Do you think E- Cig will make real cigarettes obsolete ?

[E Cool]

Do you think E- Cig will make real cigarettes obsolete ?
At least here in the USA I tend to think so as in time I figure if enough people go to E-Cig then they will not be making enough money off that astronomically high tax.

I think the tobacco industry will still be around though pipe , cigar and smokeless.
E-Cig has all the advantages and is less expensive unless someone is smoking a lower tax class tobacco and with filters I suppose it runs about the same I think , role your own paper type is still cheaper though but still how many people can smoke like that.
Who knows they might even make real cigarettes illegal here .
Of course I suppose that might make the prices of E-Cig and accessories go up or maybe go down.
What you think?

 

[Mroutlaw]

IMHO they will never make analogs illegal because the government makes too much money off of them. What I see happening is the government will regulate nicotine much like in other countries. Big tobacco will get involved in the ecig business and the prices for nicotine juices will go through the roof. Big tobacco is already getting involve with lorrilard purchasing Blu for $135 million.

They will never be able to do much about the vaping devices themselves just like buying glass pipes at your local gas station, but they will try and stop the nicotine we use.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[sailorman]

Nope. Won't happen. The tobacco companies will see to it. They'll make sure that e-cig taxes are raised to eliminate any real cost advantage for anyone who doesn't DIY. And many people will never DIY.

That's exactly what they did to the RYO market. With the premade, filtered tubes and the injector machines, RYO was becoming more and more popular. It was cheap and easy. The tobacco was better than what was in the prerolled cigs and the finished product was nearly indistinguishable from a prerolled cig. It wasn't your grandpa's roll your own.

The tobacco companies were threatened by this. You could roll a pack of better cigarettes than they could sell and your cost was about $0.70-1.00/pack or less. So, what did they do? They arm twisted Congress to jack the taxes up from about $1.25 to $24.00 per pound of loose tobacco. They had Congress impose a huge tax on rolling paper and pre-made tubes. The cost of a pack of RYO doubled or tripled. Only the exemption for pipe tobacco provided some relief, but they're working on that right now and, eventually, they'll close that loophole too.

If you don't think BP will do the exact same thing to e-cigs and juice, through both taxation and regulation, you haven't been paying attention. Ecigs will take a bite out of cigarette sales, but they wont make them obsolete. Big corporations call the shots in this country and the tobacco companies will not allow that to happen.

Unless BP controls the entire e-cig market, can eliminate DIY juice, and can charge whatever they want, cigarettes will be more profitable to them than e-cigs. Lorillard bought Blu, but their beancounters would much prefer you stuck with Newports for the next 30 years.

Since e-cigs have been declared a tobacco product, they cannot and will not be banned. Years ago, as part of the Master Settlement Agreement between the gov't and the tobacco companies, the FDA was given sole regulatory authority over tobacco products. Part of the agreement was that the FDA or Congress could not ban tobacco products or impose a de-facto ban, (by regulating nicotine to 0.01% for example). So now, when something is declared by the court to be a tobacco product, it faces a double-edged sword. It is protected from an outright ban, but it can be heavily regulated.

Making cigarettes, or any tobacco product, illegal in the U.S. is out of the question. That is a settled legal issue. The government is expressly prohibited from banning anything declared by the courts to be a tobacco product. They can regulate the hell out of it through the FDA, but they cannot ban it. The tobacco companies saw to that as well.

 

[Uncle Willie]

The tax money made from cig sales really has nothing to do with whether they become banned or not .. the USA was founded on tobacco .. Prohibition of alcohol taught us that bans on things that can be easily made don't work ..

However, taxing something until it hurts to buy it is a totally different story .. In New Zealand, a pack can cost $12.00 .. it's about the same in NYC ..

 

[Forkeh]

I hope they don't make real cigarettes illegal. The government gets too involved in things they have no business being involved in. It's really none of their business. I also don't think cigarettes will ever be obsolete. Not as long as stubbornness exists in this world.

I think think, however, it's only a matter of time until the government starts heavily taxing these devices. Ridiculous? Of course. But that's the government. They have to come up with new and invasive ways of feeding this all inclusive, super beast we've created. Government is expensive to run, and we have to pay for it. If that revenue isn't coming from cigarettes, they'll find something else to tax.

 

[sailorman]

The tax money made from cig sales really has nothing to do with whether they become banned or not .. the USA was founded on tobacco .. Prohibition of alcohol taught us that bans on things that can be easily made don't work ..

However, taxing something until it hurts to buy it is a totally different story .. In New Zealand, a pack can cost $12.00 .. it's about the same in NYC ..

Whether e-cigs or analogs are banned or not has nothing to do with any lessons we learned from Prohibition either. If we had learned anything from Prohibition, other substances wouldn't be banned right now.

No, there is only one thing preventing a ban on cigarettes or e-cigs and that is a deal struck by the government and tobacco industry lawyers. For a certain amount of money, the government agreed to settle a million lawsuits and make a permanent law preventing a ban of any tobacco products. It's as simple as that.

Unfortunately for the tobacco companies, they failed to predict that the agreement they fought so hard for would also provide shelter to their biggest enemy, e-cigs. That's why they were on the side of BP during the fight to designate e-cigs as drugs. BT paid big bucks to create a shelter from the law for themselves. The last thing they wanted to do was let e-cigs take advantage of it by being declared a tobacco product.

 

[Algernon]

No, without the added lung, mouth and heart cancer, hospitals, lobbyists and larger corporations wouldn't profit from the medical insurance spent on therapy and drug treatment.

You may consider this satire, but do please quit dreaming and realize that the world you live in is very, very vindictive and profit driven.

 

[bigpman]

Excellent post, sailorman, I agree with you 100%!

Nope. Won't happen. The tobacco companies will see to it. They'll make sure that e-cig taxes are raised to eliminate any real cost advantage for anyone who doesn't DIY. And many people will never DIY.

That's exactly what they did to the RYO market. With the premade, filtered tubes and the injector machines, RYO was becoming more and more popular. It was cheap and easy. The tobacco was better than what was in the prerolled cigs and the finished product was nearly indistinguishable from a prerolled cig. It wasn't your grandpa's roll your own.

The tobacco companies were threatened by this. You could roll a pack of better cigarettes than they could sell and your cost was about $0.70-1.00/pack or less. So, what did they do? They arm twisted Congress to jack the taxes up from about $1.25 to $24.00 per pound of loose tobacco. They had Congress impose a huge tax on rolling paper and pre-made tubes. The cost of a pack of RYO doubled or tripled. Only the exemption for pipe tobacco provided some relief, but they're working on that right now and, eventually, they'll close that loophole too.

If you don't think BP will do the exact same thing to e-cigs and juice, through both taxation and regulation, you haven't been paying attention. Ecigs will take a bite out of cigarette sales, but they wont make them obsolete. Big corporations call the shots in this country and the tobacco companies will not allow that to happen.

Unless BP controls the entire e-cig market, can eliminate DIY juice, and can charge whatever they want, cigarettes will be more profitable to them than e-cigs. Lorillard bought Blu, but their beancounters would much prefer you stuck with Newports for the next 30 years.

Since e-cigs have been declared a tobacco product, they cannot and will not be banned. Years ago, as part of the Master Settlement Agreement between the gov't and the tobacco companies, the FDA was given sole regulatory authority over tobacco products. Part of the agreement was that the FDA or Congress could not ban tobacco products or impose a de-facto ban, (by regulating nicotine to 0.01% for example). So now, when something is declared by the court to be a tobacco product, it faces a double-edged sword. It is protected from an outright ban, but it can be heavily regulated.

Making cigarettes, or any tobacco product, illegal in the U.S. is out of the question. That is a settled legal issue. The government is expressly prohibited from banning anything declared by the courts to be a tobacco product. They can regulate the hell out of it through the FDA, but they cannot ban it. The tobacco companies saw to that as well.

 

[arcturus]

I think e-cigarettes have the potential of becoming a major force in the decline of the tobacco industry. Still, being perceived in the minds of people as somehow "smoking-related", it will be treated as such by state and federal legislatures. With all its economical might, the tobacco industry has been regulated and taxed relentlessly for the last twenty years and to see the impact of this one only needs to look at smoking statistics. E-cigarettes, of course, is a budding industry and thus exponentially more vulnerable than regular cigarettes. I think we are all aware that we are on the verge of having our new found habit greatly controlled, all wondrous aspects nonwithstanding...

 

[rjwoes]

I agree with Forkeh - the gov makes way too much money on tobacco to make it illegal and I would add in my personal experience I have talked to so many analogue smokers about switching and I have found that most of them consider the e-cig to be like a nicotrol inhaler or the patch. ecigs aren't marketed that way but the majority of ppl consider ecigs to be a smoking cessation product. I have even let ppl try mine and given them business cards for popular ecig vendors and they just want that tobacco cigarette!

 

[Cloud Wizard]

Being a veteran, I'd like to take a bit less cynical view and say this IS AMERICA! I know smoking is "bad" for you, but so is alcohol, McDonalds, sun screen, traffic, cell phones and vitamin enhanced smoothies. People should always have the right to choose....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[sailorman]

The government doesn't "make" money on tobacco taxes. If it is analyzed properly, the costs to the government of smoking related diseases exceeds the revenue generated by tobacco taxes. That doesn't mean these taxes are appropriated properly though. States, in particular, divert money from tobacco taxes to other purposes while foisting health care costs onto the federal government.

A huge amount of taxes are spent on Medicaid and Medicare to deal with smoking related illnesses. That few percent that comes out of your paycheck doesn't come close to paying Medicare's costs associated with smoking related illnesses in the elderly. When someone gets cancer or emphysema and loses his job and, therefore, his insurance, it's Medicaid that picks up the costs, most of which are incurred near the end of life when private insurance companies have bowed out of the equation and the patient has exhausted his private resources. When a person is disabled by emphysema and becomes dependent on SSI, the government is paying the costs of smoking.

This idea that government won't ban cigarettes because they want the revenue is absurd. By that logic, other substances would be legalized and taxed and there wouldn't be any outlays for health consequences. The government doesn't ban or not ban something based on revenue and it never has. Cigs are a net loss for the government, but they're already committed to paying the price for people who have already smoked for 30 or 40 years. They won't ban it only because, by law, they CAN'T ban it. Tobacco is legally protected from any ban in the U.S.. That's entirely a result of our corporate controlled system of government, not some cost/benefit analysis.

The whole rationale for taxing cigarettes is to offset health costs and to discourage a practice that costs society (via the government) a lot of money. That's the main argument AGAINST taxing e-cigs. E-cig use does not pose the health risks that cost the government money and therefore should be recouped from smokers via taxes. E-cig users should receive a rebate for the money they're not going to cost the government.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I hope they don't make real cigarettes illegal. The government gets too involved in things they have no business being involved in. It's really none of their business. I also don't think cigarettes will ever be obsolete. Not as long as stubbornness exists in this world.

I think think, however, it's only a matter of time until the government starts heavily taxing these devices. Ridiculous? Of course. But that's the government. They have to come up with new and invasive ways of feeding this all inclusive, super beast we've created. Government is expensive to run, and we have to pay for it. If that revenue isn't coming from cigarettes, they'll find something else to tax.

Myself, I don't care if Uncle Sam does make cigarettes / cigars / tobacco in general illegal .. although I'm pretty sure they won't ..

And, it seems to me, trying to heavily tax the hardware would be next to impossible .. batteries / PG / VG / cartos / unlikely .. nicotine, maybe ..

 

[ka724ka]

IMHO, no matter what, the real cigarette keeps banning because of health concern...

 

[sailorman]

Puleeeeeze people. Stop with the banning nonsense. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. They CANNOT ban ANY tobacco product in the U.S., incuding cigarettes or, now, e-cigs.
Once a product is declared a tobacco product it is automatically protected against any ban.

They CAN'T do it. No matter what health risks or concerns. It would be easier for them to ban soda or coffee or sugar or french fries. NO other legal product is so highly protected against a ban by the government than tobacco. NONE. Not even alcohol is as protected against a ban as tobacco products.

 

[NancyR]

....... I would add in my personal experience I have talked to so many analogue smokers about switching and I have found that most of them consider the e-cig to be like a nicotrol inhaler or the patch. ecigs aren't marketed that way but the majority of ppl consider ecigs to be a smoking cessation product.....

While I can't speak for all areas of the country on this, or even all doctors, I can say part of why some people view e-cigs as a smoking cessation product isn't due to the advertising but the doctors, my sister and I have both had doctors here in MO where we live suggest the use of an e-cig to help us stop smoking.

 

[Mroutlaw]

Sailorman, where could I find that law? I would love to read it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[caffeinator]

They may not be able to ban tobacco, but the individual states can sure make it de facto illegal.

That RYO tax raise was insane...and it's getting worse. WA state has some of the toughest smoking bans and "sin" taxes around. Oh yeah, and my apt. building just banned smoking anywhere on the property with basically no warning. I HAD to go vape or just quit cold as I live in a 4-storey walkup. I'm too old to do that trip just for a smoke. Moving isn't really an option either after 10yrs in the same spot.

 

[The Duke]

The government doesn't "make" money on tobacco taxes. If it is analyzed properly, the costs to the government of smoking related diseases exceeds the revenue generated by tobacco taxes. That doesn't mean these taxes are appropriated properly though. States, in particular, divert money from tobacco taxes to other purposes while foisting health care costs onto the federal government.

A huge amount of taxes are spent on Medicaid and Medicare to deal with smoking related illnesses. That few percent that comes out of your paycheck doesn't come close to paying Medicare's costs associated with smoking related illnesses in the elderly. When someone gets cancer or emphysema and loses his job and, therefore, his insurance, it's Medicaid that picks up the costs, most of which are incurred near the end of life when private insurance companies have bowed out of the equation and the patient has exhausted his private resources. When a person is disabled by emphysema and becomes dependent on SSI, the government is paying the costs of smoking.

This idea that government won't ban cigarettes because they want the revenue is absurd. By that logic, other substances would be legalized and taxed and there wouldn't be any outlays for health consequences. The government doesn't ban or not ban something based on revenue and it never has. Cigs are a net loss for the government, but they're already committed to paying the price for people who have already smoked for 30 or 40 years. They won't ban it only because, by law, they CAN'T ban it. Tobacco is legally protected from any ban in the U.S.. That's entirely a result of our corporate controlled system of government, not some cost/benefit analysis.

The whole rationale for taxing cigarettes is to offset health costs and to discourage a practice that costs society (via the government) a lot of money. That's the main argument AGAINST taxing e-cigs. E-cig use does not pose the health risks that cost the government money and therefore should be recouped from smokers via taxes. E-cig users should receive a rebate for the money they're not going to cost the government.

The governmnt makes HUGE profits from smoking. Attatched is a good article backed by some impressive studies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html
Sadly, society actually benifits from smokers.

 

[Uncle Willie]

They may not be able to ban tobacco, but the individual states can sure make it de facto illegal.

Yep .. and positions change .. protection now does not prevent future changes ..