Survey: 7 out 10 still buy illicit tobacco
Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:33 The Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has published the results of its annual survey of over 12,000 adult smokers in the UK.
Subject: their attitudes, awareness and understanding of illicit tobacco.
The key findings are:
- 7 out of 10 people still buy illicit tobacco
- 20 per cent of smokers said that they only buy ‘branded’ cigarettes or ‘branded’ roll your own tobacco, despite it being banned in the UK since 2016
- More than 75 per cent of respondents aged between 18-24 have bought non-UK duty paid tobacco in the last year
- Nearly 1 in 5 of those who were aware of the sale of illicit tobacco in their area had reported it – which is a 4 per cent increase on last year’s survey results.
The survey also invited responses to questions about the impact of Covid-19 during the first lockdown (April to June 2020). It seems to have had a significant effect in several areas. For example:
During the first lockdown 16 per cent of respondents bought illicit tobacco through social media or websites advertising cheap tobacco – compared to only four per cent who purchased illicit tobacco from the same sources before lockdown.
Twenty-four percent of respondents found it harder to obtain cigarettes/RYO from corner shops and newsagents, while 22 per cent found it harder to obtain them from supermarkets including online delivery.
The latter finding supports several emails we have received from smokers who have been unable to get their preferred brands from a supermarket online. Alternatively the supermarket has failed to offer a substitute brand.
Waitrose, as I reported last month, actually has a national policy of NOT supplying substitute tobacco brands.
More recently (March 5) we received this email:
Problems with Sainsbury's today. Ordered one pack of 100 superkings plus two different packs of 20 superkings. Received only one pack of 20 with the others marked 'no suitable substitutes'. Perhaps because I ordered the cheaper ones but I would have accepted more expensive brands and would have had (I assume) the usual option of returning subs if not acceptable.
In terms of smokers' attitudes, the survey offers little comfort for legitimate retailers in the UK or the Treasury.
For example, 52 per cent of respondents admitted that the high price of tobacco tempts them to buy tobacco that has not had UK tax paid on it.
42 per cent went further and said they had no objection to buying tobacco that has not had UK tax paid on it from a friend, relative, shop etc. (In contrast only 30 per cent disagreed with this proposition.)
Two out of three respondents (66 per cent) had no objection to buying tobacco for themselves that did not have UK tax paid on it as long as it came from a legal source.
Fifty-three per cent of respondents believe it is OK to buy tobacco overseas and in duty free shops to bring back to the UK to sell to friends and family, with 57 per cent agreeing with the statement, 'I plan to buy tobacco products abroad and bring back as many cigarettes/tobacco as I legally can'.
The lesson here is that attempts to guilt trip smokers who don't pay UK tax on tobacco are likely to fall on deaf ears.
As for reporting those that buy and consume illicit tobacco, '78 per cent of those who are aware of illicit tobacco being sold in the last 12 months have not reported it'.
Furthermore, 55 per cent of those asked had not reported the sale of illicit tobacco to anyone because they believed it was 'none of their business'.
This broadly complement the findings of polls commissioned by Forest in the UK and Ireland. Asked whether it was "understandable" if smokers purchased tobacco illegally, a whopping 70% of respondents (smokers and non-smokers) said ‘yes’ in Ireland (2020), 67% in the UK (2016).
In other words, when tobacco duty is so astonishingly high, even non-smokers are reluctant to be judgemental about buying illicit tobacco, let alone report it to the authorities.
Like most people I don't condone breaking the law but when it comes to purchasing tobacco illegally it's interesting that a substantial majority think it's "understandable" and "none of their business".
And who's responsible for that? The finger of blame points firmly at successive governments and their relentless urge to punish smokers for their habit whilst squeezing every last penny out of them, even if it means forcing poorer smokers further into poverty.
According to Rupert Lewis, director of the TMA:
"This year’s survey findings highlight both the widespread availability of illicit tobacco, but also the entrenched perception among many consumers that it is ‘acceptable’ to trade or buy illicit tobacco.
"It remains a startling fact that, out of over 12,000 consumers questioned in the survey, seven out of ten (70 per cent) said that they had bought illicit tobacco in the last twelve months."
More interesting perhaps is the revelation that one in five smokers (20 per cent) claimed that they only purchased ‘branded’ cigarettes or ‘branded’ roll your own tobacco. As Lewis notes:
"This is especially concerning, as all ‘branded’ tobacco products have been banned in the UK since 2016."
What's interesting to me, a non-smoker, is the range of sources for buying illicit tobacco. They include markets, car boot sales, vans, private houses, friends and family (those who smoke and those who don't), social media and/or websites advertising cheap tobacco, people in the street or someone selling in a pub, bar or café.
The TMA reports that cigarette and hand rolling tobacco accounted for £10.6 billion in government revenue in 2019-20, according to HMRC, and in the most recent HMRC Tax Gap Estimates 2018-19 up to £1.9 billion of lost government revenue was caused by the consumption of illicit tobacco.
Naturally the TMA wants to highlight the loss of revenue, the impact on legitimate retailers, and whether there are sufficient deterrents (legal, social etc) to dissuade or prevent people from selling and/or buying illicit tobacco.
From a liberal perspective I believe the focus has to be on the levels of tax because that's the fuel that drives the purchase of illicit tobacco.
It's not a victimless act – there's evidence, for example, that terrorists profit from it and legitimate retailers obviously lose business – but when the tax on tobacco is so high it's wrong to focus on the consumer when the root cause is staring us in the face.
Despite last week's Budget, which I wrote about here, the Chancellor is committed to increasing the tax on cigarettes by inflation plus two per cent every year during this parliament.
On the basis of this survey he should reconsider this policy and either freeze tobacco duty or abandon the 'inflation plus' escalator.
If he's not minded to do that, he must politely but firmly reject all calls to hike taxes above the existing escalator and explain why.
The evidence demands a tobacco tax policy that recognises the damage being done by the existing policy and acknowledges that smokers cannot be society's whipping boys forever.
Full survey here.
Reader Comments (6)
Some people deliberately buy black market or from abroad as the only protest they can make about the state hate campaign against them which is funded by the tax bullied out of them.
Sadly, as in all things, government and smokerphobic quangos still don't listen and ramp up the bullying more rather than trying to talk to smokers or their representative to resolve the issue.
As for the revolting snitches reporting people - well, let's just say that they are the type that would have reported their Jewish neighbours and dissidents back in the day.
What have we become? A once tolerant and inclusive nation now brags at how divisive it has become, how nasty it can be, and lauds people who are nothing more than creepy snitches reporting on neighbours and friends.
When I read about anything like this I go back to the source.
James !st of England.
As a man who wrote volumes on a subject that raised his hatred and bile but never mastered the full stop it's very hard to read, but do persevere if you wonder why the British have been unmercifully taxed over tobacco from 1604 until now.
Tobacco was brought into the country as a medicine but as King James points out
"was used and taken by the better sort both then and nowe onelye as Phisicke to preserve Healthe"
not
"excessivelie taken by a nomber of ryotous and disordered Persons of meane and base Condition, whoe, contrarie to the use which Persons of good Callinge and Qualitye make thereof, doe spend most of there tyme in that idle Vanitie,"
James made tobacco so expensive that only the very rich could afford tobacco and banned tobacco growing in England so he could levy ever greater taxes on a much smaller amount of imported tobacco.
A Counterblaste to Tobacco
King James I of England
A Law of James about Tobacco
1604
"JAMES, by the Grace of God &c. to our right Trustie and right Welbeloved Cousen and Counsellor, Thomas Earle of Dorset our High Treasourer of Englande, Greetinge."
https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/blaste.app.html
Prior to Brexit, I used to visit Spain and reside there for up to three months at a time, upon returning to the U.K. each time I would bring in ten cartons of cigarettes at 45 euros per carton, compared to £100 plus for one carton here in the U.K. It’s a no brainier due to the difference in prices. This is the only thing I have against Brexit, as I can now only bring into the U.K. one carton regardless of what I pay for them legally.
No surprise here. Draconian and activist tobacco control policies designed to stigmatize smokers and force incremental prohibition erode the legitimacy of government while empowering organized crime. In short tyranny is ultimately counter-productive even if it sates the tyrant's quest for control and power.
D Kerr, it is no loss because the EU has announced that it intends to level up prices of tobacco across the EU and bring them all equal to the highest cost in Ireland, so going abroad to buy cheap tobacco will be a thing of the past either in or out and as smokers, there is nothing in it for us whether in or out so what difference.
I voted OUT to piss off the very people who have been pissing me off for decades.
Anti-smoking and high tobacco taxes are based on just one claim - that 2nd and 3rd hand tobacco smoke are major health risks to other people.
The survey should have included the question, "Should Big Pharma companies prosecuted for their junk science studies falsely claiming 2nd and 3rd Hand Tobacco Smoke are Health Risks to others when in fact they are not ?"
Fact is 2nd and 3rd Hand Tobacco Smoke are Not Statistically Significant Health Risks to Other People.
www.tobaccosmokersofcanada.ca