I apologize, I was not aware you were referring to the FDA deeming topic. Given that, your statement concerning the acceptance of regulation and taxation is pure fallacy. The FDA does not tax anything. In context, she was refering to state bills set forth to regulate and/or tax ecig suppliers/manufacturers. Look at the Utah bill, and quite a few others. The states are proposing these taxation/regulation measures. If and when the FDA gains dominion over the ecig industry, these laws will be as misquito bites. The entire industry will either be decimated (banned outright and made illegal), or restricted to the point of a handful of manufactures (BT/Pharma/NJoy) monopolizing the market with their 4 approved flavors.
If Vapor and/or its constituent components are deemed "tobacco products", there will be an instantaneous tax imposed in my state. As of this moment, Liquid vendors do not take part in the "tobacco stamp" ordeal; MO is waiting on the feds (FDA), one would assume. While the FDA doesn't apply taxes, if they have the power to push a thing into a category that is (sin)taxed above and beyond a sales tax---which is how it is now here, then they in fact will be causing a rise in taxes.
Careful, we don't want to fall into the ANTZ trap!
The ANTZ are sneaky that way. They've stopped saying "harm from smoking" and now use the word "tobacco" instead. That way they get people to forget that the goal used to be to get people to quit SMOKING to reduce health risks, not vilify all tobacco/nicotine and consumers and convince people that all tobacco has equal health risks. But WE know now that is a lie. The goal of CASAA is to get the truth out that we CAN decrease the harms of SMOKING with other tobacco products - low risk alternative tobacco products such as smokefree tobacco and e-cigarettes that contain tobacco-derived nicotine.
Which is why some don't understand why they should play their slimy game. They won't use logic or reason, they won't play fair, and they don't care about our health. First and foremost we should never allow any conversation on the subject pass without saying first, and loudest that we are NOT SMOKING. This is not, then technically "reducing the harm" of smoking. It is reducing harm to ex-smokers. Doesn't matter if they can wrap their twisted little minds around the truth. What is IS.
I actually agree with this. You can't play fair with Bureaucrats. It's a high stakes game that one can't win if you stay within the box. Assuming that there shouldn't be any regulations on ecigs puts us in a position of what is right, not what is politically correct. Do I believe that regulations are inevitable? Yes I do, and we should prepare for such. But we don't have to tell them that nor have them see us acknowledge it.
I agree with much of ^this^. It encapsulates the frustration of many of we "Leave Me Alone-ists" If I'm wrongly to be put to death, and my captor says I can choose hanging or electrocution, I will not take part in that choice. I'll try to escape, no matter the odds. I won't bad-mouth or belittle someone who pleas for my life or works to make the execution more humane, but don't ask me to condone it or take part in the process and give it credence.
here.) 
