-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
I'm considering buying into this concept.
But I need someone to explain to me how Big Tobacco can thrive if HR2058 passes.
Because most of the scenarios I play in my mind show them getting crushed.
Eventually.
And what happens when they get Crushed in a Market with Many Other Players? BT doesn't Make Money off e-Cigarettes.
But what happens when they BT is the Only Player in a Market? If BT e-Cigarettes are Popular, then they make Profits with them. And if BT's e-Cigarettes are Not Popular, Boo Hoo Hoo, people just keep Smoking Cigarettes. And BT keeps making Profits from Regular Grandfathered Cigarettes.
For the first time in history
There was something created
that millions of people would
leave their cigarettes for.
Think about it.
And the opponent in this, the loser,
is one of the sneakiest, most underhanded,
lying, genius snakes who has been able to
continue to sell cancer causing poison
since it's invention
with our "protector"
the government
looking the other way or pretending to care
allowing our opponent to keep selling, peddling, addicting
millions and millions of people
while trying to convince us
that our health and welfare
are their main concern.
Does that about sum it up?
There was something created
that millions of people would
leave their cigarettes for.
Think about it.
And the opponent in this, the loser,
is one of the sneakiest, most underhanded,
lying, genius snakes who has been able to
continue to sell cancer causing poison
since it's invention
with our "protector"
the government
looking the other way or pretending to care
allowing our opponent to keep selling, peddling, addicting
millions and millions of people
while trying to convince us
that our health and welfare
are their main concern.
Does that about sum it up?
And everything that vaping products are being potentially guilty of by the public and gov. are already known and perfectly legal with grandfathered in cigarettes. Grandfathered in? Who thinks up these things? It sounds like gov will do everything it can to allow cigarettes to sell and profit without a hitch while any opponent who is not banned but put thru hoops that many can't afford. Did cigarettes already pass the testing that is required for vaping products? They passed tests that we may fail? I don't think so.
Whenever you Think about a Pack of Cigarettes and the Federal Government in the same thought, just picture this image in your Mind...
Because that's what the Fed's get for Every Pack of Cigarettes sold in the USA.
And once you think of a Pack of Cigarettes as Not something that has be Proven to Kill People but as a Piece of Paper with the Picture of a Dead President on it, it All Makes Sense.
But if their e-cigs do become popular - would it not be prudent for them to push them since they won't have to pay the cigarette fines to the states since they are based on cigarette sales?
Of course it would. As long as you are the One selling the e-Cigarettes. And the current Predicate Date and current PMTA structure favors BT almost Entirely.
Their electronic cigarettes will NEVER become popular.
Or if they do, they will have to drastically reduce the current prices.
And that's the starting point that I use to conceptualize every possible scenario.
Big Tobacco is going to offer products (MAYBE) that are enticing, but not sustainable.
People will go on and off them just like the patches and gum.
Big Tobacco will take over the bogus "cessation" industry from Big Pharma.
That's the picture that's in my head.
Obviously, this is not how Big Pharma wanted it.
They wanted to make them drugs, but got shot down in court.
And that was a minor miracle in my opinion.
We need that to happen again.
Whether Greg and your analysis is more logical, or Dr. Siegel and @Kent C's, is besides the point. The fact remains that HR 2058 is a BT bill. You don't believe your own lyin' eyes ?
Perhaps, but it's an even tougher case to make that there would even be A HR2058 or Cole/Bishop to vote on, if it wasn't for BT's " involvement ".
What their real motivation is, i don't know. Fact remains, their opposition to the deeming regulations has gone way beyond writing sob stories to the FDA and playing the " victim card " and " pretending to be friends to vapers ". They have actively lobbied many members of congress, and orchestrated the push behind HR2058 and Cole/Bishop. HR2058 is their bill, literally, word for word.
Whether Greg and your analysis is more logical, or Dr. Siegel and @Kent C's, is besides the point. The fact remains that HR 2058 is a BT bill. You don't believe your own lyin' eyes ?
...
I'm not saying it Is or it Isn't.
I am only bring into Question what is the Motivation as to Authoring/Supporting/Backing such a Bill?
And by the First Sentence in your last Multi-Quote, it sounds like there is At Least 1 Person who does Not Know what their Real Motivation is.
What i meant by that is that i haven't seen any leaked documents, or been privy to any behind the scenes discussions among tobacco executives.
Despite Greg and your analysis, they are actively trying to change the predicate date. I have no reason to believe that they secretly don't want HR2058 and Cole/Bishop to pass. It makes no sense to put so much time and effort lobbying for a bill you don't want to pass.
In your Opinion. Does BT's involvement in HR2058 or Cole-Bishop Help or Hurt the passage of either one of this Items?
And if it Hurts their Passage, wouldn't it make more Sense to Not Be Involved in a Traceable Way?
---
Time and Effort? What is this Costing BT? Chump Change compared to a 30% Market Share?
BTW - Do you think the Deeming Lawsuit(s) that BT has filled against the HSS and the FDA have a Good Chance of being Won?
Last edited:
I don't know what the net effect of BT involvement is, but this is an irrelevant question because imo there wouldn't even be a HR2058 or Cole-Bishop if it wasn't for BT involvement. I am not naive enough to believe SFATA or CASAA etc... have enough clout to have Rep. Tom Cole introduce their bills in congress.
I didn't mean they can't afford it lol, what i meant is if you don't want the predicate date to change, all you have to do is 'nothing'. Why bother lobbying for a bill you don't want to pass. If the bill is not introduced, it is guaranteed not to pass.
I really don't know anything about them tbh, nor do i know anything about the cigar industry.
I Wasn't referring to the Cigar Industry. I was referring to the e-Cigarette/Deeming Lawsuit(s) that BT has filed.
Yeah i stand by that, the fact that it was revealed the bill was written word for word by Altria, might cause some members who were considering to vote for it, to change their mind. But it still has a greater chance of passing, than if it wasn't introduced at all
lol, is this the part where i'm supposed to say which lawsuit, and you reply " exactly" ?
Yeah... That one kinda falls under the "Objection your Honor! Counsel in Leading the Witness" thing.
LOL
The Only Real Certainty here is No One really knows what is BT's Motivation for doing Anything but BT.
And I feel BT's Overall Market Position is Stronger with the Current Predicate Date and the current Deeming Rule Set. I might be Wrong.
Whereas some believe that BT is Better Off with a 2016 Predicate and a Relaxed Deeming Rule Set. And they might be Right.
And that is OK with Me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
