Ending appreciable tobacco use in a nation: using a sinking lid on supply: Figure 1

Abstract

We discuss some of the practical and ethical questions that may arise for a jurisdiction where a sinking lid endgame strategy for tobacco supply is implemented. Such a strategy would involve regular required reductions in the amount of tobacco released to the market for sale, sufficient to achieve the desired level of commercial sales by a target date. Tobacco manufacturers would periodically bid to the government for a residual quota. Prices would increase as supply reduced. The price level would be influenced by demand, which in turn would reflect the impact of other interventions to reduce demand and the changing normality of smoking. Higher priced tobacco could result in increased smuggling, theft, illegal sales and short-to-medium-term aggravation of some social inequalities. We suggest that the strategy be introduced in conjunction with a range of complementary interventions that would help reduce demand, and thus help ensure that the possible adverse effects are minimised. These complementary interventions include: providing comprehensive best practice smoking cessation support, better information to smokers and the public, strengthened regulation of tobacco retailing and supply, further controlling the pack and product design, measures to restrict supplies that bypass the increases in product price, strengthened enforcement and combating industry attacks. General prerequisites for a sinking lid strategy include public support for the goal of a tobacco-free society, and strong political leadership. The likely context for initial success in jurisdictions includes geographical isolation and/or strong border controls, absence of significant tobacco production and/or manufacturing and low government corruption.

Youth tobacco access: trends and policy implications

“…Discussion of tobacco endgames has increased rapidly over the past 5 years36; several countries, including New Zealand, have established dates by which governments aim to have created essentially smoke-free nations (ie, where smoking prevalence is negligible) 37 38. Endgame strategies vary and range from excise tax increases39 through to more stringent supply regulations 40. The latter option may have a greater impact on social supply to youth,27 40 and would increase smoking denormalisation 40.…”

Can tobacco control endgame analysis learn anything from the US experience with illegal drugs?

“…Whether it is a sinking fund,2 prohibition for birth cohorts after a certain date5 or simple prohibition,6 7 the proposals create incentives to supply cigarette-like products to those who either face an extremely high legal price for that product or who are entirely cut off from legal purchase. Even the proposal for reducing the nicotine content of legally marketed tobacco products poses that same risk;8 the currently preferred product would not be legally available.…”

“…This is generally recognised in the literature but in a dismissive tone, as just another mildly troubling detail. Typical is Thomson et al 2 who note that among possible adverse effects of a ‘sinking lid’ (fixed and declining quantity of tobacco available for legal distribution) is that ‘(h)igh priced tobacco could result in the following adverse consequences: smuggling at sufficient levels to erode the price signal (eg, if border controls are inadequate); increased theft from wholesalers, retailers and smokers (and some illegal sales); and illegal cultivation for commercial sales’. Black markets are seen only as a threat to accomplishing the endpoint, not as constituting a distinct problem in themselves.…”

Potential advantages and disadvantages of an endgame strategy: a ‘sinking lid’ on tobacco supply

“…The basics of this idea have been described previously,1 but to summarise it could involve government-mandated set percentage point reductions in annual tobacco sales/import quotas from either: (1) the market share of each tobacco company at a baseline year; or (2) available tradeable quotas to either tobacco companies or to wholesalers (eg, that could be auctioned off regularly in declining amounts by a government agency). In the second option, the supply could even be controlled by a non-profit agency, as in the proposed regulated market model 2.…”