Mmmmmmm......... at times I have to wonder who's side you're really on. Perhaps I can send you the shipping charges from my last snus order. i'm sure you'll cover it.
Likely best if I say no more..............................
- Status
Mmmmmmm......... at times I have to wonder who's side you're really on. Perhaps I can send you the shipping charges from my last snus order. i'm sure you'll cover it.
Likely best if I say no more..............................
The the worst thing about politics is the politicians no matter what party.
Always has been and always will be.
The one reason talking politics on forums is not the best idea.
Is they can all to easily turn in to wizzing matches. No one wins in a wizzing match.
Both sides come away mad wet and smelling funny.
"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
Will Rogers
Always has been and always will be.
The one reason talking politics on forums is not the best idea.
Is they can all to easily turn in to wizzing matches. No one wins in a wizzing match.
Both sides come away mad wet and smelling funny.
"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
Will Rogers
Last edited:
Here is one of the bills he was talking about...
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403
Co-Sponsors
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Yeah, I know. A sugar/carb/fat tax wouldn't significantly lower the consumption. That's kind of my point. Those would be good targets for a sin tax. Just as is the case with alcohol taxes, you can increase them all you want with no fear of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The only real risk is creating a black market. Throughout history, humans have always sought certain things, and no amount of taxation or legal prohibition will change that. The drive for sex, food and to alter consciousness can never be taxed or regulated out of our DNA. (If you question the latter, consider the delight that even the smallest child takes in spinning around until he's dizzy)
As for the level of e-cig taxation we can expect, that depends on a couple things. First off is lobbying by BT. Almost 100% of the tax increase imposed on bulk tobacco back in 2009 was a direct result of lobbying by BT. The original proposal was to double the tax to about $3. By the time the lobbyists got done, it was over $23. That amount wasn't settled on to discourage smoking, or even just to increase revenue. It was BT's attempt to preserve market share by equalizing the costs of RYO and pre-rolled cigarettes as much as possible.
At least the RYO tax proponents could plausibly use the "health costs" excuse. They could also claim with a straight face that the increased tax was aimed at discouraging tobacco use. Regarding e-cigs, they can do neither. There are no health costs, either fiscal or physical, associated with vaping for them to (disingenuously) claim they are trying to recoup or prevent. Also, vaping, in and of itself, discourages tobacco use. So high e-cig taxes would be counter-productive in terms of public health. In a logical world, people would receive a tax credit or subsidy to switch from smoking to vaping.
Proponents of high e-cig taxes have been deprived of the standard rationales they normally use as political cover for obscene tobacco, and other, "sin" taxes. Suddenly, the only honest motivations behind an e-cig tax are laid bare. That is, to placate BP and BT, and to raise revenue. Some day, credible evidence may arise to show e-cigs are a health hazard, or encourage smoking among former non-smokers. Until that day, there can be no logical rationale for advocating high e-cig taxes. If questioned, all the tax proponents can do is blatantly and transparently lie through their teeth.
You had better have proof to make accusations. Who do you think you are??? Bill has been our friend and an advocate for harm reduction from day one. All I see from you is hostility and snark. I am reporting this post.
Don't let the haters get you down Mr. Godshall. Those of us who aren't complete assclowns respect you for your tireless efforts to let the truth be known and promote harm reduction.
E-liquid is considered a tobacco product, as it should be as the only active ingrediant is derived from tobacco. Even the courts agree with that. Trying to claim e-liquid is not a tobacco product is not going to work.
The issue is how much harm it is to the public. For that we can look at what has happened to smokeless tobacco. Even though it is significantly less harmful then smoking it has gotten falsely categorized as having the same risk factor. Even you are falling into the trap by saying that vaping discourages tobacco use, when what in reality vaping discourages smoking. You are interchanging the term tobacco and smoking, just as the ANTZ routinely do.
There is no logical rational for the type of smokeless tobacco taxes that some states charge. The state I live in has the highest smokeless tobacco tax in the country, and this is in fact harming public health, along with the continuing misinformation campaign on smokeless tobacco. Expect nothing different when it comes to vaping.
I agree that we should "expect nothing different," but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep fighting this.
Just maybe with enough voices and the "facts," the public opinion on all of this will change and we could have a fighting chance.
Just maybe with enough voices and the "facts," the public opinion on all of this will change and we could have a fighting chance.
I don't know about Utah or Wisconsin, but the Indiana state bodies have not lumped e-cigs and tobacco together. So far the only body in Indiana to pass a law to make e-cigs equal to burning tobacco has been the Marion City County Council (Indianapolis' legislative representatives.) The Indianapolis area is not known as a Republican stronghold.
The Marion City County Council did exempt a few areas in the county, not Indianapolis obviously, and two of those exempted muni's have passed their own version, but excluded e-cigs in the description of what smoking is.
The Hoosier Vapers Club is fighting these local things as they come and trying to inform vapers that while vaping is fine in most of the state, there is a ban in Indianapolis and some surrounding cities. It does make things confusing.
I'll let you folks get back to fretting over reds and blues. I just wanted to clairify what is happening in this state.
Utah's governor is on the Board of Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, so that's where that came form. Also Utah is a Mormon state and Mormons don't believe in alcohol, nicotine, or even caffeine. Know what they use for communion? Water!
As far as I know the only other state that has lumped e-cigs into smoking bans state-wide is New Jersey. New Jersey is home to Sen. Frank Lautenberg who urged the FDA to ban e-cigs.
As far as I know the only other state that has lumped e-cigs into smoking bans state-wide is New Jersey. New Jersey is home to Sen. Frank Lautenberg who urged the FDA to ban e-cigs.
Terrible example!
Bullets are no more dangerous to people than e-cigs (and possibly less dangerous). I've had bullets of one caliber or another in my possession for nearly all of my life and never have I been harmed by one...or any gun for that matter, and I've also used them for my entire life. I got my first gun at 13 and now, nearly 30 years later, I have suffered not one bit of harm from either the guns or bullets. I've fired more bullets than I care to count and as of now never suffered any injury and my last physical was pretty good.
I know this isn't the place for this discussion but it's a very sensitive subject for me. I'm quite sure that many of the same people on this forum who feel that e-cigs shouldn't be outlawed or regulated by ignorant people who have never been harmed by them would happily vote for gun regulation or illegalization even though they have never been harmed by them. People see the stupidity in legislation passed out of ignorance when it's something they don't want regulated but are just fine with passing legislation out of ignorance when it's going to affect another person and the things they enjoy. It's hypocritical and it's exactly the same thing...passing laws out of ignorance. It's just OK I guess, as long as it doesn't interfere with your rights.
The simplest thing I can say is don't be a hypocrite! Neither guns nor bullets are harmful to people! Criminal, deranged, unstable, and psychotic people use guns and bullets to harm other people. If all the guns were outlawed then the criminals would still have them because...well...they are criminals, they don't obey the laws. Deranged, unstable and psychotic people would still harm other people....they would just use something other than guns. Any law passed outlawing guns would be a law passed by ignorant people who don't use guns, just as any law passed outlawing e-cigs would be a law passed by ignorant people who don't use e-cigs. It's hypocritical to take the side against legislation and regulation of one and not the other....same with anything and everything. If you don't use it then you should not try to take the rights of others who do.
The moral of this story is...don't move to Utah or New Jersey! LOL!
I don't think the comment you are referring to was in any way saying "hey and while you're at it, Mr. Government, let's outlaw guns and bullets!". I do think the comment was spot on in regards to the fact that bullets in the wrong hands are a guarantee that there will be harm to another human being and just how easy it is for the WRONG people to get their hands on a gun or a ton of rounds. Which really is kind of mind blurring when you think about it.
If there is a law passed saying it is illegal for us to have access to electronic cigarettes, nicotine juices, and the like, it is going to leave ALOT of us in a very bad situation and push quite a bit of us back to cigarettes, or criminal when black markets for said illegal supplies become a staple for those of us that refuse to go back to killing ourselves with cigarettes. So basically, it will be quite ok for someone to go online and buy something that, in the wrong hands will kill without a doubt. But it's not ok for me to go online and buy the things that turned my life around and saved my lungs and the people around me from my 2nd hand smoke. It's really all about perspective.
In a nutshell, I am an avid supporter of the e cigarette that keeps me off of smoking. I stand up for the suppliers that make nicotine juices and am thankful for finding my way off of those Marlboros that were killing me for years. I don't want a government to shut down the people that are making all of this possible nor the people like me that finally found a peaceful middle ground with vaping. I do understand what the gentleman/lady was trying to say in regards to bullets, and this is coming from someone who believes that guns in the right hands are just fine. My husband has several and they haven't harmed him or anyone around him either.
We all just want to vape in peace.
You act as if voting matters. Bush proved that it doesn't when he won the election without the popular vote.
Don't worries, anything you want/need or would like to have is to be had. all you have to do is know the right people and you can get whatever you want. the sooner you stop worrying about breaking a silly law or two then you can go on with your day. take care and remember,It wasn't that long ago We did not even have Internet and we still got our goodies.
btw, is obama even going to be allowed to try and get elected again? i thought the whole point was to show the world what a mistake it would be to let 'such' a person in the white house. and the world has seen!
btw, is obama even going to be allowed to try and get elected again? i thought the whole point was to show the world what a mistake it would be to let 'such' a person in the white house. and the world has seen!
I think the FDA may put regulations in place but I think online suppliers will still be around, but simply complying with the standards.
Depends on how much lab equipment and million-dollar certifications the FDA ends up requiring in the standards. Fingers crossed.
I agree 100%. Given that the FDA was very amenable and agreeable to presentations at TPSAC meetings claiming that kids are mistaking dissolvable tobacco products for candy (when the only people calling them "candy" are the ANTZ) because of "kid-friendly flavors" (Gag me with a spoon!), I envision one of the first regulations they will want to pass is to ban all flavors except for tobacco.
NOTE: These presentations had no real-life examples where kids actually had purchased or tried to purchase Ariva or Stonewall orbs thinking they were candy. Instead they described focus groups the ANTZ conducted where they showed kids pictures of tobacco orbs side-by-side with Tic-Tacs and asked whether they were candy. They did not bother to show the kids pictures of the new Nicorette mini lozenges that look a lot more like a Tic-Tac than the tobacco orbs. They gave the impression that the orbs are shelved with the candy, making it difficult to tell tobacco products from candy products. However, in most jurisdictions, the orbs are shelved with cigarettes and other tobacco products (i.e., behind the counter, out-of-reach of children), but the Nicorette lozenges and gum are often on low shelves out in the open.
Given all the hoopla about "we don't know how much nicotine e-cig users are getting" and "nicotine is a deadly poison", (not to mention their plans for reducing the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes) it is not a stretch of the imagination to envision the FDA capping the nicotine concentration in liquids at a maximum that is too low to do most of us any good.
In a nutshell, I don't trust the FDA to propose reasonable regulations. Reasonable regulations would be those where you could point to a logical or scientific basis for the need. These would include manufacturing standards to prevent contamination, labeling requirements to ensure that consumers know that they are being sold, and offering child-proof packaging to those who want it.
The standards that are already in place for manufacturing products intended for human consumption are plenty of protection against contamination. These are the standards currently applied to U.S. labs that manufacture e-liquid, and they are sufficient.
Last edited:
Hmm, if they mess us up, we should start a VERY aggressive campaign to ban all the Nicorette lozenges etc based upon that presentation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
