I have to say I agree with the previous posts. The favorite place to hike taxes is on cigarettes and with so many people quitting or going to vaping we've got to be the next target. You'd think they'd be encouraging us given how much our leaders care about the American people! Gubmint will always find a way to profit from what you're mak'n. Figure out how to make something people really like and want and they'll tax it to death. Enjoy 'em while you can still get 'em, but I'll never go back to analogs. We'll be the ones looking back and saying remember when?
Do not for one moment ever think your government is on your side. Vested interests are everywhere.
People in the west believe, or at least we used to believe that our governments were above the corruption of the third world or the communist bloc, but the truth is they were just better at hiding it.
Your health doesn't matter. Tax revenue matters. Big business matters. Tobacco companies will be finished once the word really gets out about E-cigs. So they will kick and scream and stamp their feet to prevent that from happening.
That being said; some E-cig vendors and manufacturers haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in my limited experience. I'm absolutely certain I've used a much raved about E-cig that was very unhealthy when it failed (after one week), causing a metallic tasting smog that burnt my eyes and throat.
There's also stories of liquids tainted with diacetyl still. It's an industry in dire need of regulation. Just not punitive taxation.
Our problem is not the tobacco companies,but big Pharma and the "Health organizations" that do Pharmas" bidding.
Originally Posted by monkeybusiness
More like, they'll pick up the phone, hit the speed dial to their favorite politician, schedule a lunch, and write a cheque to have some legislation written.
Originally Posted by monkeybusiness
You're absolutely right about corruption in western governments and "health care" being a red herring.
I wouldn't be so sure about anything in the EU
Originally Posted by colkaz5
If this passes as the new tobacco directive in the EU the only form of tobacco/nicotine sold will be combustable tobacco (cigarettes/cigars/pipes), and NRT products. We shall see just how corrupt the EU has become.
Total ban on all forms of smokeless tobacco across the EU (except Sweden)
Total ban on e-cigarettes
Ban on menthol and other flavourings (previously rumoured, as I reported in April)
Standardised cigarette width, length and colour
Ban on shopkeepers displaying more than one variety of each brand
Graphic warnings on packs covering 75 per cent of the surface
If the FDA puts the clamps down on e-cigs by giving them a deeming regulation its bye-bye e-cigs. Nothing would be left but the most primitive e-cigs (those on the market before February 15, 2007). The FDA has a lot of leeway as to what they can do, but the tobacco board is made up of nothing but abstinence only zealots. I wouldn't get my hopes up for a positive ruling. This is the same FDA that came out with there bogus study on e-cigs in 2009, and still has it up on their web site.
No one can say how this is going to turn out in 10 years but there are a lot of clues as to where the critical government groups are leaning.
Don't you just love Capitalist America, comrades? Don't you just love corrupt government regulation?
I'm of a different mind. So much legislation is written on behalf of insurance companies. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, crash safety standards, you name it. They are one of the most powerful lobbies. They hire actuarials who crunch the risk numbers, and they are going to see that E-Cigs are going to SAVE them money. They will strike a deal with govt. whereby both arms benefit in 3 ways. Healthcare costs and insurance claims will go DOWN. Insurance co. profit will thereby go up. Govt will want a piece, and they only thing they can get their hands on is nic concentrate. Everything else about this is in the public domain, and can be easily made for "other purposes" (flashlights, etc.) Expect taxation at the nic level. BP and BT will want a cut, so nics will come from them, heavily taxed. Then the greed factor powers will get what they want, and give us what we will have whether they like it or not.
Your defense will be to lay up stock of nic concentrate before taxation, and buy your juices as "flavorings" without nic, and add your own concentrate. This will be the "grandfather" clause. Once those pre-tax stocks of concentrate are gone, they will have the control they seek and need. They you will see the insurance companies, govt, and BP PROMOTE the use.
Last edited by Moueix; 11-02-2012 at 06:45 AM.
Given my review of some of the threads in this legal section of the forum, I think it is likely that eCigs are headed in direction of being regulated as a tobacco product regardless of what some vapers think. And apparently some vapers are convinced it is a tobacco product (legally speaking).
Originally Posted by Deblym
My point remains that we are doing this to ourselves / have already done it to ourselves (via smoked tobacco).
Here are things that I think most everyone agrees with (includes vapers, smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers):
1 - Nicotine is a drug
2 - Nicotine is an addictive drug
3 - Nicotine in the form of smoking tobacco creates second hand smoke that is potentially harmful to all persons within vicinity of that smoke
4 - Kids ought not to be exposed to the dangers inherent in 1 thru 3.
There's not really fine points of discussion in #1 and #2, and I don't think many would try to approach any fine points with those. #3 is, I believe, at the heart of the issue and is summed up with the words "potentially harmful." There are enough fine points here, especially as it relates to vaping, to fill an entire e-cig forum. From the non-smoking persons in society, all the fine points and seeming justifications for allowing vaping in society is simply likely to fall on deaf ears. Education helps, but could also open door (likely already has) to the 'potential harm' to others with eCig usage. I reckon that vapers, like myself, will exercise own versions of 'plausible deniability' when it comes to matters of potential harm. And in some instances, especially when it comes to 'secondhand smoke' (or secondhand vapor) we will carry the torch for those who seek to rid society of this evil and its perceived harm, deemed actual and serious.
#4 is what we are up against politically and is where I think we will lose, because of our mixed opinions with regards to #3. Therefore self regulation is a wonderful concept, but is impractical and not something for vapers / nic users to be deemed a reasonable authority on. As this is 'our country' and majority of us are non-nicotine users, their voice, however unreasonable / uneducated it may appear to us users, will win. If they align with us, we rejoice. If they do not align with us, we feel violated that our fundamental freedoms are being taken away.
My best guess: majority of vapers, like smokers, will (eventually) go along with heavy regulation and accept policies that ban vaping from all public places and places that are essentially shared residences (apartment units, condos, etc.). The tobacco loving vapers will have little to no issue with flavored liquids being restricted / banned. The market for vaping products will continue for awhile, perhaps indefinitely. It may be underground, or it may be a protected market (more likely). It will not be an open market for much longer. Ex-vapers will start to become part of the social fabric. Some will be all in favor of vaping as healthier alternative to smoking, and along those lines some will be in favor of the right to vape. Other ex-vapers will downplay the right of vapers and essentially view those still vaping as caught up in cycle of addiction and displaying no concern for their habit and how it may (or may not) impact society as a whole. They will show up as anti-vaping nazis to current vapers.
The battle will continue to show up as one between rights of vapers and some in society who are agents empowered to protect our children. This will be the superficial battle, and the one that will be most visible.
The actual battle is the one that confronts each individuals own attitudes around 'perceived harm.' And if smoking issues are of any historical guide, then this battle will lead to vapers / ex-vapers carrying the torch for non-nicotine addicts who feel strongly there is some harm to this and it is best not to have these devices and products around at all. An outright ban will never work, but a self imposed ban, especially among vapers (somewhat already occurring) will contribute to the de facto ban that is on the horizon.
I no longer have the optimism I had just yesterday (though might gain it back) mainly because I think vapers (and ex-smokers) are prone to self imposed bans, for the good of society and to avoid possible situations where vaping might be given a black eye. Add in local, state and nationally imposed bans, plus a few scientific reports showing potentially serious harmful effects from long term use of nicotine, and the number of vapers will likely dwindle from where it is now in the open market days of vaping.
Could say a whole bunch more, but this is the short version of what I think is likely to occur.
I'm very worried that all my nice flavors will no longer be easy to access. And as someone who is starting to dabble in crafting e-liquid, I'm afraid that I won't be able to make money on it for very long at all. I hope the FDA doesn't go too damn hard on us guys though, and hopefully there will be a way to continue on with our current style of vaping, even if it ends up being more expensive.
Originally Posted by Moueix
Hello, fellow Michigander. Very well thought out. Money, money,money.