FDA Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

[KattMamma]

Being as I started smoking when I was 11 and stopped when I was 33, before developing any health conditions, the only person it cost anything when I bought a pack was me.

Ditto.

I don't believe those numbers either. It has been shown time and time again that the TC people inflate numbers any way they can to make them fit their agenda. If you ever smoked, any illness you have is attributed to smoking. Your death, if caused by nearly any illness rather than injury, will be attributed to smoking, no matter the real cause.

I smoked for over 3 decades. I NEVER got any healthcare that I (or my private insurance) didn't pay for. In fact, I was pretty healthy until recently, and my current health issues have NOTHING to do with tobacco (which my doctor will attest to). I may be just one person, but I also know plenty of smokers who can tell a very similar story.

 

[englishmick]

Being as I started smoking when I was 11 and stopped when I was 33, before developing any health conditions, the only person it cost anything when I bought a pack was me.

Lots of things in society are handled on the basis of distributed sharing of cost. Like insurance, and the fire engine that shows up if your house catches fire. Someone has to pay to look after the guy who smoked and wasn't as lucky as you. A tax on cigarettes seems like a fair way of moving some of the cost of smoking from the population in general to the people who choose to take that risk. I never saw that as wrong myself when I smoked.

 

[zapped]

Lots of things in society are handled on the basis of distributed sharing of cost. Like insurance, and the fire engine that shows up if your house catches fire. Someone has to pay to look after the guy who smoked and wasn't as lucky as you. A tax on cigarettes seems like a fair way of moving some of the cost of smoking from the population in general to the people who choose to take that risk. I never saw that as wrong myself when I smoked.

You should look up how smoking taxes are distributed on a federal and state level. I think youd be surprised and more than a little angry.

 

[englishmick]

Ditto.

I don't believe those numbers either. It has been shown time and time again that the TC people inflate numbers any way they can to make them fit their agenda. If you ever smoked, any illness you have is attributed to smoking. Your death, if caused by nearly any illness rather than injury, will be attributed to smoking, no matter the real cause.

I smoked for over 3 decades. I NEVER got any healthcare that I (or my private insurance) didn't pay for. In fact, I was pretty healthy until recently, and my current health issues have NOTHING to do with tobacco (which my doctor will attest to). I may be just one person, but I also know plenty of smokers who can tell a very similar story.

The price of your private insurance is based on the medical costs of everyone in the pool. If the smokers cost more to keep alive than the non-smokers, then the non-smokers in your pool paid extra because of your smoking. That's how insurance pools work.

It may be that smoking doesn't cause an increase in medical costs. Or maybe that increase has been exaggerated for political reasons. Or maybe smoking doesn't even make people sick. Maybe my opinion on that question is a minority opinion in this thread, and I'm OK with that.

 

[KattMamma]

The price of your private insurance is based on the medical costs of everyone in the pool. If the smokers cost more to keep alive than the non-smokers, then the non-smokers in your pool paid extra because of your smoking. That's how insurance pools work.

That doesn't have anything to do with taxes and how "the public pays for smokers' healthcare". Also, at my company, about 25-30% of employees smoke (or smoked but now vape.) These smokers and ex-smokers are as healthy as the non-smokers. In fact, I've been there 13 years, and during that time only 3 employees have had excessive, long-term, or serious illnesses. 2 of those were never smokers.

 

[englishmick]

You should look up how smoking taxes are distributed on a federal and state level. I think youd be surprised and more than a little angry.

Surprised, no. Money goes in one end of the beast, and after all the parasites take their cut some services come out of the other end. When I was a kid I used to think socialism would fix all that. Some folks would like to starve the beast. Many don't understand the nature of the beast. But this is where we live. Dreaming about a perfect world and analyzing the flaws of the real world doesn't remove our need to make messy unsatisfying choices between bad options. Like whether to tax cigarettes.

Mr Godshall does more for the cause of vaping than just about anyone. I might not agree with every tiny detail of his strategy, or his political stance, or his past actions or whatever, but I sure am glad he's on the team.

 

[skoony]

The price of your private insurance is based on the medical costs of everyone in the pool. If the smokers cost more to keep alive than the non-smokers, then the non-smokers in your pool paid extra because of your smoking. That's how insurance pools work.

if your in a pool that charges extra premiums because of
personal behavior,smoking,obesity,and drinking,the extra
money is gravy. the rate the non-smoker,drinker or,obese
person pays is the rate if every one paid it would still make money
for the insurer.smoker,drinker and, obese people are not the
ones that drive up costs in the pool. its the 2 or 3 individuals
that through accident or illness require long term care at
the tune of a quarter of a million or more a year.
insurance is spreading the risk. the standard premium
takes into account the risks associated with every one
in the pool. its disingenuous after the fact to complain
about peoples personal choices when 1 or 2 otherwise
healthy individuals suffering a catastrophic event can
sink a plan much faster than some ones life style choice.

regards
mike

 

[Lessifer]

Mr Godshall does more for the cause of vaping than just about anyone. I might not agree with every tiny detail of his strategy, or his political stance, or his past actions or whatever, but I sure am glad he's on the team.

I agree, and didn't say anything to the contrary.

However, cigarette taxes started as an idea to curb cigarette use, were sold to the public as making up for increased healthcare costs(which only works out if you choose to do the math one way), and were latched onto and expanded upon by state legislatures that are now so dependent on them that they are unwilling to recognize that vapor products don't meet the criteria for the first two reasons for the taxes. Cigarette taxes are not a good thing.

 

[Kent C]

The price of your private insurance is based on the medical costs of everyone in the pool.

I know your comments were likely intended to 'bring home the reality' of the situation but it's not quite correct in that respect.

Bill's comments were about "government expenditures" wrt smoking. While, you are correct that gov't healthcare and private healthcare are both based on the medical costs of everyone in the pool, with private insurance, not everyone is forced into the pool. And while under obamacare, one can still 'shop around' to a degree, (similar to a cartel vs. a monopoly/one payer plan), with private insurance, shopping around is a 'bigger mall' so to speak and that shopping/competition is what drives down rates.

Your other comment, "it costs the country $11 every time someone buys a pack of cigs" even if true, which it is not, would only cost the people in the private insurance plan - something that some insurance plans (in part because of the lies told by Tobacco Control) adjust for. Early onset of Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's, arthritis and many other chronic illnesses cost much more than smoking (which may prevent or alleviate at least 3 of those mentioned) over the longer life terms of non-smokers or those who quit smoking.

As far as your 'dreaming about a perfect world' - that type of 'utopia' is closer to the socialism you thought would 'fix it all' and unfortunately the 'older dreamers' that put some of it in place in politics. The reality of that is now starting to cost much more than was "planned" (dreamed). That is what some of us are trying to change. Erasing that 'dream' not continuing it, because we see the flaws in that type of thinking, and how the reality of that doesn't align with the original dream.

----
For DC2: SEARCH: smoking health costs

 

[Bill Godshall]

I find it amazing how an anonymous troll (who probably has done nothing to oppose the FDA deeming regulation or anti vaping legislation) can hijack an important ECF thread about the FDA deeming regulation by slandering someone who has campaigned to keep vapor products and vaping legal since 2009, and by changing the subject to cigarette taxation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the FDA deeming regulation).

No wonder ECF is becoming less and less relevant for vaping advocacy.

 

[dajohn]

Sadly Mr. Godshall, no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[AndriaD]

Ditto.

I don't believe those numbers either. It has been shown time and time again that the TC people inflate numbers any way they can to make them fit their agenda. If you ever smoked, any illness you have is attributed to smoking. Your death, if caused by nearly any illness rather than injury, will be attributed to smoking, no matter the real cause.

I smoked for over 3 decades. I NEVER got any healthcare that I (or my private insurance) didn't pay for. In fact, I was pretty healthy until recently, and my current health issues have NOTHING to do with tobacco (which my doctor will attest to). I may be just one person, but I also know plenty of smokers who can tell a very similar story.

My smoking might have been *one* factor in my developing adult-onset asthma, but there are 2 others, which I think are the *real* "cause": my father was an asthmatic -- thus I had a 25% chance of having asthma no matter what else applied (I looked it up when I was pregnant with my son -- it's completely Mendelian); and secondly, I had moved to Detroit the year before -- I had never been subjected to that level of industrial air pollution before, here in ATL. So, having smoked for 10 yrs (at that time) may have been a factor, but certainly not the only one, nor even the most significant one.

I get my asthma meds for free -- but the taxpayers aren't paying for that; GSK is, in their attempt to be "community friendly," they have a program in place for life-sustaining meds for those who can't afford them, low-income/no insurance.

Andria

 

[pennysmalls]

I'm sure dang glad we have Bill in our corner. Not only does Bill have insider knowledge but he has passion that rivals the passion of any vaper I've met. I'm the type who believes nothing can happen that isn't supposed to happen, it's a literal impossibility in my mind, so I don't worry much about the past. It's the future that scares me.

 

[DC2]

Using the afore mentioned sin tax 'logic' one could reasonably expect Twinkies to be subject to the same treatment in the very near future.

Twinkies, pizza, skateboarding, ladders, BBQs, travel to foreign lands, bleach, growing old...

 

[DC2]

When I was a kid I used to think socialism would fix all that.

I used to think that too, back in my days of innocent idealism.
Until I realized how many people will do the least amount possible if given the chance.

 

[Lessifer]

I find it amazing how an anonymous troll (who probably has done nothing to oppose the FDA deeming regulation or anti vaping legislation) can hijack an important ECF thread about the FDA deeming regulation by slandering someone who has campaigned to keep vapor products and vaping legal since 2009, and by changing the subject to cigarette taxation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the FDA deeming regulation).

No wonder ECF is becoming less and less relevant for vaping advocacy.

You are right that this discussion does not belong in this thread.

Back to the topic at hand, what strategies do we have to continue fighting the deeming regs?
I've contacted my state reps, they are unsurprisingly not supportive. Are there any members of congress who have expressed an interest in the idea of voting down the deeming regs?

 

[stevegmu]

If organizations hadn't demonized smoking to the point it is today, perhaps there would be no deeming regulations...

 

[stevegmu]

I'm sure dang glad we have Bill in our corner. Not only does Bill have insider knowledge but he has passion that rivals the passion of any vaper I've met. I'm the type who believes nothing can happen that isn't supposed to happen, it's a literal impossibility in my mind, so I don't worry much about the past. It's the future that scares me.

The past has set the foundation for the present and future...

 

[DC2]

If organizations hadn't demonized smoking to the point it is today, perhaps there would be no deeming regulations...

That's a possibility.

There are a number of factors at work here though...
--Loss of tax money
--Big Tobacco losing profits
--Big Pharma losing profits and afraid of losing much more
--The Tobacco Control Industry liking their jobs

It can certainly be argued that if smoking had not been so demonized...
--There would be no sin taxes on smoking and hence no loss of tax money
--The Tobacco Control Industry might not exist

But Tobacco Control is the one that spearheaded most of the demonizing efforts.
And the other two players would still be wanting their pound of flesh.

Perhaps only Big Government would be out of the picture.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Not sure how things would be shaking out if Big Government weren't involved.
Or if the Tobacco Control Industry never existed.

 

[stevegmu]

That's a possibility.

There are a number of factors at work here though...
--Loss of tax money
--Big Tobacco losing profits
--Big Pharma losing profits and afraid of losing much more
--The Tobacco Control Industry liking their jobs

It can certainly be argued that if smoking had not be so demonized...
--There would be no sin taxes on smoking and hence no loss of tax money
--The Tobacco Control Industry might not exist

But Tobacco Control is the one that did most of the demonizing.
And the other two players would still be wanting their pound of flesh.

Perhaps only Big Government would be out of the picture.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Not sure how things would be shaking out if Big Government weren't involved.

Big Government is involved because they were heavily lobbied and influenced by anti smoking campaigns.
I don't really understand the tax aspect. There are countries like CR where a lot of smokers have quit and become vapers, yet the parliament has not even considered taxes on vaping to make up losses on cigarette tax. They simply raised the cigarette tax a few koruna. Big Tobacco in CR- Phillip Morris, has simply lowered the price of cigarettes and come out with cheaper products, to get people to smoke more, rather than try to have e-cigarettes taxed like tobacco products.

Culturally, Czechs are probably closer to Americans than any other Europeans- they watch our tv, movies, like out music, speak our language, yet they have not been bombarded with anti smoking campaigns from birth. That is the real difference. Smoking is normal. Many don't like it- they don't go to restaurants and pubs known to have a lot of smokers. Those who don't like it don't try to eradicate it, through lobbying, cancer societies and foundations whose sole purpose is to end smoking...