Is this the beginning of the end for conventional cigarettes?
Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:59 I have a clock radio that bursts into life at 6.10 every morning.
It's tuned to Radio 4 so at weekends I lie there, half awake, listening to Farming Today or Clare Balding rambling on (literally) as she "joins notable and interesting people for a walk through the countryside".
During the week it's the Today programme that wakes me up and today the first voice I heard was that of Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH.
I only caught a bit of it but she was talking about PMI's new heat not burn product which is being launched in the UK today. According to this report:
Philip Morris has launched a new, less harmful cigarette in the UK which it says could mean halting sales of its conventional tobacco products.
The so called Iqos product heats tobacco rather than burning it.
The tobacco giant claims this means smokers get the same nicotine hit, but 90% less of the nasty toxins that come with cigarette smoke.
It says trials - not yet externally verified - found the new cigarette had the same impact as quitting smoking.
The firm is not pushing that finding, saying only that the new product is likely to cause less harm.
See Philip Morris could stop making conventional cigarettes (BBC News).
Shortly after seven there was an interview with André Calantzopoulos, PMI's chief executive, who confirmed the company would like to work with governments towards the "phase-out" of conventional cigarettes.
Interestingly I've been invited by BBC Radio Leeds to discuss whether combustible cigarettes should now be prohibited.
The argument seems to be that, with the availability of 'safer' non-combustible nicotine products, perhaps it's time to ban the sale of traditional cigarettes altogether.
I've said many times that Forest welcomes all alternative nicotine delivery devices and heat not burn products are of particular interest because of the link with tobacco.
Nevertheless the idea that a tobacco company wants to "phase-out" conventional cigarettes does stick in the throat somewhat.
PMI is entitled to have that conversation with government or anyone else, but they're not entitled to speak for other tobacco companies or the millions of consumers who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit, even for a 'safer' product.
Update: I've just discussed this subject on BBC Radio Leeds. Prompted by André Calantzopoulos's comments this morning, the theme of their phone-in was 'Should tobacco be banned?'
Well done, PMI, you've got people talking openly about the prohibition!
For the record I said that Forest is "pro-choice not pro-smoking" and we are excited by all emerging nicotine products including e-cigarettes and heat not burn devices.
I supported PMI's efforts to speak to government (I said that government, the tobacco companies and public health should get together to discuss these issues) but I also said that talk of phasing out traditional cigarettes was a "kick in the teeth" for consumers who enjoy smoking.
If I can get a clip I'll post it here later.
Reader Comments (5)
I oppose phasing out smoking. People should be given choice. This seems like capitulation in the face of the forces of prohibition more than anything else. Surely the tobacco companies know that the health affects of smoking have been exaggerated and that they have been forced into this position?
HMG won't ban conventional cigarettes if "heat not burn" aren't as 'harmful'- it won't quit that £11 billion a year it gets from the smokers' sin tax not to mention the self-righteous glow that a sin tax generates.
Banning conventional cigarettes while PMI holds all the patents on their new technology and manufactures and distributes not only the product but the proprietary replacement pods to go with it puts PMI at a distinct competitive advantage over all other tobacco companies - because as they are forced out of business, thanks to PMI promoting tobacco prohibition outright, then PMI's monopoly of the IQOS market means they would be left holding 100% of the entire market and all competition is driven out of business. For that, all PMI has to do is insure tax revenues of the same amount continues to government treasury and thus to the anti-smoking industry and with that, they will have government prohibition on all competitors, a government granted monopoly to PMI and the anti-smoking industry on the sidelines endorsing it with a public campaign that promotes public acceptance. Then everything goes back to the way it was during the last golden age of smoking, only this time with tobacco heating instead and PMI the sole provider, eventually worldwide.
Well done PMI for shafting your consumers in favour of those who hate us. With friends like this who needs smokerphobics.
Talk about throwing us to the dogs. See you all in jail in a few years time. Thanks PMI
Jay - why does the govt need sin tax when fines for smoking are huge if one drops a cig end, smokes in a car, holds a pub smoking lock in, doesn't carry a no smoking sign in a non smokers work van and even fines non smokers if the smoke police claim mistakenly, believe that a non smoker has dropped a cig end.
Everyday I count how many stumps are on the floor - usually about £800 worth so not many. My work doesn't fine people for littering but they do pay for cleaning staff whose duty includes sweeping outdoors.
However, only the other day someone I know dropped a cig end in the town and was fined on the spot. She offered to pick it up but was told by the zealots that she wouldn't know which was one was hers so couldn't. It seems to me if she didn't know then neither would the smoke policeman know which was hers so how would he prove she dropped it?
The fact is no proof is needed other than the word of an antismoker against a smoker so they could just maliciously make it up and get away with it.
The antis knew they could never replace lost tax from quitters from the sale of other products so they replace it with huge criminal penalties for people who still smoke.
Drugs are illegal but bring in billions in revenue from the criminalisation and seized assets of those involved in drugs. This is where the govt aided by PMI is taking us.