fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

[EU] Tobacco taxation – excise duties for manufactured tobacco products

To whom it may concern,

Beating cancer in the EU remains one of our biggest priorities as a society and therefore, we need to approach this issue in a smart way using a science-based approach that enhances consumer choice.

Taxation is intended to push consumers away from particular products – in this case, cigarettes. What policymakers tend to overlook, though, is that demand for cigarettes is inelastic and taxes – along with other restrictions and bans – cannot substantially affect consumer behaviour. Consumers should be seen as individuals responsible for their wellbeing who make a voluntary informed decision to smoke. The EU should seek to preserve consumer choice and encouragement might be a more balanced way forward.

Moreover, high tobacco taxes drive illicit trade in tobacco products. According to European Union Anti Fraud Office (OLAF), cigarette smuggling and other illicit trade forms in tobacco products cause an estimated EUR 10 billion loss to the EU and national budgets every year. In the legal supply chain, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, retailers and consumers are all affected by illicit trade. The black market of tobacco targets vulnerable groups in society, undermining strategies for the effort of harm reduction products.

To prevent these risks, the European Union should limit taxation, and do not increase taxation, on tobacco products. Tax increases incentivise consumers to purchase illegal products and make black market alternatives more attractive. Excessive regulation and taxation of tobacco products reduce access to and availability of them without driving down the demand.

The effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool is undeniable, keeping in mind that it targets smokers as opposed to non-smokers. Vaping is a life-saving tool, and it has been proven to be 95% less harmful than smoking. International health bodies, Public Health England, New Zealand Ministry of Health and Health Canada have also endorsed vaping for encouraging smokers to switch.

The new tobacco excise strategy should take these facts into consideration and develop a separate regulatory framework for vaping. The United States provides a valuable lesson of the damage that can be caused by excise taxes on e-cigarettes. US researchers found that “a proposed national e-cigarette tax of $1.65 per millilitre of vaping liquid would raise the proportion of adults who smoke cigarettes daily by approximately 1 percentage point, translating to 2.5 million extra adult daily smokers compared to the counterfactual of not having the tax.” We shouldn’t forget that our goal is to beat cancer in the EU, and in order to do that, we needn’t be blind to foreign experience and evidence at hand.

Most importantly, in order to reduce cancer rates, it is vital to ensure that vaping is not only accessible price-wise, but also that smokers are aware of the possibility to switch to a safer alternative that can reduce various health-associated risks. The EU has to encourage the marketing and branding of safe and legal vaping products. Consumer information is necessary in order to help beat cancer in the EU through vaping.

Given the aforementioned arguments, we strongly recommend abstaining from further increases in tobacco excise taxes in order not to incentivise the black market. We also call on the Commission to follow science and be mindful of the fact that vaping – as an effective smoking cessation tool – should be treated differently than conventional smoking. Tighter restrictions and higher taxes will not help us beat cancer in the EU, but putting together a science-based and consumer-friendly framework in regard to smoking and vaping will.

Kind regards,

Maria Chaplia
European Affairs Associate
Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

Vaping: The next best alternative

Israr Hasan for DOT : [2] Smoking is a common habit here in Bangladesh, affecting everyone from teenagers to senior citizens. In order to reduce the harm caused by cigarettes, many young people are shifting to e-cigarettes or vapes, credited as one of the most effective quit smoking tools we’ve seen. E-cigarettes are available everywhere in Bangladesh from small street corner shops to e-commerce sites as they grow in high demand.

[3] That said, the Bangladesh government has recently stated that it is working to stop the production and consumption of e-cigarettes in the country. This proposal would be disastrous for adult consumers who want a less risky alternative. Bangladesh is thus set to follow India’s example, which last year banned e-cigarettes in response to what they had called an “epidemic”. This coincides with the goal of making the country tobacco-free by 2040, which to the outside eye appears to be more of an emergency than a grand vision.

[4] Once again, here we see the government meddling in a way that is harmful to consumers. Vaping is seen as the best alternative because it generally acts as a legitimate quitting tool and is significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes to consumers.

[5] Vapes do not require fire that needs to be lit and hence, no combustion takes place. Consequently, there is no smoke, tar, carbon monoxide, and no risk of passive smoking is associated with it making it environmentally friendly, as third parties are not affected.

[6] In Bangladesh, there seems to be a severe lack of information on vaping, but plenty of misinformation. As in many cases, it is better to leave consumers to choose their own method of quitting tobacco rather than having a top-down decision.

[7] Allowing the use of vapes as a less harmful alternative can help large numbers of smokers quit. Vaping can help Bangladesh achieve its vision of becoming tobacco-free by 2040, but there should be an organic framework where market forces do the work rather than constant governmental instructions.

Israr Hasan is a policy fellow at the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

Open Letter on a European Pharmaceutical Strategy

Dear Commissioner Vestager,
Dear Commissioner Gabriel,
Dear Commissioner Kyriakides

Thanks to the very robust Intellectual Property (IP) framework the European Union is equipped  with, we have been able to develop the first effective COVID-19 vaccine in a European  country, namely Germany, through the work of a European-based company backed by  European venture capitalists. The response of many innovative pharmaceutical and biotech  companies has shown their importance for humanity, as they provide swift reactions to new  threats such as the current pandemic.  

The next pandemic might just be around the corner. Given how many people have suffered and  even lost their lives due to COVID-19, and the immense economic toll it already has on  Europeans, we need to do everything we can to foster and not stifle innovation in Europe. 

This can be achieved by embracing innovation and allow risk-seeking investors such as venture  capitalists and companies to benefit from their investments. To this respect, intellectual  property rights play an important factor. 

The COVID-19 crisis has worsened public and personal finances, reducing people’s accessibility to medicines. If we want to increase access to drugs in all parts of Europe by  maintaining our high innovation incentives, we need to focus on creating more prosperity:  economic growth is the key driver for allowing more people across the globe to access the  cures they need. Loud rhetoric aimed at eroding patent rights is a dangerous saber rattling that  might reduce our ability to innovate in the future and find cures for 95% of those known  diseases we cannot cure yet. 

We need to acknowledge that there are wealth disparities among EU Member States and we  cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to access to medicines. The EU  Commission should focus on maintaining our excellent IP standards and refrain from

intervening in the national rules for pricing and reimbursement decisions. Europe is home to  half of the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies. We should not jeopardize this position. 

Kind regards,

Gianna GANCIA MEP
Fulvio MARTUSCIELLO MEP
Salvatore DE MEO MEP
Pernille WEISS MEP
Lucia VUOLO MEP
Matteo ADINOLFI MEP
Massimiliano SALINI MEP
Pietro FIOCCHI MEP
Franc BOGOVIČ MEP
Gianantonio DA RE MEP
Margarita DE LA PISA CARRIÓN MEP
Marzaly AGUILAR, MEP
Stefania ZAMBELLI, MEP
Radan KANEV, MEP
Svenja HAHN, MEP
Hermann TERTSCH, MEP
Klemen GROSELJ, MEP
Carlo CALENDA, MEP
Ivan STEFANEC, MEP
Carlo FIDANZA, MEP
Lukas MANDL, MEP
Dominique BILDE, MEP
Elena LIZZI, MEP
Anna-Michelle ASSIMAKOPOULOU, MEP
Simona BALDASSARRE, MEP
Valentino GRANT, MEP
Nicola PROCACCINI, MEP
Sergio BERLATO, MEP
Isabel BENJUMEA, MEP
Pavel SVOBODA, MEP
Fred ROEDER, Consumer Choice Center


European Green Deal wird für Verbraucher teuer werden

Eine Folgenabschätzung der Europäischen Kommission legt die Kosten des “European Green Deal” dar – für Verbraucher wird es wohl teuer werden. Von Gastautor Fred Röder.

Der European Green Deal (EGD) ist einer der Eckpfeiler der Von der Leyen-Kommission in Brüssel. Es ist in den letzten Jahren klar geworden, dass es größeren Wählerdruck gibt um eine grünere Politik zu betreiben. Auf EU-Ebene hat dies zu hitzigen Debatten beim Thema Freihandel, Landwirtschaftsreformen und Emissionshandel geführt.

Der EGD ist ehrgeizig – er strebt an, bis 2050 null Nettoemissionen zu erreichen, wobei “Wirtschaftswachstum von der Ressourcennutzung abgekoppelt” werden soll. Dies soll durch Strukturreformen im Bereich der Landwirtschaft, die Entkarbonisierung des Energiesektors und die Einführung neuer Besteuerungssysteme zur Vermeidung nicht-nachhaltiger Importe nach Europa erreicht werden. Eine entscheidende Frage wird jedoch ausgeklammert:: zu welchen Kosten? Die zusätzlichen Ausgaben für die Europäische Union werden sich auf satte 260 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr (zwischen 2020 und 2030) belaufen. Es wird allerdings nicht nur der EU-Haushalt belastet, sondern direkten Kosten für Verbraucher werden ebenfalls steigen.

Ende September hat die Europäische Kommission eine Folgenabschätzungsstudie veröffentlicht. deren Ergebnisse sowohl von der Kommission als auch in der breiteren Medienlandschaft weitgehend ignoriert wurden. Das ist jedoch überraschend, denn in fast allen Modellen kommt es zu einem Rückgang des europäischen Bruttoinlandsprodukts. Die teilweise gravierenden Einbrüche werden vor allem durch Rückgänge bei Beschäftigung, Konsum und Exporten verursacht. Besonders verheerend wird der wirtschaftliche Schaden für die Mitgliedstaaten sein, die stark von Exportindustrien abhängig sind und für viele Menschen mit begrenzten Wiederbeschäftigungsmöglichkeiten in diesen Ländern. Deshalb wird insbesondere Deutschland die Folgen dieser Politik zu spüren bekommen Als Exportnation wird es Deutschland härter treffen als weniger von Industrie abhängige Länder..

Bereits bestehenden soziale Ungleichheiten werden durch steigenden Energiepreise für Verbraucher noch extremer werden. Wie die Energiewende in Deutschland bereits zeigte, hat ein überstürzter Umstieg  erneuerbaren Energiequellen, der über Subventionsprogramme und nicht Verbrauchernachfrage erfolgte, die Energiepreise für die Verbraucher stark erhöht. In der Folgenabschätzung der Kommission wird dies anerkannt, allerdings in einer Formulierung die von wenig Mitgefühl für die betroffenen Bürger zeugt: “Ein Nachteil aus sozialer Sicht sind die höheren Energiepreise für die Verbraucher”. Es als “Nachteil” zu bezeichnen, wird den immensen Kosten für einkommensschwache Verbraucher nicht gerecht.

In der Debatte um den European Green Deal wird häufig davon gesprochen, dass umweltpolitische Veränderungen die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und Wohlstand ermöglichen. EGD-Superkommissar Frans Timmermans spricht gerne von “grünen Arbeitsplätzen” und bezieht sich dabei auf die Möglichkeiten, die durch die Pläne der Kommission geschaffen werden. Anstatt dass ihn die COVID-19-Krise einen sanften Ton anschlagen lässt, meint Timmermans, dass “unsere Antwort auf die Covid-19-Krise es uns ermöglicht, Arbeitsplätze nicht für Jahre, sondern für Jahrzehnte zu retten und neue Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen. Wir werden vielleicht nie wieder so viel ausgeben können, um unsere Wirtschaft wieder anzukurbeln – und ich hoffe, dass wir das nie wieder tun müssen”. Wird er es sich jetzt noch einmal überlegen, nachdem die Folgenabschätzung seiner eigenen Kommission drei Wochen nach seiner Rede ergeben hat, dass die Kosten für diese Strategie erheblich sind und insbesondere die unteren Einkommensschichten treffen werden?

Angesichts der angespannten Lage, in der die Wirtschaft und dadurch auch die Bürger besonders leiden, sollten die Diskussion um die Energiewende, wie die des EGD, alle relevanten Aspekte beinhalten – auch die negativen Auswirkungen auf die Konsumenten. Natürlich kann man meinen, dass die Kosten des EU-Plans im Angesicht der klimapolitischen Ziele gerechtfertigt sind, doch man sollte dabei nicht vertuschen, dass Verbraucher, Arbeiter, und kleine Unternehmer besonders unter diesen Entscheidungen leiden werden. Eine offene Diskussion im Sinner der Prinzipien Transparenz und verantwortlicher Regierungsführung ist notwendig, bevor Millionen von Menschen die Rechnung für diese Energiepolitik vorgelegt bekommen.

Originally published here.

LEIPZIGER HAUPTBAHNHOF ZUM SCHÖNSTEN IM GANZEN LAND GEWÄHLT!

Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer hat den schönsten Bahnhof im ganzen Land? Ein Voting des Online-Reisemagazins Travelbook hat nun eine Antwort auf diese Frage geliefert: Leipzig darf sich mit dem Titel “Schönster Bahnhof Deutschlands” schmücken.

Der im Jahr 1915 eröffnete Hauptbahnhof im Leipziger Zentrum ist nicht nur bei Reisenden beliebt – auch die Einwohner der Messestadt schätzen den Kopfbahnhof mit Einkaufszentrum zum Shoppen und Schlemmen.

Schönheit liegt zwar bekanntlich im Auge des Betrachters – doch 11.982 Stimmen können nicht irren! Vom 28. Oktober bis zum 30. November dieses Jahres durfte an der Travelbook-Umfrage entsprechend teilgenommen werden – insgesamt wurde mehr als 53.000 Mal abgestimmt.

Auf dem zweiten Platz landete mit 8315 Stimmen der Hauptbahnhof Hannover. Den dritten Platz belegt der Hauptbahnhof Berlin mit 7225 Stimmen.

Insgesamt standen zwölf Bahnhöfe zur Auswahl.

Übrigens: Der Hauptbahnhof Leipzig erreichte mit dieser Wahl nicht zum ersten Mal eine Top-Platzierung in einem Ranking!

Originally published here.

Ignore company sob stories and raise tobacco tax, Putrajaya told

PETALING JAYA: A former health ministry official has urged the government to start increasing tobacco taxes again, saying it is the most effective way to discourage smoking.

Tobacco control expert Dr Zarihah Mohd Zain, who helped draw up smoking regulations in Malaysia, urged the government to increase the tax five-fold.

She said the government should ignore the “sob stories” of cigarette-makers. The companies had fooled the government into not increasing the tobacco tax for the past five years, in order to counter the sale of cheaper, smuggled cigarettes, she said.

“If we start increasing the tax again, it would lead to higher prices of tobacco products, a good way to reduce demand for smokers,” she told FMT.

“For the last five years that the government did not increase the tax, did it manage to solve the smuggling problem? Not at all,” she said. “In fact, that is just how the tobacco industry fooled the government.”

Zarihah said she believed the main cause of black market cigarettes was corruption among enforcement officers who allowed the illegal products to enter the country.

She said the government should simultaneously end the sale of duty-free cigarettes and start investigating enforcement officers for corruption.

Zarihah said that although the tobacco industry generates revenue for the country, the government is also burdened to cover the cost of smoking cessation programmes. “It is just not worth it. The government needs to realise that this industry is a revenue drainer for Malaysia,” she said.

Health minister Dr Adham Baba told the Dewan Rakyat yesterday that the government may consider using cigarette and tobacco duties to fund anti-smoking programmes. He said there were an estimated 4.8 million smokers in the country, amounting to 21% of the population.

The Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations has welcomed higher tobacco taxes to cover healthcare costs as practised elsewhere and recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Tax collected should be used to provide smoking cessation programmes. Mortality and sickness due to tobacco smoke is a drain on healthcare cost and national productivity,”said Fomca tobacco control co-ordinator Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah.

In July this year, a global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Centre warned that the sale and purchase of smuggled cigarettes — which can cost only a third of the price of the legal stuff — will continue to grow barring changes to local tobacco taxes.

CCC said black market cigarettes had captured 60% of the market, catering to an estimated 5 million smokers in Malaysia.

A total of 22,000 smokers had been treated under the smoking cessation programme so far, and the government spent RM2.8 million on the programme last year alone.

Originally published here.

The EU ‘should consistently charge no VAT on medicine’

In a recent move, the European Commission has suggested to EU member states to exempt Covid-19 diagnostic medical devices, as well as a potential vaccine, from value-added tax. The Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) has welcomed this move, since it incentivises a move to alleviate some of the burdens on patients and consumers as they deal with the pandemic. The CCC’s Managing Director and Health Economist Mr Fred Roeder said the EU should be more ambitious with regard to medicines.

“Member states would be right to implement VAT exemptions on medicines, not just in times of a crisis,” he commented.

“Too many patients in Europe pay too much for needed medicines because the government is taking too big of a cut. Some member states charge as much as 25 per cent for both over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, as well as prescription drugs. This burdens health insurance providers and patients alike”, said Mr Roeder.

“We should take the positive example of Malta, which is the only member state that charges no VAT for either OTC or prescription medicine, yet still manages to provide basic services to citizens. If we want to fund government services, we shouldn’t do it on the backs of patients who need medicine.

“We experience this great double standard in Europe: Politicians of major parties complain about the price of drugs on the continent, yet simultaneously charge large chunks of tax on the same drugs. It is time we end this inconsistency”, he concluded.

Originally published here.

Tarif PPN untuk Obat-Obatan di Eropa Diusulkan Maksimal 5%

Insentif pajak untuk barang-barang farmasi dinilai masih dibutuhkan mengingat kebutuhan masyarakat Eropa untuk produk kesehatan terus meningkat di tengah pandemi virus Corona atau Covid-19.

Analis Kebijakan dari The Consumer Choice Center Bill Wirtz mengatakan pembuat kebijakan di Eropa perlu merumuskan ulang kebijakan fiskal untuk produk farmasi pada masa pandemi Covid-19, terutama mengenai tarif PPN.Baca Juga: RS Ummi Bersiap Kena Sanksi Satgas Covid-19 Gegara Tak Lapor Hasil Swab Test Habib Rizieq

“Dalam komponen harga obat pendorong utama yang membuat harga menjadi lebih tinggi karena adanya pajak penjualan obat,” katanya dikutip Rabu (4/11).

Saat ini, lanjut Wirtz, sebagian besar negara Eropa masih memungut PPN untuk resep atau obat yang dijual secara bebas. Pungutan paling tinggi diterapkan Denmark dengan tarif PPN 25%. Lalu, Jerman mengenakan PPN 19% untuk resep obat dan produk obat yang dijual secara bebas.

Sementara itu, satu-satunya negara yang tidak memungut PPN atas resep obat atau obat yang dijual bebas adalah Malta. Kemudian negara seperti Luksemburg menerapkan tarif PPN rendah sebesar 3% untuk obat-obatan dan Spanyol dengan tarif PPN 4%.

Swedia dan Inggris menerapkan PPN 0% untuk resep obat yang dikeluarkan dokter. Namun, tetap memungut PPN 25% di Swedia dan PPN 20% di Inggris untuk obat yang dijual secara umum tanpa harus menyertakan resep obat dari dokter.

“Negara anggota Uni Eropa harus mencontoh Malta yang menurunkan tarif PPN sampai 0% untuk semua obat untuk mengurangi aktivitas komersial dan memastikan harga dijual dengan wajar,” ujar Wirtz.Baca Juga: Jika Vaksinasi Berjalan, Bisa Hentikan Penularan, Pulihkan Kesehatan, dan Bangkitkan Ekonomi

Wirtz berharap terdapat kesepakatan di antara negara anggota Uni Eropa untuk memastikan obat-obatan yang saat ini sangat vital dapat diakses oleh seluruh masyarakat dengan harga terjangkau. Misal, dengan mematok tarif PPN untuk obat-obatan maksimal 5%.

“Perlu adanya perjanjian mengikat untuk kebijakan tarif PPN dengan batas maksimal tarif 5% untuk menurunkan harga obat, meningkatkan aksesibilitas dan menciptakan Eropa yang lebih adil,” tutur Wirtz seperti dilansir eureporter.co

Originally published here.

Vape shop operators: A tax on our products amid Covid-19 pandemic will kill business

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 27 ― The vape culture in Malaysia has seen tremendous growth since its introduction here about nine years ago. It has been reported that the value of the vaping market here is estimated at RM2 billion.

An estimated one million people smoke e-cigarettes or vapes in Malaysia and most rely on their neighbourhood vape shop for their “juice” or vape liquids. There are a myriad of choices of brands and flavours as Malaysia is one of the leading producers of vape liquids worldwide.

Finance Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz, in his maiden Budget speech on November 6, proposed imposing excise duty on electronic, non-electronic cigarette devices and vape liquids beginning January 2021.

He said the government will impose excise duty at a rate of 10 per cent on all types of electronic and non-electronic cigarette devices, as well as 40 sen per ml (millimetre) when it comes to the sale of vape liquids. 

Malay Mail spoke to several e-cigarette and vape shop operators to find out what they think about this new vape tax. The consensus seems to be that the timing is wrong as everybody is still reeling from the devastating economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

They suggested that the government postpone the imposition of the tax to a later date.

Mohd Hiekal bin Rosli, owner of Molek Vape Store on Jalan Ipoh, said that while he welcomes the tax as it will help regulate the industry, the government skipped a few steps when tabling this ruling.

“An Act should be put in place first and they should streamline the issuing of licences for vapes and all its related products. Right now, the health ministry doesn’t even issue licenses.

“How can you impose tax for something that people cannot get a licence to sell in the first place?” he questioned.

All nicotine products fall under the purview of the Poisons Act 1952, and no licence has been issued by the health ministry for vaping products in the country.

Hiekal added that while the 10 per cent excise duty on e-cigarettes and vaping devices is fair, the 40 sen per ml on vape liquids is a bit much, sharing that the price hike after the tax for liquids would be a deterrent.

“Forty sen per ml is actually quite high. Most vape juices I sell come either in 10ml, 30ml or 60ml boxes; imagine one 60ml bottle costs an average RM40, and at 40 sen per ml, that brings the total price to an additional RM24 on top of the price of the juice itself.

“We are afraid that the tax may chase away what remains of my customers ― some who face rough conditions because of the economy right now during Covid-19. Push it back until the coast is clear, then implement it by all means,” he said.

Although Hiekal thinks the 40 sen per ml tax on vape liquids is quite high, checks on a similar tax on vape liquids in other countries shows this is actually quite low.

At the corner of Jalan Raja Abdullah and Jalan Raja Muda Musa in Kampung Baru is Puppetborn Vape Store. Run by 25-year-old Lokman Hakim bin Mohd Yusof, this little vape store supplies Kampung Baru and its close neighbours with their e-cigarette and vaping needs.

Lokman shared that vaping is a lifestyle, just like smoking. And like cigarettes, no matter how high the tax, there will always be a demand.

“A lot of my customers switched over to vapes because one, it’s healthier than smoking cigarettes, and two, it’s cheaper! What’s going to stop those who switched from cigarettes to vapes to switch back, because it’s going to be almost the same price!,” he exclaimed as two of his customers nearby chuckled on hearing the dismay in his voice.

He added that while he agrees the implementation of a tax is a good thing for the country’s economy, the government should consider waiting until after the Covid-19 pandemic is over to impose the tax.

“Right now, I still have demand for vapes and its products but I know if they implement it before Covid-19 is over, we’re going to have a hard time surviving. Those big chains will nonetheless survive, but us small shops who serve a small neighbourhood… we won’t,” he added.

Amir Abdulah, store manager of NCiG’s flagship store in Desa Sri Hartamas, said that the company’s vision of helping people quit cigarettes may be impaired as the taxes may drive away customers.

“Here at NCiG, our motto is to improve the quality of life for smokers and their families by putting an end to cigarette addiction forever, by encouraging the use of e-cigarettes which have less toxins and chemicals compared to cigarettes, and are less harmful overall.

“The implementation of the tax may chase away some of our clients who have been trying to live a healthier life,”he shared.

Amir fears the implementation of the tax will just push people back to smoking cigarettes, as the pricing will be almost equivalent.

A 2020 report by an American advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center, recently debunked the common belief that “vaping is the gateway to smoking for adults and adolescents” but instead is designed to offer smokers a safer way to consume nicotine and divert them from traditional and harmful tobacco consumption.

Amir added that he fears that it is too soon for such a tax as most operators are barely hanging on due to the devastating effects of the pandemic, and that the market needs more time to recover first.

“We need time to recover, we were closed for a month before this because of Covid-19, and have yet to recover from that lost time,” he said.

Originally published here.

Report: Vaping is a gateway out of smoking

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 23 — A 2020 report by an American advocacy group, the Consumer Choice Center, debunks the common belief that “vaping is the gateway to smoking for adults and adolescents.”

Titled “Vaping and the Gateway Myth”, the report highlighted findings that vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking.

It also presents a viewpoint that vaping actually helps conventional smokers “divert from traditional and harmful tobacco consumption.”

The report also emphasises that vaping products were designed to offer smokers a safer way to consume nicotine, with the target being adult smokers.

The British National Health Service has already said nicotine, on its own, is relatively harmless and adds that “almost all of the harm from smoking comes from the thousands of other chemicals in tobacco smoke, many of which are toxic.”

The Consumer Choice Center report also cites a study conducted by University College London in 2019 which analysed data from over 50,000 smokers from 2006 to 2017.

It was found that vaping products were positively associated with the quit success rate; every one per cent rise in the use of vaping products associated with a 0.06 per cent increase in the quit success rate.

In a speech at the European Parliament in February this year, Joachim Schüz, head of Environment and Radiation at WHO’s cancer research agency said vaping is “no way as harmful” as smoking cigarettes and could even help heavy smokers quit.

What’s more, the Malaysian tobacco industry sees the new “vaping tax” to be introduced in 2021 on all electronic cigarette devices including vape and vaping liquids as a positive one as this means vaping products will be regulated.

In Malaysia, the number of smokers has dropped by 1.5 percentage points in 2019 according to the Ministry of Health’s National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019.

While it is unclear if this can be attributed to a switch to vaping, the same report shows five per cent of Malaysians use vaping products.

The effectiveness of vaping as a smoking cessation tool seems to be encouraging and efforts to frame vaping as a gateway to smoking do not seem to stand up to close scrutiny.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN