As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: tobacco

This is an article by Consumerism Commentary staff writer, Smithee.

This article assumes that some people smoke and some people don’t. It won’t address the notion that smokers shouldn’t smoke, and I hope you will also avoid that controversial viewpoint in the comments below.

People are vaporizing all over town, but don’t worry, they’re doing it on purpose using a “personal vaporizer,” also called electronic cigarette or e-cigarette. These are basically just alternatives to the normal cigarettes you and I have known about all our lives. An e-cigarette is made of plastic, has a battery, is re-usable, and lets you decide what to fill your mouth with.

If the advertising is to be believed, this is a product which doesn’t rely on smoke, or fire, or tobacco, not to mention dozens of foreign toxins normally found in cigarettes, for example, tar.

So how would this affect a smoker’s finances?

It’s almost certainly less expensive

E-cigarettes use cartridges to store the liquid that gets vaporized into your mouth when you take a puff. A cartridge is equivalent to about 10-12 normal cigarettes. Taking the low end of the estimate, a cartridge lasts about as long as half a pack. Assuming a pack of cigarettes costs an even $5.00, and you can get five e-cigarette cartridges for $9.00, you’d be saving about $1.40 per “pack” if you switched from regular cigarettes to the electronic variety.

Some models don’t use disposable batteries, either. You can get one that plugs into a USB socket in order to charge it.

It’s almost certainly less offensive

As an added bonus, smokers don’t have to smell bad to non-smokers anymore. The cartridges come in countless flavor varieties. You can even mix them if you want. I’ve been in the room with many of them, and none of them smell even five percent as bad as normal cigarettes do. Of course, part of that might be due to the vapor traveling less far than smoke would. It might still get on your clothes, but at least you can choose to smell like bacon, or vanilla, or chocolate.

Furthermore, you won’t be needing the ashtray in your car, anymore. Your occasional passengers will appreciate this a lot more than you know.

I personally think it might even be okay to allow e-cigarettes into restaurants and other public places. It’s really that inoffensive.

Is it healthier?

Nobody knows for sure, though most companies are making bold claims about the health benefits of switching. There haven’t been many studies done on the numerous providers of e-cigarettes, or more specifically, the e-liquid that makes them work. Some countries have banned them altogether, but those decisions may be political as much as anything else.

Recently, the U.S. FDA sent letters to five different providers about how they’re not in compliance with the law, and explaining the pathway the FDA intends to take toward proper regulation of this new product. Maybe in the near future e-liquid will also come with enormous, purposely ugly warnings about the dangers of smoking, which other countries have been living with for years, but which is brand new to the U.S.

People do seem to agree, though, that moving from regular cigarettes to the electronic variety brings back one’s sense of smell and taste.

There’s no timer

Since an e-liquid cartridge lasts about as long as half a pack of normal cigarettes would, it’s much more difficult to tell when you’re done smoking. Someone who switches to e-cigarettes as part of a plan to quit smoking might actually end up ingesting more nicotine in a day than they used to.

In order not to overdo it, a person would have to start exerting a new kind of self-discipline, which is always difficult.

Conclusion

I’m not a smoker, but unless some new damaging evidence comes to light, I have to conclude that compared to the paper kind, electronic cigarettes are better for your body (if only just your sense of smell), better for your non-smoker friends, better for the environment, and better for your wallet.

{ 13 comments }

Yesterday, FaithShares added two new exchange-traded funds to their lineup, already consisting of funds called “Catholic Values,” “Christian Values,” and “Methodist Values.” These and the two new funds, “Baptist Values” and “Lutheran Values,” focus on investing in only those companies that live up to the values encouraged by each of these communities. It is more accurate to say that these funds look to invest in companies excluding those that do not meet their expectations.

For example, the Baptist Values Fund avoids companies involved in gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, or abortion.

I understand the appeal of being a good steward of your money by investing in funds tailored to the values held important in a community, heritage, or a religion. These religion-based ETFs are not much different than other funds that cater to other value-related movements. Socially-responsible funds are marketed to environmental activists or people interested in expanding human rights. While religion-based funds focus on eliminating investments in companies associated with sins, socially-responsible funds seek to invest only in companies with the same values.

Regardless of the choice between values-based or socially-responsible investments, the main purpose other than earning money for the fund managers is to make the investor feel comfortable. Regardless the affiliation, people with strongly-held convictions make great target demographics. It may be a smaller group of investors than would be reached by broadening the audience, but they are willing to pay more for products and services that appear to be aligned with their closely-held priorities.

While investing, success in avoiding companies that do not conform to your values in nearly impossible. Curiously, the FaithShares funds do not list each fund’s holdings in either their prospectuses or statements of additional information. While the direct holdings may well fit the requirements, every company works to invest its own capital. These investments could be in other companies that add yet another layer of investment complexity. Unlike the companies in which the funds invest directly, these subterranean investments, sub-subterranean investments, and deeper are not screened for their compatibility with the marketed values.

As Marketplace observes, “… because of the narrow focus, you wouldn’t want to make one of these ETF’s the core of your investment strategy.” In other words, to invest appropriately you need broader diversification, resulting in investments outside of those screened by fund managers to match your life philosophies. To be a good steward of your money, you need to look beyond the investments designed for your value niche.

If you want to feel good about your investments, then by all means, choose funds that cater to your values. It’s likely you will pay more and earn less than investing in a broader mix of stocks. But if you want to make a difference with your money and support companies you believe in, work within your community or with those companies directly.

{ 30 comments }

A new law signed by the president yesterday gives the Food and Drug Administration the ability to regulate the tobacco industry. The primary focus of the law is to stop cigarette companies from aggressively marketing to children.

To that end, it will soon be illegal to:

  • sell candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes
  • put tobacco company logos on sporting, athletic or entertainment events or on clothing and other promotional items
  • place outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds

There are some other changes coming for all smokers, including adults:

  • tobacco companies will be prohibited from using terms such as “low tar,” “light” or “mild” – so-called light cigarettes make no difference to a smoker’s health
  • cigarette packages will carry larger warning labels, up to 50% of the surface of one side
  • depending on the results of upcoming FDA studies, tobacco companies may be required to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes – nicotine is the strongly-addictive stimulant which makes cigarettes a logical part of the FDA’s oversight

To summarize: cigarettes, aside from the candy-flavored kind, aren’t going anywhere, though they may become less addictive.

Picture-5

Lawmakers have been trying to pass this legislation for over a decade. 70% of the House voted in favor, as well as 79% of the Senate.

And according to CNN:

Despite a significant decrease in the percentage of Americans who smoke in recent decades, more than 400,000 Americans still die from tobacco-related illnesses every year, the president noted. Tobacco-related health care costs exceed $100 billion annually.

Obama signs bill putting tobacco products under FDA oversight, CNN, June 22, 2009

Photo by isabel bloedwater

{ 32 comments }

Investing Ethically

This article was written by in Investing. 7 comments.

Last year we wrote an article about Ethical Consumerism, the practice of spending your money on businesses who support your ideas of a healthy community and environment.

In addition to where you spend your money, you can also put a lot of thought into which investment vehicles agree with your personal ethics. This is something weighing on my mind as I start from scratch learning about investing as a whole (see my previous article on the subject: What Do I Know About Investing?). There are a few different strategies, as I see it so far:

Invest in things you think will succeed, regardless of your own ethics

One of my co-workers is the sort of person who eats well, exercises all the time and generally treats his body as a temple. When I asked him if he ever does any investing, he quickly answered, “Only in the Vice Fund”. The Vice Fund invests in alcohol, gambling, tobacco and aerospace and defense industries. You could think of it as the “World is Going to Hell Fund”. The way I see it, investing in something with that kind of mission statement is akin to hoping other people keep destroying themselves.

For a guy who treats his own body as a temple, this seems like a weird contradiction, but as he tells it, the fund has been very lucrative for him, excluding 2008.

A similar example might be a vegetarian with a lot of stock in Burger King. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, except it could be quite profitable.

Invest in things you wish would succeed

For example, I wish that solar, wind and geothermal energy would succeed, and if I believed my Fifth Grade teachers, by 2009 those are the only sources of energy we should be using. I’m not particularly opposed to oil and coal because they’re dirty and they may be funding who-knows-what kind of overseas operations; I’m opposed to them primarily because they are finite resources. Eventually we will run out, and we may as well start weaning ourselves off of them now, because of the other environmental and political reasons. But do I think all humans will stop using oil and coal by the time I should be retiring, in about 30 years? I’m not sure.

Hedge your bets

Well, there’s one method of hedging your bets, which is to invest both in the things you think are successful-but-harmful, and in the things you think would benefit the world if only people saw things the way you do. But this doesn’t seem like a strong, long-term strategy to me. One of them will eventually fail. Thankfully, there’s another nuance:

The oil giant Shell is following BP and releasing a bunch of commercials highlighting how they’re committed to refining new ways to power things. This reminded me of another transition that shook up some companies: when photos moved from film to digital.

Nikon, for example, cruised along for decades making some very good (and some very cheap) film cameras. When computers became fast enough and connected enough, people started sharing their photos digitally and demand for digital cameras grew. Not willing to let a different company take their market share, Nikon became expert at making digital cameras as well.

Oddly, I don’t hear the names Kodak and Polaroid as often as I used to, though I know they’re still around.

Today we think of Exxon and Shell as “oil companies”, but they may very well position themselves as leaders in the geothermal energy space in the future. Here’s where my earlier advice about doing lots of research come back into play.

Further reading

Consumerism Commentary has written many, many articles about investing in the past. Flexo is a lot more knowledgeable than I am, so far, but I hope to catch up soon.

{ 7 comments }

Sleep Makes You Healthier and Smarter

by Flexo

A former high-powered, strongly motivated boss of mine did not believe in sleep. In order to be the best in the world at what we do — and this was the goal, no doubt — sleep is an obstacle to be overcome. I disagreed, as it seemed to me at some point, bodies and minds ... Continue reading this article…

14 comments Read the full article →

The Top 25 Money Tips of All Time, Part 5

by Flexo

I’m finally delivering the last installment of MoneySense’s top 25 money tips of all time. This follows parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Now, without further ado, are the final five money tips, as decided by Canadian financial experts.

1 comment Read the full article →

Democrats Get Their Own Mutual Fund

by Flexo

If you’re a Democrat and Democratic values are important to you, you may want to put your money where your mouth is and invest blue. According to CNN Money, Blue Investment Management intends to offer a mutual fund that consists of companies that “give blue” and “act blue.” That means they support Democratic politicians and ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →

Carnival of Personal Finance #22

by Flexo

Welcome to the Carnival of Personal Finance, 22nd Edition! I’m not quite sure what happened to this week’s actual host, so I’m filling in. I may have missed your submission — please send me a quick note and I’ll add yours in if I did. Here are this week’s submissions, in reverse order of arrival. ... Continue reading this article…

16 comments Read the full article →