Gil Ross: vaping has better results than all FDA-approved methods put together

[DrMA]

Taxing e-cigarettes: A lose-lose-lose for the District of Columbia | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[AndriaD]

I'm reading it now; so far I love it! This one already grabbed me: "Passing laws that re-define common words, such as "tobacco" and "smoke," is a slippery slope. Using that subterfuge to torpedo a successful and safe smoking cessation method is the opposite of responsible lawmaking and antithetical to public health."

Yes!!! Finally!!! Someone can see that that emperor is totally naked!!! Something does not just become something else entirely because the government says so!!!

Andria

 

[edyle]

this part at the bottom caught my attention:

Dr. Gilbert Ross is the executive director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer education-public health organization.

 

[caramel]

"re-define common words, such as "tobacco" and "smoke," is a slippery slope."

Let's play ball. tobacco Control is derived from Tobacco and thus is a Tobacco Product. Zeller's group should be regulated as tobacco, all the way with mandatory gory graphics, ban from government buildings, no advertising to minors etc. Plus tax.

 

[AndriaD]

Let's play ball. Tobacco Control is derived from Tobacco and thus is a Tobacco Product. Zeller's group should be regulated as tobacco, all the way with mandatory gory graphics, ban from government buildings, no advertising to minors etc. Plus tax.

Yes, regulate and tax them right out of existence! ROFLMAO!!!

Andria

 

[EBates]

The 'Word' of the day is - MSA
States are going bankrupt due to the reduction in MSA funds. So, to save the Big Spender states, Our Precious Leaders tasked the FDA, CDC, et al, and Our Respected Media to launch this Vaping SCAM to Stop The Bleeding.
So, you see the new marching order from on high is 'Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em'.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

So, you see the new marching order from on high is 'Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em'.

They don't care if we smoke them, just that we continue to buy them and cover their stupidity.

 

[EBates]

They don't care if we smoke them, just that we continue to buy them and cover their stupidity.

Most folks that smoke 'em also buy 'em.

 

[AndriaD]

They don't care if we smoke them, just that we continue to buy them and cover their stupidity greed and criminal financial malfeasance.

FTFY.

Andria

 

[Lessifer]

Most folks that smoke 'em also buy 'em.

Just make sure you buy them in taxable 20 count packages. Buying/selling them individually can be deadly.

 

[supertrunker]

I have never managed to quite comprehend the basis for such exorbitant levels of proposed taxation on e-cigs or liquids.
70% ??

I take the view that dangerous activities like smoking tobacco, drinking or BASE jumping will incur higher insurance premiums and indeed taxes because of the likelihood of participants needing expensive medical care in future. Smokers' health insurance rates mirror this.

But to subject an alternative to smoking to the same level of tax as something 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous, is plain bloody stupid and unjustified. That to do so requires the 're-definition' of terms strikes me as Alice in Wonderland.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

T

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I take the view that dangerous activities like smoking tobacco, drinking or BASE jumping will incur higher insurance premiums and indeed taxes because of the likelihood of participants needing expensive medical care in future. Smokers' health insurance rates mirror this.

This is another lie perpetrated by the ANTZ. GOOGLE smokers lifetime health costs, those of us who have quit and those who never smoked will cost more than someone who continues to smoke.

 

[supertrunker]

It depends what you read of course - tobaccofreekids.org naturally has figures that suggest smokers cost more over a lifetime.

A USA today article i found suggests that thin, healthy people cost more because they live longer!
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

I especially like the last line.

T

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

It depends what you read of course - tobaccofreekids.org naturally has figures that suggest smokers cost more over a lifetime.

Just shows they know who their paymasters are.

 

[Lessifer]

I've never understood why health care costs should influence anything. People who die suddenly costs less over a lifetime than those who live into old age, so we should get rid of seat belts, helmets, vaccinations.

 

[nicnik]

It depends what you read of course - tobaccofreekids.org naturally has figures that suggest smokers cost more over a lifetime.

A USA today article i found suggests that thin, healthy people cost more because they live longer!
Do smokers cost society money? - USATODAY.com

I especially like the last line.

T

I like this quote:

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."

 

[AndriaD]

I've never understood why health care costs should influence anything. People who die suddenly costs less over a lifetime than those who live into old age, so we should get rid of seat belts, helmets, vaccinations.

Yep. And those people often don't manage to reproduce either, given how late in life some are leaving procreation -- so their early demise actually protects the future of the entire human race -- Darwin's Law, survival of the fittest -- if you're stupid, you don't deserve to pass on your genes. Nature reinforces this over and over and over and over... yet humans think they are somehow immune, or should be.

Protecting the stupid from themselves could actually ensure our extinction.

Andria

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed.

This, electronic cigarettes are costing BG two ways, loss of tobacco tax income and if we live longer medicaid costs go up. Double whammy as far as they're concerned.

 

[supertrunker]

The obvious solution from the point of view of the least healthcare expenditure would be to subsidise smoking and bad diets.

What a delicious irony; perhaps smoking could be re-branded as patriotic and we could see a return to those 1950's adverts with doctors recommending them!

It seems to me that government really hasn't decided whether it wants the population to live fast and die young, or stay healthy/get healthy and live longer, but in any event a little more honesty about the matter would be welcome.

T

 

[Lessifer]

The obvious solution from the point of view of the least healthcare expenditure would be to subsidise smoking and bad diets.

What a delicious irony; perhaps smoking could be re-branded as patriotic and we could see a return to those 1950's adverts with doctors recommending them!

It seems to me that government really hasn't decided whether it wants the population to live fast and die young, or stay healthy/get healthy and live longer, but in any event a little more honesty about the matter would be welcome.

T

I'm pretty sure the optimum would be to live healthy and productively until age 63 and then die suddenly. Unless of course you hold public office, because we all know they stay productive well into their 90's.