Tobacco firm Philip Morris calls for ban on cigarettes within decade:
The chief executive of tobacco business Philip Morris International has called on the UK government to ban cigarettes within a decade, in a move that would outlaw its own Marlboro brand.
Jacek Olczak said the company could “see the world without cigarettes … and actually, the sooner it happens, the better it is for everyone.” Cigarettes should be treated like petrol cars, the sale of which is due to be banned from 2030, he said.
Government action would end the confusion felt by smokers, some of whom still thought the “alternatives are worse than cigarettes”, Olczak told the Sunday Telegraph. “Give them a choice of smoke-free alternatives … with the right regulation and information it can happen 10 years from now in some countries. You can solve the problem once and forever.”
Philip Morris International (PMI) recently said it wanted half its turnover to come from non-smoking products as it morphs into a “healthcare and wellness company” with executive pay tied to its new mission to “unsmoke the world” by phasing out cigarettes.
Nonetheless the company has come under fire from anti-smoking campaigners who accused it of hypocrisy after it launched a £1bn takeover bid for Vectura, a British pharmacy company that makes asthma inhalers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @07:46PM (4 children)
Govern me harder, Daddy!
(Score: 1, Troll) by MIRV888 on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:54AM (2 children)
The free market would have eliminated slavery, bad meat, over the counter cocaine, and laudanum all on its own.
Pull the other one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @02:49AM
Slavery would certainly have ended in the fields in America because mechanization would soon become cheaper than owning slow-working people. Do people pick cotton now? No.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @04:10AM
There's nothing wrong with cocaine or opium. False equivalences aren't a convincing argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:31AM
What do we do with a smoking nigga - 10 years mandatory?
(Score: 3, Touché) by HammeredGlass on Monday July 26 2021, @07:59PM (7 children)
The question is how do they stand to profit from the elimination of cigarettes?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Monday July 26 2021, @08:08PM (4 children)
They stand to profit by staying in the “nicotine delivery system” business. They understand that butts are going the way of the buggy whip, and many governments will be outlawing smokes anyway. But “nicotine delivery systems” are not going anywhere.
(Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Monday July 26 2021, @08:30PM
"Nicotine delivery systems" may in fact produce clinically relevant results when co-introduced with butts [nih.gov].
(Score: 2) by Revek on Monday July 26 2021, @09:34PM
Came here to say this. They are just going to change their drug business.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by c0lo on Tuesday July 27 2021, @01:17AM
Why stop at nicotine?
There, TFS says it looks into delivery system for anything habitual
Bottom line: anything that will keep the users hooked on the products. You can expect cannabinoid delivery systems too, they'd be stupid not to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @03:15AM
So only the Amish will be smokers?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:28AM (1 child)
Synthetic nicotine or nicotine extracted from other non-tobacco sources is probably cheaper than Tobacco based. So the "smokeless" products like vaps have a better profit margin.
I can't help but notice that PM is not calling for getting people off nicotine, just advocating the phase out of a product that has a very bad reputation attached.
I fully expect PM is already positioning itself to reap even greater profit when the current batch of nicotine addicts who use tobacco as their drug delivery method of choice are forced to switch to vapers. Probably along the lines of a line of officially branded "Marlboro" vapers and related items.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28 2021, @05:43AM
That's usually how that works, or they'll spend tons creating loopholes or slowing the process.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Subsentient on Monday July 26 2021, @08:18PM (13 children)
I'm surprised.
Truth be told, they're planning to go all-in on vapes, which is smart. I switched a couple years back, immediately stopped hacking up mucus and breathed much easier. If how my body feels on vape vs cigarettes is any indicator, then vapes are *much* healthier than tobacco. I'd bet money that years from now, that will still be the scientific consensus.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Monday July 26 2021, @08:27PM (8 children)
Yeah they probably think they can make more money via selling vaping products, especially in states where vaping regulations lag behind cigarette regulations.
Isn't it great, though, that governments everywhere can reduce the impact of nicotine by simply refusing to do what tobacco companies propose, and enacting legislation that the same companies campaign against. Just ignore these ghouls: keep cigarettes legal for now, and adopt plain packaging for anything containing nicotine.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday July 26 2021, @09:57PM (7 children)
The problem isn't the nicotine.
It's the tars and other combustion chemicals that cause cancer.
The nicotine just addicts you and keeps you smoking.
It really makes sense to mollify the addiction without all those really dangerous chemicals.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday July 26 2021, @10:39PM (6 children)
True, nicotine isn't nearly as serious a health problem on its own (though inhaling pesticides still isn't great for you, even if it is all natural)
However, there's still some serious moral issues surrounding the advertising of highly addictive substances. And non-plain packaging is unquestionably a form of advertising, while nicotine's addictiveness is right up there with heroin, etc.
Personally, I'd say don't single out nicotine - instead we should ban all advertising, including fancy packaging, for anything containing large amounts of "significantly addictive" substances. With individual substances being subject to such classification based on the evidence. Personally I'd say alcohol, caffeine, and possibly even large quantities of sugar (or other sweeteners) would qualify. Nothing inherently wrong with any of them, but using the advanced psychological manipulation that advertising has become in order to lure people into getting (more) addicted is not something we should condone as a society.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday July 26 2021, @11:17PM
I quite agree.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 26 2021, @11:33PM
Nicotine delivered to developing brains is actually a very serious health problem, unless you're the company selling the nicotine delivery systems.
Addiction is enough of a problem without scientifically optimizing it for maximal effect.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:50AM (1 child)
Raw sugar already has the blandest packaging that ever blanded.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 27 2021, @01:50PM
True. However, most candy has only a slightly lower sugar concentration, and the packaging is anything but plain.
Even cookies, cakes, etc. typically have sugar concentrations far in excess of the fruit a properly calibrated sweet tooth evolved to encourage us to eat, with none of the redeeming nutritional value. As do sodas and even fruit juices (which are typically no less sugary, and only very minimally more nutritious)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 27 2021, @01:23AM
Like... food?
Look, your mother hooked you into eating from the very first day after birth and you can't stop it to this very day. Have you tried? The withdrawal symptoms are horrendous and you will die if you prolong your attempt to get free from your addiction to food. (large grin)
We humans are sacks of chemicals... [xkcd.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday July 27 2021, @04:07AM
A friend worked in her church's program to help substance abusers recover.
She said she'd talked to people who'd beaten heroin or cocaine as well as tobacco, who kept telling her that tobacco was the hardest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @08:35PM
You're right. There are two harmful things you consume with cigarettes: 1/ Nicotine 2/ Smoke.
Of the two, the smoke is much more harmful. Vapes let you eliminate number 2.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @08:47PM
Truth be told, they're not. They found a way to sell you the same amount of tobacco, in the same cig-looking package at 5x the markup. And you need a couple of hundred bucks for the device to use it. They realized that people who are still smoking are unlikely to start vaping, as they already would have by now. So they found a way to make more money on each cig. What's interesting, is there is no claim from them that it's any healthier than a cig.
https://www.pmi.com/smoke-free-products/iqos-our-tobacco-heating-system [pmi.com]
Now, vapes are indeed healthier, and they do sell them, and have been selling them. Outlawing cigs however would greatly increase their bottom line, as the hardcore smokers will switch to the IQOS. In fact, they have even bribed insurance companies to provide discounts for users of IQOS, which are not given to the much healthier vape users.
>vapes are *much* healthier
smoked for 15 years on and off, haven't smoked for close to 10 now. My doctor says he can't detect that I was a smoker. Now, I'm sure some damage is done, but looks like over a decade the damaged cells have been replaced, and the shit in my lungs fully cleared out.
but that makes sense qualitatively. it's the smoke - any smoke, even paper smoke or weed smoke, that's the bad part. vg and pg actually has a chance to help the lungs clean themselves out - it's like lotion and clean mucous. In fact, the doctor's suggestion was that vaping helped the lungs heal faster. After which he told me it's still a good idea to quit that too, but cutting out just one slice of cake per week would likely have more health benefits than quitting vaping. Apparently mucous isn't cleared out as well when you vape, which can lead to a lung infection. But not to things like cancer, which is what we're concerned about here.
I use pure VG by the way - apparently pg dries out your lungs, while vg loosens the cell membrane stickiness for outer cells that are damaged or dead, and helps you get the lungs cleaner. The key is to use a ph-neutral flavor mix, and pure vg. Using an acidic flavoring or pg will still damage your lungs (which is what all those studies saying vaping is bad are talking about).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:48AM (1 child)
I stopped eating fermented pig shit a couple years back and switched over to fresh dog turds. It's *much* healthier and it improved my smile. The added benefit is people are just slightly less disgusted when I eat.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday July 27 2021, @07:23AM
Have you considered chugging 1 gallon jugs of fermented cat diarrhea instead? Much easier to digest.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 26 2021, @09:38PM (6 children)
OK, I'll readily admit that the world would be a better place without tobacco. If it had never been discovered, we would be better off. But - we have tobacco.
So, they're going to ban the stuff? Oh boy, oh boy! Back alley meetings to buy a bag of tobacco for $20, 50, $100. Ready-rolled cigs $10, a whole pack for $200. And, if someone snitches, the cops roll up and start shooting at anyone who resists and/or tries to escape. If captured (alive) and convicted, 2 years in the pen for anything over an ounce, plus 2 years for each cigarette.
When does man figure out that prohibition just doesn't work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @09:51PM
Every law is enforced with the threat of state violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @10:00PM
Beating down the black man for smoking weed is unpopular these days. Now we can beat up all the poors and arrest them for smoking those dirty cancer sticks!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Monday July 26 2021, @10:00PM (2 children)
If the price of tobacco skyrockets, vaping will be a cheaper alternative. Market prices will deal with the tobacco black market.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:49AM (1 child)
Except that vaping is already in the legal crosshairs as well. There've been calls to ban e-cig products and US states have passed bans against 'flavored' vape juice.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday July 27 2021, @10:56AM
And it appears that some, but not all, of the solvents used in vaping fluids have nasty side effects of their own. It's time for regulation, not banning.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:37PM
Might as well smoke the legal weed if that happens. It doesn't cause cancer either.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @10:29PM
Editor Martyn said the website could "see the world without comments... and actually, the sooner it happens the better it is for everyone."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @10:56PM (1 child)
As long as there's something to burn and inhale, smoking will exist. Better outlaw fire, too.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:57AM
We are finite beings. Let's get on with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:00AM
This must mean that they're making enough money from vapes and other products, expect to make a lot of money from legal weed, or perhaps have diversified in to prison services or other related fields that are certainly going to increase in demand if tobacco prohibition comes to pass. I always figured tobacco was a sad sister to weed in terms of whatever pleasure it may bring; but it's vastly more addictive and will probably still find a way to get people hooked even if it becomes a street drug.
Whatever they're up to, I'm quite sure it's not coming from the goodness of their hearts.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 27 2021, @12:22AM
They have some patent on some kind of inhaler thingamajig that pretty much means that as soon as cigarettes are outlawed, the only way to get their fix for their druggies would be to go to them because nobody else can produce their patented fix, and the sooner they outlaw it the longer the patent allows them to corner the market.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Retian on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:38AM
Oh well that's just peachy. First they profit for decades by addicting millions to poison, and now they stand to profit even more from the healthcare needs of their customers who are still alive.
Yeah, there's the kind of greed I expect from corporate sociopaths.
I'm guessing them suddenly demanding the inevitable cigarette bans means they think they're in a better position than their competitors right now, ready to outcompete them on the tobacco alternatives they're shifting towards. The only thing I'm certain of is that nobody involved in this decision did it out of any sense of altruism.
(Score: 1) by NASAdude on Tuesday July 27 2021, @02:46PM
If the company wants to stop selling tobacco products, they don't have to wait for regulation. Or is money the issue?
If hurting people is ethically wrong, depending on the existence of regulation to keep you from doing it seems disingenuous. It seems like they're saying, "I agree that X (murder, robbery, slavery, racism, misogyny, rape, child labor, castes, (selling tobacco), etc.) is horrible, but since X isn't illegal I'm ok with taking advantage of it when it benefits me."
The lack of codified law doesn't excuse the actor when they continue doing what they profess is wrong. If anything, it brings into question whether they really believe it is wrong.