British American Tobacco

[Butts]

Should it be a source of pride that one of the largest Tobacco Companies in the World is British.

Indeed BAT is by Market Capitalisation one of the top 5 FTSE constituents in the UK up there with BP and the like. It is worth more than Tesco Sky and BT put together.

They may be suffering a little "local diffilculty" in Kenya at the moment, but how else are you supposed to do business in third world countries other than through bribing corrupt regimes.

Imperial Tobacco another Britsh Company is also one of the top four providers of nicotine in the World and an FTSE Top 100 Company. As an example Imperial is worth more than Marks and Spencer, Sainsburys and The Royal Mail combined.

Should these two be a source of pride or shame ?

 

[AM9]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should it be a source of pride that one of the largest Tobacco Companies in the World is British.

Indeed BAT is by Market Capitalisation one of the top 5 FTSE constituents in the UK up there with BP and the like. It is worth more than Tesco Sky and BT put together.

They may be suffering a little "local diffilculty" in Kenya at the moment, but how else are you supposed to do business in third world countries other than through bribing corrupt regimes.

Imperial Tobacco another Britsh Company is also one of the top four providers of nicotine in the World and an FTSE Top 100 Company. As an example Imperial is worth more than Marks and Spencer, Sainsburys and The Royal Mail combined.

Should these two be a source of pride or shame ?

It depends on how much more important one thinks profit is than the wellbeing of pawns - sorry, fellow humans. Smoking related disease and death is just commercial 'collateral damage'.

 

[judethegreat]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It depends on how much more important one thinks profit is than the wellbeing of pawns - sorry, fellow humans. Smoking related disease and death is just commercial 'collateral damage'.

And is also good business for the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

 

[Butts]

And is also good business for the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

Also a good source of revenue for many Governments

 

[radamfi]

It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is based in Britain (although it also has listings in New York and Johannesburg). However anyone in the world can buy shares in the company, and most shares are owned by other multinational institutions, so therefore it isn't really that British.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Ah, British American Tobacco. One of the most famous follies in Formula One history happened in 1999, when BAT bought the old Tyrrell team, renaming them as British American Racing, signing 1997 champion Jacques Villeneuve, and getting some engineers from Reynard (a highly-regarded chassis builder) to design their car. The rhetoric from the team was that they would win their first race in the sport. At the end of their first season, they hadn't scored a single point! Even the backmarkers such as Arrows and Minardi had scored well-deserved points, which made BAR's fail all the more hilarious.

But yeah, BAT was a big sponsor in F1 from 1999 to 2006. In one of those delicious ironies, the BAR team is now infact the all-dominant Mercedes team, after BAT sold out to Honda in 2005, Brawn taking over the team in 2009, and then selling to Mercedes in 2010. The team did much better after BAT left, funnily enough...

 

[me123]

OK Butts, we've had variations on this debate before, so I'll save us all some time by not repeating my usual arguments about tobacco and the tobacco industry. We clearly disagree on this, and I don't think anything on this thread is going to change things.

Should it be a source of pride that one of the largest Tobacco Companies in the World is British.

No. To me, it is not a source of pride for our country to be associated with industrial scale murderers.

They may be suffering a little "local diffilculty" in Kenya at the moment, but how else are you supposed to do business in third world countries other than through bribing corrupt regimes.

"Local difficulty"?!? Their entire modus operandi appears to be corrupt. Bribery is standard practice in BAT. There is evidence that they have used corrupt measures to circumvent public health legislature. And it's not just African countries, they've also spent hundreds of thousands lobbying the WHO (not all of it declared!). Not that it matters where the company is based - it's simply wrong regardless. Their actions actually breech their own company ethical standards.

Should these two be a source of pride or shame ?

Shame. Even for a company selling a product designed to kill the user, their lack of ethics are abhorrent.

 

[Butts]

OK Butts, we've had variations on this debate before, so I'll save us all some time by not repeating my usual arguments about tobacco and the tobacco industry. We clearly disagree on this, and I don't think anything on this thread is going to change things.



No. To me, it is not a source of pride for our country to be associated with industrial scale murderers.

So you will have similar feeling towards our arms manufacturers ?



"Local difficulty"?!? Their entire modus operandi appears to be corrupt. Bribery is standard practice in BAT. There is evidence that they have used corrupt measures to circumvent public health legislature. And it's not just African countries, they've also spent hundreds of thousands lobbying the WHO (not all of it declared!). Not that it matters where the company is based - it's simply wrong regardless. Their actions actually breech their own company ethical standards.

As it is in most African Countries ?



Shame. Even for a company selling a product designed to kill the user, their lack of ethics are abhorrent.

If it's designed to kill the user it's not much of a business model for profitabilty ?

 

[radamfi]

What is the net environmental benefit (or disbenefit) of BAT's activities?

 

[me123]

All quotes from Butts.

So you will have similar feeling towards our arms manufacturers ?

It's slightly different with arms manufacturers. On the whole, I do have similar feelings towards arms manufacturers, although I am aware that quite a lot of guns in the UK are manufactured for use in sports (e.g. clay pigeon shooting) and legitimate use as weaponry in the military. By contrast to tobacco products, they do have a role to play in society in some situations.

But I suspect you're referring more to situations where the firearms are being sold inappropriately. Perhaps the selling of automatic machine guns to civilians in the US? Or the selling of firearms to corrupt regimes? In which case, yes I do have similar feelings.

As it is in most African Countries?

That's irrelevant. Corrupt politicians are deplorable. But any ethical company should be above participating in these abhorrent business practices. If BAT held themselves to their own code of ethics, they'd fall far short of their own expectations! The blame lies on both sides.

And, it extends beyond Africa. As I've said, it does involve the World Health Organisation.

If it's designed to kill the user it's not much of a business model for profitabilty?

People who die from tobacco related illnesses die slow deaths, generally decades after starting with their habit. So yes, I do think it's a good business model for them. Their products kill, but not before they've taken tens of thousands of pounds of your money over your lifetime.

 

[Butts]

What is the net environmental benefit (or disbenefit) of BAT's activities?

I don't think most people would have the above as their prime consideration.

 

[radamfi]

I don't think most people would have the above as their prime consideration.

However, it is nevertheless the most important issue. There are a number of obvious problems with smoking, for example deforestation, air pollution and the disposal of the chemicals from used cigarettes. But on the other hand, the earlier deaths that smoking leads to means that the people don't have such an opportunity to cause environmental damage in later life through normal human activities such as the use of electricity and gas and typical western consumerism.

 

[Butts]

All quotes from Butts.



It's slightly different with arms manufacturers. On the whole, I do have similar feelings towards arms manufacturers, although I am aware that quite a lot of guns in the UK are manufactured for use in sports (e.g. clay pigeon shooting) and legitimate use as weaponry in the military. By contrast to tobacco products, they do have a role to play in society in some situations.

But I suspect you're referring more to situations where the firearms are being sold inappropriately. Perhaps the selling of automatic machine guns to civilians in the US? Or the selling of firearms to corrupt regimes? In which case, yes I do have similar feelings.



That's irrelevant. Corrupt politicians are deplorable. But any ethical company should be above participating in these abhorrent business practices. If BAT held themselves to their own code of ethics, they'd fall far short of their own expectations! The blame lies on both sides.

And, it extends beyond Africa. As I've said, it does involve the World Health Organisation.



People who die from tobacco related illnesses die slow deaths, generally decades after starting with their habit. So yes, I do think it's a good business model for them. Their products kill, but not before they've taken tens of thousands of pounds of your money over your lifetime.

You seem to have a real "downer" on smoking for some reason. In order to sustain your argument there is no need to embelish your point of view. Everyone who smokes is aware of the risks involved.

Still 10 million people in the UK choose to do so, which represents a sizeable minority by any measure. Provided they do not impinge on your personal space is it not unreasonable to just let them get on with it.

It doesn't cost you any money as the cost to the health service is more than compensated by the tax yielded and money saved in pensions etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, it is nevertheless the most important issue. There are a number of obvious problems with smoking, for example deforestation, air pollution and the disposal of the chemicals from used cigarettes. But on the other hand, the earlier deaths that smoking leads to means that the people don't have such an opportunity to cause environmental damage in later life through normal human activities such as the use of electricity and gas and typical western consumerism.

I'm sure the air pollution caused by cigarette smoke is almost inconsequential compared to exhaust emmissions and other industrial discharges released into the atmosphere.

 

[radamfi]

I'm sure the air pollution caused by cigarette smoke is almost inconsequential compared to exhaust emmissions and other industrial discharges released into the atmosphere.

Well, yes. Almost all human activity has a negative effect on the environment. That includes the manufacturing and consumption of most if not all goods and services, whether cigarettes or not.

 

[Butts]

Well, yes. Almost all human activity has a negative effect on the environment. That includes the manufacturing and consumption of most if not all goods and services, whether cigarettes or not.

I assume your prime aim is to restrict emissions wherever possible in order to sustain the environment and not cause any further damage.

Is that realsitic without going back to pre- industrial revolution days.

 

[radamfi]

I assume your prime aim is to restrict emissions wherever possible in order to sustain the environment and not cause any further damage.

Is that realsitic without going back to pre- industrial revolution days.

It might be possible to continue with current per capita damage as long as the number of people causing that damage is reduced i.e. have fewer or preferably no children. Most environmentalists ignore this obvious solution and try to find ways of doing less or doing the same in a "greener" way. A person without children who smokes and does a lot of flying and driving and generally consuming a lot may actually be more sustainable than a family with children who try to live a "green" lifestyle.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I wonder if you are aware that the four largest tobacco companies in the UK have begun legal proceedings against the UK government' Secretary of State for Health over proposals to further restrict the promotion of cigarettes through branded packaging?

It's been fascinating to follow some of the arguments! For example, that unbranded cigarette packets will lead to smokers 'downtrading' to cheaper and weaker brands, and therefore, to achieve an addict's intake, they will actually smoke more. Or, that the government's data of a sharp drop in consumption in Australia following debranding should be disregarded because that drop was attruibutable to a price increase.
These are two of the arguments presented by the tobacco companies, which I think you will agree are based on contradictory assumptions - that price influences consumption regardless of addiction, or that addiction demands a level of consumption regardless of price.

There are also side issues such as argument over whether 'packaging' refers to the paper and filter of the cigarette or just to the packet; a survey demonstrating that women are more likely to be attracted to colourful cigarettes than men - especially pink ones (can't say I can recall seeing pink cigarettes on sale!); that copyrighted trade marks carry rights to be be displayed.

Lobby group ASH argued that two thirds of smokers begin smoking under 18 years of age, and emphasised the significance of appearances in chosing to smoke at a young age.

Decision due next month.

 

[ExRes]

It might be possible to continue with current per capita damage as long as the number of people causing that damage is reduced i.e. have fewer or preferably no children. Most environmentalists ignore this obvious solution and try to find ways of doing less or doing the same in a "greener" way. A person without children who smokes and does a lot of flying and driving and generally consuming a lot may actually be more sustainable than a family with children who try to live a "green" lifestyle.

I always like your argument for no children, it would work in this case of course because in around 100 years time there would be no humans left to damage the environment, very green indeed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are also side issues such as argument over whether 'packaging' refers to the paper and filter of the cigarette or just to the packet; a survey demonstrating that women are more likely to be attracted to colourful cigarettes than men - especially pink ones (can't say I can recall seeing pink cigarettes on sale!); that copyrighted trade marks carry rights to be be displayed.

Check out Sobranie Cocktail, not just pink either

 

[Butts]

I wonder if you are aware that the four largest tobacco companies in the UK have begun legal proceedings against the UK government' Secretary of State for Health over proposals to further restrict the promotion of cigarettes through branded packaging?

It's been fascinating to follow some of the arguments! For example, that unbranded cigarette packets will lead to smokers 'downtrading' to cheaper and weaker brands, and therefore, to achieve an addict's intake, they will actually smoke more. Or, that the government's data of a sharp drop in consumption in Australia following debranding should be disregarded because that drop was attruibutable to a price increase.
These are two of the arguments presented by the tobacco companies, which I think you will agree are based on contradictory assumptions - that price influences consumption regardless of addiction, or that addiction demands a level of consumption regardless of price.

There are also side issues such as argument over whether 'packaging' refers to the paper and filter of the cigarette or just to the packet; a survey demonstrating that women are more likely to be attracted to colourful cigarettes than men - especially pink ones (can't say I can recall seeing pink cigarettes on sale!); that copyrighted trade marks carry rights to be be displayed.

Lobby group ASH argued that two thirds of smokers begin smoking under 18 years of age, and emphasised the significance of appearances in chosing to smoke at a young age.

Decision due next month.

My own personal view is that Plain Packaging is perhaps a step to far for the sale of what is remember a legal product.

They are already hidden behind "shutters" in Shop's and have been removed to a almost "Porn Peep Show" type room at Airports in the UK.

One only has to travel to mainland Europe where these dickensian measures have not been adopted to see how ridiculous it makes us look.

The restrictions have gone far enough, just leave us in peace to have a smoke.

 

[radamfi]

The restrictions have gone far enough, just leave us in peace to have a smoke.

Personally, I hate smoking. I don't want to be near anyone while they smoke. But I think the existing restrictions are good enough. If people genuinely enjoy smoking, they should be able to continue to do so. As long as everyone is fully educated as to the risks. In fact, people should be able to enjoy cigarettes, cannabis, cocaine, deep fried Mars bars, Coca-Cola, chocolate, Toilet Duck or any other activity that is likely to shorten life, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.

Some of the most compelling reasons for restricting certain products are the impacts of consumption on other persons:
- disease through 'passive smoking';
- increased demand for healthcare;
- unregulated 'black economy' and poor labour conditions inharvesting / manufacture;
- hazardous behaviour of the intixicated in public or private places;
- the loss of capacity due to addiction (including loss of capacity to earn the cost of the addiction) leading to crime, loss of self-care and demands on services.

Many would add the loss of social amenity in conditions where they are in close proximity to persons suffering the impact of their indulgence.

 

[Butts]

Some of the most compelling reasons for restricting certain products are the impacts of consumption on other persons:
- disease through 'passive smoking';
- increased demand for healthcare;
- unregulated 'black economy' and poor labour conditions inharvesting / manufacture;
- hazardous behaviour of the intixicated in public or private places;
- the loss of capacity due to addiction (including loss of capacity to earn the cost of the addiction) leading to crime, loss of self-care and demands on services.

Many would add the loss of social amenity in conditions where they are in close proximity to persons suffering the impact of their indulgence.

Disease through passive smoking - chance would be a fine thing bearing in mind the restrictions now in place. I would add the scientific evidence with regard to passive smoking as we say in Scotland unproven.

Increased demand for healthcare is adequately covered by the £12 Billion a year tax yield.

Hazardous behaviour has I'm sure been greatly reduced by the prevalence of areas people are no longer allowed to smoke in. The EU subsidises tobacco production in some EU states such as Greece, black market products are an issue for a lot of goods.

Personally although I buy my Cigarettes in Luxembourg they are manufactured in Ballymena in Northern Ireland, at least until next year when the factory is shutting throwing hundreds of people out of work.

Loss of capacity due to addiction is no different to any other debiltating illness and the costs would again be met by the tax yield and savings in Pensions to those who die prematurely.

With regard to social amenity I would have thought that would have improved as non-smokers are no longer subjected to the habit in most social venues.

You are not an ex-smoker by any chance ?

 

[radamfi]

Also people who live to an old age as a result of not smoking often acquire illnesses that are not suffered at the 60-70 typical age when someone dies of something smoking related. They are also far more likely to need social care.

Partially contradicting myself, you could argue that pretty much any activity imposes some kind of negative cost on other people. There is the obvious environmental cost as mentioned above. Using a motor vehicle puts other people in danger. Buying a house pushes up house prices for other people. Even something that appears to be an "obvious" positive can be a negative to some people. Most people would welcome a total elimination of crime, but that would lead to fewer sales of security devices and security guards, solicitors and judges would have much less work. It may even lead to a fall in GDP and tax revenue, leading to increased national debt.

 

[St Rollox]

Sure there's been a big drop in UK ciggie sales over the last few years.
I personally went from 60 a day to zero.

 

[Butts]

Sure there's been a big drop in UK ciggie sales over the last few years.
I personally went from 60 a day to zero.

Flipping heck 60 a day !!! - that makes me look like a mere amateur

How did you do it ? Cold Turkey ?

Sales have dropped partly due to people giving up and the influx of "contraband" supplies.

Unbelieveably despite all the restrictions and campaigning by ASH and the like there are still about 10 Million Smokers left in the UK.

 

[St Rollox]

Flipping heck 60 a day !!! - that makes me look like a mere amateur

How did you do it ? Cold Turkey ?

Sales have dropped partly due to people giving up and the influx of "contraband" supplies.

Unbelieveably despite all the restrictions and campaigning by ASH and the like there are still about 10 Million Smokers left in the UK.

Started with a bad cold so had a 4/5 day non smoking start.
Then cold turkey and 20 gallons of fresh orange juice for a month.
Now on nicotine gum.
The vape thingy doesn't ring my bell although thousands seem to like it.
Looks too close to smoking for me.

I loved smoking and BAT loved me back.
But the cost (£25 a day) and the choking feeling were killing me.
Half the cost and i'd seriously think about it again.

Hard to believe there's hardly a ciggie factory left in the UK.

Btw, tried the dodgy "cheap" ciggies.
You get about two draws and you can then tell their back street rubbish.

 

[Butts]

Started with a bad cold so had a 4/5 day non smoking start.
Then cold turkey and 20 gallons of fresh orange juice for a month.
Now on nicotine gum.
The vape thingy doesn't ring my bell although thousands seem to like it.
Looks too close to smoking for me.

I loved smoking and BAT loved me back.
But the cost (£25 a day) and the choking feeling were killing me.
Half the cost and i'd seriously think about it again.

Hard to believe there's hardly a ciggie factory left in the UK.

Btw, tried the dodgy "cheap" ciggies.
You get about two draws and you can then tell their back street rubbish.

That's why I get mine in Luxembourg, British made B&H at less than £4 per packet.

 

[Liam]

I would add the scientific evidence with regard to passive smoking as we say in Scotland unproven.

There are thousands of epidemiological studies available online which either entirely, or partly disagree with that statement. I am strugglling to find anything at all on Medline which agrees.

(also, the term is 'not proven')

 

[cf111]

Gave it up cold turkey more than two years ago and never looked back. I feel, look and smell so much better.

I don't judge anyone for smoking because it's their choice.

 

[St Rollox]

That's why I get mine in Luxembourg, British made B&H at less than £4 per packet.

Never really thought of that.