FDA to regulate e-cig as tobacco

[Bill Godshall]

tfbncc wrote:

The biggest reason cigarettes are still legal is because tobacco brings in BILLIONS of dollars in taxes for both the feds and state govs.

That is the most absurd statement I've seen posted on this forum yet (and there are many other absurd postings).

The reason why cigarettes are still legal is because 45 million people smoke them (including 33 million who are addicted), and because banning them would create a huge black market (that would dwarf the black market for alcohol during prohibition and the black market for pot).

 

[bander68]

I most definitely do NOT want pv's banned. But that doesn't mean I want them or their juices taxed either. I don't believe those have to be separate desires. Just because I found an alternative that happens to save me a lot of jack? "hey, you can't save money for yourself-give it to the govt or we'll ban your money-saving device! Shut up and give us your money! Be thankful we're letting you have that pv at all!"
I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that kind of philosophy.
Don't misunderstand me... I'm glad they weren't banned. I just see the writing on the wall of what is almost certainly going to happen next, and I'm not too sure that celebrating is what we need to do.

CTFK's press release trying to spin yesterday's huge loss by FDA, CTFK and drug companies is at
FDA Acts to Protect Public Health by Extending Authority over Tobacco Products - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids

Those who have posted notes complaining about imminent taxation should sober up and realize that US Congress and State Legislatures have always had the legal authority to tax e-cigarettes (and any other product they desire).

And while they're sobering up, perhaps the tax protesters can inform the rest of us why they'd prefer the FDA banning e-cigarettes (as that's what njoy's court victory prevented).

 

[tfbncc]

tfbncc wrote:



That is the most absurd statement I've seen posted on this forum yet (and there are many other absurd postings).

The reason why cigarettes are still legal is because 45 million people smoke them (including 33 million who are addicted), and because banning them would create a huge black market (that would dwarf the black market for alcohol during prohibition and the black market for pot).

Well, it may be overly simplistic, but there are a few grains of truth in my statements. I don't consider them absurd when I watch my state government raise taxes almost every year on cigarettes, anywhere from 10 cents per pack to a dollar a pack (thanks Florida). It's difficult to examine a complex problem on a forum with reducing your reasoning to "absurd statements" in the name of brevity.

Let's just put it this way. I don't trust politicians and/or bureaucrats to do what's in our best interest.

 

[TNT]

Yesterday's announcement by the FDA is without any doubt the most important victory in the world for e-cigarettes, e-liquid, vendors, consumers, smokers and tobacco harm reduction.

It was also a humiliating defeat for tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists, drug companies, and cigarettes.

So I don't understand the many doom and gloom postings.

I want to agree with you, but we'll know what it really means only in the fullness of time.

Here's one point I think is indisputable...

The biggest loser: Big Pharma... they lost completely.
The second biggest losers: the e-cig companies we currently deal with.
The obvious winner: Big Tobacco

I'm pretty sure Big Tobacco was already tentatively planning e-cigs for awhile now, but I'm guessing yesterday an official order went out at Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds, Lorrilard, etc... "the project's a go... be ready to go to market the day the FDA issues its regulations." Why expect otherwise? Nicotine is their business... they've been at it for decades, they've got departments for development, marketing and (most important of all) distribution in place for their current products... it won't be hard to make the switch.

Without going into great detail, if the FDAs regulations pretty much leave things as they are now, all the Big Tobacco companies will be selling e-cigs ranging from disposables to hyper-sophisticated mods at prices that will be considerably cheaper than what we see now. (Imagine the price of, say, a Provari when Reynolds orders them in lots of 10,000,000 instead of one or two dozen?)

On the other hand, if the FDA goes for hyper-restrictive regulations... "We'll allow cartridges only, and even then, only in semi-tobacco and menthol flavors with e-cig batteries at 2.5 volts" then e-cigs will be a tiny segment of a market that's won't be very important for anybody. It will be almost as effective as an outright ban.

 

[GregH]

So let me get this straight. The vaping community has been following and dissecting every nuance of this court case for 2 years, hoping against hope that the FDA would lose or concede and SE/NJoy would prevail. That finally happens. We actually get what many of us have been fervently wishing for during the last 2 years.

So what happens almost immediately? Folks start crying that this is the end of e-cigs. They'll tax them to death! They'll ban flavors! They'll ban liquids!

Seriously, people! Enjoy this for at least a day or two. Then prepare for the next wave of battles.

I just had to get that out. I'll step off the soapbox now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tarazarr]

to everyone asking how in the world they could justify taxing e-cigs the same way they tax cigerettes (because e-cigs are so harmless). Have you checked the price of nicorette gum lately? why do they cost just as much as a carton of cigerettes? Why does the patch cost more than cigerettes?

My opinion is because they... (FDA in bed with big tobacco) do not really care what nicotine product you choose to get your fix, as long as they all cost the same, then there is no lost revenue....

Why would Phillip Morris develope, market and sell a product that replaces their very own higher priced product? Because they are nice guys? They do not want to lose money and they answer to their stock holders, if people are switching away from their product, causing them to lose money, they want that money back!!! Regulating e-cigs allows them to make them just as... wait no, more expensive as analogs.... Welcome back to Marlboro country all you addicts who were getting your fix at a discount, there'll be no more of that nonsense....

When this is over and done, e-cig devices and juice will cost no less then smoking analogs...

 

[Vocalek]

to everyone asking how in te world they could justify taxing e-cigs the same way they tax cigerettes (because e-cigs are so harmless). Have you checked the price of nicorette gum lately? why do they cost just as much as a carton of cigerettes? Why does the patch cost more than cigerettes?

My opinion is because they (FDA in bed with big tobacco) don't care what nicotine product you choose to get your fix, as long as they all cost the same, then there is no lost revenue....

When this is over and done, e-cig devices and juice will cost no less then smoking analogs...

They always did cost more than cigarettes. They are not taxed, because they are pharmaceutical products. When they first came out, Big Pharma managed to get health insurance companies to pay through the nose, with the promise of how much money they would be saving once their policy-holders stopped smoking.

If anything, the prices of patches, gum, and lozenges have come down some since they were made available over-the-counter and carried in stores such as Walmart and Costco. People who tried cold turkey over and over are desperate to find something that helps and they will pay the money.

The good thing is that dissolvable tobacco products such as orbs (Ariva, Stonewall, and Camel) can give the lozenges a run for their money. To stay competitive the pharmaceutical companies may be forced to lower their prices still further.

One of the ways that we as consumers can help to keep the taxes down is to learn all we can about the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction -- how switching to less harmful alternative sources of nicotine reduces health risks -- and then educate our legislators on these concepts. Whenever a state starts making noises about taxing smokeless products as highly as cigarettes, we need to be ready to make a lot of phone calls and send a lot of letters.

 

[mirinuh]

The price of e-cigs were bound to go up no matter what the FDA determined to do here. Manufacturing incentives from the PRC with respect to employing vast amounts of workers are now under pressure in China due to staggering inflationary concerns and this is going to drive prices up; currency exchange rates are going to drive pricing up later this year; the need, in time, to manufacture these products, at least in part, in GMP certified facilities is going to drive pricing up; the cost of tobacco-like compliance is going to drive pricing up; pressure from state AG's and their regulatory issues are going to have a negative impact on pricing; and, in time, should tobacco interests rule the roost, so to speak, look for big tobacco companies to put pressure on the traditional distribution chain to demand that e-cigs companies participate in the MSA. All of this is to be expected with a product that is manufactured in China and a product that took the tactical, legal route of claiming tobacco status. At the end of the day, market forces and political influence will determine much of what happens. In the meantime, the product survives. The battles will continue . . . but far less is at stake going forward than what has been at stake since April of 2009.

 

[Secti0n31]

Freakin AMEN MAN!!! Taxes? Are you serious? They don't tax the daylight out of cigars or pipe tobacco, and no matter how much they "seem" to tax chew, it's still cheap as HELL! You notice when they started taxing RYO tobacco that the RYO people started marketing their products as "pipe tobacco" (because it contains 1-5% pipe tobacco) and BOOM its back to being cheap ... RYO tobacco again!

The main reason that the government taxes the living crap out of ciggs and RYO is because they're really really dangerous, and if people are going to use dangerous products (maybe I should use the word "unhealthy" instead) then we may as well use that money to idk, put a chip in the bazillion dollar national debt?

If they do tax e-cigs it's not going to be the $4 tax they've emparted on analogs, it's going to be small, and has to be original because e-cig products don't use tobacco. They can't tax the cartos or the attys or the batteries. If they wanted to tax e-juice they could have done it 2 years ago. The FDA has no jurisdiction over taxation.

That being said, The FDA giving up on their court case and declaring e-cigs to be "legal tobacco products" has no bearing on whether the government will tax them or not! If you buy them locally there's sales tax, if a company buys a metric ton of 14450 batteries, there's sales tax.

All tobacco products are in different tax classes. When you look at the side of a box of cigarettes it's tax class A, meaning the most expensive tax rate for a tobacco product. While I'm not sure about the "class" of chew, cigars or pipe tobacco, it's very very low by comparison. And if we're going by standards, there's no "tobacco" in nic juice, so they'd fall in the same tax category as Nicorette gum, or the patch, neither of which have any outstanding tax rates.

So if you're worried about taxes: DON'T! The odds are overwhelmingly in our favor, and even if the govt decides to tax e-juice it will be nowhere near the hike on regular ciggs or the recent RYO hike.

Next: If you're worried about phillip morris or RjR making e-juice: DON'T!!! I actually like this idea because whatever e-juice they provide will be quality! If RjR decides to make a camel juice they're going to spend so much money making it that it's guaranteed to be tasty and very similar to their cigs. It'll also be required to have a full ingredient list. Sure "Marlboro juice" may be expensive, but it will still be cheaper than analogs. If it's not, there's no profit in it, and no incentive for the e-cig community to buy it.

A lot of trolls in this forum are probably big tobacco employees doing product research. they probably know better, and are actually learning how we think and what we want.

Chew on that for a bit and please stop looking for reasons to find the bad in this fantastic news.

 

[StormFinch]

Freakin AMEN MAN!!! Taxes? Are you serious? They don't tax the daylight out of cigars or pipe tobacco, and no matter how much they "seem" to tax chew, it's still cheap as HELL! You notice when they started taxing RYO tobacco that the RYO people started marketing their products as "pipe tobacco" (because it contains 1-5% pipe tobacco) and BOOM its back to being cheap ... RYO tobacco again!

The main reason that the government taxes the living crap out of ciggs and RYO is because they're really really dangerous, and if people are going to use dangerous products (maybe I should use the word "unhealthy" instead) then we may as well use that money to idk, put a chip in the bazillion dollar national debt?

If they do tax e-cigs it's not going to be the $4 tax they've emparted on analogs, it's going to be small, and has to be original because e-cig products don't use tobacco. They can't tax the cartos or the attys or the batteries. If they wanted to tax e-juice they could have done it 2 years ago. The FDA has no jurisdiction over taxation.

That being said, The FDA giving up on their court case and declaring e-cigs to be "legal tobacco products" has no bearing on whether the government will tax them or not! If you buy them locally there's sales tax, if a company buys a metric ton of 14450 batteries, there's sales tax.

All tobacco products are in different tax classes. When you look at the side of a box of cigarettes it's tax class A, meaning the most expensive tax rate for a tobacco product. While I'm not sure about the "class" of chew, cigars or pipe tobacco, it's very very low by comparison. And if we're going by standards, there's no "tobacco" in nic juice, so they'd fall in the same tax category as Nicorette gum, or the patch, neither of which have any outstanding tax rates.

So if you're worried about taxes: DON'T! The odds are overwhelmingly in our favor, and even if the govt decides to tax e-juice it will be nowhere near the hike on regular ciggs or the recent RYO hike.

Next: If you're worried about phillip morris or RjR making e-juice: DON'T!!! I actually like this idea because whatever e-juice they provide will be quality! If RjR decides to make a camel juice they're going to spend so much money making it that it's guaranteed to be tasty and very similar to their cigs. It'll also be required to have a full ingredient list. Sure "Marlboro juice" may be expensive, but it will still be cheaper than analogs. If it's not, there's no profit in it, and no incentive for the e-cig community to buy it.

A lot of trolls in this forum are probably big tobacco employees doing product research. they probably know better, and are actually learning how we think and what we want.

Chew on that for a bit and please stop looking for reasons to find the bad in this fantastic news.

+1 on most of you post Secti0n, but the one thing I do worry about is e-juice made by Big Tobacco. They've been experts for decades at adding extras to cigarettes to make us more addicted and keep us that way. What would they consider adding to our e-juices? Personally, I'll stick to DIY if I can get the supplies, or any mom and pop mixers that make it through if I can't. Granted, the required ingredient list that the FDA is purposing would help us identify just what we're vaping, be it BT or mom and pop, but now that I'm no longer a slave to BT's product I simply don't trust them any farther than I can throw them.

 

[Secti0n31]

I agree, and I buy from 2 mom and pop companies, and 2 individually ran companies. That's why I'm not worried about taxes. The companies that make cigs are huge, so they're bait for tax money, but when you start taxing the family in the midwest that makes great juice, you're asking to get your ... kicked and lose your re-election campaign.

 

[GIMike]

Ignoring the problems while hoping they go away is what is getting us into trouble these days. Sure, we can hope they won't tax it. We can hope the big tobacco and politicians don't want our money. Hope in one hand.....

How many different industries are run completely by big companies because the small mom and pop stores were bought out or couldn't afford to keep up with the big companies? Don't rely on Mom and Pop always being there for you....

 

[sjrily]

to everyone asking how in the world they could justify taxing e-cigs the same way they tax cigarettes (because e-cigs are so harmless). Have you checked the price of nicorette gum lately? why do they cost just as much as a carton of cigerettes? Why does the patch cost more than cigerettes?

My opinion is because they... (FDA in bed with big tobacco) do not really care what nicotine product you choose to get your fix, as long as they all cost the same, then there is no lost revenue....

Why would Phillip Morris develope, market and sell a product that replaces their very own higher priced product? Because they are nice guys? They do not want to lose money and they answer to their stock holders, if people are switching away from their product, causing them to lose money, they want that money back!!! Regulating e-cigs allows them to make them just as... wait no, more expensive as analogs.... Welcome back to Marlboro country all you addicts who were getting your fix at a discount, there'll be no more of that nonsense....

When this is over and done, e-cig devices and juice will cost no less then smoking analogs...

I have no idea how much truth there is to this, I'm just quoting from another researcher. Rather lengthy, but a very interesting read:

The other major pharmaceutical companies were also increasingly funding tobacco control in the U.S. and abroad. In January 1999 Gro Harlem Brundtland announced that Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis, and Pharmacia had become “partners” with the WHO in its anti-tobacco work. The global public health establishment now dances to the tunes the pharmaceuticals play:

1. Increase tobacco taxes to make the price of the pharmaceutical products more competitive with
tobacco products.
2. Demonize the tobacco industry and prohibit the advertising of their products.
3. Enact smoking bans to force smokers either to attempt to give up smoking using the
pharmaceuticals’ products or to use “nicotine replacement” products as substitutes for when they
cannot smoke.
4. Promote smoking cessation and “treatment” for nicotine addiction.
5. Promote full coverage for treatment of nicotine addiction by public and private health insurers.​

 

[Vocalek]

; and, in time, should tobacco interests rule the roost, so to speak, look for big tobacco companies to put pressure on the traditional distribution chain to demand that e-cigs companies participate in the MSA.

MSA stands for "Master Settlement Agreement". Legally speaking, I don't think it is possible for one of the parties to a settlement agreement to insist that outside parties be brought into the settlement after the fact.

But even if it were possible legally speaking, morally speaking it is wrong. The entire theory behind the suits in the first place was that the states claimed that tobacco companies had been lying to the public and that their products harmed the health of users.

How can they say, "NJOY didn't even exist as a company when we signed the MSA, and they haven't been lying to their customers, and their products haven't harmed anybody. Nevertheless, if we have to pay into the fund, so should they"?

 

[LeftCoastVaper]

I'm not a lawyer (although I hope to play one on TV someday), but this whole situation confuses me. E-cigs aren't nicotine delivery devices - they're vaporizers. One can as easily use them to inhale herbal vapors as nic juice, so what exactly would they be regulating? Any 10th-rate attorney could make this argument and even a 12th-rate judge would have to concede the point. If they want to regulate nicotine-containing fluids... ok, fair enough, I guess. But I think they're really going to have to differentiate between the device and the specific vapor. I can't believe this thing has come as far as it has...

 

[Secti0n31]

I'm not a lawyer (although I hope to play one on TV someday), but this whole situation confuses me. E-cigs aren't nicotine delivery devices - they're vaporizers. One can as easily use them to inhale herbal vapors as nic juice, so what exactly would they be regulating? Any 10th-rate attorney could make this argument and even a 12th-rate judge would have to concede the point. If they want to regulate nicotine-containing fluids... ok, fair enough, I guess. But I think they're really going to have to differentiate between the device and the specific vapor. I can't believe this thing has come as far as it has...

I believe that the juice is the only thing that could be successfully regulated. The attys and carto/cartridges can also be tested to determine if the delivery method is safe, or if you're likely to get a mouthful of exploded heating element coil.

The batteries are most likely beyond regulation, so all that they're looking at is the juices, their ingredients and byproducts, and the affects of the attys and carts. I could be wrong about that, but the juice is what's being taken into your body, so that's what is going to be listed as a "miscellaneous tobacco product"

 

[GIMike]

I just hope that PV's don't end up as a novelty in head shops with other non-tobacco-use devices....

 

[BuzzKill]

I would like to THANK SE and NJOY for making this happen !!!

Also I would like to thank Bill Goodshall , Vocalec and Yvilla for there concise input and support .

The JUICE and pre packaged KITS that include the carts with nic in them will be the spots that will be regulated , Mods and attys will be outside of the regulation IMO as we can just change the name of them if they get included on some list ( like a water pipe vs. a .... )

correct me if I am wrong please.

 

[mirinuh]

MSA stands for "Master Settlement Agreement". Legally speaking, I don't think it is possible for one of the parties to a settlement agreement to insist that outside parties be brought into the settlement after the fact.

But even if it were possible legally speaking, morally speaking it is wrong. The entire theory behind the suits in the first place was that the states claimed that tobacco companies had been lying to the public and that their products harmed the health of users.

How can they say, "NJOY didn't even exist as a company when we signed the MSA, and they haven't been lying to their customers, and their products haven't harmed anybody. Nevertheless, if we have to pay into the fund, so should they"?

One of the ways that Phillip Morris browbeats the traditional distribution channels is by insisting that all tobacco companies that they compete with participate in the MSA. Over the past few years they have literally driven a number of small, new tobacco companies out of business; saying, in effect, that MSA participation is the "price of poker." And, in almost all cases, they had the states' AG's on their side.

 

[TNT]

to everyone asking how in the world they could justify taxing e-cigs the same way they tax cigerettes (because e-cigs are so harmless). Have you checked the price of nicorette gum lately? why do they cost just as much as a carton of cigerettes? Why does the patch cost more than cigerettes?

My opinion is because they... (FDA in bed with big tobacco) do not really care what nicotine product you choose to get your fix, as long as they all cost the same, then there is no lost revenue....

Why would Phillip Morris develope, market and sell a product that replaces their very own higher priced product? Because they are nice guys? They do not want to lose money and they answer to their stock holders, if people are switching away from their product, causing them to lose money, they want that money back!!! Regulating e-cigs allows them to make them just as... wait no, more expensive as analogs.... Welcome back to Marlboro country all you addicts who were getting your fix at a discount, there'll be no more of that nonsense....

When this is over and done, e-cig devices and juice will cost no less then smoking analogs...

I'm still trying to find the reference, but so far, no luck... however, I have a very good memory that I trust...

At least one of the nicotine replacement therapy company went on record as saying, "We will price our product the same as cigarettes so as not to encourage non-users to take up the habit." That was considered being "socially responsible."

Here's why e-cigs going into the hands of Big Tobacco means something according to price... true, the companies answer to their stockholders. But they also have a dying product (both literally and figuratively). They need e-cigs as much as we do. But... walk into any store and look at all the promotions going on for cigs... coupons, price reductions, generics, ultra-generics (almost all of which are actually made by Reynolds, Lorrilard, PM), etc. It's not because they're being nice... it's because they're competing against the other manufacturers.

As far as taxes go, if I buy a ticket to a concert, I pay an extra "amusement tax." Goverment does not tax according to toxicity... it taxes according to what it can get away with. (A long time ago, when I lived in Massachusetts, I paid a "restaurant" tax which was higher than sales tax.)