Big Tobacco Fights for More Regulation of E-Cigs
A reasonbly good 'awareness' piece overall.
Comments?
A reasonbly good 'awareness' piece overall.
Comments?
A little BT brown-nosing?
- Thread starter philoshop
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If nicotine is as bad as they describe it, why do they put it at all in their e-cigs?
Should NOT have a "level playing field"! 
vaping does not kill anyone, smoking does and has been proven and announced for over 50 years. I don't get how the gov. with a straight face can allow the sale of cigarettes if it's so dangerous.....but, then again they do allow sky diving.
vaping does not kill anyone, smoking does and has been proven and announced for over 50 years. I don't get how the gov. with a straight face can allow the sale of cigarettes if it's so dangerous.....but, then again they do allow sky diving.
"In August, Reynolds – which does not produce mods - urged the FDA to "ban open system e-cigarettes, including all component parts." Such systems, Reynolds wrote, present a "unique risk for adulteration, tampering and quality control.""
Why not take this a tiny step further and say that cooking your own stew or casserole is an 'open system'? Government MRE's anyone?
Why not take this a tiny step further and say that cooking your own stew or casserole is an 'open system'? Government MRE's anyone?
Yeah, no conspiracy going on here...
Unless you consider where this dominant message of "doubt" is coming from.
And who is funding it. And why.
But yeah, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I like this quote................we need them on our side with all there money.
" Japan Tobacco International, the world's third-largest tobacco company, thinks strict regulations could hurt young firms.
"If you make it extremely hard (to comply), you would drive small companies out of business," said Ian Jones, JTI's head of scientific and regulatory affairs for emerging products. "You would lose the value of the category, you would lose the spark."
Another thing that should be done is ban cigalikes...........then nobody could confuse vaping with stinkies.
" Japan Tobacco International, the world's third-largest tobacco company, thinks strict regulations could hurt young firms.
"If you make it extremely hard (to comply), you would drive small companies out of business," said Ian Jones, JTI's head of scientific and regulatory affairs for emerging products. "You would lose the value of the category, you would lose the spark."
Another thing that should be done is ban cigalikes...........then nobody could confuse vaping with stinkies.
Last edited:
For an industry which has deliberately modified plant genetics to make their product more addictive, suggesting that an "open system" is susceptible to manipulation, takes hypocrisy to a ridiculous level.
don't get how the gov. with a straight face can allow the sale of cigarettes if it's so dangerous.....but, then again they do allow sky diving.
Money. Cigarette smokers essentially keep most state governments running. Without that tax revenue, most states would be bankrupt. The amount of money they bring in off the taxes is enormous. Even the federal government is bringing in about $15 billion a year (which is a drop in the pan when talking about how much our responsible Congress spends).
Therein lies the answer to your question as to why "they don't just ban cigarettes." Money. If they could tax e-cigs at the same rate, they no doubt would stop complaining about their "dangers."
They didn't even mention the addictive additives tobacco manufactures included in products? Two faced act. Godsmack Greed seems to come to mind for some reason!
Last edited:
This is why I feel not so compelled to join fellow vapers on this issue. It's like parroting ANTZ rhetoric is totally cool when it serves us. Or can you back up this accusation without resorting to ANTZ propaganda? I double dog dare ya.
I already commented on this thread's topic in the same topic thread that exists in "General Vaping" sub-forum. I do see this as misstep by BT, but can't get on board with BT bashing outside of this particular issue. They say they want an even playing field, when the market is simply not set up that way and what FDA has proposed would abolish equality in the playing field, which I'm pretty sure BT is hip to. Thus, as I said in other thread, if BT is going to act pro-regulations, then they (along with BV) ought to fund all research costs for any business wanting to enter the market. IMO, that makes sense all the way around, and to the degree it doesn't, then I would suggest big whatever that says publicly they don't support all regulations, ought to be more visible with anti-regulation rhetoric. BV is pretty visible with its anti-regulation rhetoric. BT is once again playing a dangerous political game, and might be thinking a few steps ahead of where I'm looking at things, but currently, I can see how they could be put in check if they continue on the path they are on with regards to eCigs. Because a black market will surely exist with regards to vaping, I don't see 'checkmate' as possible for any player on this proverbial game board.
The only thing I thought of after my other post is that if BT does control research funding (that FDA must engage in), then they could plausibly slant all research in their favor. But with the recent TPSAC conflict of interest policy and BT's ongoing issues with scientific conflicts of interest, it would set them up as being sued (or party to a suit) if magically no smaller players were allowed in while only big ones are allowed to thrive. In reality, I'd just assume BT take on the anti-regulation stance and present a superficial front on 'reasonable regulations' of which health warnings that can't be scientifically substantiated are not any part of.
I'm not convinced that BT is even a major player in this. I'm not bashing them, just scrutinizing their tactics.
- Status
Similar threads
