Solving the Smoking Problem over time
The problem with smoking is 2 fold.
1) it is addictive.
2) it causes diseases.
The solution that governments have come up with are:
1) Ban smoking in more and more places.
2) Raise taxes on cigarettes
3) Have more and more campaigns, Public Health Education, etc.
Meanwhile the tobacco companies continue to make money, smokers get poorer (from their addiction as well as the taxes on their addiction), and non-smokers get more irritated with smokers (because of public health campaigns that preach to the converted and raise awareness among non-smokers).
These approaches are missing the point. As the litigious US has concluded, the culprits are the big tobacco companies.
More specifically, it is the product they sell.
So what's in their product that makes it addictive and deadly?
Nicotine is the stimulant which is also addictive.
Tar is the carcinogen that causes cancer.
The solution therefore is simply to control these two substances in a stick of cigarette.
The govt has controls on acceptable limits of poisons (such as mercury) and drugs in various consumer products (tar is carcinogenic, not to mention all the other toxic chemical additives in a cigarette).
Tobacco companies sell regular cigarettes with about 15 mg of Nicotine and about 1 mg of Tar. Most also provide "light", "mild", or "ladies" version with 10 mg or less of Nicotine and 0.7mg of Tar as an alternative. (These figures are from brands that I checked before and are rough averages.)
Now if they can do that, they can produce cigarettes with even lower Nicotine and lower Tar.
What the government should do, if they are really intent on reducing smoking and its ill-effects is to give say a 3 month notice for all cigarettes to meet new tar and nicotine limits.
To make it easier, set the new limits at existing "light", "mild", or "ladies" cigarettes.
Then give tobacco companies notice that in 2 years time, Tar and Nicotine levels have to come down to say 7 mg of Nicotine and 0.5 mg of Tar. Another 2 years later, to 4 mg Nicotine and 0.3mg tar. By the 6th year, allowable Nicotine and Tar would be 2 mg and 0.2 mg or less respectively.
The govt may also want to control other chemical catalysts that tobacco companies may add to the cigarette to either maintain their potency or to increase their addictiveness. (Apparently, tobacco companies add chemicals that deliver the nicotine "kick" faster so smokers associate smoking with the nicotine kick.) Other levels of poisons in the cigarette could also be controlled if necessary, but for now, lets just focus on nicotine, tar and any catalysts or "boosters".
Eventually, people could still be smoking but fewer people will be taking up cigarettes because the nicotine "kick" would be so mild that it should not be addictive. Even if some are still hooked, the lower tar would mean lower risk of cancer.
Cigars could be exempted as they are already prohibitively expensive and the number of cigar-smokers are quite small. Still sale of cigars, pipe tobacco, and loose tobacco ("ang hoon" or "Chinese tobacco") should be monitored. If there is significantly large increase (from people spiking their low dose cigarettes or switching to these), the authorities may have to extend the control to these products as well.
(I checked with a smoker, my father, as to the attraction of cigar for him. He said it was too harsh for him. May be true for most smokers. My father started smoking at age 9. It's been a difficult trial for him to quit.)
This solution focuses on the main issue - the Nicotine and Tar in cigarettes. It doesn't punish the "victims" who are addicted to it. It doesn't deny the tobacco company their business (or their profits). And it realises that any solution is going to have to be a long slow process: 6 - 8 years.
FAQ
Q: What if tobacco companies claim to be unable to further reduce tar and nicotine?
A: The first tobacco company to be able to produce a lower tar and lower nicotine product would have a monopoly in the Singapore market. That should be incentive for them to do so.
Q: The Singapore market may not be big enough to warrant R&D by tobacco companies to develop a separate product for Singapore.
A: The annual tax revenue from tobacco is about $100m. At about $200 per kg tax, that's about 50m kg of tobacco sold in Singapore, each year (2005 figures). If 1 stick is about 10 gm, that's about 5 billion sticks of cigarettes. Alternatively, Singapore may influence other countries to adopt the same standards. There would then be a bigger market for less lethal cigarettes.
Q: What if people start to perceive that cigarettes are "safe" with lower tar and nicotine and more start taking up smoking?
A: Prohibitions on tobacco advertising in Singapore are still in place to prevent tobacco companies from promoting cigarettes as safer. In any case lower nicotine means it's less addictive, with less kick so even if more may take it up, they may be able to just as quickly drop it.
Q: What if people start to smuggle in cigarettes from Malaysia or other nearby countries?
A: They already are because of high taxes in Singapore. Customs officers will have to be more vigilent. There have been many smuggling rings broken up by the law enforcers. Alternatively, neighbouring countries may want to adopt the Singapore approach.
Q: Should there be allowances for travellers entering Singapore?
A: Allowances for travellers entering Singapore would be the same as current - one open pack for personal consumption. Extra packs would be confiscated. Travellers can't just offer to pay the additional tax because the cigarettes don't comply with allowable levels of tar and nicotine. The one pack for personal consumption is already a concession.
Q: Singapore wants to attract foreign investors and foreign talents. This may undermine the strategy and make Singapore less attractive to foreigners, including tourists.
A: The current ban on smoking in many public places are also inconvenient and "bad for business" as some have charged. Generally, however, the public education has already made smoking an indefensible right. In any case, this does not prevent smokers from smoking, they just have to smoke light or very light cigarettes when they stay in Singapore for more than a day or two (depending on how long a pack can last them).
Q: What if smokers increase the number of cigarettes they smoke to make up for the lack of Nicotine in the cigarettes?
A: Taxes will stay as it is for now, so cigarettes will still be expensive. Smokers may increase their consumption but the cost may force them to cut back. The declining levels of nicotine would also mean that each stick may be less satisfying and break the physiological dependency. But yes, this is a possible response. May see smokers using a double cigarette holder, or smoking more than one stick at a time (should look odd, and ruin their "cool" look).
1) it is addictive.
2) it causes diseases.
The solution that governments have come up with are:
1) Ban smoking in more and more places.
2) Raise taxes on cigarettes
3) Have more and more campaigns, Public Health Education, etc.
Meanwhile the tobacco companies continue to make money, smokers get poorer (from their addiction as well as the taxes on their addiction), and non-smokers get more irritated with smokers (because of public health campaigns that preach to the converted and raise awareness among non-smokers).
These approaches are missing the point. As the litigious US has concluded, the culprits are the big tobacco companies.
More specifically, it is the product they sell.
So what's in their product that makes it addictive and deadly?
Nicotine is the stimulant which is also addictive.
Tar is the carcinogen that causes cancer.
The solution therefore is simply to control these two substances in a stick of cigarette.
The govt has controls on acceptable limits of poisons (such as mercury) and drugs in various consumer products (tar is carcinogenic, not to mention all the other toxic chemical additives in a cigarette).
Tobacco companies sell regular cigarettes with about 15 mg of Nicotine and about 1 mg of Tar. Most also provide "light", "mild", or "ladies" version with 10 mg or less of Nicotine and 0.7mg of Tar as an alternative. (These figures are from brands that I checked before and are rough averages.)
Now if they can do that, they can produce cigarettes with even lower Nicotine and lower Tar.
What the government should do, if they are really intent on reducing smoking and its ill-effects is to give say a 3 month notice for all cigarettes to meet new tar and nicotine limits.
To make it easier, set the new limits at existing "light", "mild", or "ladies" cigarettes.
Then give tobacco companies notice that in 2 years time, Tar and Nicotine levels have to come down to say 7 mg of Nicotine and 0.5 mg of Tar. Another 2 years later, to 4 mg Nicotine and 0.3mg tar. By the 6th year, allowable Nicotine and Tar would be 2 mg and 0.2 mg or less respectively.
The govt may also want to control other chemical catalysts that tobacco companies may add to the cigarette to either maintain their potency or to increase their addictiveness. (Apparently, tobacco companies add chemicals that deliver the nicotine "kick" faster so smokers associate smoking with the nicotine kick.) Other levels of poisons in the cigarette could also be controlled if necessary, but for now, lets just focus on nicotine, tar and any catalysts or "boosters".
Eventually, people could still be smoking but fewer people will be taking up cigarettes because the nicotine "kick" would be so mild that it should not be addictive. Even if some are still hooked, the lower tar would mean lower risk of cancer.
Cigars could be exempted as they are already prohibitively expensive and the number of cigar-smokers are quite small. Still sale of cigars, pipe tobacco, and loose tobacco ("ang hoon" or "Chinese tobacco") should be monitored. If there is significantly large increase (from people spiking their low dose cigarettes or switching to these), the authorities may have to extend the control to these products as well.
(I checked with a smoker, my father, as to the attraction of cigar for him. He said it was too harsh for him. May be true for most smokers. My father started smoking at age 9. It's been a difficult trial for him to quit.)
This solution focuses on the main issue - the Nicotine and Tar in cigarettes. It doesn't punish the "victims" who are addicted to it. It doesn't deny the tobacco company their business (or their profits). And it realises that any solution is going to have to be a long slow process: 6 - 8 years.
FAQ
Q: What if tobacco companies claim to be unable to further reduce tar and nicotine?
A: The first tobacco company to be able to produce a lower tar and lower nicotine product would have a monopoly in the Singapore market. That should be incentive for them to do so.
Q: The Singapore market may not be big enough to warrant R&D by tobacco companies to develop a separate product for Singapore.
A: The annual tax revenue from tobacco is about $100m. At about $200 per kg tax, that's about 50m kg of tobacco sold in Singapore, each year (2005 figures). If 1 stick is about 10 gm, that's about 5 billion sticks of cigarettes. Alternatively, Singapore may influence other countries to adopt the same standards. There would then be a bigger market for less lethal cigarettes.
Q: What if people start to perceive that cigarettes are "safe" with lower tar and nicotine and more start taking up smoking?
A: Prohibitions on tobacco advertising in Singapore are still in place to prevent tobacco companies from promoting cigarettes as safer. In any case lower nicotine means it's less addictive, with less kick so even if more may take it up, they may be able to just as quickly drop it.
Q: What if people start to smuggle in cigarettes from Malaysia or other nearby countries?
A: They already are because of high taxes in Singapore. Customs officers will have to be more vigilent. There have been many smuggling rings broken up by the law enforcers. Alternatively, neighbouring countries may want to adopt the Singapore approach.
Q: Should there be allowances for travellers entering Singapore?
A: Allowances for travellers entering Singapore would be the same as current - one open pack for personal consumption. Extra packs would be confiscated. Travellers can't just offer to pay the additional tax because the cigarettes don't comply with allowable levels of tar and nicotine. The one pack for personal consumption is already a concession.
Q: Singapore wants to attract foreign investors and foreign talents. This may undermine the strategy and make Singapore less attractive to foreigners, including tourists.
A: The current ban on smoking in many public places are also inconvenient and "bad for business" as some have charged. Generally, however, the public education has already made smoking an indefensible right. In any case, this does not prevent smokers from smoking, they just have to smoke light or very light cigarettes when they stay in Singapore for more than a day or two (depending on how long a pack can last them).
Q: What if smokers increase the number of cigarettes they smoke to make up for the lack of Nicotine in the cigarettes?
A: Taxes will stay as it is for now, so cigarettes will still be expensive. Smokers may increase their consumption but the cost may force them to cut back. The declining levels of nicotine would also mean that each stick may be less satisfying and break the physiological dependency. But yes, this is a possible response. May see smokers using a double cigarette holder, or smoking more than one stick at a time (should look odd, and ruin their "cool" look).
posted by El Lobo Loco | 7:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home