Entries from January 2009 ↓
January 28th, 2009 — Uncategorized
Tough call trying to shoot down Schip legislation – when the program is designed to provide help to under-privileged children without health care. Nevertheless, the RYO – or Roll-Your-Own – sector is, when all’s said and done, being unfairly targeted for tax increases.
Right now the tax rate is a modest $1.09/lb – not so bad, but in many respects a pragmatic level of taxation given that many RYO users are not your highest income earners either. So its all the more galling to see the RYO tax increases within the Schip proram to $24.62/lb – A whopping 2,145% increase. Where did this come from? And what was the rationale? Who in the world thought this one up?
If passed at this level the tax will entirely alter the RYO landscape. Could this be another case of unintended consequences?
Anchoring a Federal Children’s Health Program on variable tax income doesn’t sound like good fiscal policy.
January 9th, 2009 — Current Issues, General, Key International Business & Market Developments, Regulations: FDA etc., Retail Cigarette Brand Prices Around the World, Snus, Snuff & Alternative Products in US Markets, Tobacco Harm Reduction, Uncategorized
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nato_rollcall_ad.pdf
FROM: Thomas Briant, Executive Director NATO
I have attached a copy of the SCHIP advertisement as it will appear in the Monday, January 12, 2009 issue of Roll Call, one of the leading Washington, DC newspapers that is circulated to all members of Congress, all Congressional staff persons, the White House and President-Elect Barack Obama’s staff. The American Wholesale Marketers Association (AWMA) and the Southern Association of Wholesale Distributors (SAWD) also signed onto this advertisement.
As a part of NATO’s on-going efforts to oppose the SCHIP tax increases, I will be sending a copy of the advertisement to all NATO members with a NATO E-News tomorrow. I also plan to have the advertisement faxed from the NATO office to all 535 members of Congress on Monday, January 12th to ensure that U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives see the advertisement. In addition, we will include the advertisement with the NATO alert that is being sent to retail members over this coming weekend.
Here is a link to a file that will allow you access to the advertisement! Please get the information out to all!
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nato_rollcall_ad.pdf
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nato_white_house_fax_form.pdf
January 9th, 2009 — Acquisitions, Current Issues, General, Retail Cigarette Brand Prices Around the World, Snus, Snuff & Alternative Products in US Markets, Tobacco Harm Reduction
|
|
|
Altria Group Inc. announced on January 6th that it has closed its acquisition of UST Inc., the parent of US Smokeless Tobacco Company, in a $10.4 billion, or $69.50 per share, deal announced in September 2008. Altria will assume $1.3 billion in debt. Altria’s purchase of UST gives it a leading position in the growing smokeless tobacco market. Altria Group CEO Michael Szymanczyk said the integration of UST will position the company well, as domestic cigarette sales are declining by 3-4% annually (AP 1/6).
The long rumored, highly anticipated rumor has come to reality as the acquisition has come to a close. But now a new chapter will be written as the industry in the midst of it’s most severe challenges will watch how this acquisition plays it’s part in the never ending tobacoo saga.
So what does this acquisition mean to the industry?
What affect will it have on retail?
What about it’s affect on cobsumers?
Will it encourage the argument for the the reduction of harm of moist tobacco products?
What are your thoughts on how PM will integrate USST into their business?
How will it affect product development?
Will it affect taxation of moist tobacco products?
Will pricing of moist tobacco products be affected by the ever increasing price of a pack of cigarettes?
Or will the low end MST products hold pricing in line?
So many questions?
What do you think?
What does this acquisition really mean?
What’s the title of the next chapter?
|
January 7th, 2009 — Current Issues, General
Yesterday the BBC.co.uk website printed an article saying that UK research has revealed that third hand tobacco smoke presented health risks to babies and pregnant women. This was news to me but means ”toxic particles in cigarette smoke remaining on household surfaces, as well as hair and clothing!”
Any thoughts or comments?
January 5th, 2009 — Uncategorized
By now you probably already know the Supreme Court granted US smokers the right to sue tobacco companies in State Courts over alleged deceptive marketing practices around “light” cigarettes. On the face of it this 5-4 decision was expected to rule on the firmly established precedent of pre-emption (that Federal regulations trump States) – but didn’t by one vote. Tobacco Companies put a brave face on the decision saying they will fight in State Courts and do not expect to lose.
If you were really paying attention you would have also noticed the FTC distanced itself from the “light” argument just prior to Thanksgiving by announcing the FTC smoking method flawed and misleading. One can’t help but notice the coincidence of timing in these two events.
The argument boils down to this. The public health community states smoking light(er) cigarettes is as harmful as full-flavor cigarettes and moreover if you migrate from full-flavor to lighter cigarettes you compensate and still obtain the same “dosage.”
Assuming for a moment this is reasonable, compensatory smoking can only apply to smokers who migrated to lighter products. It may not apply in every case and certainly does not apply in cases where a smoker starts smoking only light cigarettes.
The ’light” argument falls to pieces in several areas.
First it was demonstrated in the original US and UK epidemiological studies that there was a link to lung cancer and smoking and moreover the more you smoked the greater the link. Then doesn’t the converse apply? If so, lower tar cigarettes, while not necessarily harm free, are certainly a step in the right direction and to deprive smokers of this option is detrimental to the public health and misleading.
The FTC deserves some blame / credit for the confusion. There are no FTC regulations, standards or even a definition for what constitutes a “light,” “ultra-light,” or “full-flavor” cigarette. There is no advertising enforcement for cigarette tar categories. And some brands exist where the tar delivery for light and ultra-lights overlap. The FTC has seen the testing data for years and it did nothing except recently wash its hands of the whole affair. Good job.
