How E-Cigarette Health Warning Labels Could Be Benefitting Big Tobacco

[Thrasher]

In the Huff post today
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/e-cigarette-warning-label_n_6921324.html

Big tobacco companies say their goal in pushing for firm control is not to hurt smaller competitors. Regulation will benefit consumers and e-cigarette companies alike by ensuring safety and quality standards and boosting confidence, they say. Small companies should not be exempt from responsible behaviour.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Good post, Thrasher.

 

[Thrasher]

Alternative read from Reuters


Special Report: When it comes to e-cigs, Big Tobacco is concerned for your health | Reuters


And just for a little balance to this madness
Www.news.yahoo.com/health-experts-defend-e-cigarettes-despite-concerns-221511423.hump

Several articles worth checking out on yahoo

 

[realcleverscience]

The irony of this situation - big tobacco using health ads to scare smokers from a safer alternative - is mindblowing.

 

[CMD-Ky]

The irony of this situation - big tobacco using health ads to scare smokers from a safer alternative - is mindblowing.

I agree, it is beyond my comprehension. What is bothering me more than the tobacco hubris is the implication that a sizable portion of the population will accept their pronouncements and will not howl in pain or collapse in laughter. The nannies now in ascendency within government will side with tobacco in the unquenchable thirst to interfere with and to control the lives of others.

 

[realcleverscience]

It's all about money. It always is.
Big tobacco wants to keep making money, and states make buttloads of cash from cigarette sales. E.g. in NY - where I lived when I was smoking - a pack costs like $12!!! They hardly hide the fact that they raise the prices when the state is in a budget deficit.

Actually, among other tactics, it might be good for vapers to emphasize the savings to the state (and citizens) in terms of medical costs saved from people not dying of cigarette usage.

 

[CMD-Ky]

It's all about money. It always is.
Big tobacco wants to keep making money, and states make buttloads of cash from cigarette sales. E.g. in NY - where I lived when I was smoking - a pack costs like $12!!! They hardly hide the fact that they raise the prices when the state is in a budget deficit.

Actually, among other tactics, it might be good for vapers to emphasize the savings to the state (and citizens) in terms of medical costs saved from people not dying of cigarette usage.

1. Smoke now, die early. Don't pay for the treatment of self-inflicted disease unless the disease is politically correct.
2. Power and control, all for our own good of course, is a significant motivation for some.

 

[Jman8]

I will defend BT on many things. This is not one of those things.

From the article linked in OP:

"I think they (Reynolds) probably want that snuffed out before it gains traction," said Philip Gorham, an Amsterdam-based tobacco analyst at Morningstar.

Reynolds says that's not true. "We fully support innovation in tobacco products, including vapour products," said Smith. The company wants "a level playing-field where all manufacturers are subject to equal treatment."

Not a very level playing field when you are entering the market with billions and your competitors are trying for double digit profits. Or at most, millions among BV.

IMO, if you are BT and you are pushing for regulations, then all costs the FDA wants for researching and testing any products ought to be fronted by BT. If BT doesn't like this, then they need to get back to anti-regulations mode. Otherwise, I would stand by this as those most sensible path going forward.

 

[CMD-Ky]

The way to get ahead in a competitive market is pay the government to make your competitor's product either illegal or have it taxed out of existence. Contributions cheerfully accepted here.

 

[caramel]

In August, Reynolds – which does not produce mods - urged the FDA to "ban open system e-cigarettes, including all component parts." Such systems, Reynolds wrote, present a "unique risk for adulteration, tampering and quality control."

I think they're onto something. Let's start by mandating child-proof, tamper-proof containers for tobacco cigarettes (like for e-liquid).

 

[Thrasher]

While I highly doubt the sincerity of thiier statements you have to hand It to them they present a very well thought out response that many can't really argue against ( standards,testing etc) and this is what will put the ball in their court

As long as they stick to this angle and capers rebel against it the argument will enforce their stance of " see we told you so, they don't even want a safer product"

 

[roxynoodle]

I think they're onto something. Let's start by mandating child-proof, tamper-proof containers for tobacco cigarettes (like for e-liquid).

Yes, and while we are at it, all liquids will need to be banned because they're not tamper proof: water, milk, pop, shampoo even Trust me, I've seen cases where spouses have poisoned each other through shampoo. And the milk. And the coffee.

 

[choochoogranny]

It's not, it's not, it's NOT a "level playing field" because their product kills smokers vaping does not!!!! I do not have to pass a test to ride a bike which have few regs? I do have to pass a test to drive a car and the multiple regulations on said vehicle is astounding.

 

[caramel]

While I highly doubt the sincerity of thiier statements you have to hand It to them they present a very well thought out response that many can't really argue against ( standards,testing etc) and this is what will put the ball in their court

As long as they stick to this angle and capers rebel against it the argument will enforce their stance of " see we told you so, they don't even want a safer product"

Yes you can. Ask them to quote the increase in tobacco cigarettes safety as a result of FDA regulations.

 

[The Cloud Minder]

While I highly doubt the sincerity of thiier statements you have to hand It to them they present a very well thought out response that many can't really argue against ( standards,testing etc) and this is what will put the ball in their court

As long as they stick to this angle and capers rebel against it the argument will enforce their stance of " see we told you so, they don't even want a safer product"

I know what you meant, but the mental imagery of rebelling "capers" made me bust out laughing.