Arkansas war on vaping begins

[Eskie]

From what I've seen to date both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored and enacted anri-vaping legislation or regulation so I'd consider it a nonpartisan issue. But hey, believe as you will.

Just remember, it was President Trump holding a juul up and talking about taxes on it and Commissioner Gottleib of this republican administration pushing on the flavor front. But why let facts sway one's opinion on their party of choice.

 

[zoiDman]

You're kidding, right? What do you think the war on vaping is. Bans are PURELY political. Oh, wait...

I question the agenda of any forum that bans ALL political conversation. This isn't a Masonic Lodge, last I checked. The MSM use to leave online content open to comments; until critical thinking conservatives began exposing their daily doses of collectivist propaganda. The solution? Close the comment section!

Jeeze jcoopercam.

Can You Give It a Rest?

 

[ScottP]

From what I've seen to date both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored and enacted anri-vaping legislation or regulation so I'd consider it a nonpartisan issue. But hey, believe as you will.

Just remember, it was President Trump holding a Juul up and talking about taxes on it and Commissioner Gottleib of this republican administration pushing on the flavor front. But why let facts sway one's opinion on their party of choice.

While I agree this is a BI-partisan issue, if not for Trump's appointment of Gottleib NONE of the products made after 2007 would even be available in the US right now. Mr. G at least has been choosing not to enforce that garbage. It's easy to forget that part. As far as flavors, I don't like it, but it is, at least currently, only affecting convenience stores and pods. I really do believe he is trying to do as little damage as possible while pleasing the "save the children" crowd. It's the next person we need to be worrying about.

 

[Opinionated]

Yeah, somehow I think that approach might be a little counterproductive... Kinda like dumping all the taxed liquids in the Arkansas River while disguised as smokers...

What we're doing is trying to work with the legislators... Educate them (and the populace at large)... And encouraging enforcement of exiating laws.

Imagine, if you will, every minor caught vaping in this "epidemic" being charged a $250 fine... Maybe a reduced sentence/fine if they tell the prosecutor who bought them the gear and e-liquid. There's both an end to the "epidemic" AND their missing revenue. And, perfectly legal adult vaping can continue without their nasty fingers mucking about.

The problem is getting anyone to listen to us.

Instead of being someone who might not need costly medical care for 20 or so years on the states dime for lung issues, I'm just 20 years of lost tax revenue because I'm not paying the sin taxes involved in smoking.

How do we get the government to see it as a net positive when they are looking in the moment and not down the road to a generation that will never see addiction to smoking?

This is our biggest problem - the government doesn't seem to think it's a plus that we aren't smoking anymore.

Our dollars are going back into the economy even still, but because it's not high taxes they see no benefit.

 

[jcoopercam]

From what I've seen to date both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored and enacted anri-vaping legislation or regulation so I'd consider it a nonpartisan issue. But hey, believe as you will.

Just remember, it was President Trump holding a Juul up and talking about taxes on it and Commissioner Gottleib of this republican administration pushing on the flavor front. But why let facts sway one's opinion on their party of choice.

There are no political parties in DC. Only the illusion of them.

 

[Eskie]

The problem is getting anyone to listen to us.

Instead of being someone who might not need costly medical care for 20 or so years on the states dime for lung issues, I'm just 20 years of lost tax revenue because I'm not paying the sin taxes involved in smoking.

How do we get the government to see it as a net positive when they are looking in the moment and not down the road to a generation that will never see addiction to smoking?

This is our biggest problem - the government doesn't seem to think it's a plus that we aren't smoking anymore.

Our dollars are going back into the economy even still, but because it's not high taxes they see no benefit.

I would temper that by looking at the anti-smoking efforts of government and institutions. In all those cases getting people to stop smoking still results in the same loss of sin tax revenue. The question to me is what's so different about vaping? The end result is the same, fewer smokers, so why the mobilization against it when you're making every other effort to decrease smoking rates? And smoking rates were declining before vaping came along, It appears the perception of vaping is radically different, correct or not, that has to be addressed.

 

[Eskie]

While I agree this is a BI-partisan issue, if not for Trump's appointment of Gottleib NONE of the products made after 2007 would even be available in the US right now. Mr. G at least has been choosing not to enforce that garbage. It's easy to forget that part. As far as flavors, I don't like it, but it is, at least currently, only affecting convenience stores and pods. I really do believe he is trying to do as little damage as possible while pleasing the "save the children" crowd. It's the next person we need to be worrying about.

I agree with you. I think Gottlieb has been a superb Commissioner, and I'm sorry to see him go. Yet the minute he raised and took limited action over flavors, based on multiple posts across this board, he turned into the right hand of the Devil. My objection is to the political hysteria around here with finger pointing in an utterly polarized manner about who's to blame and characterizing anyone seeking to regulate vaping as a left wing communist bent on world domination when in truth is is a bipartisan issue with supporters and detractors on both sides of the aisle.

As long as the vaping community keeps tearing itself apart with polarizing political taunts and finger pointing the more likely we all lose. That's why it's a nonpartisan issue. There is no one political party to blame, and it's that argument consuming this place I object to.

 

[Opinionated]

I would temper that by looking at the anti-smoking efforts of government and institutions. In all those cases getting people to stop smoking still results in the same loss of sin tax revenue. The question to me is what's so different about vaping? The end result is the same, fewer smokers, so why the mobilization against it when you're making every other effort to decrease smoking rates? And smoking rates were declining before vaping came along, It appears the perception of vaping is radically different, correct or not, that has to be addressed.

It sounds a bit conspiracy theory nut job to say, but when looking at all previous stop smoking programs/aids/gimmicks and comparing them to vaping, the difference is that vaping works where they fail.

In the real world vaping has a far, far higher success rate, and it's long term success not just a year or two and then right back to it again.

And that seems to be the problem. Its not that vapor looks similar to smoke, or that vaping might appear similar in nature, the problem is that we are staying off cigarettes.

 

[Don29palms]

The problem is getting anyone to listen to us.

Instead of being someone who might not need costly medical care for 20 or so years on the states dime for lung issues, I'm just 20 years of lost tax revenue because I'm not paying the sin taxes involved in smoking.

How do we get the government to see it as a net positive when they are looking in the moment and not down the road to a generation that will never see addiction to smoking?

This is our biggest problem - the government doesn't seem to think it's a plus that we aren't smoking anymore.

Our dollars are going back into the economy even still, but because it's not high taxes they see no benefit.

I don't know. Even though I'm not smoking I still spend the same amount of money. It's just on other stuff.

 

[Eskie]

It sounds a bit conspiracy theory nut job to say, but when looking at all previous stop smoking programs/aids/gimmicks and comparing them to vaping, the difference is that vaping works where they fail.

In the real world vaping has a far, far higher success rate, and it's long term success not just a year or two and then right back to it again.

And that seems to be the problem. Its not that vapor looks similar to smoke, or that vaping might appear similar in nature, the problem is that we are staying off cigarettes.

It's a tough call. Smoking rates were declining pretty well 10 years ago when vaping was barely known. The most recent study on smoking cessation did show vaping was twice as effective as NRT products, but the total numbers were still not a home run with vaping successful at one year at ~20% vs. NRT at 9.9%. So vaping is a great tool, but it still didn't work for the majority of smokers who tried it.

I don't know where the resistance to vaping is coming from in the US. I wish we did as it would define where to place the greatest effort but we're not there yet. That recent survey reported by CNN did show over 50% of Americans believe vaping equal to or greater harm to health than smoking. I think that's a big first fallacy that requires action. At least that is something identifiable that can be corrected with educational approaches. But I'm not sure any of the vaping associations raise sufficient donations to tackle nationwide educational ad campaigns. They struggle just in lobbying over regulations. I guess it's up to us as vapers to make every effort to educate those around us that we can, because at the moment there's no one else out there doing it.

The closest we came to it was when Gottleib made a clear statement nicotine is not the problem, it's burning tobacco that is. Then came the flavoring issue and nicotine became a demon again.

 

[CMD-Ky]

On the forum I see the emphasis being primarily on taxation, lobbying and "legal" bribery. I think that there is a significant and vocal group that has never left the country's puritanical ideology. Light-heartedly I have heard it expressed as, "There are people out there enjoying themselves and we must stop it". Their interest in control over the lives of others is rather frightening. Their motivation is not tax related, corruption related or big tobacco related. It is power and control and knowing better what is good for us. I find recognition here is under estimated.

....

I don't know where the resistance to vaping is coming from in the US. I wish we did as it would define where to place the greatest effort but we're not there yet.

 

[Opinionated]

I don't know. Even though I'm not smoking I still spend the same amount of money. It's just on other stuff.

It's the other stuff that I'm pointing out.

We might buy a television, or a camera, or vape gear with the money now, but that doesn't have the same amount of money going to taxes.

Each pack a cigarettes has 1.00 going to federal tax and depending on where you live the state and city taxes combined could be as high as 6.00 per pack.

Most smokers smoke one to two packs of cigarettes a day. An 8% tax on that television is nothing compared to what smokers pay tax-wise.

Someone who smoked two packs of cigarettes per day in New York City, is contributing 730 dollars to federal taxes per year, and 4270.5 dollars per year in state and local taxes - just off cigarette purchases.

With that same expenditure literally on any other product and there just isn't the same benefit to states.

The expenditure of two packs of cigarettes per day in New York is 9490 per year. Tax that at 8% for housewares or other items, and the state only gets 759.20 per year from the former smoker.

Former smoker = 800 dollars. Smoker = 5,000 dollars.

What is more attractive to the state seeking tax revenue?

Every city and state has different tax rates and this is just one example, but in most major cities the story is close to the same. The tax dollars raked in from smoking is far greater than taxing new televisions or anything else that is able to be purchased..

loan sharks couldn't ask for better rates than states get off cigarettes.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Sin Taxes are generally an easy sell to the Public at Large ..

 

[Eskie]

Another high tax item that folks don't even give much thought to is gasoline for your car. And it's not like it's being used for highway maintenance and construction. That federal and state tax per gallon is as high as $0.58 in PA, $0.45 in NY, to a low of $0.20 in TX, and $0.19 on AZ. Most of that is state levy in the high tax states, the federal is tax is $0.18 and hasn't changed in some time. In high tax states that's a pretty big chunk of the cost to fill your tank (no not close to cigarettes, but there are an awful lot more drivers than smokers).

@CMD-Ky I agree, the Puritanical nature of the US is frequently overlooked. Yet it affects everything from smoking to illicit substance use to alcohol (not even going to go near things like sex education for teens). I imagine that does influence the general disregard for something like vaping. It's also a tough one to beat as it's a belief that will stand in the face of any evidence presented. It's sad it has to be such an uphill battle on so many issues that need addressing but won't because of those beliefs.

 

[Opinionated]

On the forum I see the emphasis being primarily on taxation, lobbying and "legal" bribery. I think that there is a significant and vocal group that has never left the country's puritanical ideology. Light-heartedly I have heard it expressed as, "There are people out there enjoying themselves and we must stop it". Their interest in control over the lives of others is rather frightening. Their motivation is not tax related, corruption related or big tobacco related. It is power and control and knowing better what is good for us. I find recognition here is under estimated.

It's not a "puritan" mindset... (most people don't even know what that is anymore - obviously).

As much as people say they think for themselves they dont.

We rely on information from those we see as more informed in areas we know little about.

I saw vaping and had been told by peers that it would help me quit smoking. But I didn't see my peers as knowledgeable in the area of what might be harmful for my body.

To find out whether I should see vaping as a viable way to quit smoking or not I trusted the one person I saw as knowledgeable in the area of my physical body - aka. My doctor.

At the same time, doctors don't have time to be the wellspring of knowledge for all physical topics , so they defer to people like the Surgeon General here in the United States as well as various publications.

Thank God my doctor does keep up with the times and knew about vaping as well as all the positive research coming from places like England (who has a financial stake in the health of their citizens), but look where doctors are divided.

State doctors, such as we find at the VA, get their information from the state and they tell their patients that it's better for them to smoke than to vape. (And yes that is what the VA doctors were telling people..)

So the divide is, who do we trust for our information - the pro side or the anti side..

More people in this country trust our government and other sources for their information..what people aren't doing is listening to current vapers

And, when we follow the money on the information, we see those with financial stake in our dollars are the most vehemently against our vaping, and vaping being taken up by the American public at large. (Government, BP, BT etc etc etc)

The soccer mom who just wants to protect her child, will always err on the side of caution.

 

[Uncle Willie]

"the Puritanical nature of the US .." .. is a Myth as it relates to Taxation .. We go All In with about anything that will generate a Buck for the Tax Man .. Sports Betting being the latest Domino to fall .. with a certain Green, Leafy Substance headed toward Mainstream ..

Prostitution, I'm certain, at some point, will gain Traction as a Tax Producing Revenue Source ..

Point being, if Folks are going to do it anyway, why not .. ??

 

[DaveP]

To find out whether I should see vaping as a viable way to quit smoking or not I trusted the one person I saw as knowledgeable in the area of my physical body - aka. My doctor.

At the same time, doctors don't have time to be the wellspring of knowledge for all physical topics , so they defer to people like the Surgeon General here in the United States as well as various publications.

Thank God my doctor does keep up with the times and knew about vaping as well as all the positive research coming from places like England (who has a financial stake in the health of their citizens), but look where doctors are divided.

Agree. Doctors should be the ones who dig into the issues and come up with a reasonably accurate assessment for medical effects of things we ingest and inhale. My doctor surprised me when he condoned vaping as a quit smoking tool. Years later, he still asks me during his checklist of questions, "Still vaping and not smoking?". I say yes and he says, "Good!" and we go on to the next item. He's just happy that I've changed to something that satisfies the nicotine urge without the health issues that smoking causes.

 

[englishmick]

I would temper that by looking at the anti-smoking efforts of government and institutions. In all those cases getting people to stop smoking still results in the same loss of sin tax revenue. The question to me is what's so different about vaping? The end result is the same, fewer smokers, so why the mobilization against it when you're making every other effort to decrease smoking rates? And smoking rates were declining before vaping came along, It appears the perception of vaping is radically different, correct or not, that has to be addressed.

Oliver posted something once about a floor effect with smoking. There's a name for it that I can't remember. Punitive measures and propaganda can reduce smoking levels to around 20% but no further. For that last 20% the addiction is too strong and they will go on smoking no matter how much they cost and being forced to smoke in cold dark corners or whatever. To get it down below that level requires something else, an alternative like vaping.

So smoking had been declining before vaping came along as a result of all the other strategies. But it's possible that it had already gone as far as it could go, and further declines might be legitimately attributed to vaping.

Not quite on point, my wife found a piece of propaganda on the internet this morning from WWII times. Encouraging women to quit smoking because all the tobacco was needed for our troops.

 

[United States]

Has anyone noticed all the smoking being shown by movie and tv actors lately?

That crowd started the vaping 'trend' in a younger crowd by showing actors using 'pens' a few years back. Now they've been showing a lot of smoking and snide comments about vaping.

Unfortunatley the masses blindly follow Hollywood trends.

Years ago America had a president who said he was going to raise taxes on a pack of cigarettes $2 a pack. That was said to cause people to stop smoking. It was also said the revenue was going to pay for universal healthcare.

That was said long before vape devices were being produced (1990's). The mindset though remains the same. Now it's being said about vape products.

Way back in the early 20th century America declared drugs illegal. You see how well that worked. Same with guns in Chicago and DC.

We just need to brace ourselves for the impending deluge of stupid legislation, speak out against when practical then remember the days of the Wild West of vaping. They are numbered. Things will settle out in time and then the masses will blindly follow the Hollywood lead about something else stupid.

 

[Opinionated]

Oliver posted something once about a floor effect with smoking. There's a name for it that I can't remember. Punitive measures and propaganda can reduce smoking levels to around 20% but no further. For that last 20% the addiction is too strong and they will go on smoking no matter how much they cost and being forced to smoke in cold dark corners or whatever. To get it down below that level requires something else, an alternative like vaping.

So smoking had been declining before vaping came along as a result of all the other strategies. But it's possible that it had already gone as far as it could go, and further declines might be legitimately attributed to vaping.

Not quite on point, my wife found a piece of propaganda on the internet this morning from WWII times. Encouraging women to quit smoking because all the tobacco was needed for our troops.

And this is a very good point.

I know many of us here on this forum thought we'd never quit smoking. Myself certainly...

My kids used to tell me I was so addicted I would end up a little old lady with emphysema sucking down a cigarette while on oxygen..

And they were right. If it weren't for vaping that was my future.. and now I don't use nicotine anymore at all, and don't vape that much.

Vaping has been a game changer for many of us.