How I would destroy the tobacco companies

[atomant]

Originally posted by pchang
Just declare nicotine (and all nicotine dlivery systems) a controlled substance

I thought of making tobacco a controlled substance, but smoking is that well entrenched in society that it would be difficult. We have all heard of the arguement that "you can't take away my right to smoke" by people being interviewed on the TV. Afterall, I am one of the people that does enjoy the odd tobacco (cigar)

What I am doing is not taking people right to smoke, but their ability to choose. A free market is about choice, take that basic freedom away and the market either disappears, is replaced or goes underground.

Prohibition was tried in the states, and failed, therefore, making tobacco a prescribed function would merely drive it underground and perpetuate the market. What my plan proposes is letting the producers destroy themselves.

Yes monopolies in the market may try and emerge, but corporations themselves are greedy and will try and get market share any way, any how. Additional, most western economies have legislation in place to control monopolistic and/or cartel practices.

Still, I take on board everyones thoughts, enlightening.

[atomant]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I dunno, atomant. The lack of branding and marketing doesn't seem to hurt sales of illegal drugs.

Marketing is a powerful thing, but so is addiction.

Good points JR, I think (and am willing to be corrected) availability of illicit substances is directly proportionate to production and the level of enforcement. The more enforcement, the less supply.

For example, what would happen to the herion trade if the Afgan or American government decided to fire bomb all the poppy fields? The same would be applicable to the coke fields in Columbia.

[Solomwi]

The Colombian cocaine producers would turn back to Bolivia for their coca, in that case.

JR: while it's obviously not on the same level as the tobacco industry, there is most definitely branding going on in the world of illicit drugs. One prime example is the beginning of the "crack epidemic", which started when a relatively small-time dealer in LA began pre-cooking the coke for his customers, who were previously just buying his powder and cooking it themselves for freebasing, and selling it as "Ready Rock." On a smaller level, most of the drug users I know have a preferred dealer for drug quality (not to say price and availability don't sometimes outweigh that factor), and often prefer different dealers for different drugs. Either way, "Joe's stuff" becomes a brand in its own right.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by BlackCat


So can living or rather - if you dare to try to live, you are guranteed to die.

Good, you've figured out the irony

[Sikander]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I dunno, atomant. The lack of branding and marketing doesn't seem to hurt sales of illegal drugs. and the big tobacco companies are all diversified across many multinational industries. These companies hedged their bets al long time ago.

I think the key is to make itobacco (nicotine) a controlled substance, ineligible for medical coverage, and keep raising taxes until it becomes a true luxury item.

Heck, even now, you can buy nicotine products (gum etc) OTC in drug stores. It's marketed as "medicine" -- one of the all-time ironic product positioning platforms.

Marketing is a powerful thing, but so is addiction.

Making tobacco a luxury item is just going to make it into a huge illegal drug problem, with all of the murder etc. that that entails. Not a good idea.

Nicotine gum / nasal spray etc. delivers a mostly harmless substance (nicotine) in a mostly harmless way in place of having it delivered in a much more harmful way. Some of it requires a prescription (!) and all of it is expensive. This stuff should be cheaper than smokes and all of it should be available OTC.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by pchang
Just declare nicotine (and all nicotine dlivery systems) a controlled substance

If it's as harmful as 'they' say, it's shameful that it isn't.

[Buck Birdseed]

Smoking is pretty unusual here. Admittedly, other tobacco products are more common, like snuff, but they're pretty harmless in comparison and don't pester the surrounding environment in the same way.

Basically, the thing that has killed off smoking is not lawmaking, it's social stigma, which in turn has been enacted through simple, gradual policymaking. From a country that collectively lit up just thirty years ago today smokers are very few and constantly bullied by regulations.

The steps to take are:

(a) Ban smoking in all government offices, excepting special smoking rooms. Private enterprise soon follows suit.

(b) Ban smoking indoors in government facilities. Private enterprise soon does the same.

(c) Let government-owned housing companies ban indoor smoking.

(c) Ban smoking near entrances in government facilities, and have people stand some 25 metres away in the middle of some freezing-cold courtyard.

[-Jrabbit]

Personally, I think ppl should have the right to smoke, just not at the expense of others. The issue of 2nd hand smoke makes this problematic. But in the privacy of one's home or car, who cares what people do?

The difference between the public health issue and the personal freedom issue is easily confused.

Buck's point is an excellent one, and I think we're seeing it happen.

In the past 20 years, the US has gone from open smoking to heavy restrictions in public areas. Smoking is illegal and smokers shunned at most group gatherings, both public (restaurants, arenas) and private (parties). The smokers are literally outcasts, slinking away outside to indulge their habit.