Cole-Bishop Failed. What now for vape?

[Stubby]

@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.

And that is at the heart of the problem. Vaping advocate (but certainly not all vaping advocates) believe vaping is a separate issue from tobacco harm reduction, when in reality it has exactly the same issues, with exactly the same people working against vaping as have worked against THR, and exactly the same bogus attacks and bad science against vaping as is thrown against other low risk tobacco products, from exactly the same places (the alphabet soup groups etc), and now restrictions are showing up in exactly the same way as other tobacco products, and need I even mention more and more taxes. In what possible fantasy world do you think it is a separate issue.

The problem is that some (but not all) vaping advocates are making believe vaping is a separate issue from tobacco, while nearly everyone else doesn't.

As far as if it really is a tobacco product..... well, the main active ingredient is extracted from tobacco, and without that vaping would go the way of the Dodo bird, and in fact none of us would have likely ever heard of it, gives vaping an overwhelming tie to tobacco that is not going to be broken.

 

[Lessifer]

I was being snarky and agreeing with you.
Check the link.

I know, I was just taking the opportunity to emphasize the point.

They want to regulate batteries, devices, pg, vg, flavorings according to the rules for tobacco, just because SOME of the liquid we use contains ONE chemical derived from tobacco. When it is present, it is usually present in the 0.3-1.2% range, though sometimes up to 5%. This one chemical is not a carcinogen. It can have some effects on blood pressure, though for otherwise healthy people it is not a major concern. It is traditionally seen as the source for the addictiveness of tobacco, though more modern research seriously calls that into question.

Despite all of that, there are plenty of vapers who have no issue with vaping remaining under the label of tobacco.

I'm not just talking semantics here, though that does play a part. The word tobacco means a whole lot to the general public in America, most of which is propaganda. In the US, labeling something as tobacco leads to it being regulated under the tobacco control act, leaving us where we are today.

 

[Lessifer]

And that is at the heart of the problem. Vaping advocate (but certainly not all vaping advocates) believe vaping is a separate issue from tobacco harm reduction, when in reality it has exactly the same issues, with exactly the same people working against vaping as have worked against THR, and exactly the same bogus attacks and bad science against vaping as is thrown against other low risk tobacco products, from exactly the same places (the alphabet soup groups etc), and now restrictions are showing up in exactly the same way as other tobacco products, and need I even mention more and more taxes. In what possible fantasy world do you think it is a separate issue.

The problem is that some (but not all) vaping advocates are making believe vaping is a separate issue from tobacco, while nearly everyone else doesn't.

As far as if it really is a tobacco product..... well, the main active ingredient is extracted from tobacco, and without that vaping would go the way of the Dodo bird, and in fact none of us would have likely ever heard of it, gives vaping an overwhelming tie to tobacco that is not going to be broken.

I was unaware that smokeless tobacco is on the verge of being wiped out in the US over the next year and a half.

Similar, related, share the same science, same enemies, all true. There are a few differences though, smokeless tobacco actually IS tobacco, smokeless tobacco was around before the deeming, and therefore shares most of the same protections as cigarettes. Sure, you can't just come out with a new flavor of smokeless, but in two years you'll be able to walk into a gas station and buy a tin. It may cost you a bit more, depending on which state you live in.

 

[cats5365]

A while back, @Oliver challenged us to find a copy and read Smoke in their Eyes. I did that, and do see the similarities between the tobacco wars of the 90's and the vaping war today. It is mostly the same people using the same playbook today as it was back then.

I remember the BT guys trying to organize the Smoker's Rights movements (and participated), but it never really got anywhere because (as it turns out) BT was running the show and we were not really a part of it because it was all a set-up by the good ol' boys back east. The difference was that there was only a few powerful people on all sides, and they were just negotiating what to do to keep themselves powerful and us smoking. Most of the smoking was controlled by a few companies who had done extensive research about how to keep us using their product no matter what it did to us. We didn't have any other choices back then.

Fast Forward 10 years, and some small little groups of people started this hobby of vaping that nobody took seriously because they were all powerful big whatevers. Eventually this little hobby got pretty good and word spread around this internet thing until vaping started to make some serious dents in some previously impenetrable walls. Suddenly the big guys had to do something about vaping before any more damage happened.

The old playbook was pulled out by the old teams, but things changed. Some of the public health people defected because vaping was actually doing what they wanted and causing smoking rates to go down. It appears that the defectors have been punished for speaking out.

Vaping businesses were much more numerous than anticipated, and trying to get a handle on them was like herding cats or whack-a-mole. BT was only a bit player in this, so the other Bigs couldn't really bargain with them on this thing.

The internet is also a bigger part of the world today than it was back then. It is harder to control information when people have their own places to share information and to organise themselves for whatever reason they want to. I don't think the old playbook had much in there for dealing with the likes of vapers. It made it possible for people to expose the alternate facts and bogus research. Pretty soon A Billion Lives comes out and spreads the word to even more people. The Bigs lost control of the message.

The one thing that they keep forgetting about is that for those of us that found vaping, we believe we have taken control of our own health and lives. When someone is fighting for their own life, they are going to fight harder to save themselves instead of cowering behind a dumpster to keep smoking a cigarette.

I imagine that both sides have taken a step back to lick their wounds and try to re-organize. I hope that most of the deeming will be struck down, as well as some of the other laws around the world. Do we need some regulations for vaping? Of course we do. In the US, I think we should start trying to regulate the safety of the products rather than destroying the businesses that sell them. I find it hard to believe that there is a requirement to deliberately mis-label something as something it is not, and to bar retailers from providing safety information and assistance to consumers. If the other countries around the world have similar rules on the books, they should be using them and not trying to shoehorn vaping into a hole that it does not fit.

The hardware and electronic equipment should be safe just as any other hardware or electronic product sold in the market. The liquids should be pure and properly labeled, much as is required for food supplements as long as they don't make any medical claims. If child-resistant packages make sense because of the potential for harm by the contents of the package, by all means require the special packages. It does.not.matter where the nicotine comes from. Vaping is not smoking, vapers are not smokers, and vaping is more similar to the other industries I mentioned above than it is to the tobacco industry. It just LOOKS like smoking because wispy grey stuff or white clouds are released by the user and many of us are former smokers.

As I've been watching events unfolding in the past year or so, I'm feeling like a player in an episode of the Twilight Zone. just my

 

[ShowerHead]

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.

No, not really. First, tobacco companies are not losing money. Their profits are up.
Against All Odds, the U.S. Tobacco Industry Is Rolling in Money
The money promised under the settlement is tied to a formula created way back then.
Those payments are not going to increase, ever. It's the states that mortgaged their settlement funds away, not the Feds and the FDA is of course the Feds.

All the intrigue is a popular theory, but doesn't make sense logically.
Unless, of course, you think that everything is controlled by some cunning group. If that were the case, I'd imagine they'd have other fish to fry just now.

 

[BlueMoods]

I asked a family member who is a police officer here - bottom line nicotine is addictive and, it comes form tobacco, or is a synthetic version of what comes form tobacco so, it IS a tobacco product. We use batteries and tanks, cigarettes use paper and filters - same difference as far as he can see legally - vaping is smoking. Vape cherry flavored e-juice, smoke a cherry flavored cigar - same thing as far as the law is concerned.

I don't agree but, that's what my state has already decided and, I expect others will soon follow and, call it all tobacco products, thus same rules as any other tobacco product and, same taxes.

Basically, it's all going to price the mom and pop juice and hardware companies out of business, leaving it all to BT again - they will be making our juice, our hardware, save a few companies big enough to afford the approval process.

 

[Bad Ninja]

No, not really. First, tobacco companies are not losing money. Their profits are up.
Against All Odds, the U.S. Tobacco Industry Is Rolling in Money
The money promised under the settlement is tied to a formula created way back then.
Those payments are not going to increase, ever. It's the states that mortgaged their settlement funds away, not the Feds and the FDA is of course the Feds.

All the intrigue is a popular theory, but doesn't make sense logically.
Unless, of course, you think that everything is controlled by some cunning group. If that were the case, I'd imagine they'd have other fish to fry just now.

Forrest for the trees.

Tldr
1.Feds hand industry to BT with crazy regs but Feds can't fund enforcement.

2. States cant afford BT to lose money as it will affect MSA payments, that States have mortgaged.

3. States now have a stake in regulating and taxing Vape industry.

4. People blame Feds, and re elect state and local cronies.

5. BT profits and everyone wins except the public.


Argue and debate all you like, sign a milluon useless petitions.
Voting locally is the ONLY way this will change.
Get rid of the crooks in state office that sold you out.

 

[Lessifer]

I asked a family member who is a police officer here - bottom line nicotine is addictive and, it comes form tobacco, or is a synthetic version of what comes form tobacco so, it IS a tobacco product. We use batteries and tanks, cigarettes use paper and filters - same difference as far as he can see legally - vaping is smoking. Vape cherry flavored e-juice, smoke a cherry flavored cigar - same thing as far as the law is concerned.

I don't agree but, that's what my state has already decided and, I expect others will soon follow and, call it all tobacco products, thus same rules as any other tobacco product and, same taxes.

Basically, it's all going to price the mom and pop juice and hardware companies out of business, leaving it all to BT again - they will be making our juice, our hardware, save a few companies big enough to afford the approval process.

Some of us are choosing to fight that. Also, nicotine by itself, has not been shown to lead to physical dependence. It's only when consumed with tobacco that dependence forms. Your officer family member seems to be treating it like a controlled substance, which it isn't.

 

[The Ocelot]

A while back, @Oliver challenged us to find a copy and read Smoke in their Eyes. I did that, and do see the similarities between the tobacco wars of the 90's and the vaping war today. It is mostly the same people using the same playbook today as it was back then.

I remember the BT guys trying to organize the Smoker's Rights movements (and participated), but it never really got anywhere because (as it turns out) BT was running the show and we were not really a part of it because it was all a set-up by the good ol' boys back east. The difference was that there was only a few powerful people on all sides, and they were just negotiating what to do to keep themselves powerful and us smoking. Most of the smoking was controlled by a few companies who had done extensive research about how to keep us using their product no matter what it did to us. We didn't have any other choices back then.

Fast Forward 10 years, and some small little groups of people started this hobby of vaping that nobody took seriously because they were all powerful big whatevers. Eventually this little hobby got pretty good and word spread around this internet thing until vaping started to make some serious dents in some previously impenetrable walls. Suddenly the big guys had to do something about vaping before any more damage happened.

The old playbook was pulled out by the old teams, but things changed. Some of the public health people defected because vaping was actually doing what they wanted and causing smoking rates to go down. It appears that the defectors have been punished for speaking out.

Vaping businesses were much more numerous than anticipated, and trying to get a handle on them was like herding cats or whack-a-mole. BT was only a bit player in this, so the other Bigs couldn't really bargain with them on this thing.

The internet is also a bigger part of the world today than it was back then. It is harder to control information when people have their own places to share information and to organise themselves for whatever reason they want to. I don't think the old playbook had much in there for dealing with the likes of vapers. It made it possible for people to expose the alternate facts and bogus research. Pretty soon A Billion Lives comes out and spreads the word to even more people. The Bigs lost control of the message.

The one thing that they keep forgetting about is that for those of us that found vaping, we believe we have taken control of our own health and lives. When someone is fighting for their own life, they are going to fight harder to save themselves instead of cowering behind a dumpster to keep smoking a cigarette.

I imagine that both sides have taken a step back to lick their wounds and try to re-organize. I hope that most of the deeming will be struck down, as well as some of the other laws around the world. Do we need some regulations for vaping? Of course we do. In the US, I think we should start trying to regulate the safety of the products rather than destroying the businesses that sell them. I find it hard to believe that there is a requirement to deliberately mis-label something as something it is not, and to bar retailers from providing safety information and assistance to consumers. If the other countries around the world have similar rules on the books, they should be using them and not trying to shoehorn vaping into a hole that it does not fit.

The hardware and electronic equipment should be safe just as any other hardware or electronic product sold in the market. The liquids should be pure and properly labeled, much as is required for food supplements as long as they don't make any medical claims. If child-resistant packages make sense because of the potential for harm by the contents of the package, by all means require the special packages. It does.not.matter where the nicotine comes from. Vaping is not smoking, vapers are not smokers, and vaping is more similar to the other industries I mentioned above than it is to the tobacco industry. It just LOOKS like smoking because wispy grey stuff or white clouds are released by the user and many of us are former smokers.

As I've been watching events unfolding in the past year or so, I'm feeling like a player in an episode of the Twilight Zone. just my

Have you seen "HyperNormalisation?" It's long (almost 3 hours), but didn't feel like it. Just when it seems to go one way, the topic shifts, and then connects again. Truth is subjective. Facts are irrelevant. Power is in Perception Management.

"HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by British filmmaker Adam Curtis. The film was released on 16 October 2016

HyperNormalisation wades through the culmination of forces that have driven this culture into mass uncertainty, confusion, spectacle and simulation. Where events keep happening that seem crazy, inexplicable and out of control—from Donald Trump to Brexit, to the War in Syria, mass immigration, extreme disparity in wealth, and increasing bomb attacks in the West—this film shows a basis to not only why these chaotic events are happening, but also why we, as well as those in power, may not understand them. We have retreated into a simplified, and often completely fake version of the world. And because it is reflected all around us, ubiquitous, we accept it as normal. This epic narrative of how we got here spans over 40 years, with an extraordinary cast of characters—the Assad dynasty, Donald Trump, Henry Kissinger, Patti Smith, early performance artists in New York, President Putin, Japanese gangsters, suicide bombers, Colonel Gaddafi and the Internet."



ETA: This isn't as off topic as it might appear. Think about who/what is managing the perception of vaping. It's not a "conspiracy-wing-nut" film. You may not agree with the conclusions Curtis draws, but I guarantee you won't be screaming that he's an idiot.

 

[Rossum]

Or do we actually agree that a battery, metal tube, coil, wick, pg and/or vg, with/without flavoring is a tobacco product?

Hell no!

 

[Rossum]

In theory, you could purify tobacco-derived nicotine to such a degree that it was indistinguishable from synthetic nicotine.

I hate to be pedantic, but no...

Two reasons:

1) Naturally occurring nicotine is all levorotatory, while synthetic is composed of equal parts dextrorotatory and levorotatory enantiomers.

2) Even if you managed to eliminate the dextrorotatory half of synthetic nic, it would still be possible to tell it apart from tobacco-derived nic based on carbon isotope ratios.

 

[Rossum]

Basically, it's all going to price the mom and pop juice and hardware companies out of business, leaving it all to BT again - they will be making our juice, our hardware, save a few companies big enough to afford the approval process.

BT might be making your juice and your hardware at some point, but they won't be making mine.

 

[The Ocelot]

Outsourcing to state agencies?

It would vary from state to state. The state I live in has no state income tax, so we have fewer services, of any kind, than states that collect taxes.

 

[Dieseler]

BT might be making your juice and your hardware at some point, but they won't be making mine.

Yes and the same here do not need anything at all from this point forward.

 

[ShowerHead]

I think that vapers should be promoting videos like this one. Gosh, imagine if lucid, well delivered things like this got more views.
Or, we can all sit idly by and hope that some scum politician will grant us an audience.

 

[Carnage9270]

Vaping will always be considered a tobacco product when it competes directly with tobacco sales. Unfortunately it's an unwinnable battle when the taxes from cigarette sales has to be collected somewhere. Economy's rely upon them. They can't just go away cause people aren't smoking any more. It has to shift to the new market. In this case, it's vaping.

It sucks, but it's the unfortunate truth.

 

[Gaolegejun]

I live in China so the government don't give a .... about all those rules here, and if they started to enforce it, it would be pretty difficult since they would have to close down all the factories making it etc just not worth it, I really do sympathize with you guys in the states and all the .... you are going through, I think the FDA etc just need a slap in the face....good luck lads and lasses and keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Tonee N]

If the Vape and Juice companies donated to the American Cancer Society then we wouldn't hear a PEEP out of the FDA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[retired1]

I'm a bit torn on this one. Sure, I wanted Cole-Bishop to pass, but the practice of attaching riders to existing bills really has gotten out of hand. Things like this should be able to stand on its own, rather than trying to sneak it through on the coat tails of an existing bill.

 

[ShowerHead]

I'm a bit torn on this one. Sure, I wanted Cole-Bishop to pass, but the practice of attaching riders to existing bills really has gotten out of hand. Things like this should be able to stand on its own, rather than trying to sneak it through on the coat tails of an existing bill.

It should be stand alone, like the budget bills.
Which at last look, haven't been passed for 8-9 years. Only continuing resolutions and stop gap bills.

Lifetime politicians, bah.