I think you're precisely correct. Well, in fact I think there's two ways of reading their position:
1. They believe that e-cigarettes are inherently less pleasurable than smoking. If so how was this conclusion arrived at? And is the total consumer surplus debit a subtraction of the pleasure lost from no longer smoking and the pleasure gained by e-cigarette usage (as it surely must be)?
Or
2. They believe that most vapers plan to use e-cigarettes for a short period of time prior to full cessation of nicotine. At this point the "consumer surplus" debit occurs. If this is the belief, the FDA have fundamentally failed to understand harm reduction, and failed to understand vapers' motivations.
Wow, thanks for trying to explain this, though I'm still not understanding it much better. What you are saying makes sense. What article says, not so much. What article is speaking to, in general terms, seems to matter greatly as it could be angle that we vaping enthusiasts tackle the proposed regulations.
It seems very odd that FDA can calculate cost of benefits in deterring smoking WITH eCigs in the picture while also claiming that longterm health effects of eCigs are unknown. Would seem the latter claim would preclude any reasonable assertion on projected costs.
The way I understand the point is:
1 - FDA is claiming that enacting these proposed regulations will obtain a benefit to public health by a) preventing/deterring smoking and b) improving life by depriving current/potential users from seeking an alternative when cessation is achieved instead.
2 - Because reality is that some people do seek an alternative instead of cessation (or refraining from use at all), then FDA acknowledges there is a pleasure experience in the use of alternatives.
3 - So regulations that seek to curtail (via regulations) use of any tobacco product (known to FDA based on deeming said products) leads to a loss in pleasure that FDA acknowledges. IOW, make someone stop smoking (because product is regulated in way to reach for that presumed conclusion) and they have lost the pleasure that comes from smoking.
4 - And because regulation costs money (and generally lots of it) those costs must be calculated over time. Some taxpayer, at some point, might wonder how much these regulations cost to maintain, and FDA needs to provide that info as it stands currently and what FDA anticipates in upcoming years if regulations stay in place as is.
5 - Cost of regulations, according to FDA, is less than the benefits obtained, because really, the price of a life without smoking is easily known(???) and agreed upon by all(???). But everyone can agree that there is a benefit to not smoking, even while most would acknowledge that there is a pleasure factor associated with it.
6 - The lost pleasure factor from not-smoking is equal for each individual. How this assertion is made, no one knows, but it is to be accepted as 'scientific conclusion' cause ya know, FDA is all about the science.
7 - With eCigs, as an example of deeming tobacco product, the benefits on general welfare are unknown. (What FDA has been saying all along up to this point). Therefore, let's ignore this benefit completely, or pretend it can't possibly exist, and focus entirely on benefit of cessation from not-smoking which everyone agrees on. And instead of going with 100% benefit of not-smoking, FDA projects updated figure of 70% benefit from non-smoking due to this alternative existing. How is the 70% number arrived at? Please don't ask such questions. Instead just realize that instead of obtaining 100% benefit from not-smoking at all, the individual will have something less than that because they are still using a tobacco product.
8. And eCig users will also experience less of a loss in pleasure (that comes from smoking) because they are still using tobacco. Whatever pleasure is obtained from continued use of eCigs, within a market that is regulated, equals "cost-surplus." Never in the history of humanity has anyone tried to tie concept of cost-surplus to reduction in benefits leftover after regulations, but FDA is doing that now. Call it crazy or radical, but FDA wants it deemed acceptable.
9. If deemed acceptable, then the cost of regulating eCigs is really a no brainer, because magically the costs will always be less than the benefit of regulating eCigs which pertain to cessation of smoking.
For this to be better understood, please refrain entirely from understanding:
- FDA's role in preventing cessation. Please ignore any notion that regulations could lead to more use of tobacco products.
- how dual users play into this where "lost-pleasure" concept is not applicable. If unable to ignore the dual user, then treat them only as hardcore smoker that is denying all benefits that come from cessation, and are equal in cost to public health as all other smokers.
- how high costing regulations can, and often do, lead to underground markets that bypass the high costs of doing business in a regulated market.
I do have some sympathy with Glantz (never thought I'd say that)
Your honor, I'd like the preceding quote stricken from the record as it makes this person appear temporarily insane.
They do mention the Exec. Order but not by number (which is 12866 issued by Clinton 
) where the impact on small business is taken into consideration. But the FDA states outright in the deeming doc that they think they've complied with both the Executive Order 12866 and the RFA:
