Farewell, disposable vapes

Part of me wishes that disposable vapes had never been invented. Until they arrived, it seemed like the battle for tobacco harm reduction in Britain had been won. The kind of people who want to ban everything wanted to ban e-cigarettes, but most people could see that they were a relatively harmless substitute for cigarettes and were helping to drive down smoking rates.

Then along came the Elf bars and Geek bars and the mood began to sour. Whether it was because of the price or the colours or because it was simply a fad, they became somewhat popular with teenagers, just as Juul had become popular with high school students in the USA a few years earlier.

 

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Share

Tweet

Will the tobacco turf wars come to Britain?

The old adage that there is no smoke without fire has taken on a sinister meaning in Australia after a series of arson attacks on tobacconists. The word “series” barely does it justice. “Endless succession” is closer to the mark. When a shop selling illegal tobacco was firebombed in Adelaide last Tuesday, it was the 16th such incident in South Australia and the 130th nationwide since the “tobacco turf wars” began last year. It was followed by another firebombing in Adelaide on Saturday, an arson attack on a gym in Melbourne on Sunday, two tobacconists set ablaze in Melbourne on Tuesday and a smoke shop in New South Wales being ram-raided and blown up yesterday. 

With drive-by shootings and murders in broad daylight, Australia’s black market in tobacco and vapes should be a cautionary tale, but it has received little attention in the Northern hemisphere. The root of the problem is obvious. Australia has the highest tobacco taxes in the world and has banned e-cigarettes entirely. The market for both products is now largely in the hands of criminal gangs who encourage shopkeepers to sell their products by telling them to “earn or burn”. 

One of the more peculiar elements of “public health” ideology is the belief that taxes and regulation do not fuel the illicit trade, but when your nightly news bulletins start to resemble something from Judge Dredd, that becomes difficult to sustain. Even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which makes the BBC look like GB News, has had to acknowledge that “excessively high” cigarette taxes are responsible for the self-described “world leader in tobacco control” becoming a basket case.

 

Read the rest at The Critic.

Share

Tweet

Looting

Ahead of the Budget on 30 October, Rachel Reeves is being bombarded by lobbyists urging her to loot their enemies. The New Economics Foundation wants a ‘jet-setter tax’ on frequent fliers of €100 per flight. Action on Smoking and Health wants a levy on tobacco companies. Greenpeace reckons it can raise at least £26 billion a year by levying a wealth tax on the ‘super-rich’. An assortment of think tanks and pressure groups linked to the Labour donor Derek Webb think they can squeeze another £3 billion out of the gambling industry by doubling gaming and betting duties. Meanwhile in Scotland, the neo-temperance lobby are demanding a ‘levy’ on alcohol retailers who, they claim, are getting rich off the back of minimum pricing (a policy that only exists because they lobbied for it). 

The appeal of these taxes lies in the old adage ‘Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree’. They will, supposedly, only affect faceless corporations and ‘those with the broadest shoulders’, and who cares about them? Alas, it is more complicated than that and the Labour party is starting to realise that if there were billions of pounds lying on the pavement, the last government would have picked them up. Putting VAT on school fees and taxing non-doms were the closest thing Labour had to a magic money tree before the election, but it is now widely recognised that they will raise little if any revenue and the overall impact on the public finances could well be negative. 

It is a reminder that before you hike up taxes, you should give a little thought to the unintended consequences, and yet the wider economic consequences of windfall taxes on industries that have not been the beneficiary of any obvious windfall are rarely considered. It is probably fair to say that the New Economics Foundation does not have the best interests of either the airline industry or business travellers at heart. For anti-alcohol, anti-gambling and anti-smoking groups, creating unemployment in the industries they attack is not so much an unintended consequence as the whole point. 

Read the rest at the Spectator.

Share

Tweet

Last Orders live

If you couldn't make it in person, here it is...

Share

Tweet

Christopher Snowdon on NTD

I was on NTD this week doing a long form interview about coercive paternalism with Lee Hall. I enjoyed it and hope you will too.

Share

Tweet

Looting for 'public health'

There is a budget on its way and the 'public health' vultures are circling.

 

"Campaigners" - i.e. ASH and some of their pals - are still calling for a levy on tobacco companies, partly because tobacco duty revenues of £10 billion a year are not enough for them and partly because the industry supposedly earns "absolutely obscene profits". According to the Guardian...

 

Reeves should also legislate to introduce a recurring annual levy on the profits tobacco firms make, they say, which in the case of Imperial Tobacco is a £66.50 margin on every £100 of sales.

 

This is such obvious nonsense that I never bothered to look up what the actual profit margin is, but the excellent Tim Worstall has...

 

A recent set of accounts from Imperial Brands, which owns Imperial Tobacco. Now, the question is, can you see a 66% net profit in there? Can you see 66% of anything that could in fact be taxed away? 

The company's post-tax profits were £2.3 billion from £32.5 billion of revenue. Not too shabby (regulation has turned the industry into an oligopoly, after all), but hardly extraordinary.

Who is really profiteering from tobacco? Step forward, the government. While Imperial gets less than £2.5 billion for making the product, governments around the world are creaming off more than £15 billion.

Where does the 66% claim come from? It comes from this study published in 2015. The estimates are based on the "author’s calculation" but since the author is the economically illiterate prohibitionist clown Anna Gilmore, they are very wrong. 

Her estimates are based on UK sales whereas the figures above are global but that makes no difference to the overall picture. Indeed, tobacco duty is well above average in the UK so the government's share is even higher.

Meanwhile, the government expects to make £3.6 billion from gambling duty this year, but that isn't enough for Derek Webb's mates at the Social Market Foundation who have just released a report calling for Remote Gaming Duty to be doubled from 21% to 42% - because arbitrary and capricious tax hikes on one of Britain's few world-leading British industries are just what we need to attract inward investment.

Incidentally, some activist-academics have their concerns about a tax raid on gambling companies...

https://t.co/IyuOGONi0m

If this happens, would increased funding for treatment, prevention etc come from these generalised funds or would the levy still be on the table?

— Heather Wardle (@shwardle) October 12, 2024

Don't worry, Heather. I'm sure you'll get your money one way or the other.

Share

Tweet

Twilight of the pubs

Am I alone in thinking that modern politicians do not much care for pubs? They are happy to be photographed pulling a pint during an election campaign and have no problem drinking subsidised pints in the House of Commons bars, but there is something about the spontaneity, earthiness and insobriety of the traditional British boozer that sits uneasily with their vision of a regimented society. If the political class are not deliberately trying to undermine the pub trade, they are doing a good job of doing it accidentally.

In the first six months of 2024, pubs were closing at the rate of fifty a month. The total number of pubs in Britain has fallen by 14 per cent since the start of the pandemic. Pubs find themselves in a vicious downward spiral. To compensate for having fewer customers, they have raise the price of a pint, but higher prices mean that even fewer people walk through the door and so prices rise again. Drinking in a pub has for centuries been a great leveller. Everyone could afford to do it. It has increasingly become a luxury leisure activity.

After the exodus of daytime drinkers following the 2007 smoking ban, many pubs cut costs by reducing their opening hours. With the triple whammy of higher energy costs, higher food prices and above-inflation hikes of the minimum wage, some of them have now reduced the number of days they trade and many are closing long before 11.20pm. A survey by industry analysts CGA recently found that third of operators have reduced their trading hours due to cost pressures in the last year.

 

Read the rest at the Telegraph.

Share

Tweet