GPWizard F1 Forum

F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Luke on February 11, 2019, 11:20:24 AM

Title: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Luke on February 11, 2019, 11:20:24 AM
I guess if it is okay for Ferrari, it is fine for McLaren.  I don't like it, however they dress it up, but McLaren have now entered into a globial partnership with British American Tobacco.

https://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partners/british-american-tobacco/mclaren-racing-announces-global-partnership-british-american-tobacco/ (https://www.mclaren.com/formula1/partners/british-american-tobacco/mclaren-racing-announces-global-partnership-british-american-tobacco/)
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Dare on February 11, 2019, 01:15:03 PM
No bucks no Buck Rogers. Hope the money helps
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Jericoke on February 11, 2019, 03:04:28 PM
Still pushing nicotine?

Pass.

Hope McLaren ends up in the ditch.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Calman on February 11, 2019, 04:38:29 PM
Zak had nothing to do with it!!  ::)

Best Regards,
Cal :)
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Scott on February 11, 2019, 05:58:42 PM
Now that itís legal in Canada, maybe one of the big weed manufacturers will jump on board the new Stroll-mobile.
 8)
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Calman on February 11, 2019, 06:58:37 PM
Now that itís legal in Canada, maybe one of the big weed manufacturers will jump on board the new Stroll-mobile.
 8)

How about Cana-Bistro-ll .... see what I did there!  :D

Best Regards,
Cal :)
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Alianora La Canta on February 11, 2019, 09:06:20 PM
I wonder how long it will take the EU to jump on this. McLaren's not even trying to hide the fact...
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Luke on February 11, 2019, 09:16:08 PM
I wonder how long it will take the EU to jump on this. McLaren's not even trying to hide the fact...

Just long enough for the country to have fallen out of the EU and no longer be tied to their law probably  :fool:  :fool:

Seriously though, I hope quickly.  This whole thing flies in the face of the tobacco advertising ban and I apply this to Ferrari as well. 
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Jericoke on February 12, 2019, 03:02:43 PM
Now that itís legal in Canada, maybe one of the big weed manufacturers will jump on board the new Stroll-mobile.
 8)

No can do.  Anyone associated with a cannabis company is barred entry to the USA.  Even if they take the advertising off the car, they wouldn't be allowed to race in the USGP.

So many political things to say here, very hard to keep things on (racing) point!
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Scott on February 12, 2019, 03:16:10 PM
I was kinda teasing, but I know you are right.  The American legal weed industry can't even bank their revenue because the banks would lose their license to operate by the Feds even though it is a completely legal business in the 'enlightened' states that allow it.  They have to vault the money and the employees are paid in cash...just like the old days  :fool:

I imagine the next administration will put down the gloves and just allow it across the country.  The funniest thing is that they talk about all the drugs coming across from the southern border, yet it's still illegal in Mexico.  Meanwhile underground railways are being set up across the largest unprotected border in the world - to Canada.  Hilarious.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Irisado on February 17, 2019, 11:43:11 AM
I am not at all happy about Ferrari and McLaren trying to evade the law in this way.  It needs to be stopped.  I thought that Formula 1 had seen the back of tobacco advertising.  For me, it was one of the most positive advances in Formula 1 in the twenty-first century.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: John S on February 17, 2019, 01:31:43 PM
I'm not happy with governments that pat themselves on the back for restricting advertising and point of sale on tobacco, but are quite happy to keep taking huge revenues from it in tax.

Oh and bye the way, in Britain, use that money for general taxation whilst whingeing about how much smokers cost the health service.

If it's that bad for all of us make it illegal and only available on private prescription for hopeless addicts.
I was a smoker but gave up for reasons of cost, I'm not against smoking per se but rather have issues with the hypocrisy that surrounds it's regulation and taxes.     
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Scott on February 17, 2019, 04:59:44 PM
If cost was what made you give it up, then it seems their strategy worked perfectly to get the cheap old farts (who probably donít pay enough tax anyway  :P :P) off the weed.  I gave it up to move to a healthier lifestyle.

As for the advertising and point of sale restrictions, it has nothing to do with people who already smoke, but to prevent the next generation to be quite so tempted.  It has had a positive impact in Canada, which is about a decade ahead of most European countries. 

The number of youth reporting to have never smoked increased from about 70% to 86% from 2000-2010 and trends suggest it will be well into the 90ís by the end of this decade.  This was accomplished through Restrictive advertising and blind point of sales (every tobacco product hidden from view), education and positive peer pressure (my cousinís son recently said at his school it is truly only the very ďun-coolĒ who smoke). 

Discussions about how governments spend their tax dollars is for another thread, but luxury taxes are as old as tax, and if it means you pay less somewhere else for the same level of government service, where is the problem?
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Jericoke on February 19, 2019, 02:20:45 AM
If cost was what made you give it up, then it seems their strategy worked perfectly to get the cheap old farts (who probably donít pay enough tax anyway  :P :P) off the weed.  I gave it up to move to a healthier lifestyle.

As for the advertising and point of sale restrictions, it has nothing to do with people who already smoke, but to prevent the next generation to be quite so tempted.  It has had a positive impact in Canada, which is about a decade ahead of most European countries. 

The number of youth reporting to have never smoked increased from about 70% to 86% from 2000-2010 and trends suggest it will be well into the 90ís by the end of this decade.  This was accomplished through Restrictive advertising and blind point of sales (every tobacco product hidden from view), education and positive peer pressure (my cousinís son recently said at his school it is truly only the very ďun-coolĒ who smoke). 

Discussions about how governments spend their tax dollars is for another thread, but luxury taxes are as old as tax, and if it means you pay less somewhere else for the same level of government service, where is the problem?

The proportion of high school kids who 'vape' is much higher than the number of smokers there were when I was in high school.  It's a scourge even though it's supposed to be illegal for kids.  Vaping is what BAT and Mission Winnow are pushing.  It's still a nicotine delivery device, without the advantage of actually creating local jobs like tobacco did.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Dare on February 19, 2019, 03:00:00 AM
Bad thing about Vape is it hasn't been around long enough
to see how bad it rally is. Could be worse than cigs. I'm with John,
I'm a old foggy that quit smoking because of cost not that it
was slowly killing me.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on February 19, 2019, 04:09:06 AM
Some early studies indicate that vaping is as bad, or possibly worse than cigarettes. A lot depends on the fuel (?) used to produce the vapor.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Alianora La Canta on February 19, 2019, 06:26:59 AM
If cost was what made you give it up, then it seems their strategy worked perfectly to get the cheap old farts (who probably donít pay enough tax anyway  :P :P) off the weed.  I gave it up to move to a healthier lifestyle.

As for the advertising and point of sale restrictions, it has nothing to do with people who already smoke, but to prevent the next generation to be quite so tempted.  It has had a positive impact in Canada, which is about a decade ahead of most European countries. 

The number of youth reporting to have never smoked increased from about 70% to 86% from 2000-2010 and trends suggest it will be well into the 90ís by the end of this decade.  This was accomplished through Restrictive advertising and blind point of sales (every tobacco product hidden from view), education and positive peer pressure (my cousinís son recently said at his school it is truly only the very ďun-coolĒ who smoke). 

Discussions about how governments spend their tax dollars is for another thread, but luxury taxes are as old as tax, and if it means you pay less somewhere else for the same level of government service, where is the problem?

The proportion of high school kids who 'vape' is much higher than the number of smokers there were when I was in high school.  It's a scourge even though it's supposed to be illegal for kids.  Vaping is what BAT and Mission Winnow are pushing.  It's still a nicotine delivery device, without the advantage of actually creating local jobs like tobacco did.

In my hometown, it seems every fourth new shop is a vape shop. All that brightly-coloured storefront and unusually polite attitude to teenagers is something they find refreshing, and it shows in the number of them who vape. There has been a 38% increase in vaping (not taking age into consideration, but they're likely to be the main ones starting) last year. Although vaping is not banned in indoor locations, the only placew I can think of that don't govern them on the same basis as cigarettes themselves are the open-air precinct (note: the stance does not apply to any of its shops) and the local role-playing store (their stance, in huge letters on their window, is: limit the vaping so as not to distract or annoy other players or staff, but the odd puff is fine. And by the way, no eating without permission from the staff).
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Scott on February 19, 2019, 10:20:34 AM
Vaping is a whole new challenge, but vaping is not always a nicotine delivery system.  The majority of vape oil in Switzerland is nicotine free.  I was checking at a store this morning and of 16 flavors/brands available, only 3 contained nicotine.

I find it as annoying as smokers, especially because some vapers feel the need to exhale massive amounts upwind.  Also because itís so new and in-studied, the potential health crisis could be massive, but it could also prove to be almost harmless (though I think putting anything into your lungs that coats them in residue is probably harmful).

But it has little to do with the argument about smoking/taxes.

Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Jericoke on February 19, 2019, 03:27:06 PM
But it has little to do with the argument about smoking/taxes.

That's almost literally Mission Winnow's goal:  let's confuse people so we can avoid existing barriers to our product.

Vaping is a whole new challenge, but vaping is not always a nicotine delivery system.  The majority of vape oil in Switzerland is nicotine free.  I was checking at a store this morning and of 16 flavors/brands available, only 3 contained nicotine.

There might be a large selection of oils, but I'd be interested in the actual volumes sold.  You've been in the service industry long enough to know that you offer a large selection, yet sell mostly the same thing.

I find it as annoying as smokers, especially because some vapers feel the need to exhale massive amounts upwind.  Also because itís so new and in-studied, the potential health crisis could be massive, but it could also prove to be almost harmless (though I think putting anything into your lungs that coats them in residue is probably harmful).

See above.  In Ontario they've rolled vaping into existing tobacco legislation.  Can only Vape where you can legally smoke.  Can only buy Vape products if you can buy tobacco products.  I like that they're treating it exactly like smoking until someone can prove otherwise.

I don't know how the taxation situation is for the moment.  Our premiere is Doug Ford, brother of the infamous Toronto mayor Rob Ford (RIP), so he has very odd views of addiction.
Title: Re: McLaren link up with BAT
Post by: Alianora La Canta on February 23, 2019, 08:32:57 AM
The UK taxes vaping products on the standard tax rate, without the cigarette tax (even the varieties including nicotine). Additional tax was considered but rejected (https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/news/vaping-news/2018-08-22_vape-tax-dropped-official.html) pending further research into the health benefit/risk equation. Technically, under-18s can't buy e-cigs, have them bought for them or have them smoked in vehicles where they are present, but vaping shops I see don't bar them from entry and window-shopping, and people as young as 13 have successfully purchased e-cigs. It is up to shop owners whether to treat e-cigs as cigarettes or whether to permit them (and if so, under what circumstances - there's no rule against having an "e-smoker's area", and it doesn't have to have any of the smoke dissipation measures that used to apply to cigarette smoker areas in that transitional period between full permission and full ban. Oil delivery mechanisms vary by manufacturer, and a given shop is more likely to provision based on what the vape shop owner thinks is good on the market rather than whether it contains nicotine or not.

The UK bans e-cig advertising through the media, regardless of delivery mechanism; only the shopfronts and word-of-mouth are allowed to act as advertising for vaping products. This is because of the effects of secondhand smoke (the NHS is more concerned about the many associated chemicals than the nicotine, which even in those products that do use it, typically have much smaller amounts than even a "light" cigarette). The NHS recommends e-cigs as a second-line smoking cessation device, but will only fund prescriptions for first-line smoking cessation devices.

The EU, on the other hand, is set to impose a raised tax of some sort on vaping products (https://www.theweek.co.uk/70173/vaping-tax-battle-over-future-of-e-cigarettes-looms) (this is timed to occur post-Brexit) to compensate for lost revenues from conventional cigarettes, and also considering an advertising restriction on those e-cigs not specifically aimed at being smoking cessation products.