No. The same could be said for alcohol, (and other products, cars, motorcycles, etc.), but for cigs, up to the 90's 30% adults still smoked and before that 50%+ - that's too many voters to dismiss.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
No. The same could be said for alcohol, (and other products, cars, motorcycles, etc.), but for cigs, up to the 90's 30% adults still smoked and before that 50%+ - that's too many voters to dismiss.
I see we have collectively entered the "down in the weeds" with respect to a 6 store B&M who says they plan to sell only zero nic ejuice in a bottle that is produced by a third party ejuice company.
Fine and dandy. I enjoy the "weeds" /lol and really wish this owner the very best of luck BUT:
A viable business model selling only zero nic ejuice which is around roughly 20% of the universe?
I'm not optimistic although this state may have a different purchasing profile for ejuice. Iv'e been in plenty of B&Ms (and asked to leave a few /lol) in Vegas and have yet to hear any of them say that the most profitable product they sell which is ejuice could survive if they eliminated 80% of the purchases of ejuice made by others.
Back to the "weeds"
/lol
Fine and dandy. I enjoy the "weeds" /lol and really wish this owner the very best of luck BUT:
A viable business model selling only zero nic ejuice which is around roughly 20% of the universe?
I'm not optimistic although this state may have a different purchasing profile for ejuice. Iv'e been in plenty of B&Ms (and asked to leave a few /lol) in Vegas and have yet to hear any of them say that the most profitable product they sell which is ejuice could survive if they eliminated 80% of the purchases of ejuice made by others.
Back to the "weeds"
/lol
Hmmm interesting, are they trying to change their image and jump on the vape train as a way of rebranding ???
They just probably don't want to spend the money for all of whatever flavors, cigalikes, etc. they have to be approved by the FDA. Gee, the biggest tobacco company is even saying it is cost prohibitive.
And if they are balking at the deeming regs, (and it looks like they may be for whatever reason) I wonder what kind of message that sends to the FDA for the rest of vaping? Of course, I don't trust them but it is going to be interesting to see what(if anything) they do about it.
It's just a reiteration of what Siegel had to say in the video a while back (from his blog):
"The company is actually trying to save at least some vitality in the e-cigarette and vaping market by urging the FDA to weaken the burdensome requirements so that many more manufacturers have an opportunity to stay on the market. And these two tobacco companies are also strongly behind the Bishop-Cole amendment which would grandfather existing vaping products, thus preventing the decimation of the e-cigarette market and the creation of a Big Tobacco oligopoly."
"Now I am not arguing that financial incentives do not play a role. Of course they do. The companies see an eventual decline in the use of combustible tobacco products in the United States, and they want to be able to derive some economic benefit even as smokers move away from these combustibles. By entering the vaping product market, the companies have an alternative source of revenues to help sustain them. And they can use price increases with their traditional cigarettes to help lessen the financial blow, by protecting revenue even as sales decline. And while their market share will not be nearly as high in a robust, thriving vaping market, the overall market will likely be much greater if there are a large variety of alternative choices for smokers who want to quit but do not feel able to do so without the aid of a vaping device."
IOW, as he said earlier, they want to be part of a huge market than just be one of a few players in a small market. Worth reading the whole blog (esp. for those who are still thinking in terms of "BT"):
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Altria Urges Changes in FDA E-Cigarette Regulations that Would Decrease Its Share of Vaping Market and Help Save Many Smaller Manufacturers
Do you have a better way of saying America votes for crooks?
Oh do you actually have another choice?
Game's rigged. Period.
PMTA - posts here did outline the costs in manpower alone. Even at minimum wage, that would blow the budget of all but the the real biggies. And I doubt any qualified lab technician would lift his/her finger for that. Add a few academics plus a fancy machinery park and you got enough grounds to shootthis PMTA garbage down.
And that is what it boils down to : PMTA as it stands gets sunk in court or vaping as we know it gets sunk in court.
Good thing the FDA wasn't around when the wheel got invented - Flintstone reruns would be viewed as messages from an alien, highly advanced civilization...
PMTA - posts here did outline the costs in manpower alone. Even at minimum wage, that would blow the budget of all but the the real biggies. And I doubt any qualified lab technician would lift his/her finger for that. Add a few academics plus a fancy machinery park and you got enough grounds to shootthis PMTA garbage down.
And that is what it boils down to : PMTA as it stands gets sunk in court or vaping as we know it gets sunk in court.
Good thing the FDA wasn't around when the wheel got invented - Flintstone reruns would be viewed as messages from an alien, highly advanced civilization...
Sounds like BT PR.
I mean, BT is a Friend to Vaping. And is going to Fight the FDA for the same things that We Want.
Right?
I'm skeptical as well but I'm sure they'd like to get the PMTA monkey off their back as well.
It's Kinda a Double Edged Sword.
And I think the Deeming Lawsuits that BT has filed are going to be More Effective in gaining change than a Negatively Worded statement from the boys in PR.
Actually from what I've been hearing it's big Pharma that is behind this and were the ones who wrote the regulations.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
That makes more sense to me.
Paves the way for their upcoming nicotine-based drugs.
But they have to clear the path first.
Can't have cheap and healthy nicotine alternatives on every street corner.
It does kind of make sense that BT would want to move to producing a product that doesn't kill (literally) their customer base.
Actually, that's my understanding as well, that the key FDA people that shaped the deeming regs were also lobbyists for/in league with BP.
It makes sense, but I'd like to see their business plan.
I just can't see a way for Big Tobacco to survive without eliminating open systems.
Edited to add
When I say "open systems" I intend for that terminology to be used interchangeably with "availability of free-roaming nicotine" because they go hand-in-hand and one can not survive without the other.
Also, I don't see the FDA's interest in bowing to BT. That would be the province of the states, in order to protect their tobacco tax revenue.
I do wonder if the FDA has an interest in helping protect the states revenue stream though?
Maybe not the FDA themselves, but those that tell the FDA what to do.
Yep, makes huge sense. I was talking to the owner of the local B&M I hang at and this is what he told me. He's was contacting the are FDA and they not only didn't have the answers to his questions about compliance to the upcoming regulations, they didn't even know they had even come out.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Similar threads
- Locked
