponents of this bill link it to Codex Alimentarius, and predict that all governments will attempt to implement it, unless they are resisted. Readers are free to google the actual terms of Codex, everything is in plain view. A critical analysis of Codex is here. The agreements regulates food and nutrients and can be enforced by the World Trade Organisation. Everything that people eat must meet the specifications of the authorities. The New Zealand Bill codifies this into a national law, and it seems natural to assume that other governments will want to follow.

The US has seen raids on farms in recent times, in federal actions that seem anything but even-handed. More here.

There seem to be numerous parallels between restrictions on freedom to grow food and restrictions on smoking. Both are done ostensibly in the of safety, both seek to undermine if not actually people's own views about what constitutes safe consumption. Under both food safety and non-smoking regimes the wrongs perpetrated by relevant mega-corporations are ignored while the small farmer/smoker comes under intense scrutiny without being adequate means to oppose the government's arguments. In each case the mega corporation bravely takes on the small trader.

That said, this area is new to me. I'm reserving further comment until I have read more on this.

Smokefree New Zealand

New Zealand by 2025: a country where only a handful of the population will be smokers.

In a parallel universe, this won't happen till 2040.

Rather hopeless endgame vision contrasted with the view from the ground

Yet again the New Zealand government has declared that commercial sales of tobacco in New Zealand will cease by 2025. The most recent edition of Tobacco Control actually contains a section called The Endgame, which includes this beauty: How smoking became history: looking back to 2012. Here's a taste:

Of course, designing viable and effective policies is a matter partly of logic but mostly of trial and error. The cap reduction proved too complex administratively. Bhutan banned the sale of tobacco products in 2004 - but almost no one noticed!13 New Zealand went for a ban in 2020, which went so smoothly that many countries followed suit with much shorter lead times. Those who had been worried that a country adopting a ban would need, like New Zealand, to have ocean on all sides were reassured when the smoking rate dropped below 10% even before the ban took effect: it turns out that so long as cessation assistance, including a variety of non-combusted nicotine delivery devices, is available, along with regular tax increases and a focused media campaign leading up to the ban, there is little residual demand for smuggled cigarettes. 

Singapore went ahead with a ban on sales to anyone born in the 21st century. This was adopted in 2012 near the time the World Conference on Tobacco or Health was held there. There is obviously no peer pressure for young people to smoke, and the few remaining older smokers get the pity they deserve. A few other countries jumped on the 1999 cut-off date; later arrivals have used dates early in the first decade.

Easy, isn't it? I am actually quite taken aback that the BMJ has taken to publishing this kind of futuristic nonsense in Tobacco Control, which is meant to be a professional journal. It shows complete blind faith in its ideals and no notion that anything resembling an unintended consequence might imperil its ill-thought-out plans.

Back in the real world, grocers point out that there is already an enormous amount of non-duty paid tobacco being sold in the street.

Website author of Tichtich discusses illicit tobacco and the supply chain in more depth:

What this study confirms is the weakness of official statistics on the number of people who smoke. These are compiled from official sales figures together with a reasonably sensible guess of the number of legitimate personal imports under EU trade rules (thee and me bringing back our 16 cartons) and a rough guess based on the number of seizures of illegal cigarettes. Before this investigation they put the figure for illegals at less than 5% for the UK as a whole. Clearly their statistics are wrong, hence much of the so called "progress" made with smoking cessation is little more than wishful thinking. 

As an aside, it also rubbishes the notion that smokers are loyal to a brand. We couldn't care less about the brand, it's the price/taste of the thing that matters. Furthermore, to avoid the diseased photographs or foreign script, an increasing number of smokers never carry their cigarette packets, preferring to use a cigarette case. These packs go for recycling along with the rest of our cardboard. Market penetration is actually far greater than even these figures indicate.  

Trouble is the folk employed to run up all this information are several steps removed from what goes on in real life. They're unlikely to frequent the less desirable areas of towns, they're not part of the smoker experience and they're less likely to strike up casual conversations with us outside offices, shops, railway stations and beer gardens. Those who do all these things are not only aware of whats going on with cigarettes and tobacco of questionable origin, we also know that official statistics on youth smoking are similarly wide of the mark.

I make no apologies for finding this version more credible.

Selective outrage at hosting of tobacco-sponsored trade conference

New Zealand has seen a row following the decision of Mike Moore's decision to host a tobacco-sponsored trade conference, with New Zealand MPs demanding his dismissal.

The event attracted sponsors Philip Morris, Chevron, Phrma and others, and its organisers, Washington International Trade Association, has other global sponsors, mostly powerful international corporations including Walmart, Microsoft Pfizer, and the US Chamber of Commerce. In other words it is a conference of some of the most powerful multinational business interests in the world. Demanding the dismissal of an ambassador for hosting a conference of such business interests is gesture politics. The rationale was as follows:

"Moore's attendance at this party is a slap in the face for all those who have worked hard to stop the tobacco companies killing thousands of New Zealanders every year, and an insult to those families who have lost loved-ones to the country's most addictive drug."

Isn't this just a little OTT? People work hard in all walks of life, and the business of smoking cessation is elevated as the supreme interest that must trump every other. Or does this work 'stopping tobacco companies killing thousands of people' refer to New Zealand health services, which treat everyone with heart, lung and respiratory conditions whether or not they are smokers? Presumably New Zealand has its equivalent of this document – showing that all tobacco ingredients are approved by its health department.

The other side of this issue of course is the damage done to people by the other sponsors of the trade conference, two of which are mentioned in this list – clearly compiled by someone with limited sympathy for the businesses involved. Chevron found itself in a US court over allegations about its activities in Nigeria. The point is that there is a list as long as the Australian coastline of issues that one could use as an excuse to boycott a trade conference. Tobacco companies are accused of manufacturing department of health-approved products that are said to be lethal and of providing work for children in countries with a heavy reliance on the tobacco crop, exposing them to possible pesticide contamination. Chevron is accused of dumping toxic waste in the Amazon and paying militias to defend their mineral interests in Nigeria, where they have allegedly shot protesters and other bystanders dead. I am not fully informed about either situation, but if I were protesting about anyone at the trade conference it would have been Chevron, rather than Philip Morris.

Many powerful companies abuse and/or neglect the powerless when they can get away with it, in the course of pursuing their business interests. It goes with the territory of intense competition and imbalance of power.

New Zealand prison ban begins

Spare a thought for prisoners in New Zealand who face a smoking ban from 1 July (already active as they are 12 hours ahead).  Some trouble is expected including disturbances and the possible smoking of tea leaves and nicotine patches.

I find it very hard to see a need for this. Actually impossible.

Citibank predicts that smoking will cease

Citibank predicts that smoking in the UK will expire by 2050 in the UK. It produces a table with data based on national smoking rates across several countries:

	% of the population that smokes	Citi's earliest prediction for end of smoking
Australia	17	2030
Belgium	20	2051
Canada	18	2040
Finland	21	2093
France	25	2118
Germany	23	2280
Greece	40	2231
Iceland	16	2033
Italy	23	2091
Japan	24	2054
Netherlands	28	2048
New Zealand	18	2058
Norway	21	2042
Spain	26	2056
Sweden	15	2028
United Kingdom	21	2040
United States	21	2046

I find it interesting that two countries that have announced that they will eradicate smoking in the medium term, Finland and New Zealand, according to this table, won't actually achieve it until relatively late: New Zealand in 2058, and Finland in 2193. Netherlands (where there has been a huge backlash to the recent smoking restrictions) kicks the habit in 2048, but France carries on till 2118, 70 years later, and the Greeks for more than a century after that.

The predictions are based on fifty years' decline in smoking rates, and reports stress that 'if this continues', smoking will die out by the dates indicated.

If this causes any jitters in the stock market I doubt they will last. Ireland's smoking rate appears to have increased again after a short-term decline following their ban in 2004, and Scotland is failing to meet targets.

Will New Zealand follow Ireland and become a counterfeiters' paradise?

New Zealand should learn from Ireland:

Research commissioned by retailers uncovered a worrying trend that in Dublin alone more than one in six shops have been offered counterfeit cigarettes to sell – up from just 10% last year.

 ...

Mr Gilsenan said: “We have seen no leadership from those in power and this is reflected in the survey, our members aren’t sure where to turn to and which department of government should be tackling the problem.

“The retail sector is one of the biggest in Ireland, we employ hundreds of thousands of workers yet we are being left to fend for ourselves when it comes to this matter.

...

The survey of 500 stores across the country found the vast majority, 81%, feel the Government is not doing enough to tackle the lucrative black market trade.

It also warned that just over a quarter of cigarettes smoked in Ireland are illegal. [emphasis added]

As they said of 1984, treat it as a warning, not an instruction manual.

New Zealand tables move to ban tobacco displays

After a long struggle with retailers, the New Zealand cabinet has approved anti-tobacco measures including a ban on the display of tobacco in shops. The measure will go to Parliament in a bill and, if passed, will be implemented next year.

Previously New Zealand had declined to implement a display ban citing lack of evidence and expense. It is unclear what has changed. The drive appears to come from the Maori affairs select committee and the associate health minister Tarania Turia, who is confident that New Zealand can become smoke free by 2025.

The only UK report on New Zealand's plans to eradicate smoking is in the Telegraph: readers don't seem very impressed, judging by comments left. The plans are criticised by both tobacco companies (BAT NZ) and retailers as they are likely to fuel the already thriving illicit market.

NZ: Tarania Turia fails to count the cost of smoking

New Zealand, we are told, is heading for total prohibition. The NZ press is full of stories about the Government's hopes for a tobacco-free New Zealand, with short term price increases a first step. Fortunately reactions from  tobacco retailers are being reported too: rapid increases in price will not suppress demand, but fuel crime rates. People will get tobacco if they want it. A rise first implemented in April will see the price of 25 cigarettes increase by 30 per cent by 2014.

Health minister Tarania Turia has cast doubt on the figures for smoking-related costs to the health services (scroll down for costs of tobacco). in a letter reproduced here. Her letter admits that the $1.bn dollar figure provided by the Ministry of Health 'has never been portrayed as a measure of the money that might be saved if compared to a world where smoking had been eradicated'.

One might asks what on earth it has been flagged up to prove, if not how much money not smoking will save.

People are going to die anyway. They might die later, they might require more care of different kinds. Or some people might need something to replace tobacco and resort to something more dangerous, whether illegal drugs or a comfort that is quite legal like cream cakes or booze in copious amounts.

In the end they don't know, as Mrs Turia is right to point out, how much money would be saved if smoking were eradicated, or even if any money would be saved at all.

H/tip Dick Puddlecote

Champix enters New Zealand list of funded drugs

Monday sees Champix made available for the first time on the New Zealand list of funded drugs, following a multi-drug deal between Pharmac, the national drug procurement body, and Pfizer. As the Champix link shows, there are well known health risks associated with this drug. The site fairly points out that people without previous psychiatric disorders have had suicidal thoughts, and advises that anyone experiencing such feelings should stop taking the medication and seek medical advice. It also lists other symptoms that have been recorded in association with Champix.

Although known to be controversial, just one of four reports on the introduction of subsidised Champix to the New Zealand health service emphasises the dangerous side effects. David Fisher's article, 'Anti-smoking drug concerns' for the New Zealand Herald opens with ten suicides linked to Champix and closes by mentioning 12,000 other adverse  reports recorded for Champix since 2007. (Champix is being monitored by Medsafe, a monitoring programme at the University of Otago.)

Radio New Zealand gives a passing caution on Champix, pointing out in a banner that that Pharmac 'will be closely monitored, and advising readers to 'try other, simpler treatments' prior to Champix.

Astonishingly two articles appear to treat Pharmac's acquisition of Champix pretty much as an indication that there's nothing to worry about. Anti smoking MPs welcome drug funding from the New Zealand Press Association, and The Quit Group welcomes funding of smoking cessation aid (press release from The Quit Group) both dwell on Champix's success as a smoking cessation drug, and how Champix will give smokers another valued option to enable them to stop smoking, at an accessible price. The Quit group piece also claims that Champix gives you a five times better chance of giving up smoking as cold turkey, while NRT doubles your chances of quitting.

Both these latter pieces stress the dangers of smoking, and the merits of giving up. Both underplay the dangers of Champix, because they are so fixated on the need to give up smoking, and unable to imagine the impact of having your life turned upside down by the effects of a drug. Congratulations, David Fisher, for keeping your eye on the ball and not forgetting what this story is really about.

Zyban also carries dangers and is not recommended for expectant mothers.

A blog here collects people's experiences of Champix ('Chantix' is its US name).

Further views are recorded in Frank Davis's Journal (including comments).

Scotsman report on backlash against tobacco display ban

Expect a retaliation from ASH Scotland on Monday morning! The Scotsman reports that opposition to the tobacco display ban, expressed in consultation responses on the legislation, runs at 90 per cent. Figures in England showed a very different picture: most of the responses were in favour of the legislation, but most of the support from England came in the form of responses from Department of Health-funded bodies. This means that Scottish retail trade organisations have effectively mobilised their members to respond to the consultation.

Next year supermarkets will have to cover their tobacco displays, with small shops following in 2013. In essence the changes mean that tobacco must be concealed from view at all times, and time will only tell if enforcers are prepared to be sensible about stocking-up times, busy selling periods and other complications involved in shop work.

ASH Scotland's view is that opposition to the display ban is the work of tobacco companies. Myths and Realities explains how shops are a front for tobacco companies, and any concern about whether the legislation will work, or whether it will drive customers into the hands of illegal traders, is quite misplaced (see p 4 of this consultation response from ASH Scotland).

A similar allegation appears down under: wily tobacco companies are using tobacconists as a respectable front to campaign against plain packaging.

As far as I understand the tobacco trade, competition between brands is far more important to tobacco companies than luring new smokers into the habit, which is why they have taken the display bans and the threats of mandatory plain packaging far more seriously than the smoking ban. Branding also marks out genuine products from counterfeit products and a branding ban would all but destroy any distinction between genuine and counterfeit products and make it much easier to pass off counterfeits as real. This seems to be a serious impediment to trade and it is not surprising that the tobacco companies are taking the threat seriously. I am quite surprised that health authorities are not worried too.

Article 5.3. of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control seeks to limit tobacco industry 'interference' in policy making. It runs against a tradition of 'stakeholder consultation', which means asking affected parties about policy proposals (more discussion here). Regulation of all industries is part of government, but it goes too far by routinely excluding the affected industry. Excluding the tobacco industry from discussions about regulating tobacco is not only unfair, it also leaves policy makers with an incomplete picture often informed only by hostile outsiders to the industry. Clearly tobacco companies are being advised that their word is as good as dirt, and if they want to fight for their interests they should do it through third parties.

As far as industry lobbying on either the display ban or the issue of plain packaging, it is absolutely imperative that such a debate takes place. Plenty of money is being thrown at the pro-ban side of the argument, but the only people who have money to fight back are tobacco companies: the other sector of the trade, tobacconists and the retail trade, don't have the margins or manpower to orchestrate a campaign to oppose the anti-tobacco lobby. As anyone who has ever tried to get into politics knows, influence doesn't come cheap.

In any case – well done the Scottish retail trade for mounting an effective campaign: let's keep it going!

Hospital Smoking Bans

Hospitals are a battleground for smokers and the health lobby. The health lobby wants hospitals to show the way, lead by example and under no circumstances be seen to be endorse smoking. On the other hand patients, and their visitors, are in a difficult place in their lives, sometimes in crisis or grief.

Hospitals in Scotland still have facilities for smokers in mental health facilities. We understand the Scottish Government supports a phased removal of these facilities, but it is not clear when they will advance further along this route.

There will be more news about hospitals very soon. In the mean time the concerns of Richard Thomson in this article about a ban on psychiatric wards in Dunedin, NZ, ring very true:

Mr Thomson said the ban was akin to forced treatment for psychiatric patients who were not entitled to leave hospital grounds.

'Akin to' forced treatment? It is forced treatment. It can't be ethical to enforce a non-smoking policy on a member of the public who is being treated for an unrelated condition. Apart from anything else a psychiatric patient is a captive market for 'approved' nicotine delivery. The policy is likely to deter many smokers from volunteering for treatment when they are most in need.