Today, I was reading a grocer's trade 'zine's faux round table discussion:
http://www.groceryheadquarters.com/2014/04/
forging-a-vapor-trail/
(You can paste that link right into your browser - the extra line won't matter.)
Among the participants were Jason Healy, the Blu founder/pres (who sold the firm to Lorillard), and spokespeople for Altria (formerly PMI) and V2.
While the issue of minors and flavors came up rather briefly, I couldn't help noticing that there was no discussion at all about the recent poison center calls frenzy. I guess that make sense, insofar as most of the rep'd firms limit themselves to cigalikes (V2 being the obvious exception).
This got me to thinking about what effect the recent poison center calls frenzy might ahave, alhough this morning's flight of procrastination-induced fancy here extended beyond my initial expectations) ...
Junk Studies from tobacco Control Institutes (short-term future):
How long does it take for UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education to churn out a junk study on poisonings? (The data will be easy enough to get.)
I have no idea, but my guess is that the Grana et al. letter regarding cessation didn't take much time at all to produce. Same with the Dutra & Glantz minor-gateway-to-tobacco "study."
There must be plenty of grad students who are happy to do any grunt work. And it seems that the folks at JAMA are none too particular when it comes to the norms of science and statistics - at least in this context.
This may not be a bad way to fill some time until the CDC's next junk survey of 20,000 minors and the California state survey of 400,000 schoolchildren come out. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/
2014/03/05/business/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities.html
Short- and Intermediate-Term Opportunities for Vaping Opponents:
This should be an easy one. Jurisdictions that ban user-refillable tanks and e-liquid sales will have an easier time of squeezing out the smaller players and successfully imposing high levels of taxes and regulations.
Such jurisdictions might be (multi-)national - e.g. the EU or the FDA. But they also might include subnational jurisdictions such as US states, Canadian provinces, or even municipalities. Obviously a ban on local sales of user-refillable tanks and e-liquids would be the dealth knell of small vape shops.
Long-term Consolidation of BT, BV ("big vapor"), BP, and the Rest of the Tobacco Control Industry:
We hear this repeatedly from the more "moderate" members of the medical profession - they're not against vaping technology, they just want it to join the ranks of FDA-approved cessation tools. I believe this what the original draft of the EU TPD called for, and two large UK firms have already applied for this status in the UK.
Under this view, users would be able to get vaping technology, but it would be dispensed by prescription only in a manner similar to existing nicotine inhalers. Clinicians would carefully monitor the patient's use of the devices (which might contain microchips). Patients would regularly report to trained and Certified Tobacco Cessation Officers as part of their therapy.
In order to implement this regimine, all sales of user-configurable vaping devices would be banned, as well as the possession of same ("nicotine paraphernalia"), regardless of whether users were actually using them to vaporize nicotine. Water-soluable nicotine would be similar to a variety of opiates - legal for consumers to possess only with a prescription (and only in approved forms/devices/etc.).
And since PVs would be considered therapeutic devices, vapers who regularly participate in their Tobacco Cessation Treatment Program would be eligible to "medicate" themselves anywhere (since this will not be considered "smoking" under applicable Clean Indoor Air Acts). The electronic devices would carefully control and moniter the dosages, based on the patient's clinician-approved therapeutic regimine. (Similar to methodone treatment.)
This makes good economic sense for all deep-pocketed parties involved, since the profit margins and additional profit-generating potential of "therapeutizing" vaping are enormous. Costs for the devices would be paid from existing insurance funds, and well-compensated professional staff would be trained and certified by the same organizations that handle all other Drug Addiction Professionals.
In order to encourage participation, municipalities everywhere would start going "smoke free" (that means "vape free," too - since vaping from an unauthorized device would be considered "smoking" even before posession of such devices is outlawed). Trace amounts of certain harmless chemicals would be added to the authorized devices, so that "cheaters" who use unauthorized nicotine-based vaporized liquids would be detected whenever vehicles and dwellings are sold, or whenever multi-unit tenancies change hands. Blood tests would be required for all gov't employees as well, and such requirements would likely spread to the private sector (at the behest of insurance firms).
How long would it take for the full program to be implemented?
Your guess is as good as mine. But the end of 2016, the EU's TPD (rough) compliance deadline, strikes me as acheivable in the EU as well as in the three major English-speaking nations outside of it (US, Canada, Australia). Presumably major Asian nations such as China, India, Japan, etc. would move along a similar timetable, as would the CIS governments.
Continued Legality of Combustible Tobacco?
Combustible tobacco products would probably continue to be made and sold in some third world nations. A small black market might exist in the industrialized countries as well, similar to that for certain illegal drugs. But since BT's business model in those nations would be completely transformed into partnerships with BP, BV and the health insurance industry, legal combustible tobacco products would become luxury goods - the province of the very wealthy, who would discreetly enjoy them in certain exclusive locations.
There would be little need to legally "ban" combustible tobacco products, since they would be out of ordinary consumers' reach in terms of price, and they would only be available via F2F purchase at a small number of outlets that cater to the wealthiest clientele.
The Final Result
Governments would be happy, since the tax amounts that they currently collect from combustible tobacco sales would now be replaced by revenues from the new combined Therapeutic Tobacco Industry - which will be formed from BT/BV, chunks of BP and the existing Tobacco Control Industry.
Institutions like UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education would continue to be funded just as before, albeit with a slightly different mission (but no need for a name change).
Clinicians and Health Insurers everywhere would be delighted, since the revenues which are currently collected by the recreational tobacco industry (BT, etc.) would now be dedicated to Tobacco Therapy.
"Non profit" orgs such as the ALA etc. would be absorbed into the new industry, and their employees would become the Certified Tobacco Cessation Officers who oversee patients enrolled in Tobacco Therapy (just as any group of recovering drug addicts must report to their Cessation Officers).
http://www.groceryheadquarters.com/2014/04/
forging-a-vapor-trail/
(You can paste that link right into your browser - the extra line won't matter.)
Among the participants were Jason Healy, the Blu founder/pres (who sold the firm to Lorillard), and spokespeople for Altria (formerly PMI) and V2.
While the issue of minors and flavors came up rather briefly, I couldn't help noticing that there was no discussion at all about the recent poison center calls frenzy. I guess that make sense, insofar as most of the rep'd firms limit themselves to cigalikes (V2 being the obvious exception).
This got me to thinking about what effect the recent poison center calls frenzy might ahave, alhough this morning's flight of procrastination-induced fancy here extended beyond my initial expectations) ...
Junk Studies from tobacco Control Institutes (short-term future):
How long does it take for UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education to churn out a junk study on poisonings? (The data will be easy enough to get.)
I have no idea, but my guess is that the Grana et al. letter regarding cessation didn't take much time at all to produce. Same with the Dutra & Glantz minor-gateway-to-tobacco "study."
There must be plenty of grad students who are happy to do any grunt work. And it seems that the folks at JAMA are none too particular when it comes to the norms of science and statistics - at least in this context.
This may not be a bad way to fill some time until the CDC's next junk survey of 20,000 minors and the California state survey of 400,000 schoolchildren come out. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/
2014/03/05/business/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities.html
Short- and Intermediate-Term Opportunities for Vaping Opponents:
This should be an easy one. Jurisdictions that ban user-refillable tanks and e-liquid sales will have an easier time of squeezing out the smaller players and successfully imposing high levels of taxes and regulations.
Such jurisdictions might be (multi-)national - e.g. the EU or the FDA. But they also might include subnational jurisdictions such as US states, Canadian provinces, or even municipalities. Obviously a ban on local sales of user-refillable tanks and e-liquids would be the dealth knell of small vape shops.
Long-term Consolidation of BT, BV ("big vapor"), BP, and the Rest of the Tobacco Control Industry:
We hear this repeatedly from the more "moderate" members of the medical profession - they're not against vaping technology, they just want it to join the ranks of FDA-approved cessation tools. I believe this what the original draft of the EU TPD called for, and two large UK firms have already applied for this status in the UK.
Under this view, users would be able to get vaping technology, but it would be dispensed by prescription only in a manner similar to existing nicotine inhalers. Clinicians would carefully monitor the patient's use of the devices (which might contain microchips). Patients would regularly report to trained and Certified Tobacco Cessation Officers as part of their therapy.
In order to implement this regimine, all sales of user-configurable vaping devices would be banned, as well as the possession of same ("nicotine paraphernalia"), regardless of whether users were actually using them to vaporize nicotine. Water-soluable nicotine would be similar to a variety of opiates - legal for consumers to possess only with a prescription (and only in approved forms/devices/etc.).
And since PVs would be considered therapeutic devices, vapers who regularly participate in their Tobacco Cessation Treatment Program would be eligible to "medicate" themselves anywhere (since this will not be considered "smoking" under applicable Clean Indoor Air Acts). The electronic devices would carefully control and moniter the dosages, based on the patient's clinician-approved therapeutic regimine. (Similar to methodone treatment.)
This makes good economic sense for all deep-pocketed parties involved, since the profit margins and additional profit-generating potential of "therapeutizing" vaping are enormous. Costs for the devices would be paid from existing insurance funds, and well-compensated professional staff would be trained and certified by the same organizations that handle all other Drug Addiction Professionals.
In order to encourage participation, municipalities everywhere would start going "smoke free" (that means "vape free," too - since vaping from an unauthorized device would be considered "smoking" even before posession of such devices is outlawed). Trace amounts of certain harmless chemicals would be added to the authorized devices, so that "cheaters" who use unauthorized nicotine-based vaporized liquids would be detected whenever vehicles and dwellings are sold, or whenever multi-unit tenancies change hands. Blood tests would be required for all gov't employees as well, and such requirements would likely spread to the private sector (at the behest of insurance firms).
How long would it take for the full program to be implemented?
Your guess is as good as mine. But the end of 2016, the EU's TPD (rough) compliance deadline, strikes me as acheivable in the EU as well as in the three major English-speaking nations outside of it (US, Canada, Australia). Presumably major Asian nations such as China, India, Japan, etc. would move along a similar timetable, as would the CIS governments.
Continued Legality of Combustible Tobacco?
Combustible tobacco products would probably continue to be made and sold in some third world nations. A small black market might exist in the industrialized countries as well, similar to that for certain illegal drugs. But since BT's business model in those nations would be completely transformed into partnerships with BP, BV and the health insurance industry, legal combustible tobacco products would become luxury goods - the province of the very wealthy, who would discreetly enjoy them in certain exclusive locations.
There would be little need to legally "ban" combustible tobacco products, since they would be out of ordinary consumers' reach in terms of price, and they would only be available via F2F purchase at a small number of outlets that cater to the wealthiest clientele.
The Final Result
Governments would be happy, since the tax amounts that they currently collect from combustible tobacco sales would now be replaced by revenues from the new combined Therapeutic Tobacco Industry - which will be formed from BT/BV, chunks of BP and the existing Tobacco Control Industry.
Institutions like UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education would continue to be funded just as before, albeit with a slightly different mission (but no need for a name change).
Clinicians and Health Insurers everywhere would be delighted, since the revenues which are currently collected by the recreational tobacco industry (BT, etc.) would now be dedicated to Tobacco Therapy.
"Non profit" orgs such as the ALA etc. would be absorbed into the new industry, and their employees would become the Certified Tobacco Cessation Officers who oversee patients enrolled in Tobacco Therapy (just as any group of recovering drug addicts must report to their Cessation Officers).
Last edited:
