FDA Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

[Bill Godshall]

SmokenJoey's interview with Bill Godshall delineates why/how FDA’s proposed deeming regulation would ban >99.9% of all nicotine vapor products, and how vapers and vapor companies can stop FDA’s proposed e-cig ban


This edited interview occurred at June, but was posted yesterday.

 

[nicnik]

SmokenJoey's interview with Bill Godshall delineates why/how FDA’s proposed deeming regulation would ban >99.9% of all nicotine vapor products, and how vapers and vapor companies can stop FDA’s proposed e-cig ban


This edited interview occurred at June, but was posted yesterday.

Spoiler: Interview ends with "That's Bill Godshall, and he can talk!"

Nice job, Bill!

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Thanks, SmokenJoey and Bill. It's great to have a face and personality to attach to the dialogue you've provided for years.

 

[DC2]

SmokenJoey's interview with Bill Godshall delineates why/how FDA’s proposed deeming regulation would ban >99.9% of all nicotine vapor products, and how vapers and vapor companies can stop FDA’s proposed e-cig ban


This edited interview occurred at June, but was posted yesterday.

Unless the proposed deeming regulations come out different at the end...
I agree with every word that Bill Godshall said...

Every single word.

What scares me is how many don't.

 

[Rossum]

While I sincerely appreciate the work Bill has done on our behalf recently, I have rather mixed feelings about the earlier work he seems rather proud of at the beginning of that video.

I suppose, "Thirty years of campaigning to ban smoking in all workplaces" did not set a precedent for the vaping bans being implemented now -- like the one already in place in Philly?

I suppose, "Campaigning to raise cigarette taxes for the last 20 years," which resulted in huge revenue streams for governments did nothing to foster those governments' hatred for vaping, now that vaping threatens that revenue?

"Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences."

 

[stevegmu]

While I sincerely appreciate the work Bill has done on our behalf recently, I have rather mixed feelings about the earlier work he mentions at the beginning of that video.

I suppose, "Thirty years of campaigning to ban smoking in all workplaces" did not set a precedent for the vaping bans being implemented now -- like the one already in place in Philly?

I suppose, "Campaigning to raise cigarette taxes for the last 20 years," which resulted in huge revenue streams for governments did nothing to foster those governments' hatred for vaping, now that vaping threatens that revenue?

"Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences."

That is true and amusing. I've always said vaping came too late for the US because smoking has been so demonized, it will just be seen as an other form of smoking, yet somehow an organization which has had a part in the demonization and set the foundation for anti-vaping is exalted as a champion of vaping...

 

[Kent C]

@Rossum - I've said enough about that to where no one should doubt where I stand. DC2's "Every word" overdoes it a bit for me, although I assume he just meant about the predictions if final rule goes as written; but I agree with your (Rossum's) " ...I sincerely appreciate the work Bill has done on our behalf recently". No one has been so thorough in gathering data and posting it for us.

 

[nicnik]

While I sincerely appreciate the work Bill has done on our behalf recently, I have rather mixed feelings about the earlier work he seems rather proud of at the beginning of that video.

I suppose, "Thirty years of campaigning to ban smoking in all workplaces" did not set a precedent for the vaping bans being implemented now -- like the one already in place in Philly?

I suppose, "Campaigning to raise cigarette taxes for the last 20 years," which resulted in huge revenue streams for governments did nothing to foster those governments' hatred for vaping, now that vaping threatens that revenue?

"Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences."

The TC exaggerations re 2nd hand smoke led to to the 3rd hand smoke fiasco, among other things, and applying them to indoor bans led to outdoor bans. The oppressive taxation created an unethical public dependence on extortion and a fanancial nightmare for many smokers and their families. Both issues fed on, and contributed to social pariah status for smokers, which has been extremely problematic for a goal of a tolerant society. And yes, it all has given birth to the vaping attacks.

I think Bill mentions his earlier work because in one sense, it's helpful politically in giving credibility to his THR stance in the eyes of many. I'd rather see him skip that part, but I think his ability to address THR issues so effectively makes the big picture of his advocacy for vaping a big net gain, even with disappointments like at the beginning of the interview.

I'm not completely against indoor smoking bans, but they went way too far. The sin taxes, however, have been immoral from the start, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[zapped]

I had the good fortune of meeting and talking to Bill Godshall at the very first ever Vapercon in Fredericksburg Va.

And yes he can talk! He also very passionate and knowledgeable about vaping and the entire lobbying process.

Bill doesnt deny that he is vehemently against smoking...in fact thats why he is such a staunch supporter of vaping. He sees it as a much better and healthier alternative.

Bill made a point then of mentioning to me that hes allergic to cigarette smoke and has a very violent reaction to it. This was while were enveloped by a cloud of vapor from the convention goers...with no adverse affects to either of us.

We are VERY fortunate to have such a brilliant, dedicated and tireless supporter in our corner and like DC2 I agree with every word that Bill has said here.

 

[Lessifer]

There seems to be quite a bit of congressional support for HR2058, which is great, but that seems to me to be at best a partial victory. True victory would be to have the deeming regulations rejected by congress outright. Have there been any members of congress who have expressed an inclination toward rejecting the deeming? If they can recognize that a de facto ban on 99.9% of the products currently on the market is a bad thing, how do we get them to recognize that placing vaping under TC at all is a bad thing?

 

[Rossum]

No one has been so thorough in gathering data and posting it for us.

I concur, and that's why I appreciate what he currently does for vaping. But in the end, we must bear in mind that he has no respect for private property (which most workplaces are), and he's lobbied for government to rob people in a most discriminatory and regressive manner.

 

[KattMamma]

While I sincerely appreciate the work Bill has done on our behalf recently, I have rather mixed feelings about the earlier work he seems rather proud of at the beginning of that video.

I suppose, "Thirty years of campaigning to ban smoking in all workplaces" did not set a precedent for the vaping bans being implemented now -- like the one already in place in Philly?

I suppose, "Campaigning to raise cigarette taxes for the last 20 years," which resulted in huge revenue streams for governments did nothing to foster those governments' hatred for vaping, now that vaping threatens that revenue?

"Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences."

I agree. I love what Bill has done for vaping, but have always been uncomfortable with his vehemently anti-smoking past. I had always thought maybe he had tempered his feelings over the years, but learning now that he is proud of that past makes me uneasy.

But since we are still on such shaky ground, I have to continue to appreciate his efforts on behalf of vaping.

 

[KattMamma]

how do we get them to recognize that placing vaping under TC at all is a bad thing?

^^^ This!!!

 

[skoony]

i can understand Bills frustration concerning the vendors
that had no clue.
i bet a lot are from states similar to Minnesota.
Minnesota has consistently been in the top percentile
of taxation and size of government at all levels.
shop owners especially in the metro area are
accustomed to inspectors from various agencies
stopping by.health and safety,building and codes
and,the fire marshal all making sure every thing is
honky dory. this is good from a public safety point
of view and they let the owners know of up coming future
changes in regulations and codes.
most vendors are probably lulled into thinking
no big deal. some guy comes around,makes me adjust some displays,
change some signage and apply for a license or state certificate and,
i'm good to go. its going to cost a couple of hundred maybe for the
paperwork.
the cost of doing business here is already high due to the
myriad of rules,regulations and tons of fee's for licencing and
or certification and workman's comp plus insurance etc..etc.. .
when a local vendor hears about some new fee or regulation
his first response is probably just another 200 dollar piece of paper.
i can't say what happens in other states but, to keep a store front
opened here in the city's is a full time job. to keep a shop in even
a barely adequate location is going to cost 10 to 15 thousand a
month to keep the doors open. one is not going to have a lot of
time to be politically active.

regards
mike

 

[Bill Godshall]

I suppose, "Thirty years of campaigning to ban smoking in all workplaces" did not set a precedent for the vaping bans being implemented now -- like the one already in place in Philly?

Since exhalations by vapers pose not risks to nonusers, there is no rational reason to enact laws that ban vaping in workplaces. In sharp contrast, tobacco smoke pollution poses risks to nonusers. Besides, workplace smoking bans are key reasons why cigarette consumption has sharply declined during the past 30 years, and why the vaping industry has skyrocketed since 2007.

I suppose, "Campaigning to raise cigarette taxes for the last 20 years," which resulted in huge revenue streams for governments did nothing to foster those governments' hatred for vaping, now that vaping threatens that revenue?

The huge increase in cigarette prices (due to taxation and litigation) are the other key reasons why cigarette consumption has sharply declined during the past 25 years, and why the vaping industry has skyrocketed since 2007. The primary reason I've been advocating cigarette tax increases (since collaborating with PA Gov. Bob Casey in 1991 to raise PA's cig tax from $.18 to $.31/pack) is to hold cigarettes fiscally accountable for the enormous costs they impose on taxpayers.

A recent study found that healthcare costs caused by cigarette smoking were $170 Billion in 2010 (which is $200 Billion in 2015 due to 4% annual cost increases), with about 70% of those costs (i.e. $140 Billion in 2015) incurred by federal, state and local governments. Since about 13 billion packs of cigarettes will be consumed in the US this year, healthcare costs to treat cigarette diseases and disabilities in the US are now about $15/pack ($200/13 = $15.38), with governments paying about $11/pack for those healthcare services.
http://www.prevent.org/data/files/actiontoquit/ajpm_annual_healthcare_spending_smoking, 12-10-14.pdf

As such, a tax of at least $11/pack would need to be imposed on cigarettes to make cigarettes pay their fair share of taxes in 2015.
But even that wouldn't come close to reimbursing government expenditures since healthcare costs to treat smoking diseases were primarily caused by cigarettes that were bought and smoked five, ten, fifteen or more years ago (when prices were much lower than now). Besides, as cigarette consumption continues to decline and healthcare costs continue to increase, the healthcare costs to treat smoking diseases will continue to increase at 5% annually (for the next 15 or 20 years) even if everyone quit smoking today.

Another recent study found similar Medicaid costs to treat smoking diseases
E-Cigarettes Poised to Save Medicaid Billions > Publications > State Budget Solutions

In sharp contrast, there is no rational reason for taxing vapor products, as they save federal, state and local governments money.

On Monday I met with PA House Majority Leader Dave Reed (along with PA vaping activist SmokenJoey, who interviewed me above, and a vape shop owner, both of whom are Reed's constituents in rural Indiana County) and urged Reed (in his ongoing PA Budget negotiations with Gov. Wolf) to oppose any tax on smokeless tobacco or vapor products, to oppose vaping ban bills, and to support enactment of legislation to ban the sale of vapor products to minors. I also urged him to increase the cigarette tax (and gave him the documents on smoking costs posted above) if he and other legislative leaders decide to raise any taxes (which they've rejected to date). I also informed him about the War on Vaping by Obama's DHHS since 2009, when FDA unlawfully banned the products).

If more vapers urged elected officials to support vaping and to reject anti vaping legislation (instead of posting conspiracy theories and criticizing vaping activists on forums and blogs), we could defeat all of the anti vaping bills (and the FDA's proposed deeming regulation).

 

[Bill Godshall]

But in the end, we must bear in mind that he has no respect for private property (which most workplaces are), and he's lobbied for government to rob people in a most discriminatory and regressive manner.

Posting false defamatory insults isn't helpful. The property rights supreme argument has been rejected by every court where it has been argued (in lawsuits challenging smoking bans, and in many other challenges to public health laws), as the courts have long recognized that humans have a superior right to not be harmed by the actions of others (even if/when that harm occurs on private property).

While hundreds of unwarranted laws and regulations have been imposed on building and business owners, workplace smoking bans are not among them.

 

[DC2]

DC2's "Every word" overdoes it a bit for me, although I assume he just meant about the predictions if final rule goes as written

Yes.

 

[Kent C]

While hundreds of unwarranted laws and regulations have been imposed on building and business owners, workplace smoking bans are not among them.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As of January 1, 2015, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, 81.8% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law,"

 

[AndriaD]

and he's lobbied for government to rob people in a most discriminatory and regressive manner.

And by so doing, created this enormous "sindustry" where the gov't is so ADDICTED to tobacco taxes, now they can't do without them and have 18 hissy fits a day about all those upstart vapers daring to stop buying tobacco products and start vaping instead. That really steams me, as much as those jacked-up prices on cigarettes steamed me, and contributed to the total destruction of our household budget.

The very nerve, to say they're raising taxes to encourage people to not smoke... and then when they do stop, having such a cow about the fact that they're no longer smoking and thus not paying those extortionate sin taxes!

Yeah, I have a serious problem with that and with anyone who helped bring it about. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Andria

 

[DC2]

The very nerve, to say they're raising taxes to encourage people to not smoke... and then when they do stop, having such a cow about the fact that they're no longer smoking and thus not paying those extortionate sin taxes!

Based on the quote from Bill below it sounds like he believes that to be a conspiracy theory.

If more vapers urged elected officials to support vaping and to reject anti vaping legislation (instead of posting conspiracy theories and criticizing vaping activists on forums and blogs), we could defeat all of the anti vaping bills (and the FDA's proposed deeming regulation).

And it also sounds like he believes the attempts to tax vaping are due to lack of knowledge.
Or perhaps just partisan politics, or a mix of both.

I have a real hard time believing that.
I do hope he explains further.