Banning PVs: Why Governments like cigarettes: Conspiracy Theory #792

Status
Not open for further replies.

191ahc

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 1, 2010
112
5
Berkeley, CA
The banning of PVs is a mystery to me. Sure, there are lots of puritan prudes who don't want anyone to do anything they don't personally approve of. But why ban something so obviously helpful to people getting off of tobacco? Ignorance? Arrogance? Control Freakishness?

The advantage of cigarette taxes to governments has been mentioned frequently. Another possibility is that the early deaths of cigarette smokers prevents that much more money being paid out in Social Security or equivalent retirement funds; saving money too.

The health care costs for lung cancer patients is absorbed by insurance companies; but "lucky" for them lung cancer patients don't last long, minimizing the drain on their resources.

Banning ecigs is a mystery to me.
 

5cardstud

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 1, 2010
22,746
50,647
Wash
I would say beings a carton now costs around $75.00 or more and most of it being taxes would be a good place to start.Then there is the Pharmacies that aren't selling as much of their stop smoking remedies. But most of all any time the government gets involved in matters it almost never makes any sense. I can write for days about illogical things the government does.
 

191ahc

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 1, 2010
112
5
Berkeley, CA
Tax dollars for tobacco that hasn't even been sold yet has already been spent.....


Agreed; as has the income taxes for the next generation!

I disageee about "big pharma" however, HHG. They could go into the PV business (via subsidiaries and with the proper public relations spin) and make as much as they make on patches/gum/etc.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Most e-cigarette sales bans were done so by government health agency officials who are either abstinence-only anti-tobacco/nicotine extremists (who don't want smokers to reduce their health risks by switching to far less hazardous alternatives) and/or who believe that e-cigarettes are smoking cessation drug products that haven't been adequately tested or approved as a drug device.

Also, many/most organizations and individuals that urged governments to ban the sale and/or use of e-cigarettes have been funded by drug companies (that manufacture/market smoking cessation drugs) because drug companies correctly realize that e-cigarettes (and smokeless tobacco products) are their biggest competitors, and that e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are more effective (than NRT) as cigarette substitutes and because e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are less expensive than NRT.
 

HighHeeledGoddess

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 14, 2009
222
12
Agreed; as has the income taxes for the next generation!

I disageee about "big pharma" however, HHG. They could go into the PV business (via subsidiaries and with the proper public relations spin) and make as much as they make on patches/gum/etc.

I disagree, because you are neglecting to consider the success rate of PVs versus the success rate of NRT products. Why would they want to sell you 1 product that works when they can keep you on the hook for 10 that don't work? The only pay back would come from the possibility you will live longer as a nonsmoker, and survive through more complex and costly medical procedures.
 

5cardstud

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 1, 2010
22,746
50,647
Wash
I disagree, because you are neglecting to consider the success rate of PVs versus the success rate of NRT products. Why would they want to sell you 1 product that works when they can keep you on the hook for 10 that don't work? The only pay back would come from the possibility you will live longer as a nonsmoker, and survive through more complex and costly medical procedures.

Plus all they already have invested in those products like inventory, tooling, packaging, etc.
 

HighHeeledGoddess

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 14, 2009
222
12
Plus all they already have invested in those products like inventory, tooling, packaging, etc.

True, and lets not forget the costs of R&D that must be recouped, in addition to losing out on further funding for new products.

Sort of like any major illness. Why cure it when there is so much profit to be had attempting to cure it?
 

191ahc

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 1, 2010
112
5
Berkeley, CA
I disagree, because you are neglecting to consider the success rate of PVs versus the success rate of NRT products. Why would they want to sell you 1 product that works when they can keep you on the hook for 10 that don't work? The only pay back would come from the possibility you will live longer as a nonsmoker, and survive through more complex and costly medical procedures.

I do not think of BigPharma as a cabal. I think they are capitalists and want to make more money than their competitors. I wouldn't be surprised if they did take PVs a big leap "forward" and add MAOIs( thanks Vapormuse), or any other drugs to this "new" delivery system. Just speculating here...However PVs are not as neat and unobtrusive as pills--so I quess this is unlikely.
Do the same companies that make NRT products also make chemotherapy products?

Do most individuals go through large amounts of patches, gum, lozengers ($$$$) before they return to analogs?
 
Last edited:

191ahc

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 1, 2010
112
5
Berkeley, CA
<snip>...

Sort of like any major illness. Why cure it when there is so much profit to be had attempting to cure it?

This one I must take issue with...anyone who cures a disease gets, IIRC, 17 years to make tons of money and great public relations before its released as a generic. Selling a "cure" is where the money is at...the bad public relations of knowingly keeping a cure off the market would ruin a company...someone would squeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread