Cole-Bishop Failed. What now for vape?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
Its not about about taxes.
That's small time.
It's about lost BT profit, which affects the amount BT pays to states.
The states have no choice as they have already sold bonds based on those payments not being reduced by a bottom line fighting a multi billion dollar, fast growing vape industry.
They now have no choice.

Local taxes are just scraps for the local crumb snatchers.

They are playing the long game.
It's chess not checkers.
The MSA money can be lumped in with the taxes. And many thousands of businesses benefit from tobacco sales and they would have lower profits and pay less taxes and some on the margin might go out of business. Those businesses are not the ones raising alarms about ecigs. The people doing that are virtually all tax supported and know their funding will decline with falling tobacco taxes.

Right now the anti crowd seems to be counting on the kids issues to get their way. Above we read that may be very few kid experimenters are turning into regular vapers. If that holds true they may have run out of scare tactics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daviedog

jseah

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 16, 2015
4,112
19,429
Hudson Valley, NY, USA
The MSA money can be lumped in with the taxes. And many thousands of businesses benefit from tobacco sales and they would have lower profits and pay less taxes and some on the margin might go out of business. Those businesses are not the ones raising alarms about ecigs. The people doing that are virtually all tax supported and know their funding will decline with falling tobacco taxes.

Right now the anti crowd seems to be counting on the kids issues to get their way. Above we read that may be very few kid experimenters are turning into regular vapers. If that holds true they may have run out of scare tactics.
Don't forget that all of the anti-smoking organizations are funded heavily by the pharmaceutical companies that produce NRT's. If it gets out how vaping is so much more successful than NRT's in getting people to quit, there goes the cash cow to big pharma. Of course those organizations will discount the success by claiming it is just conjecture and can't prove that vaping works, except there are thousands, myself included, that is proof that it works.
 

Bad Ninja

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 26, 2013
6,884
17,225
God's Country
MSA lumped in with taxes?

Taxes come and go with elections.
MSA money is long money, and it has been "pre spent" before it was even paid. Now its CYA time.

Taxes are for the peons to argue about.
MSA money, on the other hand.... Is needed to cover the bonds they sold.
Otherwise they devalue and default.

Theres a helluva lot more at stake with the losing MSA payments than a sin tax.


Forrst for the trees.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,272
USA midwest
It certainly is an interesting proposition that the smartphone has given a new generation the fiddle factor to divert many from smoking and is a very credible theory.

Maybe it would be useful to ask why we have these over-riding behavioral obsessions in the first place.

In an age where meditation, behavioral modifications, in a society where all kinds of exercise and recreational outlets exist (walking, hiking, kayaking, yoga, pilates, tennis, cycling, gym, etc. i.e. stuff proven to up the dopamine and seratonin levels in our brains) and many books written about "habits" and the brain studies about how to change them.......because in this day and age we know more about this than ever before.

Just sayin', I rarely see these things mentioned. (I guess that is because people who give up smoking, and vaping as well, don't remain on the forum so we don't get to hear those stories much.........)

I know that anecdotal stories from people in AA say that those groups smoke like fiends and drink a lot of coffee. Is replacing one habit with another habit (that is also not entirely healthy) really a *cure* of anything?

Better to ask why we must be ever-occupied and, even over-occupied i.e. with smart phone, with cigs, with vape, etc. ..... look within ....why isn't there more conversation about cultivating more "mindfullness" behaviors in ourselves.....isnt' it really about setting limits for ourselves? Taking control over your own mind.

Is checking smartphone for messages 150 times a day really an "okay" behavior?

(Is using ANY object as a permanent extension to your body a truly healthy behavior? )

When 50% of teens are said to be literally GLUED to their cell phones, ie. I consider this a disorder. Getting out with friends and meeting for burgers or barbeques, or camping outdoors, etc. seems like it would be healthier in the scheme of things........and has been for a number of generations.

https://www.amazon.com/Meditation-M...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0991655508

^^^ stuff like this I find useful......to overcome the "fiddle factor" Joe posted about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeMischief

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
Yes, look I don't disagree. What the regulation does is a step beyond consolidation. We all know this - it skews the market not to what consumers want but to what regulators want consumers to want.

On consolidation and craft beer - it's already happened; the top "craft" beers were acquired by the corporate drinks industry and now account for 80% of the volume of sales.

But, as you correctly state, there still exists a thriving craft industry. And that's a good thing. I think most/many of us would be perfectly happy to see something like this happen in vape.

Anyway, very interested to hear more of your thoughts

I like the article as a whole, though I might take issue with a couple points. You write: "Consolidation was always going to occur in this industry. It always does."

The first sentence _might_ be true (though I'm not at all sure it is.) The second does not seem, to me, to be true. In fact, the opposite is often the case, and there are a number of industries (many very similar to, for instance, your example of juice makers) where we have observed a great deal of de-consolidation in the recent past.

I'm old enough that when I was a kid there were just a few brewers in the United States. Not only were there only a few domestic brands to choose from, they were all very much the same. If you wanted a beer you could have any kind of beer you wanted, as long as it was an "American Lager." Which meant a can of carbonated liquid produced by fermenting rice and adding a _very_ small amount of hops and barley so that you could sort of pretend it was beer. And some egg whites, to give it that classic stiff head that stayed on the beer for hours.

These days- well, I live in a fairly crunchy bit of New England, and you can't throw a rock without hitting a new brewery around here. There has been an explosion in craft-brewing during not just my lifetime, but my adult lifetime. I could write more than I should here about why I think that has been so, and I'm not sure I think all of the reasons for it are entirely benign (work as a consumer good is a factor here, and I don't entirely approve of that trend.) Brewing is not, by a long shot, the only industry like this. I could list a dozen without thinking very hard (an awful lot of them related to food and beverage.)

The regulatory environment is an important factor here. That might sound a bit strange, since alcohol is certainly regulated. But the regulatory hoops involved in starting a small brewery and selling beer are, at least in my neck of the woods, not actually that onerous. A lot of kids in their twenties with some serious wake and bake tendencies seem to be able to pull it off with some small friends and family loans.

I like innovation. I like competition. I like creative destruction, even if I might not like all of its immediate effects. It's inevitable that regulation around vaping is going to increase in the near future, but I hope that it winds up closer to the regulation around beer and further from the regulation around raw-milk cheese, automatic weapons, and tobacco.
 

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
@Racehorse at the risk of sounding my age (and perhaps mental too), I vastly prefer everything about smoking to "smartphoning", apart from the major fault that is disease and death.

I should have stopped with my blackberry. You know it's what I started ECF on!
 

Bad Ninja

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 26, 2013
6,884
17,225
God's Country
I have said this since the day I joined ECF.
The only way to fight this is at the state and local level.

Locally elected politicians can (and will) implement their own versions of taxes, fees and restrictions to protect their MSA payments which are based on tobacco sales.

The 10th amendment bars the FDA from forcing states to comply, but they will willingly act to protect the payments as they have no choice.. They already sold bonds backed by MSA payments.

They only way this stop the madness is to stop the crooked local politicians by voting them out.

Vote locally.
 

Stubby

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
2,104
1,992
Madison, WI USA
I understand short term fights, and needing to keep the industry alive long enough to fight. I really wish there was more of a push to separate nicotine from tobacco. We know the PMTA process will kill vaping, either quickly without a grandfather date change, or slowly with the date change as the industry stagnates and dies through the thousand cuts tobacco control will inflict over time.

It has always been unrealistic to try and separate vaping from tobacco. The nicotine (extracted from tobacco) simply makes the association a natural fit. It has been a mistake for vaping advocates to try and disassociate themselves from tobacco instead of attacking the more fundamental problem, and that is, how we regulate tobacco.

A more rational approach is to advocate for Tobacco harm reduction, rather then spending a lot of time and energy trying to separate yourself from tobacco. The vast majority of the public views vaping as a form of tobacco use, and they are essentially correct. By not attacking the fundamental misconceptions about tobacco (that all tobacco products are equally risky, when in reality the only high risk products are cigarettes, with all others being very low, pipe smoking and cigars, to vanishingly low, smokeless tobacco and vaping) the vaping community has walked into a trap. All tobacco control has to do is say you are tobacco (which is exactly what they did), and the game is over.


Although, and I could be completely wrong because I haven't looked into this, there is still the dependency issue with smokeless tobacco, right?

If a person starts with snus, dip, chew do they become addicted? I truly believe a non tobacco user who tried vaping, with nicotine, does not form a physical dependence.

Sounds pretty much like something coming out of the tobacco control industry. Are you trying to say that dependency is the problem, and not the harm caused by a dependency?
 
  • Like
Reactions: daviedog

DrMA

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
2,989
9,887
Seattle area
Very optimistic article, @Oliver. I'm afraid I disagree with the premise. Cole-Bishop is yet another failure of the same strategy we've been trying since FDA first banned vaping in 2009.

It's time for a new approach. It's time to strike the true enemy of vaping, degrade & eventually destroy it.

Let's single out a top ANTZ & prosecute their crimes against humanity. That'll send a message.

Let's lobby to defund anti-smoker orgs posing as "Public Health".

Let's deligitimize govt meddling in the lifestyle of adults.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
 

go_player

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2012
501
1,287
USA
On consolidation and craft beer - it's already happened; the top "craft" beers were acquired by the corporate drinks industry and now account for 80% of the volume of sales.

Well, there's a bit of semantics here- we might not be using entirely the same definition of consolidation. If you're talking just about the volume of sales the dominance of the big brewers never went away. It got chipped away at, a bit, by craft brewing, but... well, I live in a small town that has a big university but is also something of a mecca for craft-brewing, and I'm pretty sure the most common beer purchase here is a 30-pack of Natural Light.

And that's fine- I was young once, and I know where the frat boys are coming from. I'm not a snob- well, actually, I am a bit of a snob, or at least very particular in my tastes when it comes to certain things, but I'm far too old, and far too much of a plebe when it comes to my tastes in other things, to want to look down my nose at anyone for their tastes.

That's not to say that I don't sometimes catch myself doing so. Old habits die hard, and I'm afraid I come from a background full of otherwise very nice people who were terrible snobs, and very willing to let their aesthetic sense justify their desire to control other people's behavior in ways I find.. unseemly ;). I'm going to guess a lot of them would favor regulating vaping out of existence, because vaping is the sort of thing they would never do and it offends their sensibilities.

The thing is, I don't care if 80% of the volume is awful "craft" beer like Blue Moon. That's fine, and if that's what people want it's not my job, or my place, to police their tastes. I can still get an amazing variety of very interesting beers made within 30 miles of my house, and I still have a liquor store down the street that carries hundreds, if not thousands, of interesting and varied beers from all over the country, and the world.

Do I _need_ to be able to choose from hundreds, even thousands of beers? No. Will I ever even sample more than a relatively small number of them? No. Am I better off because there is so much ferment in the industry? I'd say yes, by a mile. And that ferment is only possible because (well, let's thank yeast as well,) while there is some regulation around brewing, perhaps more than there should be, it is not too onerous, and almost anyone with a bit of capital who yearns to start a brewery can (even if it will likely fail in a year or two.) If it cost millions of dollars to get each new beer approved there just wouldn't be the kind of small-scale craft brewing that allows me to be beggared by choice in a way that even the very rich couldn't have been a few decades ago.

Vaping, early on, benefitted greatly from the almost complete lack of regulation around it. I wasn't a super-early adopter (I might have started earlier if it hadn't been for all those claims that you couldn't actually get any nicotine from vaping- I'd like to invite those researchers to take a pull of my current juice in my current very conservative MTL setup, but I'd make sure they were sitting down first,) but I started vaping more than 5 years ago and it's _amazing_ how far things have come in that time.

I haven't been a regular poster here, but I'm aware of how much of a role ECF has played in that. People mooted ideas, other people picked them up and turned them into garage businesses, Chinese companies picked up on them and made them more affordable, adding their own innovations... there was very little friction involved and things could go from something only a dedicated hobbyist could make use of to something fairly accessible in a matter of weeks or months. Imagine what vaping would be like today if it had been heavily regulated from the beginning.

And, just like craft beer, the power law tells us that the volume of sales is going to be heavily biased toward a few companies mass-producing goods that people buy en masse (which is what I think you mean by consolidation.) But there are a zillion little companies out there innovating, and those innovations not only give us lots of choices but will spur innovation in mass-market applications, as long as those small experimenters are not regulated out of existence. But if they are- watch for the pace of innovation to slow dramatically.
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,985
Sacramento, California
It has always been unrealistic to try and separate vaping from tobacco. The nicotine (extracted from tobacco) simply makes the association a natural fit. It has been a mistake for vaping advocates to try and disassociate themselves from tobacco instead of attacking the more fundamental problem, and that is, how we regulate tobacco.

A more rational approach is to advocate for Tobacco harm reduction, rather then spending a lot of time and energy trying to separate yourself from tobacco. The vast majority of the public views vaping as a form of tobacco use, and they are essentially correct. By not attacking the fundamental misconceptions about tobacco (that all tobacco products are equally risky, when in reality the only high risk products are cigarettes, with all others being very low, pipe smoking and cigars, to vanishingly low, smokeless tobacco and vaping) the vaping community has walked into a trap. All tobacco control has to do is say you are tobacco (which is exactly what they did), and the game is over.




Sounds pretty much like something coming out of the tobacco control industry. Are you trying to say that dependency is the problem, and not the harm caused by a dependency?
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that some people view dependency itself as a harm. Not that I agree with that. I'm also pointing out that vaping doesn't even appear to carry that concern.

As I said, I'm all for throwing out the entire fsptca, and recognizing lower risk tobacco alternatives. I still don't believe vaping belongs under that umbrella. Especially since vaping does not necessarily have to involve nicotine.

Is there a movement to alter/repeal the tca so that it might actually support a harm reduction spectrum? If so, I haven't seen it. All I've seen is repeated calls to support changing the grandfather date.
 

go_player

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2012
501
1,287
USA
Or do we actually agree that a battery, metal tube, coil, wick, pg and/or vg, with/without flavoring is a tobacco product?

I would not agree with that and I think that, at least tactically, it makes a lot of sense to try to put as much distance between vaping and tobacco as possible.
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,985
Sacramento, California
I would not agree with that and I think that, at least tactically, it makes a lot of sense to try to put as much distance between vaping and tobacco as possible.
@Stubby believes that because I think vaping doesn't belong under the umbrella of tobacco control, I'm against tobacco harm reduction.

I see them as two separate issues.

Saying that vaping is tobacco because the nicotine is derived from tobacco is like saying soda is a vegetable because the sugar in it is derived from corn and/or beets.
 

Bad Ninja

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 26, 2013
6,884
17,225
God's Country
@Stubby believes that because I think vaping doesn't belong under the umbrella of tobacco control, I'm against tobacco harm reduction.

I see them as two separate issues.

Saying that vaping is tobacco because the nicotine is derived from tobacco is like saying soda is a vegetable because the sugar in it is derived from corn and/or beets.


Well, "Ketchup is a vegetable" right ?

Ketchup as a vegetable - Wikipedia
 

go_player

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2012
501
1,287
USA
@Stubby believes that because I think vaping doesn't belong under the umbrella of tobacco control, I'm against tobacco harm reduction.

I'm not sure I want to wade into that argument without having a good understanding of its previous ins and outs, and especially because harm-reduction is so controversial and means very different things to different people in different contexts, and carries with it connotations that I'm not sure I think ought to be applied to vaping.

I see them as two separate issues.

Saying that vaping is tobacco because the nicotine is derived from tobacco is like saying soda is a vegetable because the sugar in it is derived from corn and/or beets.

I agree with you. I don't think it makes sense to consider nicotine a tobacco product even when it is derived from tobacco. In theory, you could purify tobacco-derived nicotine to such a degree that it was indistinguishable from synthetic nicotine. Would it make sense to consider the derived nicotine a tobacco product, but the synthetic nicotine not a tobacco product, despite the fact that they were chemically identical? That would, IMHO, be an odd judgement.

That said, you can't ignore the relationship between nicotine, derived from tobacco or synthetic, with tobacco. You should treat both in the same way [EDIT: I mean chemically identical forms of nicotine, not nicotine and tobacco,] of course, if you have any sense at all, but that relationship does exist, and should be taken into account in any regulatory proceedings. I'd be completely comfortable with that if I had any faith at all in the people regulating these things, but I don't so... at this point it's a matter of tactics rather than truth, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread