New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes

  1. #31
    Forum Manager Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rolygate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    7,651

    Default

    Bill Godshall - Don't know about the UK, but in the US and most other countries only elected officials (e.g. Congress, state legislatures, parliaments), not revenue department bureaucrats, can legally establish, increase or reduce tax rates.
    Agreed. But they don't do it in a vacuum, somebody somewhere with a lot of influence tells them what would be a good idea. If the State or National budget requires a cash injection, the legislative forum members are told which way to vote. They don't invent those numbers themselves. If the people paying the bills want more cash they have the means to get it.

    There is an argument that the sooner an additional sales tax is imposed on ecigs / liquids, the better, as it helps in a number of ways. It'll happen sooner or later, the glory days are almost over. If you look back to the 70s, it was a bonanza time in so many areas. We just had / are having the 70s of ecigs and I don't see that lasting for ever. Sales of products with no UL / CE mark and no public testing of ingredients doesn't seem sustainable to me. In addition, if hardware is all marked as tested, and liquid ingredients are tested in some way, and ecigs are taxed additionally, it makes our position that much stronger. I personally don't want to see any changes at all as things are just fine as they are. But this is the 70s of ecigs, change is going to come whether you or I like it or not, so maybe we'd better try and get the changes arranged to our liking.

    BG - I strongly disagree. Any study that finds e-cigarettes emit significantly fewer contaminants than cigarettes, that finds e-cigarette usage results in significantly fewer respiratory problems than cigarettes, that findes e-cigarettes satisfy the cravings of smokers, and/or that finds smokers have quit smoking (or sharply reduced cigarette consumption) by switching to e-cigarettes should help our efforts.
    Fair enough but which agenda are we addressing? We have around three on the go: (1) to prove ecigs are a viable alternative, and safer than tobacco; (2) to convert smokers en masse, and (3) to survive a legislative assault coordinated and controlled by organisations determined to ban the ecig as it will hurt them financially.

    It seems to me that right now #3 is a priority. If, in order to survive the first battle, we have to prove that ecigs basically don't do anything (as we now can), that seems fine to me. You have to win battle #1 before you can take the next step. Right now, after these three trials with near-identical results, legislation that is based around the premise that ecigs are drug delivery devices and/or affect the metabolism to any significant degree would fail. There are three clinical trials that say ecigs do nothing significant and that position is solid until other trials say otherwise. That's fine by me - converting the masses can wait till we fend off the assault.

    Granted, a million or two supporters would help a fair bit. But to be realistic, the number we could recruit in the next three months wouldn't help much. On the other hand, the next three months is critical in the various regulation battles - so that's what we need to keep our sights on.

    In the UK we are worse off than the US as the FDA has already lost, and look to be fighting on the retreat. Here, though, we have a predatory government agency, the MHRA, looking to (a) prey on a weak industry and grab some cash in the form of medical licenses before that industry and community are strong enough to resist, and (b) protect the interests of their friends by shutting us down. Their attack is based on two things, the precise effects of ecigarettes and the way they are marketed. Because of the crazies who market ecigs as the final answer to all health problems, we have to prove they are a 1% rogue element in order to avoid that prong of the attack; the other prong is their claim that ecigs are a drug delivery device. Well, we now know they aren't and MHRA can't prove otherwise, which solves that particular problem. All we need to do now is fund the defence at law.

    And if all goes well in the US, the FDA will have to go away and lick their wounds. But one thing you can be sure of: that won't be the end of it. Not by a long chalk. The existence of multiple research trials that prove ecigs do nothing is a useful card to have in your hand.
    Last edited by rolygate; 07-27-2010 at 12:31 AM.

  2. #32
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,984

    Default

    rolygate wrote:

    There are three clinical trials that say ecigs do nothing significant and that position is solid until other trials say otherwise.

    The two clinical trials I'm aware of are by Bullen et al at http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010%20Bullen%20ECig.pdf and the new one by Vansickel, Eissenberg et al at
    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...igarettes.html

    What is the third? Perhaps my memory has failed me (as happens occassionaly as I age).

  3. #33
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,984

    Default

    Regarding taxation, as one who has been actively involved with cigarette and tobacco product taxation and government budgeting policies/processess (at the local, state and federal levels) for the past 20 years, I don't foresee any e-cigarette taxation proposals by e-cigarette opponents at the local, state, or federal level (here in the US) unless/until the FDA losses the SE/NJOY lawsuit, unless/until the FDA promulgates and gives final approval for regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and unless/until sales of e-cigarettes increase by at least another 5-10 times.

    Since 1994 I've urged five different governors and 8 different legislatures in Pennsylvania to impose a reasonable tax on smokeless tobacco products and cigars. Until several years ago when Governor Rendell finally included a modest tax on Other Tobacco Products (OTP) in his budget proposal, I was repeatedly told by administrations and legislatures that OTP would generate enough tax revenue to make the fight (to enact an OTP tax) worthwhile.

    In sum, State Legislatures are unlikely to impose (and Governors are unlikely to propose) taxes on new products/services unless the revenue generated makes it worth the political capital it takes to obtain enactment.

    Bottom line, unless/until e-cigarette sales would generate at least $10-$20 million in new government tax revenue here in Pennsylvania, I don't think they will be taxed. I estimate that total sales of e-cigarettes in PA was less than $5 million last year.

  4. #34
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,984

    Default

    Correction to my last posting.

    The second sentence of the second paragraph should have stated.

    Until several years ago when Governor Rendell finally included a modest tax on Other Tobacco Products (OTP) in his budget proposal, I was repeatedly told by administrations and legislatures that OTP would NOT generate enough tax revenue to make the fight (to enact an OTP tax) worthwhile.

  5. #35
    CASAA Activist Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Vocalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    7,161
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    I don't understand why you are promoting taxation of Other Tobacco Products, when products such as snus can reduce the risks of smoking-related disease by 90-99%. IMHO those products should remain as affordable as possible and the public should be educated as much as possible about their relative level of risk compared with smoking.


    ----
    Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---

  6. #36
    PV Master Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    kristin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CASAA Board of Directors - Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,839

    Default

    I don't necessarily take issue with a normal sales tax on products - although taxation in this country is ridiculous in general - it's attempts to impose an additional "sin tax" on safer smokeless alternatives that befuddles me.

  7. #37
    Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CartHeadMod View Post
    same here....thank goodness for 6 months of placebo effect and no cigarettes.....

    I agree and if any of this is slightly accurate...than we are serious non-smokers and everyone one of us has kicked the nic habit!

  8. #38
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rothenbj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Green Lane, Pa
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Godshall View Post
    Regarding taxation, as one who has been actively involved with cigarette and tobacco product taxation and government budgeting policies/processess (at the local, state and federal levels) for the past 20 years, I don't foresee any e-cigarette taxation proposals by e-cigarette opponents at the local, state, or federal level (here in the US) unless/until the FDA losses the SE/NJOY lawsuit, unless/until the FDA promulgates and gives final approval for regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and unless/until sales of e-cigarettes increase by at least another 5-10 times.

    Since 1994 I've urged five different governors and 8 different legislatures in Pennsylvania to impose a reasonable tax on smokeless tobacco products and cigars.......

    What logic did you use to encourage a reasonable tax on smokeless? In a war on smoking, wouldn't it be more logical to keep the price as economical as possible and sell the benefits to the smoking community?

    Is the risk of smokeless any greater than the risks of hyper caffeinated energy drinks that have become a major market and equally capable of being taxed. Every kid I see can't wait to get their hands on their next fix so they may be ripe for the taxation machine.

    We also have an entire industry in the state with fast, junk food that could generate easily the kind of revenue you propose or is the political capital expense to high to go that root.

    Perhaps there is an explanation that I haven't considered, enlighten me.

  9. #39
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sparta, Greece
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Not that I think anyone cares but I had a cold cola while reading this paper.

  10. #40
    PIF Moderator Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Vchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    4,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jigtg View Post
    Not that I think anyone cares but I had a cold cola while reading this paper.
    Obviously you weren't sitting in a waiting room of Cleveland clinic where they are now removing all beverages with sugar. Yeah, I knew you were having a diet cola, right? I don't understand where society thinks that all of the chemical replacements/additives are a good thing, in anything, it just doesn't make sense. go figure!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks