- About Us
- Media
- Research
- Policy Areas
- Events
- Past Events
- Sweden is More Than Just IKEA
- The Path Forward: Liberal Democracies and Technology Policy
- Coping with uncertainty in a post-pandemic world
- FDA’s Menthol Melee: A CCC Session
- CANNABIS CONCLAVE BY CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER®
- Cannabis Conclave 2020
- Cannabis Conclave 2019
- Telecom and Media Innovation Summit
- Brand Freedom Day
- Media Roundtables: Does the WHO act
in the interest of Global Public Health?
- Past Events
- Donate
Search for: prohibition
[UK] POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF TOBACCO LEGISLATION
The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display) (England) Regulations 2010
These regulations apply to the display of tobacco products in small and large shops (display ban) and came into force on 6 April 2012 in larger shops and 6 April 2015 for all other outlets. The regulations prohibit the display of tobacco products in small and large shops, allowing trading to continue but preventing them from being used as promotional tools. All retailers are required to cover up cigarettes and hide all tobacco products from public view.
The full Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display) (England) Regulations 2010 are published on Legislation.gov.uk
1. Do you think the display ban of tobacco in small and large shops has helped to reduce the number of children and young people smoking?
Answer: I don’t know if it has or not.
Current scientific evidence points to the fact that smoking susceptibility amongst young people has dropped following the introduction of the display ban on tobacco in small and large shops.
A decrease in smoking susceptibility does not necessarily equate to a decline in smoking rates, since this decrease also correlates with a number of other factors, on both the regulatory and the educational side, as well as innovations such as harm-reducing products. A negative side-effect of a display ban can be that smoking is perceived as an ominous and secretive act, which encourages certain youth to pick it up. In a comparable fashion, illicit narcotic substances are also purchased in large numbers by youths, without any advertising or display. We know through evidence in countries that have legalised or decriminalised these substances (particularly in the case of cannabis) that youth consumption rates normalise as the handling of the substance reaches social acceptance.
It would be ill-advised for the government to recreate the bad side-effects of prohibition in the case of tobacco.
2. Do you think the tobacco display ban has encouraged and supported adult smokers to quit?
Answer: I don’t know if it has or not.
Scientific evidence presented by the World Health Organization (WHO) points to the example of New Zealand, where a display ban coincided with a decrease in smoking prevalence from 9% to 7%.
Correlation does not mean causation. The measure also has overlap with both the regulatory and educational measures, as well as innovations such as harm-reducing products. Further scientific research in the United Kingdom would be necessary to determine whether a decline in adult smoking cessation can be related to display bans.
3. What impact do you think the display ban has had on:
(a) general population
(b) retailers
(c) manufacturers
(d) other stakeholders
For consumers, the implementation of a display ban reduces the amount of information available for tobacco. Cigarettes are a legal product in the United Kingdom, yet consumers are now unable to identify differences between brands and are unexposed to new upcoming products. Added to that, a display ban creates uncertainty on the legal market, as the practice of selling cigarettes “under the counter” is equally present in the case of retailers engaging in the sales of illicit cigarettes.
Some of our members have reported to us to have received counterfeit products when purchasing cigarettes in UK corner stores. The display ban might make it easier for vendors of counterfeit cigarettes to hide their illicit products from consumers and law enforcement until the moment of sale.
4. Is the display ban an effective way to protect children and young people from taking up smoking and supporting those who wish to quit?
Answer: No, I don’t think it is.
Given the insufficient amount of evidence on the question of effectiveness and the clear risks that the Consumer Choice Center has listed in an answer on the impact of the display ban, we do not believe that the measures constitute an effective way to protect children and young people from taking up smoking and supporting those who wish to quit.
We believe that harm-reducing products such as e-cigarettes represent an innovative way towards smoking cessation. The UK’s permissive approach to e-cigarettes has shown a positive impact. According to the NHS, between 2011 and 2017, the number of UK smokers fell from 19.8% to 14.9%. At the same time, the number of e-cigarette users rose: almost half of these consumers use e-cigarettes as a means of quitting smoking.
5. Were there any economic losses or gains (for individuals, businesses and wider society) associated with implementing the display ban on tobacco products?
Answer: Yes, I think there were some economic losses or gains.
With a loss in brand awareness and the creation of consumer uncertainty on the legal market, the Consumer Choice Center believes that a loss in consumer choice has been created by the display ban. We also think that this has fuelled the shadow economy and allowed vendors with bad intentions to sell more illegal cigarettes to consumers.
The Tobacco and Advertising (Specialist Tobacconists) (England) Regulations 2010
These regulations apply to the display of tobacco products in Specialist Tobacconists and came into force on 6th April 2015.
These regulations provide exemptions for specialist tobacconists to the general prohibition of the display of tobacco products. They allow tobacco products to be displayed within specialist tobacconists as long as they are not visible from outside the shops. Additionally, the legislation permits tobacco advertising provided it is in, or fixed to the outside of premises of a specialist tobacconist and complies with prescribed conditions.
The full Tobacco and Advertising (Specialist Tobacconists) (England) Regulations 2010 are published on Legilsation.gov.uk.
1. Do you think the display ban of tobacco in specialist tobacconists has helped to reduce the number of children and young people smoking?
Answer: I don’t know if it has or has not.
Current scientific evidence has analysed the situation in regular commercial establishments. The purpose of a specialist tobacconist shop is to sell tobacco, with other items for sale being proportionally secondary. Evidence would need to be gathered in order to make concrete statements on the effect of the display ban in this instance.
2. Do you think the display ban in specialist tobacconists has encouraged and supported adult smokers to quit?
Answer: I don’t know if it has or has not.
Current scientific evidence has analysed the situation in regular commercial establishments. The purpose of a specialist tobacconist shop is to sell tobacco, with other items for sale being proportionally secondary. Evidence would need to be gathered in order to make concrete statements on the effect of the display ban in this instance.
3. Has the display ban within specialist tobacconists had any further impacts not covered in the questions above?
Answer: I don’t know if it has or has not.
Provided the exemptions in the current law surrounding display bans, the case of specialist tobacconists is different from regular retailers and needs to be examined separately.
4. Is the display ban in specialist tobacconists an effective way to protect children and young people from taking up smoking and supporting those who wish to quit?
Answer: I don’t know whether it is or it is not effective.
Provided the exemptions in the current law surrounding display bans, the case of specialist tobacconists is different from regular retailers and needs to be examined separately.
We believe that harm-reducing products such as e-cigarettes represent an innovative way towards smoking cessation. The UK’s permissive approach to e-cigarettes has shown a positive impact. According to the NHS, between 2011 and 2017, the number of UK smokers fell from 19.8% to 14.9%. At the same time, the number of e-cigarette users rose: almost half of these consumers use e-cigarettes as a means of quitting smoking.
5. Were there any economic losses or gains (for individuals, businesses and wider society) associated with carrying out this regulation in the community?
Answer: I don’t know if there were or not economic losses or gains.
Given the insufficient amount of evidence on the question of effectiveness, and the clear risks that the Consumer Choice Center has listed in an answer on the impact of the display ban, we do not believe that the measures constitute an effective way to protect children and young people from taking up smoking and supporting those who wish to quit.
We believe that harm-reducing products such as e-cigarettes represent an innovative way towards smoking cessation. The UK’s permissive approach to e-cigarettes has shown a positive impact. According to the NHS, between 2011 and 2017, the number of UK smokers fell from 19.8% to 14.9%. At the same time, the number of e-cigarette users rose: almost half of these consumers use e-cigarettes as a means of quitting smoking.
The Tobacco and Advertising (Display of Prices) (England) Regulations 2010
These regulations impose requirements on the display of prices of tobacco products in small and large shops and came into force on 6th April 2015.
The regulations permit only three types of tobacco price displays within retailers:
- Poster style lists (up to A3 in size) which can be permanently on show but must not exceed 1,250sq centimetres in size
- A list including pictures of products, which must not be left on permanent show, but can be shown to any customer aged 18 or over who asks for information on tobacco products sold; and
- Price labels, which can be placed on shelving, storage units or tobacco jars. One price label is permitted for each product either on the covered shelf where the product is stored or on the front of the storage unit.
The full Tobacco and Advertising (Display of Prices) (England) Regulations 2010 are published on Legislation.gov.uk
1. Have the restrictions on the display of prices of tobacco products helped reduce the number of children and young people smoking?
Answer: I don’t know if they have or have not.
Current scientific evidence on this matter is scarce. Existing evidence suggests that price display bans can reduce smoking prevalence. However, the same research also suggests that price policies need to be accompanied by certain minimum price rules. Therefore, the immediate effectiveness of price display bans in themselves are questionable and cannot be proven with existing evidence.
2. Have the restrictions on the display of prices of tobacco products helped encourage and support adult smokers to quit?
Answer: I don’t know if they have or have not.
Current scientific evidence on this matter is scarce. Existing evidence suggests that price display bans can reduce smoking prevalence. However, the same research also suggests that price policies need to be accompanied by certain minimum price rules. Therefore, the immediate effectiveness of price display bans in themselves are questionable and cannot be proven with existing evidence.
3. What impact do you think the restriction of display of prices of tobacco products has had on the following:
(a) general population
(b) retailers
(c) manufacturers
(d) other stakeholders (please specify)
Please give reason(s) and evidence for your answers.
Restricting price indications at retail deprives consumers of information about tobacco, a product which can be purchased legally with some restrictions in the United Kingdom. Consumers are vulnerable to be misled by retailers about the product they are buying, and are not afforded the necessary transparency to make an informed purchase.
4. Is restricting the display of prices of tobacco products an effective way to protect children and young people from taking up smoking and support those who wish to quit?
Answer: I don’t know if it is or is not effective.
Current scientific evidence on this matter is scarce. Existing evidence suggests that price display bans can reduce smoking prevalence. However, the same research also suggests that price policies need to be accompanied by certain minimum price rules. Therefore, the immediate effectiveness of price display bans in themselves are questionable and cannot be proven with existing evidence.
We believe that harm-reducing products such as e-cigarettes represent an innovative way towards smoking cessation. The UK’s permissive approach to e-cigarettes has shown a positive impact. According to the NHS, between 2011 and 2017, the number of UK smokers fell from 19.8% to 14.9%. At the same time, the number of e-cigarette users rose: almost half of these consumers use e-cigarettes as a means of quitting smoking.
5. Were there any economic losses or gains (for individuals, businesses and wider society) associated with carrying out this regulation in the community?
Answer: I don’t know if there were economic losses or gains.
Restricting price indications at retail deprives consumers of information about tobacco, a product which can be purchased legally with some restrictions in the United Kingdom. Consumers are vulnerable to be misled by retailers about the product they are buying, and are not afforded the necessary transparency to make an informed purchase.
The Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015
The regulations came into force as of 1st October 2015 and apply in England. Regulation 5; penalties and discounted amount also applies in Wales. These regulations make it an offence for:
- A person to smoke in a private vehicle when someone under the age of 18 is present
- A driver not to stop a person smoking when someone under the age of 18 is present.
The regulations are thought to have minimal impact in business. Police Authorities are the designated enforcement offices, with the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to anyone found to be non-compliant with the law.
The full Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015 are published on Legislation.gov.uk.
1. Have the Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations helped prevent people from smoking in vehicles with children?
Answer: No, I don’t think they have.
There is no sufficient amount of evidence in England that would allow for a thorough conclusion on this matter. Existing evidence from Portugal showed that despite widespread support for the regulation, “high smoking prevalence and poor enforcement contribute to low compliance”.
2. What impact do you think Smoke free (Private Vehicles) Regulations have had on: general public, retailers, manufacturers, other stakeholders (please specify)
The Consumer Choice Center believes that though the intent of the legislation is commendable, the costs involved with enforcing the measure thoroughly far exceed the benefits. Law enforcement work on lifestyle matters should be focused on preventing sales of tobacco to young people, and combating illicit trade.
3. Do you believe prohibiting smoking in private vehicles is an effective way to protect children and young people from harms of tobacco and second-hand smoke?
Answer: I don’t know if it is or if is not.
There is no sufficient amount of evidence in England that would allow for a thorough conclusion on this matter. The question is not whether smoking in private vehicles is unhealthy to children and young people from a health perspective, but whether legislation is the correct approach to solving this issue. A prohibition on this matter can also lead to complicated law enforcement situations. A family car that smells of tobacco because the parent smoked in the vehicle prior to picking up children could offset a fine, even though the driver did not break the law.
We believe that education through the schooling system is the correct way to pursue public health objectives.
4. Were there any economic losses or gains (for individuals, businesses and wider society) associated with carrying out this regulation in the community?
Answer: I don’t know if there were economic losses or gains.
There is no sufficient amount of evidence in England that would allow for a thorough conclusion on this matter. Existing evidence from Portugal showed that despite widespread support for the regulation, “high smoking prevalence and poor enforcement contribute to low compliance”.
Increased law enforcement in this area would increase costs for taxpayers.
On alcohol reform, state lawmakers have finally started to listen
Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, which advocates for consumer choice and freedom. He’s speaking in general, but, clearly, North Carolina may well be the unavoidable target for his comments.
“In many southern states and beyond, alcohol-control laws are some of the most byzantine and backward on the books. Indeed, many have not changed in the 86 years since the end of Prohibition.
“These laws treat adults like children, stunt economic growth, deprive consumers of better choices, and drastically increase costs for everyday people who just want a drink at the end of a hard day’s work.”
Wissenschaftliche Rosinenpickerei – Die Grünen wieder als Verbotspartei? – Ein Kommentar
Die Grünen wollen die industrielle Landwirtschaft in Deutschland komplett verbieten. Für Verbraucher und Landwirte würde das große und teure Veränderungen mit sich bringen.
„Wir Grüne im Bundestag stehen für eine bäuerlich-ökologische Landwirtschaft“, heißt es auf der Webseite der Grünen Bundestagsfraktion. Man würde sich für gentechnikfreies Essen, eine pestizidarme Landwirtschaft, mehr Ökolandbau und regionale Vermarktung einsetzen.
Mit „einsetzen“ meinen es die Grünen ernst, da die Partei nunmehr nicht weniger als das komplette Verbot der industriellen Landwirtschaft fordert. Nachdem jahrelang der Bioladen eine Nische für Verbraucher die anders einkaufen wollen bedeutete, sollen Bioprodukte nun also Pflicht werden.
Auch im Ausland schlägt das Wellen. Der Daily Telegraph in Großbritannien schreibt,dass das Image der Grünen „prohibition party“, also einer Verbotspartei, das man bisher abschütteln wollte, zurückkehrt. Warum dies Wellen schlägt ist ersichtlich:
Die Grünen erleben einen konstanten Wählerzufluß in Deutschland, und damit sind sie und ihre Politik so ernst zu nehmen, wie während ihrer letzten Beteiligung an der Bundesregierung.
Verbieten wollen die Grünen auch die Genschere, die durch Techniken wie CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) bekannt ist. Mit diesen Systemen können Forscher Gene in lebenden Zellen und Organismen dauerhaft verändern und in Zukunft Mutationen an genauen Stellen im menschlichen Genom korrigieren und somit genetische Krankheitsursachen zu behandeln.
In der Landwirtschaft kann die gleiche Technik ebenfalls zum Einsatz kommen. Die Grünen sehen das „Genome-Editing“ gleich mit der Frage der genetisch veränderten Organismen (GVO), die für die Partei ebenfalls weiter verboten gehören.
Hier stimmt die Grünen-Position inzwischen nicht mehr mit der der eigenen Jugend überein. Bereits letztes Jahr verlangten die Grüne Jugend in Niedersachsen „die Debatte um grüne Gentechnik ohne Dogmen neu beginnen und auf wissenschaftlicher Basis politisch argumentieren“.
Neue Kritik gab es auch dieses Jahr. Im Parteibeschluss der Grünen Jugend Sachsen-Anhalt heißt es Ende März:
Heute ist es gerade für die Bewältigung der kommenden globalen Herausforderungen elementar wichtig, diese historische Position [komplettes Verbot von GVO] zu überdenken“
Diese Wissenschaftsferne ist verwunderlich, da die Grünen beim Klimawandel meist sehr wissenschaftlich argumentieren. Auch wenn die daraus resultierenden Politikvorschläge, radikal und gewagt sind, zitieren sie wissenschaftliche Studien als Basis für ihre Forderungen rigoros. In der Landwirtschaft hingegen verhält die Partei sich dogmatisch.
Wer GVOs und Pestizide in Wissenschaft und Politik verteidigt muss von internationalen Großkonzernen gekauft worden sein. Skeptiker des Klimawandels funktionieren hier gleich: Wissenschaftler, die den Klimawandel beweisen, müssen von irgendwelchen einflussreichen Kreisen gekauft worden sein.
Auf der Strecke bleibt die wissenschaftliche Methode und faktenbasierte Politik.
Wo führt das alles nun hin? Genome-Editing ist wichtig für weiteren wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt, doch aktuelle Entscheidungen vom EU-Gerichtshof in Luxemburg, sowie dem Widerstand von verschiedenen Umweltaktivisten in Deutschland, machen dem schnell ein Ende.
Für Landwirte heißt das weniger Fortschritt und somit die Weiternutzung von ebenso unpopulären Pestiziden, oder Kupfer als Fungizid in der Biolandwirtschaft. Unterdessen wird im Ausland schneller geforscht. Eine weitere Abschottung in der Handelspolitik wäre dann wieder nötig um die stehengebliebenen Landwirte in Europa vor ausländischen Produkten zu „schützen“.
Verbrauchern würde nach solchen Verboten die Wahl fehlen. Bio oder nicht-bio bleibt weiterhin eine große gesellschaftliche Diskussion. Sie sollte allerdings nicht durch die Abschaffung der konventionellen Landwirtschaft gelöst werden, sondern Aufklärung und Innovation.
Die Jungen Grünen in Sachsen-Anhalt schreiben in einer ihrer Forderungen:
Das Schüren von irrationalen Ängsten zum Erreichen eines politischen Zieles lehnen wir grundsätzlich ab, das gilt auch für Gentechnik.“
Das ist ja schon mal ein guter Anfang.
Der Autor Bill Wirtz arbeitet als Senior Policy Analyst für das Consumer Choice Center. Twitter: @wirtzbill
Supreme Court Makes the Right Decision on Modernizing Alcohol Laws
CONTACT:
Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
@YaelOss
yael@consumerchoicecenter.org
Washington, D.C. – In a 7-2 decision handed down yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennesse law that prohibits new state residents from obtaining liquor licenses.
The law required a two-year residency in the state before applicants could apply for a liquor license for a new business, shutting the door to entrepreneurs and depriving consumers of products they otherwise would have enjoyed.
The main issue up for consideration in Tennessee Wine And Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas was whether the 21st Amendment, which repealed alcohol prohibition in 1933, allowed states carte blanche to pass alcohol laws that effectively violated the commerce clause.
In response, Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, said “the Supreme Court made the absolute right decision, and it gives a total endorsement for the modernization of our Prohibition-era state alcohol laws.
“In many southern states and beyond, alcohol-control laws are some of the most byzantine and backward on the books. Indeed, many have not changed in the 86 years since the end of Prohibition.
“These laws treat adults like children, stunt economic growth, deprive consumers of better choices, and drastically increase costs for everyday people who just want a drink at the end of a hard day’s work.
“The Supreme Court’s decision isn’t as expansive as consumers would like, but it at least begins the conversation about how we can liberalize and modernize our alcohol laws for the 21st Century.
“Now is the time to explore getting rid of state liquor monopolies, protectionist limits on distribution, crony alcohol commissions, the requirements to use wholesalers, bans on shipping across state lines, punitive taxes, and other restrictive regulations that limit the creativity of entrepreneurs to deliver better products that consumers love.
“With more modern alcohol policies, entrepreneurs will have more room to grow their businesses, consumers will have access to better products tailored for their tastes, and we will finally close the book on the destructive era that was alcohol Prohibition in this country,” concluded Ossowski.
CCC’s Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries HERE.
—
The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.
The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.
Trudeau’s ‘plastic ban’ won’t help the environment. It could actually harm it instead
Opinion: Alternatives have a significantly higher total impact on the environment, while inflating costs for consumers
By David Clement
This week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his government will seek to ban many single-use plastics starting in 2021. Although the final list of banned items is still undetermined, it will likely include plastic bags, takeaway containers, cutlery and straws. To further justify the ban, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna cited images of marine wildlife being injured or killed as a result of plastic in our oceans.
It’s a hard-to-resist pitch. No one wants to contribute to marine deaths as a result of plastic, and most of us don’t like the idea of plastic items taking over 1,000 years to decompose in landfills. These concerns ultimately stem from worries about climate change, and the environmental problems that could arise as a result.
Unfortunately for the environmentally conscious among us, a ban on single-use plastics does almost nothing for the issue of plastics impacting ocean marine life, and does very little in terms of environmental impact. Canadians are not significant polluters when it comes to marine litter. Up to 95 per cent of all plastic found in the world’s oceans comes from just 10 source rivers, which are all in the developing world.
William Watson: After banning disposable plastics, Trudeau may be a disposable prime minister
Rapidly growing backlash to plastic has oil companies worried
Terence Corcoran: How green activists manipulated us into a pointless war on plastic
Canada on average, contributes less than 0.01 MT (millions of metric tonnes) of mismanaged plastic waste. In contrast, countries like Indonesia and the Philippines contribute 10.1 per cent and 5.9 per cent of the world’s mismanaged plastic, which is upwards of 300 times Canada’s contribution. China, the world’s largest plastics polluter, accounts for 27.7 per cent of the worlds mismanaged plastic. Canada, when compared to European countries like England, Spain, Italy, Portugal and France, actually contributes four times less in mismanaged plastic. The only European countries on par with Canada are the significantly smaller Sweden, Norway and Finland. A plastics ban might sound productive in terms of plastics pollution, but the evidence doesn’t suggest that Canada is actually a significant contributor for mismanaged plastic, which means that a Canadian ban will do little to aid marine life devastatingly impacted by plastic pollution.
However, proponents will say we should still support the ban on the basis of trying to curb climate change. Although noble, banning plastics doesn’t necessarily equate to better environmental outcomes. In fact, some alternative products, although branded as green alternatives, have a significantly higher total environmental impact once the production process is factored in.
Take plastic bags for example, which are public enemy number one. Conventional thinking suggests that banning single-use plastic bags will result in people using reusable bags, and that this reduction in plastic use will have a positive impact on the environment. Research from Denmark’s Ministry of the Environment actually challenged that conventional wisdom when it sought to compare the total impact of plastic bags to their reusable counterparts. The Danes found that alternatives to plastic bags came with significant negative externalities. For example, common paper bag replacements needed to be reused 43 times to have the same total impact as a plastic bag. When it came to cotton alternatives, the numbers were even higher. A conventional cotton bag alternative needed to be used over 7,100 times to equal a plastic bag, while an organic cotton bag had to be reused over 20,000 times. We know from consumer usage patterns that the likelihood of paper or cotton alternatives being used in such a way is incredibly unlikely. These results were also largely confirmed with the U.K. government’s own life-cycle assessment, which concluded that these alternatives have a significantly higher total impact on the environment.
While Canadians might support the idea of a plastics ban, they don’t want to pay for it. A Dalhousie University study showed us that 89 per cent of Canadians are in support of legislation to limit plastics. However, that same study also showed that 83 per cent of Canadians were not willing to pay more than 2.5- per-cent higher prices for goods as a result of plastic regulations. This creates a significant problem for Trudeau’s ban, because higher prices are exactly what we’d see.
There are simple solutions available to us that don’t involve heavy-handed bans. First, we could focus more strictly on limiting how plastics end up in our rivers, lakes and streams. Better recycling programs and stricter littering prohibitions could go a long way to curbing the plastic Canada does contribute. For those single-use products that otherwise end up in landfills, we could follow Sweden’s lead, and incinerate that waste. Doing so creates a power source for local communities, while capturing airborne toxins, limiting toxic runoff, and significantly reducing the volume of waste.
Good public policy should address a real problem and should make a meaningful impact on the said problem. Unfortunately, Trudeau’s proposed single-use plastics ban would have little to no impact on overall ocean waste, while promoting high-impact alternatives, and inflating costs for consumers. All three of these factored together create a fairly toxic policy mix.
David Clement is the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center.
Don’t blame Doug Ford for the costs of breaking unfair beer retailing contracts
Opinion: We should blame politicians who set up and maintained a system that has both inconvenienced and overcharged consumers for nearly a century.
A lot has changed in the last 92 years, but Ontario’s alcohol policy is one thing that has remained largely the same. Following the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1927, the province granted Brewers Warehousing Co. (later Brewers Retail/The Beer Store) a monopoly over beer sales, to appease prohibitionists. Now Prohibition’s legacy lives on through The Beer Store’s near monopoly on beer sales today, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford is facing both political heat and legal threats by trying to challenge it.
If the Ford government follows its plan, beer and wine will be available in corner and big box stores by Christmas. Evidence suggests this policy will enhance consumer choice by expanding variety, increasing convenience, and lowering prices. Anindya Sen, an economist at the University of Waterloo, estimated that roughly $700 million in annual revenue earned by The Beer Store is incremental profit earned because of its monopoly status and ability to charge higher prices. Additionally, The Beer Store’s roots in Prohibition demonstrate that lack of access is a feature, not a bug, of the current retail system. This inconvenience may be why 54 per cent of Ontarians support allowing more privately owned stores to sell alcohol.
Modernizing alcohol sales is good public policy. While the LCBO’s earnings serve as a cash cow for the province, The Beer Store’s profits primarily go into the hands of large multinational brewers — Anheuser Busch-InBev, through its Labatt subsidiary; Colorado-based Molson-Coors; and Japan’s Sapporo, through its Sleeman subsidiary. Additionally, retail monopolies do little to promote social responsibility. As one of the authors’ research has shown, privatization of alcohol sales in Alberta was associated with a lower rate of impaired driving.
The precedent for this change exists, as convenience stores already sell lottery tickets and cigarettes, and face hefty penalties for selling to minors. Furthermore, alcohol liberalization isn’t only good for consumers, it’s good for the economy. By studying similar reforms in British Columbia, a new report from the Retail Council of Canada predicts that Ford’s proposed reforms would result in 9,100 new jobs and a $3.5-billion dollar increase in GDP.
We should not blame the Ford government for pursuing alcohol modernization
However, pursuing this change has had its own set of challenges. The Beer Store has threatened legal action against the province if it moves forward with its plan, citing its agreement with the previous Liberal government that limits the number and type of beer-retailing outlets in Ontario until 2025. Beer-industry insiders claim a breach of contract could cost Ontario up to $1 billion. While there are reasons to doubt this figure, including that estimates have rapidly grown from a previous estimate of $100 million in the short time since the story about the Ontario government’s plans broke, it has proven to be politically challenging for the Ford government. Critics have claimed that moving forward would be irresponsible due to the financial risk, with Ford being directly responsible for the potential losses.
There are two important lessons to take from these exorbitant claims. The first is that the figures that opponents of the plan are claiming are entirely unsubstantiated. They are simply the figures they claim. In order for them to have any legal weight whatsoever, they would have to be proven in court, which would require The Beer Store to open its books. Given the grandiose figures being tossed around, it is entirely possible that The Beer Store is bluffing in an attempt to maintain its privileged treatment. The second important lesson here is the price of cronyism overall. The government over-regulating and picking winners and losers in the market hurts consumers twice over. First through inflated prices and poor customer service, and again as taxpayers via legal challenges. Setting a precedent that the Ford government stands with consumers over special interests would clearly show that it stands for the people.
When it comes to placing blame, there is a lot to go around. We should blame the politicians who set up and maintained a retail system that has both inconvenienced and overcharged Ontario consumers for nearly a century. We should blame the previous government for attempting to tie the hands of subsequent leaders by signing the latest contract with The Beer Store. However, regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge, we should not blame the Ford government for pursuing alcohol modernization. While this move may be costly, it is necessary to right past wrongs and end Ontario’s Prohibition-era alcohol framework. Ford has lots to answer for, but not this.
Heather Bone is a research fellow at the Consumer Choice Center and an economics PhD student at the University of Toronto. David Clement is the North American affairs manager of the Consumer Choice Center.
The Unlikely Saving Grace of British Cannabis
The global crusade against cannabis is finally beginning to falter. As the attitudes of citizens and lawmakers alike begin to soften, the prospects of full legalisation have gone from a stoner’s pipe-dream (if you’ll pardon the pun) to very feasible in only a couple of years. With a fifth of the US legalising the plant for recreational use, alongside Canada and Uruguay, as well as numerous European states opting to decriminalise its use, progress has been quick and promising.
This is cause for optimism. Newly-legal markets in the US and Canada have already seen booms in market growth and innovation, not to mention the positive effects of decriminalisation on the harm felt by users. In decriminalising or outright legalising cannabis, legislators in such countries have helped foster an environment in which entrepreneurship and consumer well-being are welcomed and encouraged.
But there’s still work to do. In many countries, reluctance to embrace cannabis is preventing them from enjoying the benefits felt by more committed nations. Legislators are, all too often, unable or unwilling to properly ride the green wave, preferring instead to watch from the pier.
Italy, for example, is a victim of this lack of commitment. Vagueness surrounding the legality of Italian hemp and cannabis has made it far more difficult for entrepreneurs and investors to know where they stand, damaging their confidence and potential to create a flourishing market. As such, progress has been far slower in Italy (a country which once held the number two spot worldwide for industrial hemp production), than in countries which are more willing to commit.
In the UK, the story looks rather familiar. Despite the nearly four-decade long prohibition on medical cannabis being overturned by Home Secretary Sajid Javid last year, access to the drug is still hampered by heavy-handed restrictions and high costs. Patients will have to wade through a sea of bureaucracy and extortionate bills to have access to the drug legally, rendering any benefits this would have over continued use of the black market very hazy.
Growers and entrepreneurs, too, are deterred by legal ambiguity. With the British government reluctant to go any further than this somewhat-legal medicinal cannabis, the country is at risk of following Italy’s footsteps and missing out on what seems poised to be one of the most promising markets of our time.
There is a silver lining though. While patients and consumers may have their wellbeing overlooked by the government in Westminster, an unlikely source shows far more promise when it comes to protecting their welfare. Across the UK, members of the police are beginning to relax their approaches to cannabis offences.
Rather than prosecuting those caught with small amounts of the drug, many police officers are instead opting for warning and recommendations for how to quit. This has prompted accusations that the police are pushing for de facto decriminalisation outside of the realm of legislators.
In practice, however, such action might be the saving grace for British cannabis consumers. A more relaxed approach from police allows for a far safer environment, with police attention shifted to the darker, truly criminal side of the market, and away from nonviolent consumers.
Moreover, the controversy surrounding this ‘blind-eye’ approach could be just the thing needed to get the ball rolling on higher-up decriminalisation. Rather than shell out thousands for legal medicinal cannabis, or to risk buying on the black market, some are now pushing the cause of growing the plant at home for treatment of certain ailments.
While the British cannabis scene is still hampered by a stubborn government, changing attitudes from law enforcement could revitalise the debate on harm-reduction and smart drugs policy, all the while making life easier for consumers. It may be early days, but there’s hope that legislators will see sense in the police’s decision.
It’s time for the government to put consumers first
It’s a great time to be alive. In the past few years, we’ve been incredibly lucky to gain access to great technologies and services that make our lives better every day. Just think about the great problem-solving innovations we’ve had in recent years. Want a safer alternative to consuming nicotine? Enter vape devices. Looking for a […]
