Thursday, 15 January 2026

Waking up to the reality of tobacco's black market

There's a website called Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues which is written by a few anti-smoking activist-academics. It provides lots of tobacco-related statistics and a bit of editorialising. 

The website has a whole section devoted to criticising "industry estimates of the extent of illicit trade in tobacco". It is an article of faith in tobakko kontrol that industry-commissioned research into the illicit trade is a tissue of lies, despite the industry having a lot more skin in the game than anti-smoking activists when it comes to tackling black market tobacco. Industry figures are routinely portrayed as being vast exaggerations designed to scare governments away from excessive taxation and regulation.
 

As has occurred in New Zealand1 and the UK2,the major tobacco companies operating in Australia have commissioned the production of many reports over the past 15 years claiming alarmingly high estimates of the extent of illicit trade in tobacco in Australia.3-6

 
Perhaps that's because the extent of the illicit trade in these countries is alarmingly high?   
 
Industry estimates suggest that illicit tobacco consumption as a percentage of total consumption increased from 11.8% in 2012 to 23.5% of the total tobacco market in 2022. This contrasts to the 2022 estimate from the Australian Taxation Office of 14.3%.
 
Perhaps it's the Australian Taxation Office that is wrong?
 
Industry figures are usually based on empty pack surveys which most governments can't be bothered to conduct. The authors of Tobacco in Australia try to debunk empty pack surveys on the basis that...
 

People most likely to buy packs originating from overseas—being travellers, recent migrants and international students or special visa workers—are much less likely to be motorists and much more likely to be walking and using public transport. The packs they use are therefore much more likely to enter the litter stream in public places than are packs used by cigarette consumers who do not travel frequently overseas.

 
Right. So all those packets of Manchester and Top Gun, which are not legally sold in most countries, are all being brought in by tourists - tourists, who by the way, are limited to bringing in no more than 50 cigarettes by law. Not packs of cigarettes. Cigarettes.  
 
If that doesn't sound very plausible, don't worry because...
 

Between 2015 and 2022, estimates of the extent of illicit tobacco used in Australia prepared by the Australian Taxation Office were consistently substantially lower than those included in the reports produced for tobacco companies by KPMG LLP.

 
Who you gonna trust? A government agency or consultancies commissioned by the tobacco industry?
 
As it turns out, you should trust consultancies commissioned by the tobacco industry. Last October, the Australian Taxation Office put out a statement saying that its estimates of the tobacco tax gap are "unreliable" and that the real figures must be "significantly higher".
 

This year, the ATO has performed its traditional analysis on the total tobacco gap using the existing channel-based bottom-up method. However, preliminary data from a University of Queensland research project that is looking at the biomarkers of tobacco leaf consumption in samples of waste water throughout Australia suggests that the total tobacco market and therefore the total illicit market is significantly higher than what we have previously estimated.

With this information, we now assess this tobacco tax gap estimate as unreliable and are undertaking a review of the methodology. We caution using this information as it is no longer a sufficiently credible or meaningful estimate of the illicit tobacco market in Australia.

 
The ATO's most recent estimate says that 25% of Australia's tobacco market is illicit. That is still a huge proportion but, as it now admits, it is an under-estimate. 
 
According to Australia's Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner, in a report published late last year, the real figure is between 50% and 60%. This is higher than the estimate of 39.4% from the industry-funded FTI Consulting report. So much for the industry exaggerating the scale of the problem!
 
Someone should delete this section of the Tobacco in Australia website, but I'm glad they haven't because it stands as a testament to a more innocent age, before the firebombings and murders began.
 
A number of academic papers, reports produced by US government research agencies, statements by political parties and research services and newspaper articles, allege that powerful and dangerous criminal gangs and terrorist groups are involved in counterfeiting activities on a massive scale. 
 
.... Such reports have been embraced enthusiastically by think-tanks with a political agenda of keeping taxes very low. The tone of these reports is often highly emotive and alarmist, and are consistent with in the interests of tobacco companies to ‘talk up’ the problem of illicit trade in general and counterfeit cigarettes in particular.
 
Imagine thinking that dangerous criminal gangs could be involved in the illicit tobacco trade on a massive scale! How "alarmist"!
 
One such dangerous criminal has just been arrested in Iraq...
 
In Australia, Hamad’s crew were busy waging a relentless turf war for control of Australia’s multibillion-dollar illicit tobacco trade, a battle involving dozens of firebombings and the gunning down of business and personal rivals. 
 
He's now in prison, but the illicit trade remains and will continue as long as the government creates demand with insanely high cigarette taxes. A tobacco store in Melbourne went up in flames this morning.
Legal sales of tobacco halved between 2022/23 and 2024/25, mirroring a similar decline in the UK. The only difference is that HMRC has not yet admitted that its own tobacco tax gap estimates are hopelessly and demonstrably wrong.   


Tuesday, 13 January 2026

Me on the Tom Nelson podcast

I did the Tom Nelson podcast last week. We discussed a range of issues including vaping, nicotine, obesity, prohibition and more. Check it out.



Monday, 12 January 2026

Clive Bates on Substack

 Clive Bates has started a Substack. His first post is an interview he did a while ago...
 

You are a critic of Michael Bloomberg’s role in tobacco policy, why?

The New York financial services billionaire and philanthropist, Michael Bloomberg, spends hundreds of millions of dollars in this field and serves as a WHO ambassador for non-communicable diseases. Yet his policy instincts are those of an out-of-touch elitist, beset by a range of obvious, harmful, unintended consequences. He remains totally unaccountable for the consequences of his actions and interactions with governments through his giant complex of well-funded activists, academics, PR professionals, and officials. He is surrounded by people who refuse to engage with evidence suggesting he is doing more harm than good. Nowhere is this more evident than in low- and middle-income countries, where his staff and money can make a significant impact with little resistance. Though they like to pretend to be independent academics, journalists or civil society organisations, Bloomberg’s complex of organisations serves the ambitions and policy preferences of one overconfident, unaccountable billionaire and his prohibition agenda. It is the most counterproductive use of philanthropic money in the whole of public health, and it needs to stop before even more people are killed by philanthropic negligence.

 


Friday, 9 January 2026

Anti-alcohol plot backfires in the USA

Some happy news to end your week. An attempt by anti-alcohol academics to rig America's drinking guidelines has failed spectacularly.
 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform does not pull its punches. Its report - A Study Fraight with Bias - concludes that ICCPUD’s Alcohol Intake and Health (AIH) study was a politically motivated waste of money that violated federal law.

 
Read the rest on my Substack.  


Thursday, 8 January 2026

Lowering the drink-drive limit

Lacking anything else to do, the Labour government is planning to lower the drink-drive limit. England and Wales have a higher limit than most European countries and fewer drink-related road accidents per capita than nearly all of them. We also know from Scotland that lowering the limit won't have any effect on road safety but will damage the pub trade. 

The worst people in the country are all in favour of this, namely the anti-motorists ("Just walk lol"), the pub gentrifiers ("I support my pub by going in every now and again for a lime soda") and the people who support every pointless restriction on liberty by saying "What's the fuss? All you have to do is obey the law."

But it is a pointless restriction on liberty. As I say in Spiked, it is the opposite of evidence-based policy. If you support unnecessary restrictions on liberty which damage businesses just so you can feel morally righteous, you are the problem.

Read my Spiked piece. 



Wednesday, 7 January 2026

Food advertising ban introduced - what's next?

The "junk food" advertising ban came into full effect on Monday. As I argue in The Critic, the whole thing is built on lies: a policy based on quack science designed to tackle a problem that has been wilfully exaggerated to reduce costs to the NHS that don't exist. And where has the opposition been?
 

It takes wilful blindness not to see that food is being dragged down the same slippery slope as tobacco, with a full advertising ban being the next step. Where is the food industry in all this? Where are the advertising platforms and TV companies? The Food and Drink Federation hasn’t put out a press release since mid-December and hasn’t tweeted for over a month. In an unbelievably tepid quote given to the BBC, it said that it was “committed to working in partnership with the government and others to help people make healthier choices” and claimed that its members’ products “now have a third of the salt and sugar and a quarter of the calories than they did ten years ago”. Whoopee. Where has that got them? With the most hostile business environment in the developed world, that’s where. And there is undoubtedly more to come. I don’t expect a trade association to call for the head of Wes Streeting but it could at least say that it is disappointed with the government and call for a ceasefire. Instead they essentially boasted about shrinkflation.

As for the broadcasters, they have spent years whipping up hysteria about food and are now sowing what they reaped. The boss of Channel 4 has said that the ad ban could cost her company £50 million a year. She should have thought about that before she commissioned all those Jamie Oliver documentaries. ITV has been no better with its scaremongering about “ultra-processed food”. These companies were perfectly placed to put out an alternative viewpoint and had years to do so, but they never did, even though it would have been justified in the name of balance.

 


Tuesday, 6 January 2026

The stakeholder state

We need to strip funding from all politically active NGOs, charities and pressure groups. We need a true bonfire of the quangos. We need to - for want of a better word - purge those “arm’s-length bodies” and government departments that have been “captured” by ideologues. Above all, we need to repeal or significantly amend a number of laws, including the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act, the Children and Families Act, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act, the Town and Country Planning Act, the Employment Rights Act, and the Human Rights Act. We probably need to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Much of this will be unpopular, and not just with the “stakeholder state”, because all this legislation sounds nice (governments never call a law ‘The Anti-Growth Act’ or ‘The Business Suffocation Act’). Some of these laws have only just been introduced.

The government - this government, the last government and the next government - is in a strait-jacket of well-meaning but badly drafted laws that have been exploited by activist judges and single-issue campaigners. There is no point complaining about the judges and the campaigners. The only way out of the woods is do the one thing that politicians can do and change the law.

 
Read the rest (free) on my Substack.