Minimum pricing for tobacco
Monday, January 13, 2020 at 13:35 I was on BBC Radio Scotland on Friday.
Presenter Stephen Jardine hosted a phone-in on the issue of smoking. In particular, they wanted me to talk about minimum pricing for tobacco.
If I recall the subject was first mentioned in Scotland in November 2017 when the BBC reported that:
Increasing the cost of tobacco or setting a minimum price could be used as part of a campaign to drive down the number of smokers in Scotland.
Invited to respond:
The smokers' campaign group Forest described the tobacco pricing plans as "patronising and deeply offensive".
Spokesman Simon Clark said: "This middle-class war on smoking has to stop.
"Tobacco is a legal product and if adults choose to smoke knowing the risks, that choice must be respected.
"Making tobacco even more expensive would discriminate against those who are less well-off. It will also fuel illicit trade by encouraging more smokers to buy tobacco illegally."
The issue raised its head again in June 2018 when The Times reported:
Ministers could set a minimum price for tobacco in an unprecedented move to discourage smoking in Scotland.
The idea (naturally) follows the introduction of minimum pricing for alcohol. The simplistic argument goes something like this:
Minimum unit pricing is already helping to reduce alcohol sales so why not do the same thing for tobacco?
I say 'simplistic' because it is not at all clear that minimum pricing has reduced alcohol sales in Scotland.
According to the BBC in June last year, 'Scottish alcohol sales drop as minimum price kicks in'.
Likewise the Guardian ('Scottish alcohol sales at lowest level in 25 years after price controls') while The Times announced that 'Minimum pricing policy for alcohol has sobering effect'.
The clear message was that minimum pricing was 'working'. However, as Chris Snowdon pointed out:
Alcohol sales [in Scotland] have fallen in nine of the last eleven years, including a 3.7% fall in 2011, a 4.2% fall in 2012, a 2.5% fall in 2013 and a 1.9% fall in 2016. There is nothing special or unusual about the 2.95% fall recorded in 2018.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure why the issue attracted the attention of Radio Scotland last week but after I had been on the Scottish Daily Mail asked me for a quote.
The story has yet to appear (I suspect it got dropped because of all the Harry/Meghan stuff) but this is what we gave them:
“Minimum pricing will discriminate against poorer smokers. Not only is this unfair, it will push some further into poverty.
“Those who can will buy their tobacco abroad or in England. Others may be driven to the unregulated black market.
“Either way, minimum pricing will hit not just smokers but every legitimate retailer in Scotland.”
I'm sure this issue will run and run. I'll keep you posted.
Reader Comments (2)
They want to discriminate and push smokers into poverty to force them to quit or brand them as such pathetic addicts they are prioritising buying tobacco over food. Of course if they could still buy smaller packs of baccy or packs of 10 that would make it less oppressive to buy and mean they smoke less. This, as we know however, is not about health but a hate campaign to keep fat cat Nanny State healthists and fat cat bullies at hate group ASH ,in fat cat salaries.
The public hate campaign against smokers would be illegal against any other minority.
Minimum pricing is a regressive assault on the working poor. This is just another case of incremental prohibition directed at imposing an antismoking bias. The result won't be a reduction in consumption but rather an increase in persecution and hate. A side effect of this hate campaign is the growth or the illicit economy. The hate mongers in tobacco control (and their peers in lifestyle control writ large) must be stopped.