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

[Cool_Breeze]

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

...good summary, DC2.

 

[pennysmalls]

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

Agreed, but the past is set in stone, the future isn't. So the foundation can shift like it has for so many others things.

 

[Kent C]

It can certainly be argued that if smoking had not been so demonized...

In order to 'deem', one must have a target for deeming/redefinition. In the case of ecigs, the target is cigarettes. And the only reason for that is what the anti-smoking advocates have done to that industry where it has become a given to demonize, tax, and regulate. Were it not for the cigarette, then, to what could they deem ecigs? This is guilt by association - and an association that makes no sense in terms of associating the harm perceived by some with cigarettes vs. the reduction of harm from cigarettes.

 

[plumeguy]

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.

Bill is absolutely correct. These are two very different issues. The deeming regulations
have nothing directly to do with taxation and are an impending existential threat to millions
of American vapers who would otherwise be smoking.

 

[nicnik]

Bill is absolutely correct. These are two very different issues. The deeming regulations
have nothing directly to do with taxation and are an impending existential threat to millions
of American vapers who would otherwise be smoking.

The thread was about the interview, and the interview was pretty much about the deeming regulations. See the thread title. Critique of the interview is not hijacking of the thread.

 

[Lessifer]

Bill is absolutely correct. These are two very different issues. The deeming regulations
have nothing directly to do with taxation and are an impending existential threat to millions
of American vapers who would otherwise be smoking.

Well, deeming vapor products as tobacco products would be the easiest way to open them up to tobacco excise taxes, so the issues are definitely related.

In another thread Bill pointed out an article where some TC economists suggest that vapor and OTP should be taxed at a lower rate than cigarettes due to their lower risk.

The deeming and taxation go hand in hand. I don't think attacking his past does any good, but it's definitely not a stretch of the imagination that the current threat of vaping excise taxes is a direct result of the push for cigarette taxes.

I'm all for getting back to the discussion of how we vapers can fight back though.

 

[plumeguy]

Taxes on eliquid already exist in some states. Nothing about the deeming regulations
starts or stops a state or federal tax on ejuice.

 

[Lessifer]

Taxes on eliquid already exist in some states. Nothing about the deeming regulations
starts or stops a state or federal tax on ejuice.

Well, for a Federal excise tax on vapor products, Congress would, I believe, have to pass a new act declaring an excise tax on vapor products and defining what those products are. However, if the FDA deems vapor products as tobacco products, then it is merely a matter of adjusting existing tobacco taxes to account for vapor products, which I'm guessing would be easier. Though I'll admit I'm not positive on the two processes.

As for the states, many times the taxes come with a definition of vapor products as tobacco products.

Are you trying to say that vapor product taxes are not related to tobacco taxes?

 

[Luisa]

Since exhalations by vapers pose not risks to nonusers, there is no rational reason to enact laws that ban vaping in workplaces. In sharp contrast, tobacco smoke pollution poses risks to nonusers. Besides, workplace smoking bans are key reasons why cigarette consumption has sharply declined during the past 30 years, and why the vaping industry has skyrocketed since 2007.



The huge increase in cigarette prices (due to taxation and litigation) are the other key reasons why cigarette consumption has sharply declined during the past 25 years, and why the vaping industry has skyrocketed since 2007. The primary reason I've been advocating cigarette tax increases (since collaborating with PA Gov. Bob Casey in 1991 to raise PA's cig tax from $.18 to $.31/pack) is to hold cigarettes fiscally accountable for the enormous costs they impose on taxpayers.

A recent study found that healthcare costs caused by cigarette smoking were $170 Billion in 2010 (which is $200 Billion in 2015 due to 4% annual cost increases), with about 70% of those costs (i.e. $140 Billion in 2015) incurred by federal, state and local governments. Since about 13 billion packs of cigarettes will be consumed in the US this year, healthcare costs to treat cigarette diseases and disabilities in the US are now about $15/pack ($200/13 = $15.38), with governments paying about $11/pack for those healthcare services.
http://www.prevent.org/data/files/actiontoquit/ajpm_annual_healthcare_spending_smoking, 12-10-14.pdf

As such, a tax of at least $11/pack would need to be imposed on cigarettes to make cigarettes pay their fair share of taxes in 2015.
But even that wouldn't come close to reimbursing government expenditures since healthcare costs to treat smoking diseases were primarily caused by cigarettes that were bought and smoked five, ten, fifteen or more years ago (when prices were much lower than now). Besides, as cigarette consumption continues to decline and healthcare costs continue to increase, the healthcare costs to treat smoking diseases will continue to increase at 5% annually (for the next 15 or 20 years) even if everyone quit smoking today.

Another recent study found similar Medicaid costs to treat smoking diseases
E-Cigarettes Poised to Save Medicaid Billions > Publications > State Budget Solutions

In sharp contrast, there is no rational reason for taxing vapor products, as they save federal, state and local governments money.

On Monday I met with PA House Majority Leader Dave Reed (along with PA vaping activist SmokenJoey, who interviewed me above, and a vape shop owner, both of whom are Reed's constituents in rural Indiana County) and urged Reed (in his ongoing PA Budget negotiations with Gov. Wolf) to oppose any tax on smokeless tobacco or vapor products, to oppose vaping ban bills, and to support enactment of legislation to ban the sale of vapor products to minors. I also urged him to increase the cigarette tax (and gave him the documents on smoking costs posted above) if he and other legislative leaders decide to raise any taxes (which they've rejected to date). I also informed him about the War on Vaping by Obama's DHHS since 2009, when FDA unlawfully banned the products).

If more vapers urged elected officials to support vaping and to reject anti vaping legislation (instead of posting conspiracy theories and criticizing vaping activists on forums and blogs), we could defeat all of the anti vaping bills (and the FDA's proposed deeming regulation).

Bill,many of us know how hard you have worked supporting Vapors and the Vaping industry--and all without pay. I find it offensive anyone would criticize you or find fault with your work many years ago on an issue you felt to be very important. The transition to supporting e-cigs makes a great deal of sense. Something came on the market that was truly a miracle. It was going to help many quit deadly combustible cigarettes and would it would not harm those near the vapor. What many on this forum do not see is you never hated smokers like many in smoking control---such as Stan Glantz. It is interesting to see comments on the forum from people who have spent little or no time doing something positive in this 6 year battle(or is it 7 years?) or informing themselves of the past battles others have fought for them.
There is a saying(trite but true) that if there is a problem and you do nothing then you are part of the problem. If all the million plus vapors would lobby and make their voices heard--the politicians would listen.Thank you Bill for giving us the information we need. Now all vapors need to follow through and take positive action.

 

[plumeguy]

Well, for a Federal excise tax on vapor products, Congress would, I believe, have to pass a new act declaring an excise tax on vapor products and defining what those products are. However, if the FDA deems vapor products as tobacco products, then it is merely a matter of adjusting existing tobacco taxes to account for vapor products, which I'm guessing would be easier. Though I'll admit I'm not positive on the two processes.

As for the states, many times the taxes come with a definition of vapor products as tobacco products.

Are you trying to say that vapor product taxes are not related to tobacco taxes?

Correct. Not directly. Even if the FDA deemed ecig products to be an entirely separate
category from tobacco that doesn't stop the Feds and/or states from seeking and
getting vapor product taxes. It doesn't stop a state from defining vapor products as
tobacco products. You are correct in thinking that current FDA deeming plans makes
this job easier.

 

[Luisa]

Bill,many of us know how hard you have worked supporting Vapors and the Vaping industry--and all without pay. I find it offensive anyone would criticize you or find fault with your work many years ago on an issue you felt to be very important. The transition to supporting e-cigs makes a great deal of sense. Something came on the market that was truly a miracle. It was going to help many quit deadly combustible cigarettes and would it would not harm those near the vapor. What many on this forum do not see is you never hated smokers like many in smoking control---such as Stan Glantz. It is interesting to see comments on the forum from people who have spent little or no time doing something positive in this 6 year battle(or is it 7 years?) or informing themselves of the past battles others have fought for them.
There is a saying(trite but true) that if there is a problem and you do nothing then you are part of the problem. If all the million plus vapors would lobby and make their voices heard--the politicians would listen.Thank you Bill for giving us the information we need. Now all vapors need to follow through and take positive action.

Rather than the Million Man march on Washington,a million vapors march on Washington might be interesting.

 

[Luisa]

Bill,many of us know how hard you have worked supporting Vapors and the Vaping industry--and all without pay. I find it offensive anyone would criticize you or find fault with your work many years ago on an issue you felt to be very important. The transition to supporting e-cigs makes a great deal of sense. Something came on the market that was truly a miracle. It was going to help many quit deadly combustible cigarettes and would it would not harm those near the vapor. What many on this forum do not see is you never hated smokers like many in smoking control---such as Stan Glantz. It is interesting to see comments on the forum from people who have spent little or no time doing something positive in this 6 year battle(or is it 7 years?) or informing themselves of the past battles others have fought for them.
There is a saying(trite but true) that if there is a problem and you do nothing then you are part of the problem. If all the million plus vapors would lobby and make their voices heard--the politicians would listen.Thank you Bill for giving us the information we need. Now all vapors need to follow through and take positive action.

Now,the Million Vapers March on Washington might be a good thought.

 

[KattMamma]

I find it offensive anyone would criticize you or find fault with your work many years ago on an issue you felt to be very important.

I was aware of, but had mostly forgiven Bill's past in TC. His comments at the beginning of the video brought that TC past into the present.

It IS relevant to the issue at hand, because without the demonizing of tobacco by TC, we wouldn't be where we are now with vaping.

Thank you Bill for giving us the information we need. Now all vapors need to follow through and take positive action.

Yes, despite that TC past, Bill has done a LOT to help vapers and continues to do more. And as you pointed out, all without pay. I am thankful for all he has done for us and continues to do for us.

 

[Kent C]

I find it offensive anyone would criticize you or find fault with your work many years ago on an issue you felt to be very important.

Just because someone thinks an issue 'important' doesn't mean it's right or morally right. I think all TC advocates interfered with my right to smoke and cost me money and freedom (as to where I could smoke) as well as slandering me as part of that group, as a result of their actions. Take any other activity that does no harm to someone directly rather than just offend their senses - which happens all the time - and such intervention would not be justified. Using junk science on second-hand smoke and playing to non-smokers sensibilities, TC demonized over 40% of the population, under the guise of 'we know what's best for your health'. If the same actions would be taken against any other group who engages in what someone thinks is 'dangerous behavior' to oneself, not many would stand for it.

And I'd point out that almost everyone who commented about his past TC actions, have praised him for his work in ecigs multiple times, not just in this thread but almost every other thread that he's started or commented on.

For him to say that ECF is less and less relevant for vaping advocacy, is like saying Standard Oil (who once had a near monopoly in oil) is less relevant in the oil industry. Were it not for ECF and Smokey Joe, CASAA and all of us who have done our own Call To Actions and CASAA's and others, it's a slap in the face. ECF started it and has been a podium for Bill and other THR advocates. And were it not for the support of members here or in his own group, he'd just be another anti-smoking, pro-vaping guy. To belittle those who do what they can, because he thinks they haven't done as much as he has, is a bit too 'proud' and misses the relationship between leaders and groups.

Bill should acknowledge (and understand the fact) that most vapers are ex-smokers - some of who loved smoking and would have continued to smoke were it not for ecigs. And understand that he was on the opposite side at that time and not be surprised that some react to his comments about that. It's akin to saying one is 'proud to be a Yankee' in Mississippi.

As long as he sticks with pro-vaping comments and stays away from anti-smoking comments, most of us, including myself have nothing to say in opposition to what he is doing and has done for vaping advocacy - in fact, I have now and in the past much praise and have attempted to help him in many cases on finding links, recently posting a graph and have done some searches some of which were fruitful, some not. And I am by far, not the only one to do such things and to give praise.

I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between his past actions and his present ones. And I understand that he thinks they are entirely consistent. But when someone asks questions about 'how this all got started' one can't ignore stuff like 'deeming' to what? and a full explanation has to include the anti-smoking aspect that we are sometimes dealing with today.

 

[AndriaD]

Just because someone thinks an issue 'important' doesn't mean it's right or morally right. I think all TC advocates interfered with my right to smoke and cost me money and freedom (as to where I could smoke) as well as slandering me as part of that group, as a result of their actions. Take any other activity that does no harm to someone directly rather than just offend their senses - which happens all the time - and such intervention would not be justified. Using junk science on second-hand smoke and playing to non-smokers sensibilities, TC demonized over 40% of the population, under the guise of 'we know what's best for your health'. If the same actions would be taken against any other group who engages in what someone thinks is 'dangerous behavior' to oneself, not many would stand for it.

And I'd point out that almost everyone who commented about his past TC actions, have praised him for his work in ecigs multiple times, not just in this thread but almost every other thread that he's started or commented on.

For him to say that ECF is less and less relevant for vaping advocacy, is like saying Standard Oil (who once had a near monopoly in oil) is less relevant in the oil industry. Were it not for ECF and Smokey Joe, CASAA and all of us who have done our own Call To Actions and CASAA's and others, it's a slap in the face. ECF started it and has been a podium for Bill and other THR advocates. And were it not for the support of members here or in his own group, he'd just be another anti-smoking, pro-vaping guy. To belittle those who do what they can, because he thinks they haven't done as much as he has, is a bit too 'proud' and misses the relationship between leaders and groups.

Bill should acknowledge (and understand the fact) that most vapers are ex-smokers - some of who loved smoking and would have continued to smoke were it not for ecigs. And understand that he was on the opposite side at that time and not be surprised that some react to his comments about that. It's akin to saying one is 'proud to be a Yankee' in Mississippi.

As long as he sticks with pro-vaping comments and stays away from anti-smoking comments, most of us, including myself have nothing to say in opposition to what he is doing and has done for vaping advocacy - in fact, I have now and in the past much praise and have attempted to help him in many cases on finding links, recently posting a graph and have done some searches some of which were fruitful, some not. And I am by far, not the only one to do such things and to give praise.

I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between his past actions and his present ones. And I understand that he thinks they are entirely consistent. But when someone asks questions about 'how this all got started' one can't ignore stuff like 'deeming' to what? and a full explanation has to include the anti-smoking aspect that we are sometimes dealing with today.

Andria

 

[DC2]

However, if the FDA deems vapor products as tobacco products, then it is merely a matter of adjusting existing tobacco taxes to account for vapor products, which I'm guessing would be easier. Though I'll admit I'm not positive on the two processes.

I am pretty sure that legislation passed by Congress is needed to adjust taxes on tobacco products.
I used to be positive about that, but then I got older and less sure I'm right anytime I open my mouth.


Here's proof that I was once positive about this...
The "Newish" member Contest for Awareness: Part II | Page 2 | E-Cigarette Forum

So much time has gone by since then.

 

[Lessifer]

I am pretty sure that legislation passed by Congress is needed to adjust taxes on tobacco products.
I used to be positive about that, but then I got older and less sure I'm right anytime I open my mouth.


Here's proof that I was once positive about this...
The "Newish" member Contest for Awareness: Part II | Page 2 | E-Cigarette Forum

So much time has gone by since then.

Right, just meant that it will probably be easier to pass legislation expanding tobacco taxes to include the newly deemed tobacco vapor products, than it would be to craft a new tax on a product that currently has no precedent for an excise tax. Not that either would be hard to get passed, I mean, more money is more money.

 

[stevegmu]

Right, just meant that it will probably be easier to pass legislation expanding tobacco taxes to include the newly deemed tobacco vapor products, than it would be to craft a new tax on a product that currently has no precedent for an excise tax. Not that either would be hard to get passed, I mean, more money is more money.

Exactly. Simply amending existing legislation pushed by the anti-cigarette crowd is a lot easier than drawing up and passing new legislation. The framework is already there. Same as including e-cigarettes in workplace and clean air act bans...

 

[Kent C]

@DC2 Not tobacco tax but:

Obama Eyes More Tax Hikes---By Executive Action

"The tax gauntlet was tossed down by his White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, who said the President was “very interested” in raising taxes through executive action. Some of the blame goes to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who called upon the President to raise over $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. Sen. Sanders dispatched this letterto Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary identifying actions the IRS can take without asking Congress."

 

[DC2]

Just because someone thinks an issue 'important' doesn't mean it's right or morally right. I think all TC advocates interfered with my right to smoke and cost me money and freedom (as to where I could smoke) as well as slandering me as part of that group, as a result of their actions. Take any other activity that does no harm to someone directly rather than just offend their senses - which happens all the time - and such intervention would not be justified. Using junk science on second-hand smoke and playing to non-smokers sensibilities, TC demonized over 40% of the population, under the guise of 'we know what's best for your health'. If the same actions would be taken against any other group who engages in what someone thinks is 'dangerous behavior' to oneself, not many would stand for it.

And I'd point out that almost everyone who commented about his past TC actions, have praised him for his work in ecigs multiple times, not just in this thread but almost every other thread that he's started or commented on.

For him to say that ECF is less and less relevant for vaping advocacy, is like saying Standard Oil (who once had a near monopoly in oil) is less relevant in the oil industry. Were it not for ECF and Smokey Joe, CASAA and all of us who have done our own Call To Actions and CASAA's and others, it's a slap in the face. ECF started it and has been a podium for Bill and other THR advocates. And were it not for the support of members here or in his own group, he'd just be another anti-smoking, pro-vaping guy. To belittle those who do what they can, because he thinks they haven't done as much as he has, is a bit too 'proud' and misses the relationship between leaders and groups.

Bill should acknowledge (and understand the fact) that most vapers are ex-smokers - some of who loved smoking and would have continued to smoke were it not for ecigs. And understand that he was on the opposite side at that time and not be surprised that some react to his comments about that. It's akin to saying one is 'proud to be a Yankee' in Mississippi.

As long as he sticks with pro-vaping comments and stays away from anti-smoking comments, most of us, including myself have nothing to say in opposition to what he is doing and has done for vaping advocacy - in fact, I have now and in the past much praise and have attempted to help him in many cases on finding links, recently posting a graph and have done some searches some of which were fruitful, some not. And I am by far, not the only one to do such things and to give praise.

I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between his past actions and his present ones. And I understand that he thinks they are entirely consistent. But when someone asks questions about 'how this all got started' one can't ignore stuff like 'deeming' to what? and a full explanation has to include the anti-smoking aspect that we are sometimes dealing with today.

I hope you dropped the microphone after making that post.
The hammer is you, and the nail is this topic.