Does this sound familiar to anyone....?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MaDPimP

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 21, 2009
106
0
WI, USA, Earth
I read about this a while back and just remembered last night:

Margarine vs Butter

As early as 1877 the first U.S. states had passed laws to restrict the sale and labeling of margarine. By the mid-1880s the United States federal government had introduced a tax of two cents per pound, and manufacturers needed an expensive license to make or sell the product. Individual states began to require the clear labeling of margarine.
Margarine naturally appears white or almost white: by forbidding the addition of artificial coloring agents, legislators found that they could keep margarine from being bought. Bans on coloration became commonplace around the world and endured for almost 100 years. It did not become legal to sell colored margarine in Australia, for example, until the 1960s.
[edit] Margarine in the United States

In the United States, the color bans, drafted by the butter lobby, began in the dairy states of New York and New Jersey. In several states, the legislature enacted laws to require margarine manufacturers to add pink colorings to make the product look unpalatable,[2] but the Supreme Court struck down New Hampshire's law and overruled these measures. By the start of the 20th century, eight out of ten Americans could not buy yellow margarine, and those that could had to pay a hefty tax on it. Bootleg colored margarine became common, and manufacturers began to supply food-coloring capsules so that the consumer could knead the yellow color into margarine before serving it. Nevertheless, the regulations and taxes had a significant effect: the 1902 restrictions on margarine color, for example, cut annual U.S. consumption from 120 million to 48 million pounds (54,000 to 22,000 tons). However, by the end of the 1910s, it had become more popular than ever[citation needed].
With the coming of World War I, margarine consumption increased enormously, even in unscathed regions like the United States. In the countries closest to the fighting, dairy products became almost unobtainable and were strictly rationed. The United Kingdom, for example, depended on imported butter from Australia and New Zealand and the risk of submarine attack meant that little arrived.
The long-running rent-seeking battle between the margarine and dairy lobbies continued: In the United States, the Great Depression brought a renewed wave of pro-dairy legislation; the Second World War, a swing back to margarine. Post-war, the margarine lobby gained power and, little by little, the main margarine restrictions were lifted, the most recent states to do so being Minnesota in 1963 and Wisconsin in 1967.[3] However, some vestiges of the legal restrictions remain in the U.S.: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act still prohibits the retail sale of margarine in packages larger than one pound.[4] As of 2008, the sale of yellow margarine remained illegal (although unenforced) in the U.S. state of Missouri.[5]

Margarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

mtndude

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 4, 2009
259
2
Roan Mountain, TN
Reminds me of when the American Dairy Association went after Soy Milk manufacturers. I believe the argument was that it was misleading the consumer.... Funny how they didn't raise those objections to Coconut Milk.

It will be interesting what kind of laws will be enacted to "protect the consumer" in regards to vaporized nicotine.
 

MaDPimP

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 21, 2009
106
0
WI, USA, Earth
That was slightly my idea. A new product comes out that challenges a powerhouse financial industry and the government begins making up bs claims, rules and regulations to keep it from harming the existing infrastructure and upsetting the apple-cart so to speak....

apparently governmental greed and ruthlessness are timeless.... as are their lies
 

misterME

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 28, 2009
140
0
52
Charleston, SC - USA
Taxes and profits are what all this is about - $70 Billion in fed cigarette taxes alone, Billions more for the states. Not to mention big tobacco and all the pharmacuticals make all that money on drugs needed to prolong dieing smokers lives - a half million people a year. It's ALWAYS about the money:evil:
I agree.

But wouldn't the decreased health care and litigation costs in each state more than make up for the loss in tobacco tax revenue?

Sure that doesn't help Big Pharma, and it certainly drives nails into the much-needed coffin of Big Tobacco. But can't the states see the advantage to themselves in the long-run of making a switch from traditional tobacco to a safer alternative like e-cigs?

Or are the states too near-sighted for that?
 
ARGH! NO NOT MY BUTTER! wait sorry still waking up.

I am not joking I will become a coffee, soda, PV and nic juice runner IF this stuff keeps up. I can see it now...
"hey buddy what you in here for??"

"umm smuggling juice and coke!"

"right on roids and ....... huh? heard there was good money in that."

"no I was smuggling a load of juicy juice, coca cola, nic juice for e-cigs."
 

katink

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 24, 2008
1,210
4
the Netherlands
But wouldn't the decreased health care and litigation costs in each state more than make up for the loss in tobacco tax revenue?
This isn't true, MisterMe - it's only used as false propoganda.

Looking at medical costs during the lifetime of a person, a smoker costs less health-care money then a non-smoker. For the simple reason, that the average smoker doesn't reach such an old age as non-smokers do (I think the difference in expected age is around 12 years shorter on average for smokers, at least that's the number used in my country) - and it's specifically for people above 70 or so, that most health-costs p.y. are being made. These costs surpass on average the shorter-term costs of typical smokers-diseases (that typically will end in death before those 'old years' are reached).

So it is not a benefit to the state to have smokers become non-smokers in terms of health-costs. Despite their using the argument, that smoking must be fought 'because of it's high health-costs'.

Just another instance of false propoganda...
 

MaDPimP

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 21, 2009
106
0
WI, USA, Earth
This isn't true, MisterMe - it's only used as false propoganda.

Looking at medical costs during the lifetime of a person, a smoker costs less health-care money then a non-smoker. For the simple reason, that the average smoker doesn't reach such an old age as non-smokers do (I think the difference in expected age is around 12 years shorter on average for smokers, at least that's the number used in my country) - and it's specifically for people above 70 or so, that most health-costs p.y. are being made. These costs surpass on average the shorter-term costs of typical smokers-diseases (that typically will end in death before those 'old years' are reached).

So it is not a benefit to the state to have smokers become non-smokers in terms of health-costs. Despite their using the argument, that smoking must be fought 'because of it's high health-costs'.

Just another instance of false propoganda...


excellent point, not to mention the fact that those tax dollars arent just going to healthcare costs they are spent on many different items hence the sin tax keeps on getting raised during tough financial times. Also let us not for get that old adage: a dying addicted smoker in the hand is worth 2 vapers in the bush
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
The ECA says e-cig sales were $100 million. Manufacturers need to step up and use some of that for testing and public relations commercials!!


Right on Point Kristin. Insteed of buying boats and cruising around the world, Manufactures sould be ponying up funding testing and advancing educational marketing. The gravey train is over.


Sun
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Right on Point Kristin. Insteed of buying boats and cruising around the world, Manufactures sould be ponying up funding testing and advancing educational marketing. The gravey train is over.


Sun
I know. It's like a lottery winner who blows all their winnings on luxuries instead of investing some of it and wonders where it all went 10 years later.

The manufacturers should be looking at PR campaigns and advertising and financially supporting these lawsuits & political campaigns as an investment. It may only be $100 million this year, but if e-cigs win, it could be BILLIONS in profits!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread