Big Tobacco

Of course, we’re being far too tough on Big Tobacco, as so many contemptuous refer to it, after the failure of its high court challenge to the plain packaging legislation. If we just open our minds to the fact that British American Tobacco and others are saying, we can see how amazing they are public spirited.

They are worried not for themselves but about ”serious unintended consequences” unintended consequences they fear plain package will bring. According to their spokesman, Scott McIntyre, his only advantage would be” organized criminal groups that sell illegal tobacco on our streets.”  Illegal black market will continue to grow, when all packets look the same, and it’s easier to copy,” he said.

In case you have not heard, the country is faced with the rampant problem of illegal tobacco, a” crime of smuggling now three times as many counterfeit and contraband cigarettes” in Australia last year, compared with a year earlier. In general, the illegal tobacco market is equal to 13.4% of the legal services market. As the industry know? He commissioned the report Deloitte, Financial Services. The industry was concerned about the illicit tobacco scary market within a few years. Why? Not for myself, of course, but for what it costs the taxpayer in lost tobacco excise taxes.

You often see me criticize the industry trying to get taxpayer subsidies, but the tobacco people are all different. Last year, they ran ads desperately tried to dissuade the government from continuing with the simple concept of packaging and thus oblige industry to cost taxpayers millions in legal fees in response to a high court challenge Big Tobacco – not to mention the billions the government stood to lose in compensation should the court agrees that the government has assigned the intellectual property in the industry.

Fortunately, the court did not agree. He was also awarded costs on the industry, which I’m sure will come as a great relief to the patriotic people of tobacco. But the industry’s concern for the taxpayer does not end there. He railed against the 25 per cent increase in tobacco excise taxes in 2010 due to falling revenue will cause the jump in cigarette prices have more than the legal market in the hands of discounted criminal black market.

You can think of your innocence, plain packaging will reduce the number of young people taking up smoking, but that’s where you’d be wrong. As the industry is due to the full page ad last year, just a” package can manage the cost of tobacco down. And the decline in prices will make tobacco more accessible to young people.” British American boss developed elsewhere, it was a worry because it would undermine the health of the government’s initiative to curb tobacco use. See what caring people we are dealing with?

I think that plain packaging may undercut the” premium brands of cigarettes.” That would be good, but it would be easy eliminated by increasing the tobacco excise tax. Tobacco companies are not just critics. According to the Australian Association of retail, retail” now facing the costs of simple packaging operations, which will see a significant increase in the time required to complete the transaction, as well as all products are virtually identical.”

”Increases operating time, estimated business to half a billion dollars, equivalent to 15,000 jobs,” we were told. No back-of-envelope was offered in support of this remarkable claim, and in this case I would be inclined to regard it with skepticism. But what about the alleged thriving black market – how concerned should we are about this? Not really. We really only got the word in the industry about how great he is and detailed criticism, Quit Victoria calls into question the reliability of the report prepared by Deloitte.

The calculations are based on a survey of Deloitte with a very small sample, which does not seem to be completely random. He asks smokers about their purchases vintage tobacco, contraband cigarettes and counterfeit cigarettes and adds them to the answers together, even if you expect virtually all fake smokes also need to be contraband. As people know, cigarettes they purchased are illegal? The trouble is that these days a lot of cheap, foreign-made, funny cigarettes are imported legally.

Quit Victoria used an official survey by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2010, which had a very much bigger sample, to estimate the total use of illicit tobacco products is more like 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the overall market.This means loss of income of the taxpayer close to $ 165 million a year, over $ 1 billion. I’m sure that taxpayers everywhere to thank the industry for its concern on our behalf, but I do not think we should lose too much sleep over it.

Big Tobacco vs rules New Zealands rules

A multinational cigarette company began an aggressive cigarette fightback against laws and prices to get people to quit the habit. A series of tax increase – with more on the way – has made New Zealand cigarettes among the most expensive in the OECD countries.

Other measures, such as a simple package are under consideration, and on Monday, stores will have to hide their cigarette displays. But the tobacco giant Philip Morris said that the regulations are going too far. The company, which has the third largest market share in New Zealand tobacco, distributes maps to direct people to the store website, through which smokers can have their say on the rules.

Retailers are asked to send cards to customers to buy Philip Morris products. The site, which was launched yesterday, “was a place where adult smokers may express its views on regulatory issues,” said a spokesman for Philip Morris, Chris Bishop.

“We talked to our customers … and we really got the sense that they wanted to have the opportunity to learn more about these issues and express their concerns about them,” he said. But anti-smoking group said yesterday that the move “reeked of desperation.” “The fact that they emerge from the shadows and begins to be more aggressive … to try to attract the public to lobby on their behalf, shows that they are afraid of things the government is trying to do,” said Action on Smoking and Health director Ben Youdan.

“If your company gets to the point where it can no longer engage constructively with policy makers and begins to attack them through the website, it shows you die.” In April, the tobacco companies a blow against the Cabinet decision to introduce plain packaging, subject to consultation. Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco announced a move would lead to a black market in tobacco.

Mr. Bishop said Philip Morris; consumers would like more information about such matters. He said that the web site and store cards were “in for a while,” but I can not say when it was first proposed. “Obviously, it takes several weeks for the website to get up. This did not happen at night … and it’s not what we planned five years ago.”

Mr. Youdan said the move Philip Morris showed exactly what the company considered its customers. “Smokers are drug addicts to them, who pay money to remain dependent on their products. “But I think they will see through it.”

He said it would be interesting to see how this plan is to deal the cards in the shops would work. “I suspect that they will try to stir up fears of retailers – what it will cost you business -. And use that as a way to intimidate retailers to take action” But Philip Morris says that the card system is voluntary.

The two main supermarket chains yesterday said they would not be handing the cards to customers.


Philip Morris and village from Haverstraw

Earlier this year, the village of Haverstraw, working with POW’R on Tobacco Control, took the unprecedented step of banning the retail sale of cigarettes to products in their stores, making cigarettes and cigars out of sight of customers. The basis for the decision, which is set to come into force later this year, is that it would reduce the impact of tobacco products to youth.

But now a new wrinkle was added to the situation. New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS) and seven tobacco companies in court trying to cancel the upcoming ban and the village is preparing for a potentially costly legal fight. NYACS, Lorillard Tobacco Co, Philip Morris USA Inc, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, the American company Snuff LLC, the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Brands Inc, and John Middleton Company filed a civil suit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In an interview with Rockland County Times, NYACS Representative James Calvin described the law of Haverstraw as “an example of extreme and excessive regulation of tobacco retailers.” He said: “Shops have a fundamental legal right to place the products they sell.” He thinks the law can be the first of its kind in the United States, which is also the fact that POW’R on Tobacco Control argued when it was first announced.

“We believe that it is unconstitutional. We are seeking a court declaration that it is unconstitutional and ordering the village from the constant use of it,” said Calvin. The village is not contacted his group to the law passed, Calvin said. “We learned about it after the law was passed.”

Jay Hood, the village of Haverstraw’s lawyer, said: “According to a lawsuit the village, within a reasonable regulation of the display just shows that they are more interested in selling product than the health of our children. This law was designed to keep the kids from gathering to life, and possibly deadly habit. I did not get complaints like this, but the village is going to handle it in a balanced way that will protect children, but at the same time is not worth the money of taxpayers to protect the village. There are outside of the firm when dealing with us in order to cope with this possible at no cost to the village.”

Michael Kohut, Haverstraw village Mayor, said: “This is a big corporate America will be after the baby, mostly. I would hope Michael Bloomberg would take this instead of the law oversized soda, as tobacco companies are likely to get it will be negated after us, because we are the little guy. We knew it was possible that they will sue, but I do not know what they are. “

He continued: “Ideally, the forces opposed to smoking come to our aid because we are not going to bankrupt a village in the protection of that right. It makes no sense. But if someone from the outside will take the reason we struggle with this, considering that the Council agrees with me. ” The village was proposed during the transition to a resolution POW’R on Tobacco Control, and they are a potential source of financing lawful activities of the village. Describing the next step the village, Kohut said, “We have documents, I’m going to give it to Jay Hood (village attorney). He is in contact with other lawyers in the anti-smoking efforts.”

Calvin said he did not have an estimate of how long it may take the case to play. The prohibition of retail display Haverstraw is due this October. Village Board took action in April, stating that the form of packs of cigarettes on the wall of the store makes the minors to start smoking. By law, retailers could continue to sell tobacco, just not display it, instead giving customers an age check, upon request, printed Control “menu” to order from.

“Retailers have a fundamental right to communicate with their customers about the products they offer to show these products within its own territory,” Calvin said in a statement to the media. “The United States and the new constitution of New York have long been protected by this form of commercial speech.” Defendants in the suit are the Haverstraw village and village institutions and officials who were assigned the responsibility for ensuring that the display of tobacco products, ban as soon as it enters into force in October 2012.

Ministry of Health is preparing a bill to sue Big Tobacco

Bill would seek to compensate for the Ministry of NIS 14 billion in costs incurred from treating smoking-related diseases.

Within one month, the Ministry of Health plans to release a government bill authorizing the health care system to sue the American, British, Japanese and Israeli companies to compensate tobacco he incurred on the treatment of smoking-related diseases. This can make NIS 14 billion in losses over the past seven years – the scheduled time for the civil suit statute of limitations.

Ministry Director General Prof. Roni Gamzu confirmed The Jerusalem Post; on Monday night that such a bill will be prepared for a month and submitted for approval by the Cabinet and the Knesset. Gamzu said Tuesday its interest in a position to sue the tobacco companies at a meeting of Committee of the Knesset Labor, Social Affairs and Health. “I am an enemy of all tobacco companies and all those who benefit economically from smoking,” he said. “I will not compromise on this issue.”

The economic costs of smoking in Israel are estimated to 8b of the CIS. per year, this figure includes the treatment of smokers and those who have suffered from second-hand smoke, hospitalization, disability, dedicated to the patient, reducing the income tax, because patients could no longer work, due to the reduced load a smoke, fire and more.

The Government will only accept 5b CIS. a year in tobacco taxes, according to senior officials of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry thus follows the example of Canada and several U.S. states that use the law to obtain compensation from the four large conglomerates of tobacco.

Following similar claims by the Canadian provinces such as British Columbia and Ontario, Quebec, last week filed a lawsuit against the tobacco companies for $ 60b. as compensation for medical care for patients with tobacco-related diseases.

The Canadian Supreme Court in 2005 in a historic 9-0 decision, that such legislation is justified and covered by the constitution. Fourteen years ago, 50 states reached a series of five settlements with the tobacco conglomerates that pay them for 25 years, a total of $ 246B.

In July last year the Supreme Court called for the urgent adoption of bylaws for the initiation of such actions, which will update NIS 7.6b. claim Clalit Health Services, the largest in the health insurance fund against tobacco companies. It will also allow other providers of medical follow their example.

In the 1990s, after the success in this area in the U.S., the lawyer Amos Hausner – who formulated much of the Israeli law on smoking – a claim put forward the idea of tobacco companies in Israel. Hausner was one of the lawyers for Clalit in the case.

Asked to comment, Hausner Gamzu congratulated for making policy. “The health system needs this compensation from tobacco companies, as air.

The Ministry is constantly says he does not have enough money to fund thousands of new beds. This will give the money. Residents of Minnesota, which has a much smaller population, receive $ 7b. -. While the Israeli health system gasps» The ministry said that last year 64 children were poisoned and in need of hospitalization, because they ingest cigarette butts that are thrown into the street.

When the acting chairman of the Knesset Orli Levy, Abecassis asked why municipal inspectors who do not hand out fines for violations are not prohibited by the laws are not penalized, Gamzu said that there is currently no legal penalty option of municipalities that do not enforce laws. By the way, Uncle K., the former mayor of Lod Maxim Levi, died suddenly of a heart attack attributed to his smoking.

Within two weeks, the new laws banning smoking in various public places, including bus stations and train platforms, to take effect. Gamzu said he will emphasize in public institutions, the state workers is strictly forbidden to smoke outdoors, and only a short distance from the entrance. He said that those who violate the law will be punished. Full function at a recent conference on tobacco or health will appear on Health on Sunday, June 24.

How Big Tobacco targets children

Tobacco companies have a big problem. Their products kill about 1,200 of its customers every day or about 440,000 people a year across the United States.With the exhaustion like that when they go to find a replacement for all those, the disappearance of smokers? Where do they go to work the legions of new users of tobacco? Parents beware: they go for our children.

Despite new laws and legal settlements, which restrict how tobacco companies can market their products, the industry spends more money than ever to encourage their children, and my thinking that tobaccos use is normal and acceptable part of growing up.Marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products now exceeds $ 10 billion a year – or about $ 1 million per hour – in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission. This is a 52-percent increase in spending, as in all branches of the legal settlement, imposed strict controls on tobacco promotion in 1998.

The report recently released by the U.S. health care, tobacco use among youth and adolescents concluded that scientific evidence is “consistent and consistently point to the deliberate marketing of tobacco products to young people as the cause of tobacco use by young people.”It makes sense for Big Tobacco to send their sales pitch in children. According to the chief doctor, hardly anyone came, on the subject of tobacco marketing after adolescence. Among adults who smoke daily, 88 percent started smoking before the age of 18 and 99 percent started before 26 years.

The sad result of the power industry marketing to children is a flattening of more than ten years of progress in reducing youth tobacco use began at the national level. Now, every day approximately 3,800 children in the United States smoke their first cigarette, according to the report of the chief physician. Nearly 25 percent of the national high school smoke, compared with about 20 percent of the adult population. At the same time, about 1 in 10 male high school students use smokeless tobacco, and 1 in 5 smokes a cigar, the report said.

Fortunately, the Marin County rates of smoking among young people is much lower and only about 5 percent of 12 – to 17-year-olds reported smoking cigarettes. You may wonder how the industry can spend so much money on marketing now. In the end, tobacco advertising is banned on television, radio and billboards, and it is much less common today in magazines and newspapers.

Long gone are the kid-friendly cartoons, like Camel and lasting icons, like a man, Marlboro brand of cigarettes. So where does all the money spent? Short answer: It’s Time posted where it can reach their children in the smart way to encourage them to become new customers. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the advocacy group based in Washington, DC, cites four main strategies:

• Increased advertising and discounting of tobacco products in shops, places where two-thirds of teenagers have been known to visit at least once a week, candy, soft drinks and snacks after school. Many of these stores are plastered with famous images of tobacco and branding, inside and out. Tobacco companies often give discounts retailers are making their products more affordable for cash-strapped young consumers.

• Increased sales of smokeless tobacco, as well as the promotion of new smoke-free candies. Traditional chewing tobacco is being actively marketed in flavors such as cherry and apple trees, and new smokeless, that look like breath strips, mint chocolate or even a toothpick will become available. Some of these new products, while very addictive, dissolve, like candy and it is easy to hide in the school or at home.

• The spread of cheap, sweet scented miniature cigars. With colorful packaging and flavors such as chocolate, strawberries, peaches and grapes, industry circumvent the federal ban on candy flavored cigarettes, selling these products as “little cigars.” These issues are attractive to young customers.

• Increasing cigarette brands most popular among children. Knowing that more than 80 percent of adolescent smokers prefer the three popular brands in the industry recently rolled out a new cigarette product lines aimed at women and other target groups, using these familiar brands.

Even many of the new youth smokeless products have this baby attractive names and logos. Unfortunately, the tobacco industry proves once again that he decided to enslave the next generation of its toxic products. There is hope, however. Young people who do it in their teens and in their mid-20s without becoming addicted to cigarettes and other tobacco products will be lost forever, like Big Tobacco clients. If parents, teachers, health workers and other adults can work together to ensure that our young people who are vulnerable through age without tobacco is part of their lives, we can hasten the day when no one in Marin County kills more from tobacco-related causes.

Big Tobacco is targeting teens

The federal government says the big tobacco deliberately vulnerable young people by selling cheap cigarettes. British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) has released a budget brand called Just Smoker which retails for $ 11.50 per pack of 25.

This is much lower than the average price of $ 16 and only slightly higher than the illegal counterfeit goods. BATA says he was forced to go down market, because the government’s decision to increase excise duty of 25 per cent in 2010 led to a massive increase in cheap cigarettes and smuggling.

But Health Minister Tatyana Plibersek does not buy that argument. “By reducing our prices are British American Tobacco seems to be directly aimed at vulnerable young people,” she said in a statement today. “We know that young people are the most price-sensitive smokers all.”

Minister of Health said BATA movement was “very disappointing” and counterfeit cigarettes, while there were tobacco companies overstated their presence as an excuse to push their own products more difficult.

The prohibition of cigarette advertising, which makes it illegal to sell smokes minors, the introduction of graphic health warnings and excise hikes led to a significant reduction in smoking, Ms Plibersek said.

BATA Representative Scott McIntyre said that the government is to blame for the price war by increasing the excise tax. Cheap price segment of the market has grown 63 percent since 2010, he said in a statement.

“Our customers were to trade for cheaper products or illegal cigarettes so we were forced to compete. “If the government continues to give us a specific increase in the excise duty as it did in the past, all they do is making the problem worse.”

Mr. McIntyre later admitted on ABC Radio, which is more cheap cigarettes, is likely to lead to an increase in the numbers of people lighting. “One would think (so) if the prices keep getting cheaper and cheaper, and there is huge growth in this area.”

Responding to a question whether the government would simply increase the excise tax back against BATA to move Ms. Plibersek said: “We will continue to look at what we have to do to continue to reduce the rate of people smoke in Australia.”

Big Tobacco to pay the state $ 6.5 billion

The three largest U.S. companies, tobacco, said Monday they have paid a total of $ 6.5 billion this year in the states of the United States, unchanged since 2011, the 1998 national agreement, which obliges companies to help cover the health bills of patients smoking .

Altria (in MO.N) Philip Morris paid $ 3.5 billion, but the Marlboro brand of cigarettes contests the $ 206 million of this amount and put the money on deposit. The national settlement, which involved the majority of states, is intended to equalize between the two companies which have signed it, and those who did not. Thus, payments to the signing of the companies reduced the amount of market share they lost to firms that did not participate in the settlement.

However, the participating tobacco companies for years have argued reductions were not large enough, and large companies have the amount they are challenged in the transaction. Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N), which makes Camel, had paid $ 1.9 billion and put $ 469 million it is dispute in the transaction.

Lorillard (LO.N), known for its Newport brand, said it paid $ 1.1 billion to $ 98 million of that amount to put into storage. States, counties and the city sold about $ 40 billion of bonds secured more than $ 200 billion of payments that cigarette manufacturers agreed to with the passage of time.

The National Association of Attorneys General last week estimated that the cigarette manufacturers would pay claims of $ 6.1 billion, compared with $ 6.03 billion last year. This figure does not include the disputed amount, and refers to the payment of all tobacco companies.

Last year, the top cigarette manufacturers, Philip Morris, Reynolds American and Lorillard, paid $ versus $ pure 5649000000 5727000000 in 2012. Nevertheless, the prospects for U.S. municipal bonds are only slightly better than tobacco, because sales of cigarettes decreased less steeply than expected, and the tobacco companies should pay a little more of in the national agreement.

“We’re not out of the woods yet,” said Richard Larkin, Iselin, New Jersey director of credit analysis to HJ Sims, noting that the risk that cigarette sales could fall more in the next year. In addition, tobacco companies can win the right to preserve some of the billions of dollars they say they do not have states. The National Association of Attorneys General, whose members negotiated the 1998 settlement of a cigarette, said that the number of cigarettes sold fell only 2.9 percent compared with the expected decline of 3.5 percent.

In 2010, cigarette sales fell much steeper: 6.37 percent, according to Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. In 2009 sales fell 9.3 percent, he said. California, Ohio, Virginia brand of cigarettes can get In contrast to the general sector respect of tobacco, however, the debt is sold in three states should benefit from the latest data.

This is because, Ohio, California and Virginia all have been identified in the reserves last year to pay off the bonds and higher payments this year may help to minimize the extent to which these three states will have to tap reserves, according to analysts.

Ohio sold $ 5.2 billion of tobacco bonds in the past year to bring about $ 8 million from the reserves, he said. This year, Ohio could avoid pushing reserve. Virginia has sold more than $ 1 billion in tobacco bonds, and this year, Larkin said that the conclusion is likely to be less than $ 1 million.

California has sold two bond issues of tobacco. Over $ 4.4 billion question, he had to leave about $ 7.7 million of stock last year. This year in California, probably still have to use reserve funds to make payments on these bonds – but only about $ 1.8 million, according to Larkin.

California has also sold another $ 3.1 billion of tobacco bonds, but this debt with the support of public spending so that its withdrawal from reserves of $ 5 million last year, was not so alarming, said Larkin. But Blake Anderson, managing director of the San Francisco group of high-Mesirow Financial, in warning that any market benefits are not sure what you need for tobacco bonds of these three states.

“Somehow, the market comes to realize that this is another factor entirely.” This is because the market of tobacco bonds and illiquid debt is so complex that significant research is needed to select the winners and losers, analysts said.

So far this year, tobacco bonds have largely been met as well as other high-yield municipal bonds, will benefit some growth in investor risk disappointment with the low yields offer a safe investment, analysts say. But these spotted, because prices vary depending on the size of the block, and the bid / ask spreads are usually wide. This makes the identification of trends.

The specific transaction, however, show high yields, which can be obtained with such a duty – and some of the recent tight spreads on AAA-scale data compiled by Municipal Market, part of Thomson Reuters.

For example, $ 1 million block of Golden State Tobacco Securitization California debt traded at a yield of 7.13 percent on April 16, according to EMMA, the database is created municipal securities rulemaking board. The issue, which matures in 2033, has a 5 percent coupon. December 15, 2011 block of 10 million dollars has changed to 8.06 per cent yield.

A similar pattern was observed with a certain debt of Virginia. $ 1 million blocks of tobacco bonds with a maturity of Virginia in 2047 and to 5 percent coupon traded on April 13 at 7.78 percent yield on EMMA. In contrast, more than $ 23 million block trading at 8.635 per cent return on December 7, 2011.

How ACTA stinks of Big Tobacco

If the industry that brings five million deaths a year to anyone involved in the development of public policy?
From the beginning, Big Tobacco is one of the driving forces for anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA). To my surprise, this important nugget of information was usually overlooked in the discussion of this controversial agreement.
Shortly thereafter, he became executive director of British American Tobacco (BAT) in 2004, Paul Adams took part in a conference on fraud organized by the World Customs Organization in Brussels. In his speech, Adams said that the fake cigarettes affects more than most other products. Forgery “destroys the value of the brand and product integrity,” he said.
Adams then concluded that the risible BAT is an ethical company, while the counterfeiters do not have enough conscience. “Even in my own industry, where our product has its known health risks of counterfeit versions are made with all sorts of untested and sometimes completely illegal additives and without our strict quality control, clearly put added risk to consumers,” he said.
BAT is part of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), who was closely involved in the process of negotiating ACTA. In 2008, the ICC Jeffrey Hardy sent a memo to the EU, the U.S. and other countries in drawing up the contract. ACTA was necessary, he says, because “theft of intellectual property is not less a crime than physical property theft.”
Hardy has been busy lately complex steps Australia – the other ACTA signatories – to require that all cigarettes be sold in plain packaging. It is instructive that in the statement of Hardy in April last year, almost identical to the case put forward by Paul Adams, seven years ago. “Plain packaging makes it easy to pack, to be copied forgers, discovering consumer products with unknown and potentially dangerous ingredients, and it makes it more difficult for consumers to identify the manufacturer responsible for responding to complaints and problems,” said Hardy.
From his office in Paris, Hardy was trying to prevent the introduction of similar measures in Europe. For example, he called on John Dalli, the commissioner of health the EU, rather than offer a simple package in a planned revision of the tobacco legislation of the Union (Dalli promised to publish a new anti-smoking advice by the end of this year).
So what’s going on here? From the available evidence suggests that Big Tobacco spends multi-pronged attack to save his ill-gotten gains. One of the most hazardous industries in human history, not just pretending to be concerned about health care, he pretends to be a defender of intellectual property rights, which are nominally designed to stimulate creativity and innovation.
The introduction of plain packaging would be a reasonable way to try to make smoking less attractive to young people. Some brands of printing them puffing on Gitanes helps to cultivate an atmosphere of carefree Gallic, Marlboro brand of cigaretteshas long been associated with the freedom of the Wild West. But if all cigarette packets look the same and logos were banned, the manufacturers of tobacco products will be deprived of what marketing strategists call “unique selling points.”
Whether legal or contraband, tobacco is a toxic substance. In his new book, The Golden Holocaust, Robert Proctor, which supports the production and sale of cigarettes should be outlawed, I am inclined to agree. However, if the tobacco to be sold, it’s better than cigarettes are regulated and subject to high taxes than promote crime (in my opinion, however, “lawful” The tobacco industry is also a criminal, there is no other word that accurately describes his attempts to suppress information on how smoking causes cancer).
But the fact remains that the police and customs officers already have broad authority – if not the resources – to combat cigarette smuggling. There is no compelling reason for the introduction of the new agreement as an ACTA to deal with this scourge. And the fact that the tobacco industry seeks to prevent easy packing initiative should raise suspicions about his agenda and his attempts to resurfacing itself as socially responsible.
(WHO), World Health Organization’s Convention on Tobacco Control, requires state agencies to ignore the economic interests of cigarette manufacturers in determining policy. Members of the European Parliament, therefore, must ask the tough questions about the role Big Tobacco plays in ACTA. If – as seems the case – cigarette industry uses misleading arguments to defend their interests, the MEPs have to break the agreement.
There are many other reasons, of course, why ACTA should be rejected. It was a secret, it could have far-reaching consequences for the free flow of ideas by banning many types of file sharing on the Internet, and this could enable large pharmaceutical companies require that the transportation of essential medicines in the world’s poor have limited or even stopped.
Concerned citizens are obliged to seek the motives of supporters of ACTA. Johnson & Johnson was the WHO’s efforts to obstacles, three new drugs, for which it has patents that people with AIDS. The participation of companies in the space-ACTA coalition should not be considered separately from the despicable position on this issue.
More than nine million people with HIV in Africa, Asia and Latin America do not have access to medicines they need. By 2030, eight million will die from tobacco use worldwide, if current trends continue. Hollywood, Big Pharma and Big Tobacco have joined forces to sell ACTA. Why should someone buy something from this toxic alliance?

Big tobacco

Dear Mr. Berko: I have $ 23,000 that I want to invest and grow revenue. I asked my broker about tobacco stocks because they show very good yields. He told me that the tobacco industry is in a ditch in the next five years, and fewer people smoke today, and hundreds of billions of dollars in settlements they did with the state governments will soon hurt them very badly.
I know the tobacco companies have been fined hundreds of billions of dollars, but it does not seem to affect their share price, dividends or profits. How is this possible? Do you think that this is a good action, and if you do that you bought? – H.E., Akron, Ohio
Dear H.E, it would seem a huge tobacco settlements (more than $ 200 billion paid to the state attorneys general) is not worth the big tobacco (Altria, British American Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris) more than a few pence and six pence. Big Tobacco has hired ten years ago, sleek and most intelligent, creative, and “snake” of lawyers to ensure continued profitability and stability in the tobacco industry. Whether we like it or not, cigarettes are essential to the health of the economy, vital to the budgets of public administration and for millions of Americans who depend on tobacco sales and profits, to earn a living.
Therefore, when the jury decided the tobacco industry was guilty of sin, Big Tobacco paid billions of dollars – but only by increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes. And in the agreement paved the tobacco lawyers for more than ten years ago, Big Tobacco got almost everything it wanted. States agreed that they would never sue Big Tobacco and tied their payments to the State tobacco products. Thus, if a reduction in tobacco sales, the states receive less money, in effect putting the state in the tobacco business.
Remember 25 years ago, when a pack of cigarettes costs about 50 cents to 75 cents? Today in many states, the package costs about $ 7 to $ 9, which includes $ 1.01 in tax on the federal government, plus $ 3 to $ 5.35 in tax for the state, as Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island and Washington.
Multibillion-dollar agreement with the states was food for anti-smoking lobby, he received millions of dollars on education programs, cancer research and related support groups. And if big tobacco sales fall, the state will see less revenue from taxes on tobacco products. Our state can not help becoming addicted to tobacco and survival of all those programs, employing more than 110,000 Americans.
Americans do not realize the importance of taxes on tobacco products are for their welfare. The tiny state of Montana raised more than $ 85 million from taxes on cigarettes in 2010. New York has collected more than $ 1.5 billion, while the federal government was richer by more than 18 billion dollars. Yes, a billion! In 2010, states, counties, cities and the federal government collected more than $ 200 billion in cigarette sales taxes. What is it! And smokers are paying 100 percent of the cost of their sins. Anti-smoking lobby was a big failure, but its senior management are paid big money.
Over the past five years, the big tobacco has increased revenues, profits and dividends, very nice, and the share prices of companies also did well. So I think that (MO-$ 30,46), Altria Group in the $ 1.64 dividend brings the 5.7 per cent (LO-$ 130,34) Lorillard in the $ 6.20 dividend brings the 4.9 per cent and Phillip Morris International ( PM-$ 84,62) $ 3,08 brings dividends represent 3.9 per cent above the average level of investment income, earnings and dividend growth. Each of these companies produces strong cash flow, which allows them to maintain significant benefits, despite the challenges. And, despite the negative factors that surround this industry (which I believe are taken into account in their actions), these companies have good cost management and effective pricing.
Go ahead and buy these three. I think they will do, but in the next few years, as it did in the past few years.

Tobacco Companies Think Their Trademarks Are More Important Than Your Health

Back in January of this year, Techdirt reported on tobacco companies suing a local Australian importer of their products for covering up part of their logos with a mandatory health warning. At the time, a spokeswoman for the company involved, British American Tobacco, said:
As the matter is currently before the Court, BAT is unable to comment other than to say that this is a further demonstration that we will take all necessary steps to protect our valuable intellectual property.
Given that stance, it will come as no surprise to learn that tobacco companies are now threatening to take on the European Commission as well:
EU Health Commissioner John Dalli will face legal action if he tries to reproduce Australia’s plain-packaging proposals for cigarettes in Europe, a tobacco industry representative warned this week.
The approach is the same as in Australia:
One likely focus of attack is intellectual property rights, since plain packaging has a smothering effect on companies’ logos and trademarks.
I’d like to think that the word “smothering” was taken verbatim from some tobacco company representative, because it sums up nicely the industry’s attitude: that any breathing difficulties or respiratory diseases that you may develop as the result of smoking pale into insignificance compared with the outrageous “smothering” of their logos and trademarks.
That’s a particularly callous attitude, because those logos and trademarks are only valuable to the degree they have been attached to products that have caused death and disease: the “best” brands are those with a track record of selling – and hence killing – more people than rival products. In effect, the tobacco companies are complaining that all their hard work getting people addicted and smoking themselves to death will be wasted if the plain-packaging proposals for cigarettes are implemented.
The cynical posturing of tobacco firms as the victims in these continuing attempts to undo and avoid the social harm they cause underlines once more how easily intellectual monopolies can be twisted for purposes far from any original justification they may once have had. Patents can kill: so, it seems will trademarks, if tobacco companies get their way.