The future of E figs ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Increased price reduces demand. What about anti-smoking ads funded by the FDA and CDC? I am confused as why the governemnt would attempt to collapse itself in relation to cigarettes. Where are your facts? Cigarette consumption has seen a decreasing trend over the years - and its not entirely to vaping. Higher taxes, more ads, more regulation of tobacco companies. It sounds like one big conspiracy.

Do you really think removing the vaping community is going to spike cigarette sales? It may, but it won't be substantial. In the long run, the cigarette industry will collapse in itself. Less and less people of newer generations DONT smoke. And in the long run, smokers will be an extinct species.

The 20% Prevalence Rule means that no matter what is done, smoking will not reduce significantly below 20% unless THR products are freely available. There is no country that breaks the rule (essentially, it states that, in a developed country, if smoking prevalence was originally much higher, then once prevalence drops to 20% it won't go much further no matter what methods are used - unless THR is a factor).

That's about it, basically. We don't know what the future will bring, maybe over time 20PR doesn't hold up, and with a long plateau at 20% or whatever, prevalence can drop slowly over decades. All we know is the current situation: you can't get much below 20% prevalence without THR. For example in the UK it hit rock bottom at 20% in 2008, then stuck there for 5 years until ecigs began to reduce prevalence. The number of smokers actually grew during that time. In the US it looks to be jammed at ~20% minus the percentage who use ST. As there are about 8 million ST (oral tobacco) users according to Brad Rodu, and US smoking prevalence is around 18.5% or thereabouts, maybe what we are seeing is a US smoking prevalence of around 21 or 22% minus the ST users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skoony

rsdntbplr

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 15, 2014
169
197
Northamptonshire, England, UK
In EU countries at least, max tank capacity of refillable ecigs is going to be limited and the biggest bottles of eLiquid you can buy will be 10ml. Flavoured eLiquid will be banned, other than tobacco flavours or variations of tobacco flavours (if I'm remembering right). Most of those don't matter to me, as I primarily use drippers anyway and don't mind refilling more often, plus I make my own eLiquid.

In the future, I will bet that buying nicotine will be banned for the general consumer. And higher taxation too. Will ecigs die off completely? I highly doubt it. But the most successful ecigs will be the brands owned by tobacco companies, such as Blu.
 

beckdg

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 1, 2013
11,018
35,705
TN
So why not just lift smoking restrictions and reduce the tax? Vapers who quit to save money could go back to smoking and smokers would smoke more. They would generate more revenue over time by having a lower tax and a lot more sales and more smokers.. Ever been to Russia? Cigarettes are cheap and allowed almost everywhere. My guess is the government brings in a healthy amount of revenue based on prevelance and usage, rather than high taxes...
Level with me, steve.

Math isn't your strong point, is it?

Tapatyped
 
  • Like
Reactions: skoony

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Then why do the states keep restricting where smoking is allowed? Shouldn't those restrictions be pulled back to increase the prevalence of smoking and smokers?

Due to the 20% Prevalence Rule, it doesn't matter what is done, prevalence cannot be reduced much below 20%. So they can hike tax, ban public smoking, standardise the packets or anything else - smoking won't go substantially below 20%. Only Sweden has broken 20PR, via free access to Snus.

Once smoking drops to around 20%, 20PR says you can put a gun to smokers' heads and it won't shift them. On the other hand, dropping all the restrictions in order to raise smoking prevalence would be difficult in the current climate - and it would destroy any credibility they have - not to mention any legal foundation for related actions. If a State removed restrictions in order to increase smoking, it would cost them billions due to challenges on every aspect of their legal position, including receipt of MSA funds. As long as they keep getting the MSA money, other problems are far less significant.
 

CardinalWinds

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2009
495
314
Vermont, USA
Then why do the states keep restricting where smoking is allowed? Shouldn't those restrictions be pulled back to increase the prevalence of smoking and smokers?

Because of the firestorm of public backlash that would inevitably occur as a result of any governmental relaxation of smoking bans. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Their task now is to find that "sweet spot" that maximizes profit without enraging the non-smoking public, which of course is much larger than the smoking public.
 

stevegmu

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2013
11,630
12,348
6992 kilometers from home...
Because of the firestorm of public backlash that would inevitably occur as a result of any governmental relaxation of smoking bans. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Their task now is to find that "sweet spot" that maximizes profit without enraging the non-smoking public, which of course is much larger than the smoking public.

It's tough to keep track of the conspiracies, but I have always read there is a tipping point to taxes, when the rate becomes so high revenue decreases...

Doesn't bode well for vaping, as the majority of the population seems to view vaping as an extension of smoking...
 

Rizzyking

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 15, 2013
1,391
1,956
East Midlands, United Kingdom
Tpd is not a done deal in terms of implementation in the UK although the two ml tank capacity is likely to be bought in quickly. Biggest threat is tax level on nicotine liquid how high that will be I also diy and apart from the nic base I'm not affected I have got four high capacity tanks already and am sure I'll still be able to get more if needed from China. These are certainly perilous times for vaping but things are not as dark as they might look in relation to the UK few things going on behind the scenes that could massively affect vaping beneficially so wait and see time.
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Who is behind this? Merkel?

The TPD has already been put on the statute books, it will be implemented in the 28 countries by May 2016 at the latest. It's an EU move to protect tobacco tax revenue, savings on pensions from smokers dying 10 years early (their claim), and pharma income from the drugs trade.

E-liquid over 20mg is banned, this means most vendors will stay at 18mg max to avoid a mistake that costs them dear. Tanks over 2ml are banned. There will be a massive cost for registering every single product - 5 flavours in 4 strengths = 20 products (0, 6, 12, 18mg). The fee per product is unknown so far for most countries as they can set the level as they wish. The lowest possible is probably going to be somewhere around $5,000 although it could easily be 10 times that of course. 20 products @ $5k = $100k, just for 5 flavours in 1 type of base. There is a 6 month statutory delay for any new product coming to market, plus the fee.

They will almost certainly go for shutting down all EU ecig websites as it's 'cross-border marketing', which is banned. It's hard to see how any vape stores will be able to stay open since the products left on the market will be gas station mini ecigs and the like.

Unless the new TPD (or to be specific, Article 20 of of it, which is the ecig section) is successfully challenged, the EU has shut down vaping as we know it. At least, legal purchase of products at any rate. They don't seem to care about the black market, as long as the legal route is closed down. Same goes for cigarettes, the tax is so high that there has been a massive shift to RYO in the UK, it's said to be nearly half of the smoking market now as it's cheaper to smoke that way and easier to get cheap smuggled baccy. About 20 or 25% of tobacco overall is now smuggled, according to official figures, but some say it's more. Hardly surprising as a pack of 20 cigs in the UK is about £8, that's $12. Some people will tell you they don't know anyone who smokes government tobacco.
 

inclination

Full Member
Aug 6, 2013
44
12
United States
Unless the new TPD (or to be specific, Article 20 of of it, which is the ecig section) is successfully challenged, the EU has shut down vaping as we know it. At least, legal purchase of products at any rate. They don't seem to care about the black market, as long as the legal route is closed down. Same goes for cigarettes, the tax is so high that there has been a massive shift to RYO in the UK, it's said to be nearly half of the smoking market now as it's cheaper to smoke that way and easier to get cheap smuggled baccy. About 20 or 25% of tobacco overall is now smuggled, according to official figures, but some say it's more. Hardly surprising as a pack of 20 cigs in the UK is about £8, that's $12. Some people will tell you they don't know anyone who smokes government tobacco.
Addiction at its finest.
 

WhiteHighlights

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 26, 2013
1,650
10,254
MetroWest Boston, MA, USA
Caramel,

This is my understanding, but remember I'm in the US. I'm sure our friends across the pond could explain it better, but my short and simplified version:

You have to go back in time and understand the history of the TPD. It was pretty ugly. The European Parliament voted on e-cig regs but what came out of the Commission (TPD Article 20) was significantly different. EU members are bound by the TPD. There is some wiggle room as to how each member country implements it but some, like Denmark and the Netherlands, are taking it at face value. This link has the short version of the differences between what the Parliament voted on and what came out of the commission. You can dig in the EU Legislation thread and get the messy details if you want.

War within the EU: European Commission acting against European Parliament
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpargana

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
I understand that but I'm curious which EU countries are pushing this agenda. We both know it's not all of them that simultaneously happened to have the same idea. How could someone track who started it?

If you think of the EU as being like the federal USA but a sort of neo-communist version where laws are made secretly in committees, and the 28 countries of the EU are like the 50 States: they have to obey federal law or face the consequences - then you won't be too far off the mark. There are some other countries in Europe that are not in the EU but are in a trade group (EFTA), this could be something like the US territories maybe.

So all the EU countries must implement the new TPD by May 2016. Some have already done so. If they don't, they get fined etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skoony

kkahmann

Senior Member
Nov 6, 2014
139
150
Jumbos Cove,On,Can
Thanks Chris--I never understood the 20% Prevalence Rule and now I do.
I have tried to tell people that the government has a vested interest in many of us continuing to smoke and they are always telling me--'But we have more regulations and restrictions on where we can smoke'.
20% of smokers aren't going to quit even with a gun held to their head--I used to among that number.
As for me I intend to keep on vaping--while running my poteen still in the garage.
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
If we think of the main driver of State policy being to keep the MSA payments coming no matter what, and the main driver for policy in small countries like the UK being to keep taking the huge tobacco tax revenues no matter what, the resulting guide to policy decisions is not too far wide of the mark. It tells you what they will do, even when the actions are hard to understand by any other measure.

For example, 'plain packs' or standardised cigarette packaging is just another diversion that allows them to say they're doing everything possible to reduce smoking. The truth is it will have about 0.1% effect on smoking prevalence or thereabouts, so it's irrelevant. What they certainly will not do under any circumstances is remove health warnings from THR products or promote them or make them tax-free to promote their use, or anything that actually does reduce smoking prevalence and disease. That is out of the question.

It's a bit like 'nicotine addiction': everyone important knows there is no such thing. Ethics committees freely approve clinical trials where large quantities of nicotine are administered daily for months at a time to never-smokers, since they know it is impossible to clinically demonstrate any dependence potential for nicotine - none of the hundreds of subjects of the many trials of this type (never-smokers) have ever demonstrated the slightest sign of reinforcement, withdrawal, continuation or any other marker for dependence. So clinical trials of nicotine's medical benefits can be freely carried out, and obviously such trials need never-smokers and non-smokers otherwise nothing can be measured. In addition, official guidance is that nicotine has no association with cancer or heart disease and is essentially harmless except for those with demonstrated vulnerabilities (genetic predisposition, pregnancy etc.) - see NICE PH45 for example.

But the public perception, created by propaganda, is directly opposite to this. So we have to ask ourselves: is what the experts know about nicotine correct - it has no potential for dependence, and it is impossible to make people show even the slightest sign of dependence under close observation no matter how much you give them and no matter for how long, and it has well-demonstrated medical benefits for some people, and it's harmless except in massive abuse conditions; or is the public image of nicotine correct: it's a nasty, dangerous, cancerous, addictive drug that should be avoided or banned?

The same clever manipulation of public perception has been carried out with the smoking reduction issue: anyone of importance knows that smoking can't be forced much below 20% no matter what is done. If taxes go too high, people buy on the black market for example. Any number of pointless exercises can be carried out that look - to the gullible public - as if they are trying to reduce smoking, and often helped out by the naive pawns in public health who we refer to as the 'useful idiots'. The fact is, no country breaks the 20% Prevalence Rule, and we don't know if it can be broken except by THR. Sweden smashed it by going full THR with Snus, and as a result smoking and smoking-related disease are headed toward a zero point.

You can see how countries really feel about smoking and the huge revenues it generates by their attitude toward Snus, the only proven way to destroy smoking and disease.
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Does nicotine delivered through electronic cigarettes create dependence with never smokers? I haven't seen those studies...


That's a really good question and the one everybody wants to know the answer to.

We know it is impossible to clinically demonstrate nicotine dependence in never-smokers (it has never been possible to show the slightest sign of dependence no matter how much nicotine is administered or for how long), but ecigs have not been tested. Specifically, modern high-efficiency electronic vaporizers have not been clinically trialled for dependence potential with never-smokers.

It is quite possible that some dependence might be able to be created at a sub- clinically significant level: maybe 1 or 2 in 1,000 - perhaps even 8 in 1,000 - or something like that. The reason I say this is that there are two possible routes:

1. Some people can become dependent on anything with an active component, even when we consider such things as impossible to describe as 'addictive'. For example there are apparently a couple of cases on record of someone becoming dependent on carrot juice.

Obviously we would not consider this material to have any potential for dependence - as it doesn't. However there are infrequent cases of persons with a need for dependence - apparently - and they can, it seems, become dependent on virtually anything that causes a physiological change that the body/mind recognises. Perhaps it is a question of what they come across first that fits their need. It's explained by some model in psychology I forget the name of.

So by this definition, we will see rare cases of dependence. In practice it seems likely that ecigs will create about as much dependence as carrot juice, perhaps even a little more, since nicotine does have more pharmacological effect. If so, it will be unusual, of no clinical significance, and of no real importance.


2. There is also an issue of pyrolytic aldehyde generation and subsequent nicotine potentiation.

Nicotine dependence is believed to be caused by potentiation in tobacco vehicle delivery. Synergy and boosting may also be factors, we just don't know at this point [1]. The 'standard model' is that harman and norharman, which are aldehydes in tobacco known as MAOIs, and assisted by more aldehydes in tobacco smoke created by pyrolytic action, act together with nicotine to chemically re-wire the brain in a way that creates common and persistent (but not permanent) dependence on nicotine.

Now we are gradually becoming aware that super-heating e-liquid has the potential to create aldehydes in the resulting vapour. These compounds, which are either missing or at trace level in low-temperature vaping, may act exactly the same as the tobacco smoke aldehydes (as they are essentially the same). If this is the case, high-temperature vaping may have some potential for creating dependence on nicotine.

This concept occurred to me about mid-2014, and I've mentioned it occasionally since. Nobody else has suggested it so you could dismiss it as unrealistic. In my mind it is just a possibility, but it is there.

Looking at the practical aspects of this:
a) If a million never-smokers take up vaping, and some of them move on to sub-ohming, then maybe we will see a proportionate number who become dependent on vaping and/or nicotine because of this effect.

Currently it does not look as if the numbers involved will be substantial, because it entirely depends on large numbers of never-smokers starting to vape, and that they sub-ohm in significant numbers, and that this effect is not just non-zero but relatively strong.

b) It's also interesting to try and work out what the effect might be on ex-smokers who are already dependent on nicotine. Perhaps it might just make nicotine reduction or elimination more difficult.


Who knows :)




------------------
[1] We could refer to chemical management of the delivery efficiency of nicotine in cigarettes, such as ammonia additions, as 'boosting'. Some call this freebasing.

Similarly, there may be some synergy (multiplication) due to co-administration with other WTAs such as anatabine, for which some evidence has been reported.

This area of nicotine research is weak.
 

Caro123

Super Member
Apr 11, 2015
810
1,182
Nova Scotia
That's a really good question and the one everybody wants to know the answer to.

We know it is impossible to clinically demonstrate nicotine dependence in never-smokers (it has never been possible to show the slightest sign of dependence no matter how much nicotine is administered or for how long), but ecigs have not been tested. Specifically, modern high-efficiency electronic vaporizers have not been clinically trialled for dependence potential with never-smokers.

It is quite possible that some dependence might be able to be created at a sub- clinically significant level: maybe 1 or 2 in 1,000 - perhaps even 8 in 1,000 - or something like that. The reason I say this is that there are two possible routes:

1. Some people can become dependent on anything with an active component, even when we consider such things as impossible to describe as 'addictive'. For example there are apparently a couple of cases on record of someone becoming dependent on carrot juice.

Obviously we would not consider this material to have any potential for dependence - as it doesn't. However there are infrequent cases of persons with a need for dependence - apparently - and they can, it seems, become dependent on virtually anything that causes a physiological change that the body/mind recognises. Perhaps it is a question of what they come across first that fits their need. It's explained by some model in psychology I forget the name of.

So by this definition, we will see rare cases of dependence. In practice it seems likely that ecigs will create about as much dependence as carrot juice, perhaps even a little more, since nicotine does have more pharmacological effect. If so, it will be unusual, of no clinical significance, and of no real importance.


2. There is also an issue of pyrolytic aldehyde generation and subsequent nicotine potentiation.

Nicotine dependence is believed to be caused by potentiation in tobacco vehicle delivery. Synergy and boosting may also be factors, we just don't know at this point [1]. The 'standard model' is that harman and norharman, which are aldehydes in tobacco known as MAOIs, and assisted by more aldehydes in tobacco smoke created by pyrolytic action, act together with nicotine to chemically re-wire the brain in a way that creates common and persistent (but not permanent) dependence on nicotine.

Now we are gradually becoming aware that super-heating e-liquid has the potential to create aldehydes in the resulting vapour. These compounds, which are either missing or at trace level in low-temperature vaping, may act exactly the same as the tobacco smoke aldehydes (as they are essentially the same). If this is the case, high-temperature vaping may have some potential for creating dependence on nicotine.

This concept occurred to me about mid-2014, and I've mentioned it occasionally since. Nobody else has suggested it so you could dismiss it as unrealistic. In my mind it is just a possibility, but it is there.

Looking at the practical aspects of this:
a) If a million never-smokers take up vaping, and some of them move on to sub-ohming, then maybe we will see a proportionate number who become dependent on vaping and/or nicotine because of this effect.

Currently it does not look as if the numbers involved will be substantial, because it entirely depends on large numbers of never-smokers starting to vape, and that they sub-ohm in significant numbers, and that this effect is not just non-zero but relatively strong.

b) It's also interesting to try and work out what the effect might be on ex-smokers who are already dependent on nicotine. Perhaps it might just make nicotine reduction or elimination more difficult.


Who knows :)

am I to understand that tobacco smoking of which I participated in to the tune of a pad and better when stressed for neigh on 40 years created a dependance which vaping completely and quite effectively cured with minimal discomfort could not/would not be -had I only ever vaped nicotine, was I only addicted because i smoking the cigarette or was there really very little addiction to nicotine and more a habit of behaviours

I asked because if I did not get sufficient quantity of smokes for a few days at a time due to being in a highly restricted area where smoking was frowned upon I would become sluggish and experience lethargy and muddy confusion in my thinking. I have no lethargy or confusion and have not had a smoke since March 1 I vape 18 mg / ml on a nautilaus mini at about 7-8 watts and switch off to lower nic sometimes but don't recognize any cravings and really didn't intend to quit tobacco it just happened couldn't stand the taste and heat etc of cig so weaned down - just trying to understand.

I quit once many years ago but often felt anxious and gained a lot of weight -about 40 lbs -which by the way is about the weight many gain on some brands of anti psychotics. And does using a dripper at 20 watts or so with less nicotine per ml create greater dependance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread