So what does it entail?
The draft rules include plans to ban ... packets containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. ...Hear that? None of that packets of 10 or 14 mullarkey any more, you've got to buy 20 at a time now. I think anyone who has purchased 200 on the way back from holiday will vouch for the fact that if they are there, they're gonna be smoked faster than usual unless in possession of stoic willpower.
I expect the idea is that youths will find it difficult to pay the extra for 20. No they won't, idiots, they will just shell out the extra £3 (pocket money according to anti-booze campaigners) and smoke them quicker. A win for big tobacco, then.
... and would keep the current EU sales ban on snus outside Sweden in place.Great idea. Instead of following the lead of a country with the lowest smoking prevalence in Europe - by a massive margin, I might add - let's just keep the major reason for it banned and carry on regardless, eh?
As a former ASH UK supremo points out ...
The EPP wants to ban #snus (at least 95% less risky than cigarettes) to protect "credibility of the EU institutions".docs.google.com/open?id=174Jcr…
— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) December 18, 2012
That's correct. Not to reduce harm, or to protect those who smoke by offering less risky alternatives. Nope, it's to protect eurocrats from confessing that they have fucked up.
That's the important thing, eh? We wouldn't want the EU to damage its credibility by admitting it made a mistake.Smoke if you've got 'em, lads and lasses, it's OK as long as EU blushes are saved.
Anything else?
The European Commission is to propose ... a total ban on flavourings such as mentholCrikey! That could actually help, couldn't it? I mean, it might just encourage those who are finding it hard to quit, but only like flavoured baccy, to move to something less damaging such as e-cigs. There are plenty more palatable flavours available with them and they are 99% less harmful. Good move!
Oh, hold on.
The EU legislation will also propose a "de facto" ban on electronic cigarettes, which deliver a smokeless nicotine hit, which in future must be authorised as "medicinal products".So that's out too. It's almost like the EU are promoting a policy which could be described as, I dunno, quit or die. But that would be pretty silly as it would only benefit either tobacco companies or ...
Aha! The penny has just dropped! There is another big industry which sells nicotine and which relies for its profits on smokers not slipping through the net with low risk alternatives which they don't control, isn't there?
Little wonder then, that an Imperial Tobacco spokesman is so chipper.
"We are confident looking many years into the future that the EU will be an area where we can sustainably grow and develop our business."Indeed. With the EU introducing measures which ensure the profits of big industry for years to come, how can they or big pharma possibly fail? Nice work, Brussels.
Of course, there are others who will be breathing a big sigh of relief now that their pharma sponsors have dodged a bullet [pdf page 10].
ASH and allies continue to work hard to ensure that the passage of the Directive through the European legislature proceeds as planned.Wahey! Trebles all round.
It has never been about health, you know.
19 comments:
People keep banging on about the smoking and cancer rates in Sweden being due to snus availability. Purlease. Snus is as widely used in other, no EU member, Scandinavian countries. Since I live in one of them let me tell you that the much vaunted low smoking rates are lies, plain and simple. Most of the people who live there have the means to obtain cheaper tobacco outside of Sweden, Norway or Finland. The usual pack sales rubbish is used to estimate adult smoking rates and it is just that, rubbish. If Swedes have low respiratory tract cancer rates then it ain't due, at least not exclusively, to tobacco consumption or lack thereof. Correlation is not causation, remember that one.
Time to up my shareholdings in BATS and IMT.
Packs of 20 only, no more 10, 14 or 19. Pall Mall come in packs of 19.
Good point. I remember seeing a spokesman for whichever company makes Pall Mall (BAT?) on the Daily Politics IIRC a year or so ago saying that the brand had been immense for them as an economy choice. As such, I expect they will just repackage as 20 and try to absorb what cost they can. So the EU may have given Pall Mall smokers another cig for their buck. Great job, EU clowns.
Yes, I am well aware that correlation is not causation: I've been an industrial chemist all my working life. Equally, if there is no correlation there ain't much support for causation.
While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. According to EdwardTufte, Statistics Professor, the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:
"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
1) Just for the record, I am (gratefully) no relative of the Clive Bates, above.
2) sillyusername: I am no expert on Snus. However, I suspect Joel Nitzkin, M.D., who chairs the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians could be classed as an expert. "In 2008, this group endorsed the concept of harm reduction in order to substantially reduce death and disease from cigarette use."
“Science shows that smokeless tobacco products carry, at worst, only 5% of the risk of death that cigarettes do,”
Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/29/sweden-smokers-option-snus
which refers out to:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/09/24/jnci.djq404.full.pdf
and several reports.
With respect you are giving totally misleading information. There is no where in the Draft Regs that limist the the number of cigs in a packet, if you can find it I will apololgise. As for menthol here is a direct quote from the Q&A from the EU:
"Will the new law ban flavourings – like menthol – and other ingredients?
The proposal will not ban specific flavourings but prohibits tobacco products with a so-called characterising flavour, including menthol. Concretely, menthol in small quantities can be used, but not in large quantities, which give the tobacco product a distinguishable flavour other than tobacco. Test panels will assist the Member States and the Commission to decide whether or not a product has such a characterising flavour. Additives which are necessary for the manufacture of tobacco products can continue to be used. This includes sugar. The proposal does not discriminate between tobacco varieties such as Virginia, Burley or Oriental tobacco."
There is NO defacto banning of E. Cigs. Please go to: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1391_en.htm and http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-1005_en.htm
The EU has credibility? Bollocks!
With respect to you too, but you're splitting hairs and I suspect you know that. ;)
I gave the link for the banning of packs of 20. If, as you say, that isn't being proposed, then great. Except that the EU document does demand that packs should be a standard size (page 32) of 64mm by 55mm. That's pack of twenty width and they state that anything smaller than that is banned.
Now, it could be that they will be perfectly happy with just 10 or 14 being sold in that size, but considering banning packs of 10 is already a law in Ireland and is a stated aim of groups like ASH, I wouldn't bet on it. I expect to see faux outrage by anti-smoking groups if 10 are sold in a packet sized for 20. Something along the lines of "evil tobacco companies perverting the spirit of the EU TPD, or some such.
On tobacco flavourings, you're just being disingenuous. Flavourings are used to reduce the raw nature of tobacco and include sugar, as you say, and things like liquorice. But the word 'characterising' is significant as it will - in real life - mean that anything which actually tastes like menthol will break the regulations. Again, banning menthol is a stated aim of the tobacco control industry and was only thrown out in the US because the black community tend to overwhelmingly smoke menthol. It wouldn't be good to look racist in good 'ole US of A, now would it?
You are correct, though, that there is no ban on e-cigs, my mistake. The machinery will be fine, it's just that the liquids which vapers use are rendered less than useless by this directive.
What is the point of a product which half a million people in the EU use to stop or reduce smoking if the nicotine level is reduced to a level which makes the machinery pointless?
As my title makes clear, this has everything to do with promoting big business interests, protecting pharma especially (the directive specifically states that nicotine levels for e-liquid are not allowed to exceed those of pharma manufactured NRT patches and gum) and absolutely nothing to do with health. It will harm many, but what cares the EU?
As for ASH softening their stance on e-cigs, I know that as I have heard Deborah Arnott saying that in person. On the same day she angrily objected to snus being legalised despite her predecessor telling her it was great for harm reduction. ASH haven't shouted anywhere near loud enough to the EU on e-cigs and have been irresponsibly wedded to their pharma sponsors on snus. For shame.
Well, they've stomped all over Westminster today (as I'm writing about at the moment, coincidentally). ;)
"Flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, strawberry, or vanilla, are set to be banned in the European Union.
Finally, the draft also includes plans to ban ‘slim’ cigarettes and the sale of packs containing less than 20 cigarettes."
From here:
http://rt.com/news/eu-ban-menthol-cigarettes-436/
I remember a time when we could buy single cigarettes and packets of 4, 5 and 6. They helped those who were only occasional or light smokers. Most mornings you could wake up with no cigarette to tempt you with that first cup of tea. The smoker had control over their smoking. Legislation removed that control.
Using low tar cigarettes cannot be promoted as a method of controlling nicotine intake. Legislation removed that control.
Now e-cigarettes, a recent and effective innovation for smokers to modify their smoking, seem destined for removal by even more legislation.
Tobacco Control freakery clearly intends that no self ‘medication’ or harm reduction can be allowed. Smokers will be modified by Big Pharma or punished in tax induced poverty.
They will be denormalised together with all those who drink, enjoy a burger, follow the guidance of professional chefs, have a ginger gene, eat only 4 fruits a day, vote for the wrong political party, deny global warming or, in fact, anyone identified as not acceptable to their new order of perfection.
These freaks even make our useless Government impotent by ignoring democracy. Despite demanding millions of pounds are spent pushing a plain packaging consultation they ignore any possibility of an uncomfortable outcome by insisting the EU implements the measures anyway!
I took a shufty at their shebang in Soeul, in a suitably rational and objective manner.
Certainly the WHO do not intend doing anything about e-fags and it may be that, because they were not able to tack it on to FCTC (thus do not have the legal backing to pressure MP's), that ASH et al have slightly toned down the stridency.
My "analysis" is here:
http://www.tichtich.com/who-fctc-cop5-seoul-nov-2012.html
and - should you wish to avoid that in it's entirety - just go to link #1.
Howard, I suggest you watch this video
http://www.fead.org.uk/video553/Deborah-Arnott:-Why-regulating-nicotine-effectively-is-the-only-way-to-end-smoking.html
of a speech by Deborah Arnott, Head of ASH UK, from about 17 minutes in. She refers to one instance of a (modified by the user) ecig exploding and suggests that electronic goods manufactured in China are unsafe. If her activities weren't likely to result in tens of thousands of future lung cancer deaths, they would be comical. Remember ASH UK is a registered charity whose stated aim is to reduce the harm from smoking tobacco. The ECIG industry in the UK has formed its own trade association, ECITA, whose website is very informative.
Howard, I suggest you watch this video
http://www.fead.org.uk/video553/Deborah-Arnott:-Why-regulating-nicotine-effectively-is-the-only-way-to-end-smoking.html
of a speech by Deborah Arnott, Head of ASH UK, from about 17 minutes it. She refers to one instance of a (modified by the user) ecig exploding and suggests that electronic goods manufactured in China are unsafe. If her activities weren't likely to result in tens of thousands of future lung cancer deaths, they would be comical. Remember ASH UK is a registered charity. The ECIG industry in the UK has formed its own trade association, ECITA, whose website is very informative
Howard, I suggest you watch this video
http://www.fead.org.uk/video553/Deborah-Arnott:-Why-regulating-nicotine-effectively-is-the-only-way-to-end-smoking.html
of a speech by Deborah Arnott, Head of ASH UK, from about 17 minutes it. She refers to one instance of a (modified by the user) ecig exploding and suggests that electronic goods manufactured in China are unsafe. If her activities weren't likely to result in tens of thousands of future lung cancer deaths, they would be comical. Remember ASH UK is a registered charity. The ECIG industry in the UK has formed its own trade association, ECITA, whose website is very informative
Howard, I suggest you watch this video
http://www.fead.org.uk/video553/Deborah-Arnott:-Why-regulating-nicotine-effectively-is-the-only-way-to-end-smoking.html
of a speech by Deborah Arnott, Head of ASH UK, from about 17 minutes it. She refers to one instance of a (modified by the user) ecig exploding and suggests that electronic goods manufactured in China are unsafe. If her activities weren't likely to result in tens of thousands of future lung cancer deaths, they would be comical. Remember ASH UK is a registered charity. The ECIG industry in the UK has formed its own trade association, ECITA, whose website is very informative
It got stuck in the spam filter JB, sorry.
Howard, I suggest you watch this video
http://www.fead.org.uk/video553/Deborah-Arnott:-Why-regulating-nicotine-effectively-is-the-only-way-to-end-smoking.html
of a speech by Deborah Arnott, Head of ASH UK, from about 17 minutes it. She refers to one instance of a (modified by the user) ecig exploding and suggests that electronic goods manufactured in China are unsafe. If her activities weren't likely to result in tens of thousands of future lung cancer deaths, they would be comical. Remember ASH UK is a registered charity. The ECIG industry in the UK has formed its own trade association, ECITA, whose website is very informative.
You don’t realise that ecigs are effectively banned because their nicotine content exceeds the proposed EU threshold for non medicinal products. The threshold is deliberately set so as to render them useless as a cigarette substitute. To have an ecig classified as a medicinal product would take years, cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and would probably be unsuccessful.
Post a Comment