Regulation of Tobacco Harm Reduction - GFN 2018 Scholars
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•147 views
Global Forum on Nicotine 2018 Scholars meeting on regulation discusses optimum regulation using 4 Ps of marketing framework to consider risk-proportionate regulation
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Regulation of Tobacco Harm Reduction - GFN 2018 Scholars
Similar to Regulation of Tobacco Harm Reduction - GFN 2018 Scholars (18)
More from Clive Bates
More from Clive Bates (11)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Regulation of Tobacco Harm Reduction - GFN 2018 Scholars
- 1. Counterfactual What would good regulation look like? Global Forum on Nicotine Scholars’ Day Warsaw 13 June 2018 www.clivebates.com @clive_bates
- 2. Adjusted 4 Ps of marketing mix Promotion Price Positioning Product Marketing mix
- 3. Optimum regulatory approach: public health Promotion Price Positioning Product Smoking Price Promotion Product Positioning Vaping or quitting Degrade the mix Enhance the mix High cross elasticity? Reduce harms Remove enhancers Anti innovation Prohibit “responsible” Denormalise Embrace Consumer protection Pro innovation
- 4. Optimum regulatory approach: public health Promotion Price Positioning Product Smoking Price Promotion Product Positioning Vaping or quitting Degrade the mix Enhance the mix High cross elasticity? Reduce harms Remove enhancers Anti innovation Prohibit “responsible” Denormalise Embrace Consumer protection Pro innovation
- 6. DO NOTHING!!
- 7. Innovation
- 8. PRODUCT
- 9. Snus ban: worst policy ever
- 11. Ban flavours to make a successful alternative to smoking less attractive
- 12. Standards for devices Mechanical risks Thermal risks Chemical risks Information
- 13. Standards for liquids Liquid standards Containers Information Testing protocol
- 15. POSITIONING
- 16. What would good regulation look like?
- 17. Thousands of micro-decisions 1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday 2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted 3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they will not allow vaping 4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it 5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant, spa, and lobby 6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching 7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the cold 8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo products in the shop… 9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome 10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
- 18. Thousands of micro-decisions 1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday 2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted 3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they will not allow vaping 4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it 5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant, spa, and lobby 6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching 7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the cold 8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo products in the shop… 9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome 10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking
- 20. Meaningful risk communication This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. It is not recommended for use by non-smokers
- 21. Or encourage informed choice This product is likely to be at least 95% safer than smoking cigarettes No product is completely safe, but use of this product is much less harmful than smoking
- 22. Adult product
- 23. PROMOTION
- 24. What would good regulation look like?
- 25. Ensure your ads are socially responsible Don’t target, feature or appeal to children Don’t confuse e-cigarettes with tobacco products Don’t make health or safety claims Don’t make smoking cessation claims Ensure you don’t mislead about product ingredients Don’t mislead about where products may be used
- 26. PRICE
- 27. Tax
- 28. Differentiate taxation according to risk
- 29. Adopt a risk based tax philosophy Smoking tobacco Smoke free Appropriate rate for e-cigarettes = zero Tax rates for non- combustible tobacco and nicotine should not spread too wide Substantial difference to reflect principle of proportionality and relative risk Narrowed range covering all combustible products Strong case for zero-rating all smoke-free nicotine & tobacco products
Editor's Notes
- This is the first of four examples on perverse consequences of regulation: banning flavours may damage the appeal of vaping to some users and either send them back to smoking or mean they never move in the first place. A ban may stimulate a black market or DIY which would be more dangerous than the risks that a ban is supposed to mitigate. There is no evidence these products cause teenage vaping, and even if there was, it might actually be beneficial if displacing smoking.