Japan Tobacco Conspiracy

[Dogen Z]

Japan Tobacco (JT) has set up special smoking areas around Tokyo ostensibly to keep smokers from littering the streets with butts. However, these areas all tend to be very close to high use area like the entrances to subway station where everyone passes by, forcing everyone to breathe 2nd had smoke. I believe this is a deliberate ploy by JT to try to prevent those who want to quit from quitting. It becomes harder to quit when you always see other smokers and have to smell that smoke. On top of that, non-smokers like me are subject to more 2nd hand smoke than if the smokers just walked with their cigs. I know how to avoid that.

In response to such subversive tactics, I propose that the government add a 50 yen/pack tax to the sale of cigarettes. This will encourage smokers to quit and help pay for the health costs due to the many lung ailments caused by smoking (hear that hacking cough?)

Failing that, I think a class action suit would be appropriate. :kaioken:

 

[nice gaijin]

I think that they're placed next to high-traffic areas because a lot of people want to smoke. If they're conscious that this makes it difficult to quit, I'm sure it's an added bonus, rather than a deliberate attempt to make things harder (for you?).

Also, I'm not so sure if raising the price of cigarettes is all that effective in getting people to want to quit. Sure, higher prices can serve as an extra incentive to quit (save more money), but unless people are broke, they'll continue to pay to feed their addiction. People have to want to quit more than get forced into it.

 

[tokapi]

I think Japan has the highest percentage of female smokers in Asia,wonder why.

 

[Dogen Z]

rebuttal (sorry 4 the delay, I was busy)

Young women/girls are the easiest targets to entice into the habit according to N. American marketing studies. Apparently Japan is the same and JT is doing its damdest to get these new customers since its old customers have been gradually dying out.

Domestic sales of cigs have been slowly decreasing due to the erosion of its customer base. Added to that material cost for manufacturing has been increasing as well as fuel cost for delivery trucks to maintain an old fashioned distribution network (50% of sales come from vending machines). Profits are being squeezed and there has been increasing concern about the cost of promotional activities (e.g. setting up and maintaining smoking areas). It's natural to assume that, under such a situation, the CEO of J.T. would make sure that the company is getting something out of every promotional activity that it undertook. Deshou? ☝

Ergo, my contention that the smoke boxes are placed too close to heavy pedestrian traffic, where possible, to get new consumers or prevent existing consumers from stopping.

BTW, this does affect me or I wouldn't have posted the rant. But it also affects people like me (we don't want to breathe 2nd hand smoke--its dangerous) and pregnant women and children. ☝

 

[Mike Cash]

Japan Tobacco (JT) has set up special smoking areas around Tokyo ostensibly to keep smokers from littering the streets with butts.

Cite your source, please.

 

[Dogen Z]

Cite your source, please.

Well, most of what i wrote could be easily verified by anyone interested. You could review some old American Marketing Association's Journal of Marketing articles, peruse JT's latest annual and quarterly reports, read some stock analysts' current reports on the company (I think I read the S&P analyst report) to check up on the company and the industry.

Regarding the smoking boxes, you could read this article: http://www.japantoday.com/jp/feature/1102

One more thing, the World Health Organization has done studies that show increasing the price of cigarettes will deter smoking among the poor and young people.

 

[Mike Cash]

Well, most of what i wrote could be easily verified by anyone interested.

I wasn't asking about most of what you wrote. There's a reason I clipped your post.

You could review some old American Marketing Association's Journal of Marketing articles, peruse JT's latest annual and quarterly reports, read some stock analysts' current reports on the company (I think I read the S&P analyst report) to check up on the company and the industry.

I think common sense alone is enough to tell me that one need not attribute to malevolent conspiracy acts taken by a company in a free market society to boost/support sales of their product. And at any rate, none of them would answer my question.

Regarding the smoking boxes, you could read this article: http://www.japantoday.com/jp/feature/1102

That's all I ever asked about in the first place. And the article doesn't shed any more light on it than did your post. They cite one specific example of a JT created special smoking area. Not having seen the others myself, what I was seeking from you is some substantiation of your assertion that it is JT itself directly responsible for creating the unspecified special smoking areas you allude to. I was sort of wondering if you took the presence of common freebie promotional items like ashtrays with JT logos/slogans for direct evidence that they created the locations. Or if you there is something different/stronger to indicate direct JT involvement in the planning and construction of the sites.

One more thing, the World Health Organization has done studies that show increasing the price of cigarettes will deter smoking among the poor and young people.

One need not be a genius to figure that out.

 

[Pepe]

One more thing, the World Health Organization has done studies that show increasing the price of cigarettes will deter smoking among the poor and young people.

I'd just like to add that an increase in price would not deter smokers. Tobacco, like alcohol or other drugs, creates an inelastice demand; that is, regardless of the cost there will always be a buyer and that buyer won't be dissuaded by a price hike.
[See 'Interpretation of PED' pt. 2; Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia]

Unfortunately I cannot find the studies to reference (don't have access to the online resources at the moment), but it has been demonstrated in the field of EAB (Experimental Analysis of Behaviour) that if the 'price' of a reinforcer is increased, it will become more desired over a similar (or even identical) reinforcer which requires less work - it is not the absolute value of a reinforcer which sets its intrinsic value, but its perceived value.

As such, increasing the price of tabacco would do nothing to stem the habit (smoking is not an addiction but a habit), in those who already smoke, but it could further enhance the perceived luxury value of tobacco consumption and therefore further strengthen the resolve of those that already smoke, as well as attract newcomers ("If it costs so much, it's got to be good right?"). The deterance mentioned in the study is most likely as a result of those two groups not having the disposable income in order to purchase tobacco. But it wouldn't surprise me if the same two groups also have an unusually positive perception of tobacco as a luxury good and would be more likely to purchase them if they had the disposable income, or would even make sacrifices in order to do so.

What really leads to a reduction in smoker numbers (or the use of any drug in any shape or form) is education. Unfortunately education is a long and complicated process, raising taxes is easy. Who cares if it doesn't work, one can always convince themselves of the contrary, right?

 

[Dogen Z]

The open area smoking boxes that I'm ranting about is cleaned by people wearing a cute "Smoke Clean Crew" uniform--the same uniform worn by those that clean JT's stationary buses that serve as smoking lounges in some parts of the city (Shibuya, Otemachi...). The boxes also have the same "public service" signs that JT had advertised in trains and subways. Finally, the uniforms, signs, and boxes are all the same matching bright green.

So, having provided a preponderance of evidence linking JT and the boxes, I am forming a lynch mob to go see the CEO. But don't worry, we'll give him a fair hearing....then we'll hang him.

*****************

The elasticity of demand for cigarettes is generally flat (inelastic) for the short term. However, significant price increases will cause a long term drop in consumptiion, and the amount considered "significant" is different for different market segments. For those working near minimum wage, perhaps even a 5% increase (about 35 yen) might make a difference. Richer folks may grumble but not change their behaviour. If this was not true, the company could just increase prices sharply to make up for any loss of customers, especially since cigarettes in Japan are considered very cheap compared to those sold in other countries. Hmm, maybe its trying to do this on an incremental basis--say a 20 yen increase every year--and hope that smokers don't really notice.

 

[Dogen Z]

Failing to make a good impression by expanding into the food industry, J.T. is trying to find growth by peddling its wares to the emerging market. At the same time, WHO and Michael Bloomberg are stepping up efforts to stop smoking in emerging markets. So, the domestic market, i.e. Japan is still important for J.T. and will continue to try to get people here to smoke more.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Japan Tobacco (JT) has set up special smoking areas around Tokyo ostensibly to keep smokers from littering the streets with butts. However, these areas all tend to be very close to high use area like the entrances to subway station where everyone passes by, forcing everyone to breathe 2nd had smoke. I believe this is a deliberate ploy by JT to try to prevent those who want to quit from quitting. It becomes harder to quit when you always see other smokers and have to smell that smoke. On top of that, non-smokers like me are subject to more 2nd hand smoke than if the smokers just walked with their cigs. I know how to avoid that.
In response to such subversive tactics, I propose that the government add a 50 yen/pack tax to the sale of cigarettes. This will encourage smokers to quit and help pay for the health costs due to the many lung ailments caused by smoking (hear that hacking cough?)
Failing that, I think a class action suit would be appropriate. :kaioken:

I have to agree with Mike Cash here, personally i think this "conspiracy" sounds ridiculous.

Secondly the damage sustained from second hand smoke outdoors is tiny- you would damage your lungs more sitting in your car in traffic breathing in exhaust fumes from all the cars around you. Your lungs are constantly repairing themselves 24/7, like the rest of the organs in your body, your are not going to get lung cancer just by walking past some sub way smokers or something- its ridiculous.

This "conspiracy" is just as dumb as saying the government is trying to prevent people from giving up alcohol by making it available in supermarkets where people do their daily shopping.


Also, there is no need to increase the cost of cigarettes as their tax is already more than enough to pay for the health problems smokers make themselves more vulnerable to, there is actually often a lot of money left over left over from all the taxing.
To tax cigarette's anymore would be greedy and unnecessary and would be negatively picking on a group of people that at the end of the day have a completely legal habit.
There is plenty of help already for those that want to give up, all you need to quit is have willpower, and there's nothing the government can do you give you that, it has to come from within.

If the government increased the cost of cigarette's, then to be fair it would also have to raise the cost of alcohol, since that causes its fair share of health problems and more in society. Do you want to see an increase in the cost of your Sake or Osaka beer? No? Then stop winging about smokers.

 

[Dogen Z]

Let me see if I've got this right, you're upset because I think people should stop smoking so you want me to stop expressing my opinion on this thread. Seems a little churlish to me.

To be fair, I think alcohol should be taxed more, too. That would help reduce underage drinking as well as bring down alcohol related health costs but tobacco related health costs is much, much higher so yeah it should me taxed more. And recent reports have shown that second hand is much more dangerous than perceived by the general public.

You also seem to believe that a tobacco company won't connive to get more business. Well, let me clue you..the company is out to fatten its bottom line. I had to write a marketing plan to introduce a new cigarette into the market (but this was just for b-school). I found through my research that the fastest growing target segmet in the U.S. was young black females and all cigarette companies knew this. So they placed as many vending machines as possible close to high schools with a large black population and used advertising that attracted females. I have no doubt that Japan Tobacco also will use whatever tactic they need to keep business growing.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Let me see if I've got this right, you're upset because I think people should stop smoking so you want me to stop expressing my opinion on this thread. Seems a little churlish to me.

Nope, for a start i am not upset, and secondly, my point is is that i think your conspiracy theory is ridiculous. That is all.

To be fair, I think alcohol should be taxed more, too. That would help reduce underage drinking as well as bring down alcohol related health costs but tobacco related health costs is much, much higher so yeah it should me taxed more.

So everyone should have to pay the cost of more expensive alcohol just because some kids don't treat it with respect? How is that fair on everyone else who drinks responsibly?

Binge drinking is a cultural issue, it is not connected to the availability or price of alcohol. Take France for example- they have cheaper alcohol and people start drinking at a younger age there, however in France they don't have anywhere as near a problem with binge drinking or underage drinking as we do in our country.
So increasing the tax on alcohol will not deal with binge drinking problems and IMHO it is naive to believe this to be the solution to binge drinking culture problems etc.

If you look this up, you will see what i am saying is true.

And recent reports have shown that second hand is much more dangerous than perceived by the general public.

So do you have any articles you can show me on the effects of second hand smoke outdoors? Indoor second hand smoke and outdoor second hand smoke are two different situations and so thus have different effects/degree's of harm etc. Walking past some sub way smokers is not going to damage your health anymore than sitting in a car in traffic is going to do- you are too paranoid about these things.

You also seem to believe that a tobacco company won't connive to get more business. Well, let me clue you..the company is out to fatten its bottom line. I had to write a marketing plan to introduce a new cigarette into the market (but this was just for b-school). I found through my research that the fastest growing target segmet in the U.S. was young black females and all cigarette companies knew this. So they placed as many vending machines as possible close to high schools with a large black population and used advertising that attracted females. I have no doubt that Japan Tobacco also will use whatever tactic they need to keep business growing.

I never said that tobacco businesses don't try to advertise their product- all businesses advertise their products, whether they are selling cream or paper or drills etc. Any business which does not advertise will go bust- its common sense.

But either way though, regardless of how much tobacco businesses advertise (and there are great restrictions now days as to what they can do, same goes for stuff like alcohol), everybody now days knows that smoking is harmful to your health. You would have to be living under a rock in the middle of nowhere to not know this. So any person who takes us smoking is aware of the fact that its harmful, so they can only have themselves to blame if they get sick from it.

If you can give me some articles or evidence about the vending machine thing in black communities i would like to see it to check out how recent this stuff is. However, the fact of the matter is that the tobacco company was just taking advantage of a culture that already existed- it is no different from a sweet/candy shop setting up its shop next to a school, or a supermarket setting up its market next to a residential area, or a horse riding stable setting up its stable near a countryside town etc.
What the tobacco company was doing is nothing admirable, but it is not anything unique or evil, it is something that all businesses/companies do given the situation and chance. It is not some big government conspiracy, it is just the way businesses work and always have done. You might not like it, but then i don't think you'll be taking up smoking anytime soon so it should be no concern of yours. Just respect other people's choices in life and come to terms with the fact that smoking and tobacco is legal to buy and do for adults- adults can make their own decisions.

 

[Dogen Z]

Well, it seems we disagree but that's alright, free speech and all that. But I'm afraid I have no time to do the research you requested. Anyway, we can both campaign for our causes in our localities. Yeah, I think that's best. So happy campaigning and have a nice day.

gokigenyou.

 

[Pachipro]

Some very good replies have been posted and I can see and understand both viewpoints. The point is that tobacco, like alcohol is A LEGAL SUBSTANCE and highly habit forming. Although all, including the government, know the dangers of over smoking, it is a great source of tax revenue and a way of weeding out the population and lining the pockets of the medical industry. If that were not the case then it would be illegal.

As long as tobacco is touted as being Cool or chic, people will never stop wanting to be part of the crowd so to speak. The desire to belong, along with peer pressure, and the addictive nature of it far outweigh the health consequences or the price. People, including the poor, will continue buying it even if they have to steal for it.

Calling it a "Japan Tobacco Conspiracy" is comical when all governments of the world are in on it. It is not only Japan. Unlike the US where some cities are forbidding smoking anywhere in public and even your own apartment or yard (as it may seep through the walls or into a neighbors yard!) at least Japan is accomodating smokers to some extent. If it were really so bad as is claimed why not outlaw it? Taxes, insurance, medical, pharmaceutical, that's why!

Now, as to whether tobacco is addicting, I believe that is debatable. Habit forming, yes. Addicting? I don't believe so.

Morphine and heroin are addicting as if your body does not receive it you will go nuts and go into withdrawals. If tobacco was so addicting, don't you think people would go nuts on a 14 hr plane ride to/from Japan suffering from withdrawal symptoms? It doesn't happen.

To me tobacco smoking is no worse than the habit of biting one's fingernails or drinking coffee or masturbating. It is a habit and nothing else and it can be broken with willpower as the body DOES NOT need it (Ok maybe the body does need 21 orgasms per month to stave off prostate cancer as the British Journal of Medicine proclaimed a few years ago.) I don't care what the medical industry says about the addicting nature of nicotine as it is a habit and not an addictive substance that the body needs. The mind may crave it, but the body will not crave it. They only say this to sell their drugs to quit smoking and nothing else I believe.

Why do I believe this? Because I am a smoker that's why and I limit myself to about 10 - 15 cigarettes per day and if I can't smoke on a plane for 14 hrs or at someone's house or in a restaurant so what? I don't need it. I enjoy it after dinner or with my coffee or with a drink of alcohol. I have won many a bet on whether I could quit for a certain period and I won every one. A healthy body can overcome the toxins of minor cigarette smoking. If smoking were suddenly illegal tomorrow and was no longer available, so what? It would not affect me at all as I can control my cravings and my body would not go into withdrawals.

Don't get me wrong here, for those that over do it and smoke 2-3 packs/day you will eventually kill your lungs and probably develop some form of cancer as your immune system will be overwhelmed in trying to get the toxins out of your body that it cannot contain that pancreatic cancer or repair a faulty heart, etc.

My father smoked 3 packs/day and he died from emphasema. Now why did he smoke 3 packs per day and I smoke far far less if it were so addicting? and I have smoked for 35 years and have healthy lungs? Hmmm.

Some may develop lung cancer, but that is also debatable as many people who never smoked and lived a health lifestyle developed lung cancer. How about processed food, flu shots, immunizations, sugar, aspertame, flouride, etc causing health problems and/or lung cancer or heart problems? They do, but smoking is always the culprit and the others get no or little press.

In the past my job was doing autopsies and I got to see first hand the lungs of heavy smokers as I had to remove them! It was not a pretty sight. I also got to see the lungs of people who didn't smoke, but lived in a large metro area like Tokyo and their lungs were not that much different. They were still black and corroded to some extent, but not as bad. I also got to see the lungs of people who lived away from large metro areas and did not smoke. Their lungs were a little pinker, but they still showed signs of the pollution of the times.

Second hand smoke causing health problems? I don't believe it as I grew up in a family of smokers and I remember as a child the kitchen being filled with a blue cloud of smoke from the adults smoking and no windows open! Every day for 17 years! I never developed any health problems and neither did my three brothers and sisters. If it were so deadly I should be dead by now.

Smoking, to me is a vice and a choice, not an addiction in the literal sense. I do it because I enjoy it, and, for now, it is legal.

As long as it remains legal, governments should accomodate smokers and not be so hard on them for if they ever outlawed tobacco they would then come to the non-smokers and tax them for something to increase revenues. Think about that!

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Its true that the government does make massive profits from taxing cigarettes- with a 5 pound packet of cigarettes, about 4pounds and 50p of what you are being charged for is just tax. Same goes for alcohol- like cigarette's, its very cheap to produce, but a large majority of the cost you pay for is tax.

The government does tax cigarette's more than is necessary, and it is true that if smokers were to disappear in this country, then our crippled NHS system would probably fall apart completely.

I think the main reason though why tobacco will never be made illegal in this country though is because of peoples rights- millions of people in my country smoke, and if tobacco were made illegal there would be a huge public uproar and crime would rise dramatically (because many people would continue to smoke under a complete ban, getting their tobacco by illegal means, which would fuel the black market and many types of crime etc)- and whichever politician made tobacco illegal would probably go down as one of the most unpopular politicians in history; at the end of the day, most politicians value their reputation and power more than the people they are supposed to concern about.

And if there were a complete ban on tobacco, then what next? If you ban something because its bad for people's health, then to prevent being hypocritical or appear to be unfairly picking on a particular group of people etc, you would then have to start banning other things based on the fact they are unhealthy for people- next it would be an alcohol ban, then it would be a ban on unhealthy foods, and then who knows what next. It would be a downward spiral.
The general public would be very unhappy- many people are already rather unhappy with the fact that our country is quite the nanny state, even people who do not like smoking or smokers would probably be unhappy with a complete ban on tobacco simply because of what it stood for- it would be eroding people's rights and freedom in society.


I do think tobacco is addictive but i think the reason why people's degree of addiction to it varies massively is because IMHO it is more psychologically/habitually addictive than anything else, and the difficulty to give it up depends more on the reasons why you started smoking and why you enjoy it and the amount of smokes you have and the environment you live in etc than anything else.
Its like the question, why do some people become lethally addicted to alcohol while others do not and can give it up without too much effort?


But i think if the government really had our best interests at heart, instead of introducing various forms of bans on smoking, it would instead introduce larger filters in cigarettes and would force tobacco companies to cut down or get rid of some of the numerous harmful chemicals they add to tobacco.

Ever wondered why a Marlborough Light tastes different from a Marlborough Red? Two different varieties of tobacco you say...? Nope, not at all. The only reason why they taste different is because tobacco companies use (harmful) chemicals to flavor the different varieties of cigarettes they produce.
Tobacco companies use a lot of preservatives in their smokes for a start, because the tobacco in cigarettes goes incredibly dry and would fall apart and disintegrate if it weren't for the preservatives in the baccy. All these preservatives and flavorings contain chemicals which are damaging to the health of people.
I used to smoke cigarette's but i gave them up for this reason and moved instead onto Golden Virginia rolling tobacco because it is one of the purest tobacco's and doesn't contain all the preservatives and flavorings and things that cigarettes have. Also i simply find rolling tobacco more satisfying and you can also monitor the amount of baccy you put into your rolly, i also find it less addictive/more-ish; a rolly can contain half as much baccy as a cigarette yet i find it just as (or even more so) satisfying. Me personally, i smoke about 7 or less filtered rollys a day on average.

So yeah, in my opinion, instead of all these stupid bans, infringing on the rights of smokers, the government should simply force tobacco companies to limit or get rid of all the harmful flavorings, additives and preservatives etc in their smokes, and also introduce larger filters in cigarettes. This i think would improve the health of smokers and those who inhale second smoke massively.
What do you think?