FDA seizing new shipments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Petrodus

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2010
7,702
8,132
Midwest
I have to say that both you and Bill are correct. It's somewhat to do with money and mostly to do with tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists. I don't think the tax consequences have even occurred to most of these people.

Consider these facts............

KUDOS

Don't know what others do when they are impressed with
posts.... However, I archive them for future reference.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
OK, I'll bite. :)

Occam's Razor applied:

Legislators trying to ban indoor use = prohibitionist motivation, as it doesn't protect tobacco sales and therefore tax revenue (and pharma sales)

Legislators trying to ban sales = monetary motivation, as it protects tobacco sales and therefore tax revenue (and pharma sales)

What have we been fighting 99% of the time? Indoor use bans, with the exception of New York and California. (California's governor vetoed their proposed ban, so apparently wasn't swayed by the lost money. So that leaves only New York.)

Therefore, if they are proposing indoor use bans and not sales bans, the most likely reason is prohibitionist, not monetary.

Occam's razor applied:

Legal e-cigs equals less government money.
Illegal e-cigs equals more government money.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. Oh sure...there are plenty of fascists out there that have warped Utopian ideas to go along with their feelings of inadequacy and wake up each morning measuring their body parts. But ultimately....cash is king.
 
Last edited:

maxx

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 23, 2010
1,269
3
PA, USA
www.omnimaxx.com
Indoor vapor bans also help cigarette sales and therefore tax revenue...

Not everyone, and perhaps not even a majority, moved from smoke to vapor for health reasons. I moved because they threw me out in the streets and taxed me. If they were to apply the same restrictions and taxes on e-cigs that they do on cigarettes...I would likely move back to smoking and so would alot of others. If I can't vape indoors and it costs me the same as smoke...I might as well smoke...it's easier.

Prediction....if the New York e-cig ban fails again, it will return in the form of a tax proposal to even up the prices between the two.
 

Grammie

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 18, 2009
3,544
4,344
71
Virginia, Well Steeped
I have to say that both you and Bill are correct. It's somewhat to do with money and mostly to do with tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists. I don't think the tax consequences have even occurred to most of these people.

So, it's both about prohibitionism and money, but the evidence suggests that the tax ramification haven't yet come into play for the most part or more legislators would be attempting to ban sales outright rather than just include them in indoor use bans.

It will occur to them when they have to pay more taxes because we QUIT smoking! We have to allow for them, they can't think of but one thing at at time. They can see nothing but what they want.

You are right, Kristen, it's about both prohibitionism and money (for AHA, ALA, etc., without the money those organizations will dry up).
 

Sgt. Pepper

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 10, 2011
4,192
51,037
Indoor vapor bans also help cigarette sales and therefore tax revenue...

Not everyone, and perhaps not even a majority, moved from smoke to vapor for health reasons. I moved because they threw me out in the streets and taxed me. If they were to apply the same restrictions and taxes on e-cigs that they do on cigarettes...I would likely move back to smoking and so would alot of others. If I can't vape indoors and it costs me the same as smoke...I might as well smoke...it's easier.

Prediction....if the New York e-cig ban fails again, it will return in the form of a tax proposal to even up the prices between the two.

Exactly, Maxx!

In reference to prohibitionists: While there may be individuals in different agencies and legislatures (fed/state/FDA) that have these feelings and motivation, they still answer to the powers-that-be. They may be in it for the good fight, but they hold no real power in the end--and they will do what they are told. (Politics 101)

I'm out. Everyone have a pleasant evening!
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Ideas like this would mean we finally get to play offense.

Make that "asthma and chronic bronchitis." In my case the wheezing went away, but so did the "productive morning cough".

How about the rest of you? Any other chronic conditions take a turn for the better once you switched away from from inhaling smoke? Did you notice fewer office visits? Using less medication?
 

Traver

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 28, 2010
1,822
662
WV
Between 1998 and 1999 the drug companies spent $83.6 million to lobby congress and more millions or so in direct and indirect contributions. They also spend money on political grass roots efforts, state and local legislators. It may be that the FDA does not receive money directly from these companies but many of the people within the FDA have worked or received money from them. Some of them also have investments in these companies. Here's one example:
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Washington Ethics Group Calls for Investigation into Conflicts of Interest of Two FDA Tobacco Panelists, Citing Their Financial Ties to Big Pharma

You can bet that the FDA is going to pay attention to those congressman that control it's purse strings. So drug company money still has a big influence on the FDA.
 

Demarko

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 15, 2010
397
78
48
Seattle, WA
www.twinrosesoftware.com
How about the rest of you? Any other chronic conditions take a turn for the better once you switched away from from inhaling smoke? Did you notice fewer office visits? Using less medication?

Just a total lack of coughing, really... And I about ruined my birthday cake - frosting flew everywhere!
 

cobaltblue

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 22, 2010
562
165
A cabin in the woods and loving it
To play offense, I'm thinking examples like MoonRose's and Vocalek's need to be the "new letters" we start sending out to politicians and anyone else who needs to know the advantages of switching from analogs to the PV (of course, continue also with the letters we've been sending to stop bans and seizures).

I'm thinking the proactive letters need to have a few things included:

1-New language for the PV so they're described as Personal Vaporisers (with e-cigarettes written only in parenthesis after);
2-Examples of how using the PV has cut down on health care burden/expense from yourself or others, or any other type of burden/expense that would make a difference;
3-At least a paragraph about how the PV has changed your life;
4-Then at the end possibly the ECF and CASAA URLs.


Any more examples or ideas?
 
Last edited:

Demarko

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 15, 2010
397
78
48
Seattle, WA
www.twinrosesoftware.com
I wrote a facebook message to the loser in the last election. In general I don't agree with her politics - but she seems to be in line with my thinking about other issues, plus she was a friend in high school. That got me thinking. How many tight elections might be swayed by vapers? What battles could we pick? Little state districts seem so small in comparison when you look at the end results, but then people like rosenthal show up that end up dictating policy for the whole country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread