Policy always involves trade-offs. Even though cigarette excise is a regressive tax and low income populations are over represented among smokers, the benefits of moderate cigarette excise outweigh the negatives. But it’s a different story when cig excise has been raised to exorbitant levels as had happened in Australia and New Zealand. The Kiwis have ensured the availability of nicotine vapes is much easier than cigarettes so the policy mix isn’t as bad in Aotearoa as it is in Australia. Australia’s tobacco control is in denial every bit as much as opponents of shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewables.
All the academia went a lot with "possible" , " likely", "could"...
The whole thing looked more or less the same as previous senate hearings.
Becky Freeman came out very arrogant and claimed that vaping spread out in NZ because of a loophole that the big tobacco used and mentioned the retracted study that claimed vaping caused cancer that was retracted 2 weeks ago.
Although i found something that I agree with Simon Chapman. The big tobacco is behind these illegal cigarettes, these industrial quantities that are brought into the country are too big to be handled by a gangster that hides in Iraq .
Somehow I felt sorry for the panel.
They were there to find solutions, new looks at the problem, with a heavy accent on cutting of the tobacco excise.
The academia has no answer to that, they are unwilling to accept failure, and they love showing graphs.
The commissioner for e-cigarettes and tobacco had no answers.
Everyone was focused on supply and not the existing market.
So we will end up with more enforcement, more powers, more prison time, throwing more money at a problem, instead of solving the problem.
Well-rounded analysis. India offers a striking parallel. Here, legal cigarettes make up a small share of total tobacco use yet carry the overwhelming burden of taxation, driving consumers into a vast, unregulated informal market. The ban on e‑cigarettes further closes exit ramps. When policy refuses to recognise its own unintended effects, the black market becomes the default system, and far harder to unwind.
I didn't watch the whole thing - mostly left out the law enforcement people. It was good to see MPs from 4 parties - Labor, Greens, National and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, asking decent questions and focusing on the excise. James and Ed were thorough and on target as usual.
The questions to Amber re 'are you just toeing the government line?' were good. She just said 'No' but it was a bit like when Murray Watt did the same when Malcolm Roberts asked him whether the illicit market was a driver of it. Amber lied when she listed the harms of nicotine without combustion or she just takes on received info from the usual suspects. This is not a question of 'cannot' so much as 'will not' acknowledge the obvious.
Policy always involves trade-offs. Even though cigarette excise is a regressive tax and low income populations are over represented among smokers, the benefits of moderate cigarette excise outweigh the negatives. But it’s a different story when cig excise has been raised to exorbitant levels as had happened in Australia and New Zealand. The Kiwis have ensured the availability of nicotine vapes is much easier than cigarettes so the policy mix isn’t as bad in Aotearoa as it is in Australia. Australia’s tobacco control is in denial every bit as much as opponents of shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewables.
Yeah, i watched the whole thing.
All the academia went a lot with "possible" , " likely", "could"...
The whole thing looked more or less the same as previous senate hearings.
Becky Freeman came out very arrogant and claimed that vaping spread out in NZ because of a loophole that the big tobacco used and mentioned the retracted study that claimed vaping caused cancer that was retracted 2 weeks ago.
Although i found something that I agree with Simon Chapman. The big tobacco is behind these illegal cigarettes, these industrial quantities that are brought into the country are too big to be handled by a gangster that hides in Iraq .
Somehow I felt sorry for the panel.
They were there to find solutions, new looks at the problem, with a heavy accent on cutting of the tobacco excise.
The academia has no answer to that, they are unwilling to accept failure, and they love showing graphs.
The commissioner for e-cigarettes and tobacco had no answers.
Everyone was focused on supply and not the existing market.
So we will end up with more enforcement, more powers, more prison time, throwing more money at a problem, instead of solving the problem.
Well-rounded analysis. India offers a striking parallel. Here, legal cigarettes make up a small share of total tobacco use yet carry the overwhelming burden of taxation, driving consumers into a vast, unregulated informal market. The ban on e‑cigarettes further closes exit ramps. When policy refuses to recognise its own unintended effects, the black market becomes the default system, and far harder to unwind.
I didn't watch the whole thing - mostly left out the law enforcement people. It was good to see MPs from 4 parties - Labor, Greens, National and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, asking decent questions and focusing on the excise. James and Ed were thorough and on target as usual.
The questions to Amber re 'are you just toeing the government line?' were good. She just said 'No' but it was a bit like when Murray Watt did the same when Malcolm Roberts asked him whether the illicit market was a driver of it. Amber lied when she listed the harms of nicotine without combustion or she just takes on received info from the usual suspects. This is not a question of 'cannot' so much as 'will not' acknowledge the obvious.
Awesome stack mate. Very thought provoking.