Got a response from my state rep and it's not good

[Yaker]

Bottom line, here in MA anyway, is big time taxes and big time publicity for our Govnr.

 

[Don29palms]

What an extraordinary concept you have towards cigarette taxes. The tax is levied because the product causes harm. That tax is (supposedly) a way for the government to pay for the harm caused by the state sanctioned product. If the money is not spent on the consequences of smoking then there is no justification for the tax......
Got to go now, it's time for my evening eye poking session (now where did i put my screwdriver).

The product doesn't cause harm to anyone. Nobody is being forced in any way to smoke cigarettes or any other tobacco products. If you don't want to be injured don't smoke cigarettes. If you smoke cigarettes and you get sick it's your own fault. What about personal responsibility don't you understand?
By your standards they should tax the hell out of screwdrivers to keep people like you from poking their eyes out.

 

[bombastinator]

cbd and terpenes are different things. There are a number of different alkaloids in cannabis. They are called cannabinoids, and cbd is one of them.

yes, but are those cannabinoids also terpenes? I was told by a guy on another forum yes, so much so that in the cannabis industry the term terpene and THC/CBD are synonymous. I cant confirm it one way or the other though.

I don't know how you separate CBD from the other cannabinoids. There is a company here in Denver that makes a product called "The Pure", which is a CO2 distillate. It ranges from 92%-96% THC. The rest is other cannabinoids, including CBD.

Terpenes are impurities that are removed from the plant resin in this process. CBD or THC "oil" is actually a plant resin

the problem is terpenes ARE resins. Cannabidoids are apparently not only produced by cannabis and the cannabinoid wiki claims there are 113 of them in cannabis. CBD and THC are only 2 of them. Cannabinoid - Wikipedia
there are apparently ~400 terpenes in cannabis so clearly not all the terpenes in cannabis are cannabinoids, but I can’t tell if that means none of the terpenes are cannabinoids or some of them. You seem to be saying no, they absolutely are not, and this Denver stuff actually removes the terpenes while leaving only (some?) of the cannabinoids. This seems to be a topic people are in dispute about. One guy one place saying one thing and one guy in another place saying the opposite. This whole thing is confusing to me.

, similar to say, the tar in tobacco. Terpenes are chemicals that, among other things, give plant resins their colors, flavors, and scents. The makers of The Pure add a small amount of terpenes back into their finished product so it tastes a bit more like hemp.

Side note in the cannabidol wiki it claims that CBD turns into THC when heated which would make CBD vaping effectively impossible as it would just turn into THC Cannabidiol - Wikipedia
So this whole thing may be moot. Maybe No one can actually vape CBD in the first place. They’re effectively vaping THC that used to be CBD when it was put into the device and turned it into THC when they vaped it. Might explain why there are no CBD vaping patients mentioned in the CDC stuff. They don’t actually exist.

 

[bombastinator]

China son ingenuity ---> Hon Lik - the man who invented the e-cig

Iirc you’re both right. The first ecig patent was an American 1930’s thing that was quashed by BT and completely forgotten. It was later developed totally independently again in China.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

Iirc you’re both right. The first ecig patent was an American 1930’s thing that was quashed by BT and completely forgotten. It was later developed totally independently again in China.

The 1930’s patent issued to Joseph Robinson was for an Electronic Vaporizer that was developed for the purpose of vaporizing medicine – was not intended for tobacco or nicotine use.

1963 the first smokeless non tobacco cigarette was developed. Patent was filed but the product never caught on.

1990’s Philip Morris begins selling Accord, a heat not burn product, but still requires a traditional cigarette similar to IQOS

2003 – Hon Lik registers a patent for the modern e-cigarette

 

[bombastinator]

The only problem might be getting the parts to make a mod. I always suggest getting at least 1 mech mod and 1 RDA and know how to use them. The only parts that really might be hard to get is the 510 and squonk bottles.

Iirc 510 is a standard metric screw type. M4 (with some modifier?) so buying a hollow screw of that size should keep things doable. Taps and dies are available as well. Bottles may be harder. Caps harder still perhaps, though they’re just a flat cap with a hole in the top.

 

[bombastinator]

The 1930’s patent issued to Joseph Robinson was for an Electronic Vaporizer that was developed for the purpose of vaporizing medicine – was not intended for tobacco or nicotine use.

1963 the first smokeless non tobacco cigarette was developed. Patent was filed but the product never caught on.

1990’s Philip Morris begins selling Accord, a heat not burn product, but still requires a traditional cigarette similar to IQOS

2003 – Hon Lik registers a patent for the modern e-cigarette

I think I remember the accord. It was basically an analog iQOS. The heating element was inside rather than outside and was basically a charcoal smudge. The quote I remember was “takes a blowtorch to light it and tastes like .....”. I forget what the last word was. It wasn’t complimentary though.
IIRC the packing was straight up cut tobacco not specially sprayed sheet tobacco.

 

[Punk In Drublic]

Here’s the patent for the first smokeless non-tobacco cigarette from 1963 for those who wish to read up on it. It’s Thursday, my day of rest from reading patents. No comment on the taxes or if a screwdriver was needed.

US3200819A - Smokeless non-tobacco cigarette - Google Patents

 

[classwife]

Reminder in here please (earlier posts that were reported) - Keep the political stuffs out of it.

 

[BROKEN1981]

Reminder in here please (earlier posts that were reported) - Keep the political stuffs out of it.

No disrespect intended, but the whole reason for the bans started with lost revenue from cigarette taxes. I can't see how this is not political. So how could there be any discussion about the topic?

 

[bombastinator]

The product doesn't cause harm to anyone. Nobody is being forced in any way to smoke cigarettes or any other tobacco products. If you don't want to be injured don't smoke cigarettes. If you smoke cigarettes and you get sick it's your own fault. What about personal responsibility don't you understand?
By your standards they should tax the hell out of screwdrivers to keep people like you from poking their eyes out.

So none of us are here then. And the entire smoking cessation industry is a crock? There is an entire branch of medicine called addiction medicine that disputes this.

 

[BROKEN1981]

So none of us are here then. And the entire smoking cessation industry is a crock? There is an entire branch of medicine called addiction medicine that disputes this.

Agreed!!!
I was a 5 pack a day smoker after my father died when I was 23. Was a 1 pack a day user. So a huge jump. I ended up with a collapsed lung. Couldn't afford to go into the hospital that week because I needed the paycheck. Was still smoking 5 packs a day. Went into the hospital Friday night, came out a week later.

That's when I came across the Vea. It's so easy for people to say stop smoking. Like yeah, I like tossing my money into the trash. The nicotine and the physical aspect is what keeps people smoking.

 

[bombastinator]

No disrespect intended, but the whole reason for the bans started with lost revenue from cigarette taxes. I can't see how this is not political. So how could there be any discussion about the topic?

I think she is saying there is politics referring to vaping and there is bare politics. There is taxing e-cigarettes and there is general taxation theory. I fell for it hard on p3 of this thread before I came to my senses.

 

[BROKEN1981]

I think she is saying there is politics referring to vaping and there is bare politics. There is taxing e-cigarettes and there is general taxation theory. I fell for it hard on p3 of this thread before I came to my senses.

Ahhh ok

 

[classwife]

No disrespect intended, but the whole reason for the bans started with lost revenue from cigarette taxes. I can't see how this is not political. So how could there be any discussion about the topic?

Who you vote for, why you vote or will vote for them, who you hate blah-blah-blah...partisan comments...Democrats/Republicans and slurs of them...
That is the "political stuffs" that doesn't belong

example of a no-no below...

This is why Trump will not get a vote from me or my wife. We are both single voter issues. I expected this from a Democrat, not a Republican.

 

[BROKEN1981]

Who you vote for, why you vote or will vote for them, who you hate blah-blah-blah...partisan comments...Democrats/Republicans and slurs of them...
That is the "political stuffs" that doesn't belong

example of a no-no below...

Agreed! I shouldn't show that on a public forum. I was pretty much venting on here since my wife is so tired of hearing it she now yells .... all ready. Lol

 

[Don29palms]

Agreed!!!
I was a 5 pack a day smoker after my father died when I was 23. Was a 1 pack a day user. So a huge jump. I ended up with a collapsed lung. Couldn't afford to go into the hospital that week because I needed the paycheck. Was still smoking 5 packs a day. Went into the hospital Friday night, came out a week later.

That's when I came across the Vea. It's so easy for people to say stop smoking. Like yeah, I like tossing my money into the trash. The nicotine and the physical aspect is what keeps people smoking.

So you admit it was your fault you were smoking 5 packs a day and it's your fault you had a collapsed lung. It's good you didn't die.

 

[classwife]

Agreed! I shouldn't show that on a public forum. I was pretty much venting on here since my wife is so tired of hearing it she now yells .... all ready. Lol

Thanks...and yep.

We are all pretty maxed out with frustration over vaping bans and regs these days

 

[classwife]

The product doesn't cause harm to anyone. Nobody is being forced in any way to smoke cigarettes or any other tobacco products. If you don't want to be injured don't smoke cigarettes. If you smoke cigarettes and you get sick it's your own fault. What about personal responsibility don't you understand?
By your standards they should tax the hell out of screwdrivers to keep people like you from poking their eyes out.

So none of us are here then. And the entire smoking cessation industry is a crock? There is an entire branch of medicine called addiction medicine that disputes this.

...I think what Don is saying is that we all CHOSE to smoke.

A cigarette sitting in a pack is doing no harm.

 

[Don29palms]

...I think what Don is saying is that we all CHOSE to smoke.

A cigarette sitting in a pack is doing no harm.

BINGO! We all have choices and you can't blame the tool. It's the operator of the tool that must take responsibility for the consequences, good or bad.
In Kalifornia atleast the idea of raising taxes on cigarettes was to make it unaffordable or expensive to smoke so people will quit. They were using the tax money for many different programs. It worked and people quit smoking. Some used vaping and some used other methods. Then they were complaining that these programs were not feasible because they were losing the funding. Something had to be done to replace the lost taxes. I can imagine Kalifornia isn't the only state where this happened.