Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Ethan Natalman, and this is Psychoactive, a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is the
Speaker 1: show where we talk about all things drugs. But any
Speaker 1: of you has expressed here do not represent those of
Speaker 1: my Heart Media, Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees. Indeed,
Speaker 1: heat as an inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they
Speaker 1: may not even represent my own and nothing contained in
Speaker 1: this show should be used as medical advice or encouragement
Speaker 1: to use any type of drugs. Hello, Psychoactive listeners. My
Speaker 1: guest today is Andre Collinsopolis. He is perhaps the most
Speaker 1: famous current figure in the world of big tobacco. He's
Speaker 1: worked at Philip Morris International, the huge tobacco conglomerate, for
Speaker 1: almost forty years. He's been the chief operating officer, the
Speaker 1: chief ex ecutive officers now chairman of the board. And
Speaker 1: I want to be talking to him today for two reasons.
Speaker 1: One is, you know what's it like to head one
Speaker 1: of the most vilified companies in the world selling a
Speaker 1: product that kills half the people who use it as designed.
Speaker 1: But at the same time he has been the most
Speaker 1: forward thinking and outspoken of the big tobacco leaders in
Speaker 1: advocating for a rapid transition from cigarettes and other combustible
Speaker 1: forms of tobacco to e cigarettes, inhalable forms and other
Speaker 1: harm reduction approaches. So, Andre, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: agreeing to talk with me on Psychoactive. Well, Leathan, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for having me, and thank you for
Speaker 1: this very nice introduction, which I don't think I deserve
Speaker 1: everything you said, but I'm very happy to be on
Speaker 1: the show. Okay, so let me let me revamp it
Speaker 1: a bit dead. So some people, you know, would regard
Speaker 1: you as sort the devil incarnate, right, the guy who's
Speaker 1: leading one of the biggest companies in the world that's
Speaker 1: selling these tobacco cigarettes cancer sticks that kills half of
Speaker 1: all long term users when used as directed Right, you know,
Speaker 1: eight million people are going to die this year around
Speaker 1: the world from smoking, either directly or from second hand
Speaker 1: smoke in some cases. On the other hand, you've also
Speaker 1: been the head of a company which is made what
Speaker 1: appears to be of all the big tobacco companies, the
Speaker 1: most serious commitment to to basically shifting out of combustible
Speaker 1: cigarettes into other forms of nicotine consumption. That are widely
Speaker 1: believed to be much safer. So I want to start
Speaker 1: off by saying, you know, I saw the fellow. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure I pronounce his name, Old Jack, your CEO.
Speaker 1: The guy who worked for you for many years, has
Speaker 1: replaced you as a CEO he said. Last year, he goes,
Speaker 1: I want to allow this company to leave smoking behind.
Speaker 1: I think in the UK ten years from now maximum
Speaker 1: you completely solve the problem of smoking. And when he
Speaker 1: was then asked that then, Philip Morris, we started selling
Speaker 1: traditional cigarettes in the UK within that time, he replied, absolutely.
Speaker 1: So say a little more about that. Well, let's give
Speaker 1: some context for the audience. Clearly it's very well down.
Speaker 1: Cigarettes cause disease and unaddictive and premature deaths. So what
Speaker 1: is less known is the reason or the main reason
Speaker 1: for that. And the main reason for that is combustion,
Speaker 1: the fact that we burn tobacco, and that's what creates
Speaker 1: most of the toxic substances that cause morbidity and mortality.
Speaker 1: So the answer to resolving the problem for the people
Speaker 1: that would otherwise continue using cigarettes is not to combast
Speaker 1: a substrate. And the first thing we did is to
Speaker 1: develop a portfolio of products that comprise heated tobacco, so
Speaker 1: heated the temperatures that don't create combustion, which diminishes very
Speaker 1: significantly the toxical is generated by We also have products
Speaker 1: in what is more known in the US, like vapor products,
Speaker 1: and we also have products that are in the form
Speaker 1: of pouches that contain no tobacco at all. So all
Speaker 1: these products do contain nicotine because that's important for smokers
Speaker 1: to switch, but they don't combast, so we have a
Speaker 1: very substantial reduction in their toxicity. The second thing to do,
Speaker 1: and we've done, is to substantiate scientifically that these products
Speaker 1: actually in pre clinical and clinical trials demonstrate reduction of
Speaker 1: toxicity exposure to the toxicans and eventually you know, the
Speaker 1: promise of a re action in morbidity and mortality. And
Speaker 1: we have submitted these studies to many countries, including to
Speaker 1: the US Food and Drug Administration, which issued in order
Speaker 1: that these products reduced the exposure and authorize their sale
Speaker 1: in the US. So I think, on one side, we
Speaker 1: need manufacturers to invest in developing these products and then
Speaker 1: put their hearts and their money behind convincing existing smokers
Speaker 1: to switch to these products. But this is the first
Speaker 1: step and the second step clear and I'm sure we'll
Speaker 1: discuss this, is to have regulators in the US and
Speaker 1: around the world adopting the right policies that differentiates these products,
Speaker 1: that cigarettes, recognizing the absence of combustion and the lower toxicity,
Speaker 1: so the potential benefit to public health, so that we encourage,
Speaker 1: through commercial activities on side, the regulatory frameworks on the
Speaker 1: other side, smokers to switch. And if we do that properly,
Speaker 1: I think we can phase out cigarettes very fast. Now,
Speaker 1: what do you say when people say, you know, until
Speaker 1: you've got longitudal studies twenty three or thirty years of data,
Speaker 1: it's all bullshit. I mean that we don't really know
Speaker 1: what these things are going to do to people twenty
Speaker 1: thirty years from now. So let's just hold your horses
Speaker 1: and let's you know, hold back and making a big
Speaker 1: switch into the non combustibles. What's your response to them, Well,
Speaker 1: my response is that every day we lose in letting
Speaker 1: people having as an alternative only to continue smoking or
Speaker 1: quitting is a lost day in public health. The second
Speaker 1: thing is that all the precursors to what you call
Speaker 1: epidemiological studies or long term studies is pretty clinical and
Speaker 1: short term clinical studies, and if you have very substantial
Speaker 1: reduction in exposure two toxicans, is very natural to assume
Speaker 1: you will have reduction in disease caused by these toxicons
Speaker 1: because the toxicans are known. If we do nothing, nobody
Speaker 1: will adopt this product. And you know that the subject
Speaker 1: is a bit complex, but it's not different from essentially
Speaker 1: trying to convince consumers to move from using fossive fuels
Speaker 1: to renewable energy. It's not that the renewable energies are
Speaker 1: proven to have zero impact on the environment. Actually they don't.
Speaker 1: They're must be better than vernicle or fossil fuels. And
Speaker 1: we do both the you know, the products and the
Speaker 1: regulatory measures to convince people who consume energy to switch
Speaker 1: to this alternative. So we're trying to apply an extreme
Speaker 1: precautionary principle here, but clearly there are also legitimate concerns.
Speaker 1: There are legitimate concerns that we need to minimize impact
Speaker 1: in undesirable audiences, particularly youth. Also people that have quit
Speaker 1: and because these products are better than cigarettes, maybe they
Speaker 1: will come back. That's why the regulatory framework has to
Speaker 1: be fair district on how you commercialize this product at
Speaker 1: all that is physible. This is not a reason not
Speaker 1: to allow these products on the markets and then deprived
Speaker 1: smokers forever from these products because they have their right
Speaker 1: also to be informed that these products exists what they are,
Speaker 1: but they are not because they still contain ecotiner addictives.
Speaker 1: They're not zero risks, but they're much better than cigarettes
Speaker 1: for the ones who would like to continue using nicotine products.
Speaker 1: Now people will come back and say, well, why don't
Speaker 1: you just get out of the damned cigarette industry entirely?
Speaker 1: Like when it comes to the rest of the industry,
Speaker 1: do you guys talk with or another? Do you talk
Speaker 1: to their CEOs or chairs? Do you guys lead? Are
Speaker 1: they just looking if you get too far out of
Speaker 1: head on shifting a harmyduction just to scoop up your
Speaker 1: market share? Uh? You know, are you better than all
Speaker 1: the other guys? You know, I mean British, American Tobacco,
Speaker 1: Japan Tobacco, Imperial, all those. What's the nature of industry
Speaker 1: at at at the executive the top level in terms
Speaker 1: of the movement of harmy option. Okay, clearly we have
Speaker 1: been leading in this domain for various reasons. Other companies
Speaker 1: in the industry where slower in entering this domain, and
Speaker 1: we can examine why. But the thing is, once these
Speaker 1: products start being available to consumers and consumers starts reaching
Speaker 1: to them, I don't think there is an option from
Speaker 1: a pure competitive point of view for other manufacturers not
Speaker 1: to enter the domain now to do these products. If
Speaker 1: you start today, you're not going to have a product tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It takes years to develop the products, and once you
Speaker 1: have a developed product, you believe it's just the ability
Speaker 1: to switch consumers. Then you need to do all your
Speaker 1: quick clinically clinical trials, and then after that you need
Speaker 1: to do the right market surveillance to avoid unintended audiences,
Speaker 1: but long term established epidemiology as well. So it's a
Speaker 1: big investment to make and it takes multiple years. We
Speaker 1: talk or as it took, maybe we're slow, but it
Speaker 1: took us six seven years to develop the first heated
Speaker 1: tobacco product and another three or four years to do
Speaker 1: the substantiation. So it's a ten year investment of multi
Speaker 1: billion dollars. Because these products because they have lower taxes
Speaker 1: and that's part of the regulatory UH framework, they also
Speaker 1: have higher margins that justify your investments. Then once we
Speaker 1: reach a sufficient critical massive smokers that have switched to
Speaker 1: these products, then do side measures or other regulatory interveneurs
Speaker 1: like up and trade or nicotine reduction as the Fday
Speaker 1: is discussing. So you've kind of further incentivize consumers to switch,
Speaker 1: but also manufacturers on a stick and currot base to
Speaker 1: start investing now because you know in ten years, fifteen years,
Speaker 1: the measures are going to be so drastic on the
Speaker 1: people that have not invested in these new products that
Speaker 1: it will be not sustainable from a business perspective. And
Speaker 1: what is important, sorry if I sound like a broken record,
Speaker 1: is that public health authorities and governments get aligned behind
Speaker 1: Haart reduction. Because if you're a manufacturer and you have
Speaker 1: very ambiguous views in your country about what this products
Speaker 1: should be authorized or not. In some countries they banned
Speaker 1: vapor products. In some countries they banned both in vapor
Speaker 1: products and heated tobacco products as precautionary principle, So that
Speaker 1: doesn't incentivize manufacturers around the world to invest heavily in
Speaker 1: this product. So having the governments and public health being
Speaker 1: aligned that yes, the best thing is to quit, but
Speaker 1: if you don't quit. Then the second best is to
Speaker 1: move to this products and create the right incentive. Says
Speaker 1: that stick and current. Yeah, sometimes get this sense and
Speaker 1: they tell me if it's wrong or not. That in
Speaker 1: the countries that are good on harm reduction, like the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom or maybe New Zealand, that in those countries,
Speaker 1: you know, you p M. I are willing to kind
Speaker 1: of really you know, be very non aggressive with selling
Speaker 1: your cigarettes, really to pull back and you know, not
Speaker 1: do anything that people would I mean they don't like
Speaker 1: you selling in the first place, but that you're not
Speaker 1: going to push it hard. Where's a country like Mexico
Speaker 1: which is banning basically all the harm reduction products, or
Speaker 1: certainly east cigarettes and heat not burn things. You know,
Speaker 1: it seems like you're more so I saw. I think
Speaker 1: you've got a letter from some of the harm reduction
Speaker 1: supportive scientists saying, you know, what do you do with
Speaker 1: Marlborough shuffle? There's a Marble shuffle. Some product you have
Speaker 1: in Mexico is a marketing campaign, especially attractive to young people.
Speaker 1: It's got these capsule things. It's actually to try different flavors.
Speaker 1: I mean, is there that sense that if a government
Speaker 1: is going to shut you out on harmonduction. You're just
Speaker 1: gonna be a little more of a bad boy when
Speaker 1: it comes to marketing cigarettes. Absolutely not. Uh. First of all,
Speaker 1: just to give a little bit of perspective here, um today,
Speaker 1: in the markets where we are present with this product, okay,
Speaker 1: or we can be present, and if you look at
Speaker 1: pre mind total, more than eighty percent of our commercial
Speaker 1: money marketing sales forces go behind this products, although we
Speaker 1: still represent a fraction of the pond, okay, So we
Speaker 1: put our money to our mouths. Secondly, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not that if you are aggressive in marketing certain products,
Speaker 1: it's kind of retaliation with every governments, okay, becauseural governments
Speaker 1: don't care about these things. The second thing is in
Speaker 1: certain markets where I mean Mexico essentially banned the importable
Speaker 1: these products, okay, So the only thing is to continue
Speaker 1: the dialogue with the government to convince them that that
Speaker 1: was not the brightest idea they had. Okay. And on
Speaker 1: the other side, you need to do a minimum in
Speaker 1: the cigarette market where you have nothing else in order
Speaker 1: to maintain at least your market share. That where you're
Speaker 1: just from a shareholder's perspective, you move your market share
Speaker 1: to competitors. But we are not investing behind cigarettes, okay.
Speaker 1: And whenever a market is makes it possible for us
Speaker 1: to commercialize these products, we do commercialize, Okay. I would
Speaker 1: love Indonesia to finally adapt all the regulations necessary. Philippines
Speaker 1: were moving in the right direction and we started I
Speaker 1: link this products there, and I hope you mentioned in Mexico.
Speaker 1: You know, people in Mexico will see the opportunity in
Speaker 1: the government and take the right measures other than banning
Speaker 1: the products and condemning people to only smoke. But there
Speaker 1: is no we pro void the two okay, So let
Speaker 1: me press you harder. I mean, then we'll get more
Speaker 1: into the harmony duction stuff. And some of the other
Speaker 1: skeptics will say so when it comes to, for example,
Speaker 1: bands and tobacco advertising, that there was recently a referendum
Speaker 1: in Switzerland right where you live, you know, and I
Speaker 1: think that P might other companies opposed the Swiss referendum
Speaker 1: to ban virtually all tobacco advertising. Now was that because
Speaker 1: it was also a ban on noncombustibles or what was
Speaker 1: your why were we doing that? Correct? Not applies in
Speaker 1: general you know to all institutions, mightly to them is
Speaker 1: to follow different shade noncombustible products from combustible products, okay,
Speaker 1: or scientifically proven reduced risk products, let's call them. And
Speaker 1: then you can do whatever you want with cigarettes. In
Speaker 1: any case, in many countries, that is not much more
Speaker 1: that is available. Two you know prohibit So the reality
Speaker 1: is on cigarettes. You know, as I said, be my
Speaker 1: guests and do whatever they want. Right. But but but you're
Speaker 1: saying p m I. Now when it comes to you know,
Speaker 1: if governments want to increase taxes on cigarettes, bean advertising,
Speaker 1: limit where you can take it. At this point, p
Speaker 1: m I is not opposing those types of things anywhere,
Speaker 1: so long as it's focused on cigarettes and not on
Speaker 1: the noncombustibles. Is that right. Let's let's take one after that.
Speaker 1: When you talk about tobacco products or even words all
Speaker 1: nicotine products, and you apply all the same rules to
Speaker 1: all this products, then clearly your favorite cigarettes. Because the
Speaker 1: new categories various degrees are relatively unknown smoke, so you
Speaker 1: need some differentiating factors so you can explain to consumers
Speaker 1: what these products are. I'm not saying TV advertising or
Speaker 1: radio advertising or things like this, but the ability to
Speaker 1: contact people, the ability to them to try this product,
Speaker 1: I mean you have countries where you cannot offer a
Speaker 1: consumer the possibility to try a smoke free product by law.
Speaker 1: So how how is a smoker going to try this
Speaker 1: product and spend money to buy it if they can
Speaker 1: try it. So it's the minimum necessary to communicate with consumers.
Speaker 1: The second thing is you do need differentiated taxation between
Speaker 1: the two categories, because one is easy to market, is
Speaker 1: very well known. The other requires, as I said previously,
Speaker 1: a very significant investment in product development and scientific assessment
Speaker 1: priclin clinical. So we don't have the same spend by
Speaker 1: any measure between the two. I mean, if you want
Speaker 1: to create any cigarette, you just maximum you will do
Speaker 1: is adapt the geometry of the packaging and you have
Speaker 1: a new product in six months, and the others have
Speaker 1: horizons of four to eight years. So this has to
Speaker 1: be recognized. In terms of taxation. We've always said governments
Speaker 1: always increase excess taxes, and they will continue increasing both
Speaker 1: form for revenue reasons but also as a measure to
Speaker 1: diminished consumption. So they can increase. Always say don't do
Speaker 1: abrupt to one nots, have a plan and increase every
Speaker 1: year by the amount you want, and then this is
Speaker 1: perfect Okay, we know what's happening. If you have one
Speaker 1: of you have contraband, and then the legitimate sales go
Speaker 1: down and illegal products get the market. But what is
Speaker 1: more important is that they keep some differentiation between the
Speaker 1: smoke free category and the smoking right collects because the
Speaker 1: same thing we do for electric cars, they pay less
Speaker 1: taxes and so on. So I understand we're saying something
Speaker 1: that is unreasonable. Yeah, you know it makes sense. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you, what's your thoughts on these menthol bands
Speaker 1: or I think European Union did it? The US did it?
Speaker 1: Used to work? I think you first started working with
Speaker 1: p m I in Poland. Poland's one of the biggest
Speaker 1: consumers of mental aid in cigarettes. Are they a good idea?
Speaker 1: What do you think? Okay? First of all, the European
Speaker 1: Union did the band mental in cigarettes. The US has
Speaker 1: not yet bunned. Okay, so that's the first thing. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm supporting the measure as a measure that when we
Speaker 1: have good availability of vapor product, executed tobacco products or pouches,
Speaker 1: that's a nice way to push consumers of menthol into
Speaker 1: the new categories. Just happen in the right time, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll try bunning menthol without having smoke free alternatives. Essentially,
Speaker 1: what happened in the European Union is that the most
Speaker 1: smokers reached to normal cigarettes, I mean to non mental cigarettes. Okay,
Speaker 1: class you see some people buying mental and mental lating
Speaker 1: their packs because it's very easy. So I don't think
Speaker 1: we had the effect that we wanted to have, and
Speaker 1: we would have much better effect if it happened the
Speaker 1: way you describe, if alternatives were on the market, and
Speaker 1: then you give a very good chance to these new
Speaker 1: products to be adopted. But people didn't really quit. We'll
Speaker 1: be talking more after we hear this add Now, there's
Speaker 1: this other proposal that's been put for in the US
Speaker 1: in June of this year to basically reduce the level
Speaker 1: of nicotine and cigarettes to the point where they're almost
Speaker 1: not cigarettes anymore, and there's not cutting it by half.
Speaker 1: By cutting it by and the estimatest would save millions
Speaker 1: of lives. My senses, it might actually be the movement
Speaker 1: where we switched to a defective tobacco prohibition and launch
Speaker 1: cigarettes into the big leagues of major global drug trafficking.
Speaker 1: But what's your views on this reduced nicotine thing. Will
Speaker 1: there ever be a moment where this makes sense to
Speaker 1: do or is that just pushing on the supply side
Speaker 1: controls too far. The supply side controls, as I said,
Speaker 1: is measures you can take when you have good availability
Speaker 1: of alternatives to avoid what you just describe sitrate self
Speaker 1: nipotinization and so on. Okay, so people spike their cigarettes
Speaker 1: that have no nipotine with nicotine and so on. I
Speaker 1: think this has to be seen in the US in
Speaker 1: the context of the policy announced a few years ago
Speaker 1: by the Commissioner and reaches a lot of the head
Speaker 1: of tobacco in the FDA that they saw and dual strategy.
Speaker 1: The one is on one side, we may alternatives available
Speaker 1: that are scientifically proven and authorized, and on the other side,
Speaker 1: in the right moment, we reduced nicotine in cigarettes as
Speaker 1: a measure. It's not the only one, but that's the
Speaker 1: only one the FDA has under control. Now. If we
Speaker 1: talk about cup and trade and other measures of this nature,
Speaker 1: probably they are more effective. But the principle of allowing
Speaker 1: alternatives and then do the right regulatory measures at a
Speaker 1: certain stage to accelerate the phase out are rational regulations.
Speaker 1: The danger in general will take one side of the
Speaker 1: regulation and we forget the other. Okay. So to me,
Speaker 1: this is a measure that is a stick and currot measure.
Speaker 1: It's a phase out measure, and it has to be
Speaker 1: seen with other possible measures and not on its own, Okay.
Speaker 1: But the principle, I think it's clear from abiating myself,
Speaker 1: you need availability of this product, you need the right framework,
Speaker 1: and then eventually the phase out measures at the right moment,
Speaker 1: and that I'm fully supported. You know, part of this
Speaker 1: bi monthly conference call with a lot of the leading
Speaker 1: tobacco control experts who are sympathetic to harmonaduct share, and
Speaker 1: it's fair to say, you know, none of them fully
Speaker 1: trust you p m I. Big tobacco people vary in
Speaker 1: these things, but the one issue everybody's on is, you know,
Speaker 1: p m I is out there claiming that there's twelve
Speaker 1: and a half million adult smokers who have switched completely
Speaker 1: to icos from cigarettes and stopped smoking, not counting Russian Ukraine,
Speaker 1: so even more than that, And the question is how
Speaker 1: do you know? And they're asking you for data. You know,
Speaker 1: they say, if you're claiming what your market share is
Speaker 1: with icos and all this, there must be data, and
Speaker 1: you're not being transparent. You're not handing over the information.
Speaker 1: You're sending your people to meet with them, and you're saying, yes,
Speaker 1: we understand, blah blah blah blah blah, but that basically
Speaker 1: you're holding back on providing the formation that can really
Speaker 1: substantiate what you claim to be the powerful substitution effects
Speaker 1: for icons for people switching. So why why are you
Speaker 1: holding back? Why not be as totally transparent as possible
Speaker 1: in this stuffs of all we want to be transparent. Okay.
Speaker 1: The thing is, icons and vapor products are rather recent phenomenon. Okay,
Speaker 1: So in the cigarette market you have fluctuations over the
Speaker 1: last three years that are fairly big. You had covid
Speaker 1: or in some countries, you increase consumption the US, In
Speaker 1: some countries you had a decreasing consumption of cigarettes. In
Speaker 1: some countries you still have icons and vapor being a
Speaker 1: small part of the market five six p so, and
Speaker 1: you have price changes and touch change. So the data
Speaker 1: needs to be cleaned up from all this in order
Speaker 1: to be available to scientists to study, and the only
Speaker 1: way to do that is to have the right scientists
Speaker 1: with you. So you explain all the other influence in phenomena. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's a fact that we know from all the consumer
Speaker 1: surveys we're doing. We're gonna make available all the panel
Speaker 1: data that people who switched to icos. You know, if
Speaker 1: out of hundred people switch to who buy icos, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry about stay with icos and sixty problem with sevents
Speaker 1: which completely to and that you have the follow up
Speaker 1: of the consumers, you can say it's a bit bias
Speaker 1: data by the panel and that's a fact. On the
Speaker 1: other side, as the Icons in particular share is building up,
Speaker 1: clearly the data will become more visible. It's very visible.
Speaker 1: In Japan the category is at almost thirty percent of
Speaker 1: the market, so it's very visible. I think the visible
Speaker 1: cigarette sales as exactly. So you do you start seeing
Speaker 1: in Italy another market, So I think it's a question
Speaker 1: of time. But there's not a lack of transparency. The
Speaker 1: data is there. But if we make the effort to
Speaker 1: clean up the data from other factors, the data also
Speaker 1: can be used. But you need to take price increases,
Speaker 1: price changes, tax increases and the COVID period. So it's
Speaker 1: not something to take off the show and you give
Speaker 1: we need to do the analysis. That's all. Yeah, I understand,
Speaker 1: just just a little, you know, piece of advice or
Speaker 1: encouragement that for the people who are most sympathetic to
Speaker 1: your you know, what you're trying to do in terms
Speaker 1: of your transition and combustibles, being as transparent as possible
Speaker 1: to evidence would actually make a real difference. Now let
Speaker 1: me turn to the opposition to this thing, Mike Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: who has put hundreds of millions of dollars. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: initially it was all about trying to fight smoking. He's
Speaker 1: still trying to fight smoking. I assume at this point
Speaker 1: you probably agree with a fair bit about what Bloomberg
Speaker 1: is doing to try to you know, restrict smoking, increased restrictions,
Speaker 1: all that sort of stuff. But meanwhile, he's adopted an
Speaker 1: aggressively anti tobacco harm reduction position, and he is a
Speaker 1: major funder of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, which
Speaker 1: seems to have evolved from an anti smoking organization to
Speaker 1: a nicotine abstinence organization. He's then ambassador official ambassador World
Speaker 1: Health organization, which seems to be taking anti scientific positions
Speaker 1: and harm reduction. You know, what do you think striving
Speaker 1: these guys? Sometimes people act on ideology, sometimes on self interest.
Speaker 1: It's difficult for me to understand sometimes why people that
Speaker 1: used to be all harm reduction, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you know, they move the debate from comparing the smoke
Speaker 1: free products with cigarettes, which is the problem, to a
Speaker 1: zero risk product. So I guess it's ideology. I guess
Speaker 1: it's a bit of panic because when you don't have
Speaker 1: an enemy or the enemy is doing the right things. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, some ngeo's think they're going to lose their purpose.
Speaker 1: Some of the audience remember that years ago we had
Speaker 1: head we called the value disease, so people that we're
Speaker 1: inhaling something and they had serious problems with the lens
Speaker 1: and eventually some of the people died, which is terrible.
Speaker 1: But this had nothing to do with invapor products. These
Speaker 1: were it was proven that were people that used I
Speaker 1: don't know, kind of be noise or legally produced THHC cartridges.
Speaker 1: So it has to be entirely about some knuckleheads putting
Speaker 1: vitamin e acetate into the th HC cartridges. But everybody blamed,
Speaker 1: you know, the vapors, the east cigarettes and nicotine cigarettes,
Speaker 1: and that's what's stuck in the public consciousness, and it
Speaker 1: really appeared that, you know that that the anti tobacco
Speaker 1: and anti harmonduction forces really took advantage of a broad
Speaker 1: public misperception in order to advance their agenda. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I'm just putting saying exactly what you were
Speaker 1: going to say there, but probably well model as you
Speaker 1: are saying correctly. And the question I ask is who
Speaker 1: is accountable for that? Because you know, after the peak
Speaker 1: of this crisis, unfortunate crisis even in Europe, in France
Speaker 1: and many other countries, who had six of the smokers,
Speaker 1: who started to believe that evapor products are equally bad
Speaker 1: or worse than cigarette, which I think is a public
Speaker 1: health disaster. So I've heard some people say that that,
Speaker 1: I mean, it makes sense to me in a way
Speaker 1: that you know, you guys probably still make more money
Speaker 1: from cigarettes than you do from all these harm reduction things,
Speaker 1: you know, and that you know it's basically a cash
Speaker 1: cow for big Tobacco that keeps selling cigarettes, and that
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg and w h O and Campaign Redaco Free
Speaker 1: Kids and all these anti harm reduction folks by virtue
Speaker 1: of putting out all these lies and blocking the adoption
Speaker 1: of harm reduction, that dave essentially become your biggest allies.
Speaker 1: That essentially you should be sent a thank you note
Speaker 1: to Mike Bloomberg at least for the short term, because
Speaker 1: he's helping post your cigarette sales. And in fact, it
Speaker 1: does appear that in some places cigarette sales have stopped
Speaker 1: going down because people no longer see the you know,
Speaker 1: East cigarettes and he not burn devices as as safer.
Speaker 1: What do you say, are they basically the factor your
Speaker 1: ally now in terms of short term profits. Factually, you
Speaker 1: are correct. By demonizing the better products. You know, you
Speaker 1: make people believe that cigarettes are the only alternative, and
Speaker 1: frankly speaking, yes, they help the people that want only
Speaker 1: to sell a cigarette, because it would be ideal if
Speaker 1: the World Health Organization was at least neutral on this product. Right,
Speaker 1: But it's the short term bottom line in terms of
Speaker 1: the profits of cigarettes, well, the profits of cigarettes, you know,
Speaker 1: as I said many times also to investors, the margin
Speaker 1: we make on these products, spoke for products is better
Speaker 1: than cigarettes. So we don't only have a model incentive.
Speaker 1: We have a financial incentive to sell these products, and
Speaker 1: they're better because we convinced the regulators around the world
Speaker 1: to give us better tax treatment than on cigarettes, and
Speaker 1: they understand that if you have a better product, you
Speaker 1: need to incentivize both manufacturers and consumers to switch to
Speaker 1: this product. Okay, so I think it makes sense to
Speaker 1: us not to sell cigarettes. Yeah. Yeah, But I mean
Speaker 1: you know what people also say, right is look what
Speaker 1: what what you pick tobacco or in p M I
Speaker 1: really wants is they want to evolve from a world
Speaker 1: in which a billion plus people are smoking cigarettes and
Speaker 1: a hundred million are using these harm reduction products, these
Speaker 1: reduced risk products, to a world in which two billion
Speaker 1: people are using the reduced risk products and only a
Speaker 1: hundred million people are smoking. And that's the way they'll
Speaker 1: sustain their profits. People will still be a to nicotine.
Speaker 1: Uh now, I mean personally, it seems to me that
Speaker 1: from a public health perspective, that's a major advance. But
Speaker 1: it's in fact that the objective here that imagining a
Speaker 1: world in which you know, you know, even more people
Speaker 1: are using these nicotine products and currently smoke, but we're
Speaker 1: the humutive harms the health or much lower. Is that
Speaker 1: is that the long term strategy. No, the long term
Speaker 1: strategy is to switch smokers, minimize initiation to any nicotine
Speaker 1: product and then continue diversifying the company into new domains
Speaker 1: or our revenues. I'm talking about Philip Morris, our competitors
Speaker 1: mm hmm, where we have other sources of revenue than
Speaker 1: nicotine products. And recently we want to harma companies because
Speaker 1: we have some expertise in oral and inhalation delivery, so
Speaker 1: we think we can repurpose certain existing drugs into fast
Speaker 1: delivery through in elation, so that we start moving away
Speaker 1: from pure nicotine in dependence. I don't think it's feasible,
Speaker 1: even in the wildest imagination of a tobacco company, to
Speaker 1: believe that we're going to increase the number of people
Speaker 1: we use nicotine products of the time. This is not
Speaker 1: Let me ask you why not. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: think about it, when tobacco came out of you know,
Speaker 1: the America's three years ago, it's sort of swept the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's basically I think it's only second only
Speaker 1: the coffee, maybe an alcohol. There's something incredibly compelling about it.
Speaker 1: People enjoy the drug effect of nicotine, and if you
Speaker 1: can turn nicotine into something that's barely more problematic or
Speaker 1: dangerous for people than coffee, why not. Why shouldn't we
Speaker 1: look forward to a world in which nicotine is sold
Speaker 1: in forms that are you know, safer than alcohol and
Speaker 1: almost as safe as coffee. It's just part of uman
Speaker 1: existence and human pleasure and human functioning. What's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: Why not have that as your objective? Is it just
Speaker 1: that you can't say it because it's not to say it? Well, Look,
Speaker 1: nicotine is addictive, okay, but the only form of addictiveness,
Speaker 1: as you're right, and the set of nicotine is through
Speaker 1: cigarettes that has all the toxic Now, people do not
Speaker 1: use nicotine products just for nicotine. They use them for
Speaker 1: the taste, They use them for the ritual, the same
Speaker 1: way you know, delivering an alcohol peel to people is
Speaker 1: not going to be as pleasurable as a glass of wine,
Speaker 1: I mean for the ones that consume wine. Okay, So
Speaker 1: there are many elements in the whole experience of a
Speaker 1: smoker that you cannot dissociate entirely. Yes, we can imagine
Speaker 1: a world where we have demonstrated that needs to be
Speaker 1: too demonstrated, that say, a nicotine pouch used with the
Speaker 1: right moderation, probably cause there's no disease, no premature deaths,
Speaker 1: and then we will have the debate whether these products
Speaker 1: can be made available in a different regulatory basis or not.
Speaker 1: But these products have to remain regulated as alcohol is
Speaker 1: regulated and so on. Now, the task we have is
Speaker 1: not to recruit new people. The task we have is
Speaker 1: to convince the existing smokers to move to this product.
Speaker 1: There will be people who start with nicotin products, and
Speaker 1: I think from a public health perspective, if they start,
Speaker 1: the best thing is that they will never start, and
Speaker 1: that is our advice. But if they start, they started
Speaker 1: with products that reduced there is from day one, not
Speaker 1: after thirty years. So I think we need to go
Speaker 1: step by step here in the public health debate, because
Speaker 1: we still have disagreement or whether for smokers that smoke
Speaker 1: for thirty years we make new products available. Once we
Speaker 1: resolved that debate, we can discuss about nicotine ten years
Speaker 1: down the line. Okay, that's but what about tetral medical
Speaker 1: value of nicotine? I mean, you know, you read some
Speaker 1: reports that how may be helpful, visit the Parkinson's, the Alzheimer's.
Speaker 1: I mean, why isn't there more scientific research on this front?
Speaker 1: And can you envision nicotine becoming a widely prescribed medical
Speaker 1: substance for all sorts of ills are and are you
Speaker 1: doing that kind of research? Clearly in the literature, there
Speaker 1: are some diseases you you just named them sterotypicalities Arkinson's
Speaker 1: where there's less prevalence and most people with nicotine. And
Speaker 1: we're doing some research in this area. Okay, but that
Speaker 1: is a limited number of diseases. Uh, that where nicotine
Speaker 1: or nicotine derivatives can be a therapeutical molecule. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: a medical product. So um, the problem we're facing today is, yes,
Speaker 1: there are certain uses of nicotine that could be therapeutical
Speaker 1: and have a positive effect. But as you said previously,
Speaker 1: the problem today is that we move the debate that
Speaker 1: nicotine is the cause of disease, and I think we
Speaker 1: need to clarify that debate. You said it yourself, isn't
Speaker 1: that nicotine and the FDA said it, Yes, it's addictive,
Speaker 1: but there's probably not certainly not the primary cause of disease.
Speaker 1: Let's just finish up with a few personal questions here. Andrea,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you and I are I think
Speaker 1: we're born in the same year in nineteen fifty seven,
Speaker 1: but we've had very different you know, life trajectories. And
Speaker 1: I'm curious. You know, you started off as an engineer,
Speaker 1: you know, working on robotics, and then you left at
Speaker 1: age to join Philip Morris. And I'm curious when you
Speaker 1: made that decision back in the eighties to join a
Speaker 1: tobacco company. Did you have the qualms about going to
Speaker 1: work for big tobacco? Did you take some ship from
Speaker 1: your friends or family for doing that. We're already a smoker.
Speaker 1: I mean, how did you think about it back then? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, actually yeah, I started as an electrical engineer.
Speaker 1: Then one day it took the decision to take a
Speaker 1: Master in Business administration and changed my career orientation. And
Speaker 1: actually joining Philip Morris was purely accident. I had to
Speaker 1: go and do my military service in Greece after my MBA.
Speaker 1: The a lot change that didn't have to do, uh,
Speaker 1: and I looked for something last minute and I had
Speaker 1: some of us actually for the anecdote from companies like Motorola,
Speaker 1: let pick Western Young and but here comes to this
Speaker 1: company that offers me not an engineering related job to
Speaker 1: some degree, but you know, a job in business development
Speaker 1: and planning and finance, which over the areas I really
Speaker 1: wanted to learn. So I didn't have any issue with cigarettes.
Speaker 1: Did you smoke come from I used to smoke cigars
Speaker 1: then much more, Uh, but you know I come from Greece.
Speaker 1: At that point in time, there was not so much,
Speaker 1: you know, stigma on cigarettes. Yes, some friends asked me,
Speaker 1: why you join an industry that will disappear in the
Speaker 1: next ten years. Actually it never happened, but they didn't
Speaker 1: you're joining it? I mean they didn't. Actually, why are
Speaker 1: you joining an industry where you know, have the people
Speaker 1: use it are going to die? And you didn't get
Speaker 1: that kind of flak at you can not really? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, the people have the choice and they
Speaker 1: can decide whether they smoke or not. It's a bit
Speaker 1: more complex than that, as we learn in reality, But
Speaker 1: there was you know, okay eighty five Now, okay, it's
Speaker 1: it's so many years ago. But also, when you enter
Speaker 1: a company, you realize that many of the things that
Speaker 1: the industry was accused were not real. Some of the
Speaker 1: things could have been done better, undeniable in the past.
Speaker 1: But that also gives you an opportunity to change things
Speaker 1: if you are within a company, and you know, once
Speaker 1: I became a bit more senior, in the company. It
Speaker 1: was rather obvious to being many others that the best
Speaker 1: contribution we can make is to change the product. And
Speaker 1: that's precisely what what we have done. The whole thing
Speaker 1: about harm aduction is it's something that kind of hits
Speaker 1: you or you began to appreciate a late nineties or
Speaker 1: early two thousand's Was there an aha moment for you
Speaker 1: to say we got to move in this direction? Was
Speaker 1: simply the fact the new technologies were emerging that made
Speaker 1: it possible. It's a combination of all that. It's uh,
Speaker 1: it was clearly you know, it was mid nineties. While
Speaker 1: I was in a position and many others of my generation,
Speaker 1: we always said, look, it's a combustion that is the problem.
Speaker 1: So we have the ability to change the product. Yes,
Speaker 1: the technology was not there yet, there was some first
Speaker 1: embryance of technology. Then, Philip Morris says, you know, it
Speaker 1: was the first company to publicly recognize that cigarettes are
Speaker 1: addictive in post disease. Once you recognize the impacts of
Speaker 1: your product, that's the first step to innovate against the product.
Speaker 1: I mean that applies to food, to applies to energy.
Speaker 1: The moment you say my product causes impacts, and many
Speaker 1: do in this plan on this planet. Then the next
Speaker 1: step is, okay, let's move it. And that gives you
Speaker 1: every reason tell your R and D that now is
Speaker 1: the time to do it in the technologist game, and
Speaker 1: we are lucky enough to have the products. Okay, but
Speaker 1: you need determination to do this, and you need also
Speaker 1: the acceptance of the impacts of your product. And that's
Speaker 1: something that too many CEOs. Is one thing I've learned
Speaker 1: that my advice, recognize the impacts of your product, whether
Speaker 1: you're in food, whether you're in whatever industry, because then
Speaker 1: you can tell you our and day we can do better,
Speaker 1: and then you have innovation that reduce the impacts of
Speaker 1: the products, which we oddly need on Earth. Let's take
Speaker 1: a break here and go to an ad oftentimes. If
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at the big auto companies, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they just kept making the gasoline power cars
Speaker 1: forever and ever. They would look at electrical stuff, but
Speaker 1: they weren't pushing it hard. Until you get a Tesla
Speaker 1: coming along, and you know that's outside that basically wants
Speaker 1: to take down the big auto companies. And then they
Speaker 1: have competition from outside. And I wonder in terms of
Speaker 1: big tobacco. I mean there's a sense of yeah, we
Speaker 1: can do this, we'll do it our own pace, will
Speaker 1: make the transition slowly. But that was probably missing to
Speaker 1: some extent. Are there really the Tesla equivalents? I mean,
Speaker 1: Jewel was that until Altria brought a third of them? Right? Um?
Speaker 1: You know you have small companies like Enjoy that are
Speaker 1: pure plays on the East cigarettes. Um, but sometimes I wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, what you real actually really need to get
Speaker 1: you guys, not just pm I, but the other companies
Speaker 1: to really move faster is a company that was totally independent,
Speaker 1: had no commitment to cigarettes, that essentially wanted to take
Speaker 1: you guys out as competition, and that that's what's missing. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: I think who were the ones who disrupted this industry?
Speaker 1: Because we started the process of developing these products well
Speaker 1: before June. It was even a thought. Okay, So we
Speaker 1: started in two thousand and four to thousand five. H
Speaker 1: we build the R and D from zero. We had
Speaker 1: to hire people from the outside. Only joined this company,
Speaker 1: you know, because they believe these products have an important
Speaker 1: role to play in public health. They most came from Karma,
Speaker 1: So we created the infrastructure to do this and as
Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight nine we started really pushing
Speaker 1: this products. Was no jewel or the more evapor products,
Speaker 1: but vapor products we developed. Also, we knew that for
Speaker 1: existing smokers immediately they will have less ability to convert
Speaker 1: them fully than heat the tobacco products, not because of
Speaker 1: the nicotine, but also because of the taste characteristics that
Speaker 1: are important for the smoke. So I think we decided
Speaker 1: to disrupt our own industry on our own because also
Speaker 1: my thought and the thought of the senior executives on
Speaker 1: the board is if we don't do it, somebody else
Speaker 1: will do it. Okay, So we did it, and I
Speaker 1: think we opened the way for other companies to do
Speaker 1: the same. And you see much more products now than before.
Speaker 1: You guys, for a long time, you know, you have
Speaker 1: the network, distribution trains, the production, all that sort of
Speaker 1: stuff that made the big tobacco companies remain dominant for
Speaker 1: so long. Once you shift away from combustibles into these
Speaker 1: other types of devices, isn't there the potential from great
Speaker 1: a competition from companies that have not previously been involved
Speaker 1: in the tobacco nicotine field. Absolutely there is, and clearly
Speaker 1: for us is to remain at the forefront of the
Speaker 1: technological development and consumer service. I mean, we learned a
Speaker 1: lot with these new products. Because they have electronics. You
Speaker 1: need a completely different consumer journey. You need to open
Speaker 1: your own stores. You need to hand hold the people
Speaker 1: who buy your product for weeks and come back often
Speaker 1: to them so they don't fall back to cigarettes. It's
Speaker 1: very easy to develop a product convincing, you know, doing
Speaker 1: the scientific assessment and convincing people to use it. It
Speaker 1: takes some knowledge in some science. And for as long
Speaker 1: as you're at the forefront, you know, you remain competitive.
Speaker 1: You know, many people can do search engines like Google. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's not difficult to do a surgeon doing it well
Speaker 1: in every aspect. It takes a lot of note and
Speaker 1: I hope we have accumulated that knowledge and could continue
Speaker 1: building it every day, so we remain at the fall front.
Speaker 1: That's the ambition, right, Okay. And you say you're diversifying
Speaker 1: other industries and healing devices and stuff like this. I
Speaker 1: saw that you some years ago brought a little or
Speaker 1: brought into a smallest Raeli company, Sick Medical, which is
Speaker 1: developing a medical cannabis in healer. And I'm looking at
Speaker 1: the fact that like Altria. You know, it's already investing
Speaker 1: pretty substantially into alcohol deer companies investing into marijuana companies
Speaker 1: in Canada. What about p M. I are you guys
Speaker 1: looking at the at the whole cannabis field. Have you
Speaker 1: made any significant investments? And if not, why not? Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: we've been looking at this and uh, I've got this
Speaker 1: question a number of times. So there are too if
Speaker 1: we look into the future, not the current situation. That
Speaker 1: is a situation in flux with everybody making claims about
Speaker 1: cannabies without any clinical, clinical, substantial proof. I mean, we
Speaker 1: made a commitment to be science based company, so we're
Speaker 1: not going out there and make, you know, promises to
Speaker 1: consumers that are not true. And we need to warn
Speaker 1: the consumers about this product, what the products are. And
Speaker 1: I'm not and that requires scientific analysis and research cannot
Speaker 1: be done just fly by night. So I gotta ask
Speaker 1: you this. I mean, you grew up in Grease, which
Speaker 1: has a long tradition of cannabises. Have you smoked marijuana?
Speaker 1: Have you enjoyed it? Do you Greece has a tradition
Speaker 1: of cannabis. Oh not not really, And I have to
Speaker 1: tell you I've never I have never smoked. Uh, so
Speaker 1: I'm not I don't have any expertise in this every
Speaker 1: you know, but it's practically legal and Switzerland any time
Speaker 1: in America, I'm happy to share a joint with you.
Speaker 1: I think you probably you know, you know, what is
Speaker 1: it important? Because I think about I've never liked cigarettes personally, um,
Speaker 1: but you know, in some places, whether in Europe or
Speaker 1: the US, people typically mix the hash or sometimes marijuana
Speaker 1: with cigarettes, right, And so I think it is important
Speaker 1: down the road that even though there's a consumer market
Speaker 1: for combining the two products, that there has to be
Speaker 1: some commitment that there will never be a marketing of
Speaker 1: cannabis combined with nicotine. I mean, is that something that
Speaker 1: you commit to down the road or you think the
Speaker 1: industry will commit to. Well, I'm not, I'm not an
Speaker 1: expert in this domain, but I think anhalation of something
Speaker 1: you burn is the worst form of delivering any substance.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't recommend to anybody to burn something in
Speaker 1: order to deliver the substance. That's exactly what we're trying
Speaker 1: to move away. And so yes, I can make that
Speaker 1: commitment any time you want to not deliver when it
Speaker 1: comes to the harmy when it comes to the orals
Speaker 1: or the noncombustibles. I mean, and the thing I do
Speaker 1: worry about is it's pretty clear for people who's mukmarro
Speaker 1: waned occasionally that even smoking it, because it's you consume
Speaker 1: so little, it doesn't seem to present many harms to health,
Speaker 1: and it's sometimes the most efficient way to take it
Speaker 1: into your into your body. But the concern is if
Speaker 1: some of the noncombustible start to get mixed with cannabis
Speaker 1: in various forms, because then you can bind the sort
Speaker 1: of addictive potential of nicotine with a psychoactive, you know,
Speaker 1: appeal of of cannabis, and that could potentially be a
Speaker 1: new public health problem that I that I do worry about. Okay,
Speaker 1: so my last two questions quickly on one personal one bigger.
Speaker 1: On the personal level, I mean, you spent you know,
Speaker 1: virtually your entire adult life of Philip Moore as international.
Speaker 1: You know you've been a huge success there. When you
Speaker 1: look back, what do you regard as your greatest accomplishment
Speaker 1: and what do you regard as your greatest failure disappointment.
Speaker 1: I still believe my biggest accomplishment is the development of
Speaker 1: commercialization of this product, the smoke free products, And I
Speaker 1: think that's probably something I can be proud of. Failures
Speaker 1: I can enumerate a lot if we stay in this domain.
Speaker 1: You know why we have not done it earlier, why
Speaker 1: we've not done it faster. Um. You know, I learned
Speaker 1: one thing in managing companies that if you have to
Speaker 1: do something, do it now rather than wait beat. Concerning
Speaker 1: products or people, I didn't wait much, but probably should
Speaker 1: have pushed more. Having said that, I think I'm happy
Speaker 1: that we have this products, a bit disappointed that we
Speaker 1: don't still have the full backing of the public health
Speaker 1: community and regulators. That's something that you know, I will
Speaker 1: continue working on and that the whole management team is
Speaker 1: continue working on. And picture, I mean, do you think
Speaker 1: that this harm reduction future is inevitable, that this transition
Speaker 1: from combustibles to nonsmokables is inevitable? I hope so, and
Speaker 1: I think so. I think it's inevitable because existing smokers
Speaker 1: will be increasingly convinced to switch. Obviously, the most difficult
Speaker 1: group is the older people and lower socio economic strata.
Speaker 1: There you need a bit more positive approach from government
Speaker 1: to convince them but the encouraging thing also is that
Speaker 1: less young people use cigarette or start with cigarettes. So
Speaker 1: I think a world without cigarettes it's perfectly visible. At
Speaker 1: least I hope we're gonna see it. Not during my
Speaker 1: stay in Philip Morris, because it's not good to be
Speaker 1: that long anymore, but definitely I'm sure I'm going to
Speaker 1: see it during my lifetime. I have to say, I
Speaker 1: think I'm skeptic, you know. I think that if you
Speaker 1: look at how appealing cigarettes has been for so long,
Speaker 1: that we can see a major transition to the nonsmokables,
Speaker 1: but that there's going to still remain, you know, five
Speaker 1: percent of the world or whatever that just insists on
Speaker 1: taking it in that form, And if we ultimately move
Speaker 1: towards ultimate prohibition, we're going to see a vast black market,
Speaker 1: just like we've seen with heroin, cocaine, f amphetamine and cannabis.
Speaker 1: And they're talking about the future of a smoke free
Speaker 1: world is utopian, and sometimes they worry almost dangerous, because
Speaker 1: it may result in US ultimately embracing the sort of
Speaker 1: criminalizations and criminal justice prohibitions that generated the horrific global
Speaker 1: drug war we've had for many decades. I understand what
Speaker 1: you say. Look, I don't think my arm twisting only
Speaker 1: you're going to achieve this. It has to become organic. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the more companies work on things and convinced consumers,
Speaker 1: the less cigarettes are fashionable and better products for the
Speaker 1: ones as you said that one use nicotine and taste
Speaker 1: uh m hm, becomes the the better way of doing it,
Speaker 1: the most accepted way of doing it. I don't think
Speaker 1: we're an un twisting situation. What at an organic acceptance
Speaker 1: that these products are better now. If you ask me
Speaker 1: ten years around the world, they will be still security. Yes,
Speaker 1: they will be because there will be smokers that you
Speaker 1: will never convince not to smoke. But if you ask
Speaker 1: me twenty years, maybe we will be there. Yeah. Sometimes
Speaker 1: think about I think about all the governments that's signed
Speaker 1: onto prohibiting cannabis decades agoing there didn't even know what
Speaker 1: it was, and now they have very substantial cannabis using populations.
Speaker 1: I think there's an ebb and flowing consumer taste and
Speaker 1: that people inevitably come back to these things. But listen,
Speaker 1: I want to thank you for taking the time to
Speaker 1: talk with me. I really appreciate this frank conversation. I
Speaker 1: wish you, you know, all the best luck in making
Speaker 1: this transition out of combustibles and into the smoke free
Speaker 1: products as soon as possible. So thank you for the
Speaker 1: leadership you provided at the industry level in this and
Speaker 1: I hope it can happen even quicker than our opponents
Speaker 1: to harm reduction think is possible. Thank you anything, thank
Speaker 1: you for your time, and thank you for giving me
Speaker 1: the opportunity as well, and I hope we'll talk against.
Speaker 1: If you're enjoying Psychoactive, please tell your friends about it,
Speaker 1: or you can write us a review at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. We love to hear
Speaker 1: from our listeners. If you'd like to share your own stories,
Speaker 1: comments and ideas, then leave us a message at one
Speaker 1: eight three three seven seven nine sixty that's eight three
Speaker 1: three psycho zero, or you can email us at Psychoactive
Speaker 1: at protozoa dot com or find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Ethan natal May. You can also find contact information in
Speaker 1: our show notes. Psychoactive is a production of I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by me Ethan Naedelman's
Speaker 1: produced by Noam Osband and Josh Stain. The executive producers
Speaker 1: are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus and Darren Aronofsky
Speaker 1: from Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams and Matt Frederick from My
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, and me Ethan Nadelman. Our music is by
Speaker 1: Ari Blucien and a special thanks to A Brio s F.
Speaker 1: Bianca Grimshaw and Robert BP. Next week we'll be talking
Speaker 1: about the Mary Pranksters, the Grateful Dead, and the psychedelics
Speaker 1: revolution of the nineteen sixties with Mountain Girl Garcia. These
Speaker 1: were nice parties, you know, where we looked after people.
Speaker 1: We made sure people didn't get lost on the way
Speaker 1: to the parking lot. The whole point was to introduce
Speaker 1: people to a rather weak solution of LSD in these
Speaker 1: jugs of kool aid, and so they wouldn't get they
Speaker 1: wouldn't get overload it. But if that turned out to
Speaker 1: be super fun, subscribe to Cycoactive now see it, don't
Speaker 1: miss it.