If there is a ban coming for e-cigs then what? wouldn't they just be able to apply for a new drug device application submit the already studied tests and get approval to be able to sell them again?
If there is a ban?
- Thread starter TheKingOfKool
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This is only my opinion: There will NOT be a ban. Even if that were to come to pass, it would not interrupt our supplies at all.
It would be devastating to the U.S. suppliers , and that would suck royally.
I am only speaking from the consumer viewpoint.
It would be devastating to the U.S. suppliers , and that would suck royally.
I am only speaking from the consumer viewpoint.
The way this works they cannot legally ban it. If its because nicotine all nicotine products should be banned.
If its because of vapor then even medical vaporyzers should be banned, even thoses for home that you buy when you have a cold.
How about asma vaporyzers.
If they ban this things it would just show how powefull the tabaco industry and pharma is since this cant be possible as a bad as products that are allowed.
If its because of vapor then even medical vaporyzers should be banned, even thoses for home that you buy when you have a cold.
How about asma vaporyzers.
If they ban this things it would just show how powefull the tabaco industry and pharma is since this cant be possible as a bad as products that are allowed.
I don't really think they will be banned either. I think the arguments against them are too lame.
Here's my prediction. They will run the tests, and eCigs be shown to be a safer alternative to smoking. Studies will show that risks of second hand exposure to vapor is minimal, and that they greatly reduce the risk of fire.
In the face of all the evidence, once it's collected, public health officials will wave the danger of nicotine addiction as thier only flag, and come up with some sort of tax to compensate for the shortfall that people dodging the tobacco tax will cause to thier budget plans,,, then it will gain approval.
Don't you wonder how the dynamics of this whole thing would be different if Glaxo or Pfizer had come up with the idea of Personal Vapors???
I dont think they should tax this. The reason in the US, Europe, etc the tax on cigarrettes are so high is to stop people from smoking since it costs them allot of money in health and its just bad.
Will they tax it just because it contains nicotine? If that is the case they should tax coffe and chocolate as well.
I dont see how they can tax it for health reasons.
The goverment is suppose to be on the publics best interested side not on the side of the tabacoo and pharma companies.
Once this starts to push some money I see even tabaco companies doint their own juices and carts with their own poison. They just want people to buy their product, if they could do it healthy they would. But they will for sure but some very addictive stuff on their mix. I think vapor is the future of smoking. Its water, human body is 80% water. Smoke is combustion because of fire, its antinatural
Will they tax it just because it contains nicotine? If that is the case they should tax coffe and chocolate as well.
I dont see how they can tax it for health reasons.
The goverment is suppose to be on the publics best interested side not on the side of the tabacoo and pharma companies.
Once this starts to push some money I see even tabaco companies doint their own juices and carts with their own poison. They just want people to buy their product, if they could do it healthy they would. But they will for sure but some very addictive stuff on their mix. I think vapor is the future of smoking. Its water, human body is 80% water. Smoke is combustion because of fire, its antinatural
I could've sworn a county/city somewhere in NY was proposing a 'Sodaa Tax' on any soda that wasn't Diet.
Dunno if that's true or not, just something I read somewhere on this forum.
It is true...the city is New York...They are breaking our balls here!
There's also talk of a federal sin tax on non-diet soda drinks and other sugary drinks. Senators Consider Soda Tax to Help Fund Health Care Overhaul - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com
On CNN yesterday, they talked heavily about taxing cigs, junk food and anything else that is "bad" for you. Sin tax they callin it, and 2 bucks per pack of smokes is the recommendation. They will ban them soon, until they find a way to recoup the lost revenue from all the peeps bailin on their tobacco cash cow. The whole thing is insane, and I cant believe I live in this day and age, 2009, and we still have people telling us what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Buy guns and ammo NOW, get some storable food, water filters, etc. Its going to get much worse.
If the sin tax on non-diet soda pop passes, we'll then see parents putting diet soda (filled with those wonderful chemicals such as aspartame) in their babies' bottles, since it'll be cheaper.
Yeh, you know what your talking about, that aspartame is some NASTY ****. How bout that Tamiflu? They are gonna start doling that **** out like it's candy come fall and their "pandemic" thats gonna make it's second "attack". They talking about forced inoculations and vaccinations etc, anyone comes near me with a needle, gets a lead slug in the fukn head. Period.
I agree that a ban is doubtful. True, the tobacco industry and pharmaceutical lobbys are pretty powerful, but so is the insurance industry, as well as the power of the people.
The 'power' of the tobacco industry has been on a swift decline for well over a decade (indeed, I guess several decades). The US House and Senate members have noticed how cities all over the USA are banning smoking in public places: bans that have the approval of the majority of citizens.
As such, I have never subscribed to the theory that "big tobacco" has the power to get the FDA to ban e-cigarettes. As another poster pointed out, to ban them due to the nicotine would, in theory, mean the banning of all nicotine-related products. Heck, even tomatoes.
I also do not believe that the medical profession as a group wants cigarette smoking to continue so they can continue to treat cancer, pulmonary disease, etc. I know a lot of doctors and I have yet to meet one that did not whole-heartedly want their patients to quit smoking tobacco.
I do believe that the insurance industry wants tobacco gone. The cost to insurance companies for smoking-related illnesses are astronomical. That, simply put, cuts into profits. The goal of a private insurance company is to maximize profits.
If the insurance industry begins to believe that e-cigarettes help people stop smoking tobacco and is not near as harmful as tobacco, then I think the time will come when a doctor could prescribe e-cigarettes to a patient trying to quit smoking, with the insurance picking up part of the cost.
From my own experience the nicotine gum failed, as well as that pill (I forget the name, but it caused all sorts of adverse side-effects). However, the e-cigarette has done the trick.
I have signed the petition and urge others to do so. However, I do not think that there is any danger of a ban. Beware of alarmist who scream, on the one hand, about the danger of radioactive rocks falling out of the sky and holding, in the other hand, lead umbrellas for you to buy.
Finally, the best way to ensure the success of e-cigarettes in the future is probably simple: some enterprising supplies should find out which members of Congress smoke. Send said member(s) a free e-cigarette kit with their complements. If said member is trying to quit smoking and tries the kit, a convert will be born.
I do not recommend sending the kit to President Obama, since the Secret Service is prone to jumping to wrong conclusions and will probably jump in their black helicopters and visit you.
The 'power' of the tobacco industry has been on a swift decline for well over a decade (indeed, I guess several decades). The US House and Senate members have noticed how cities all over the USA are banning smoking in public places: bans that have the approval of the majority of citizens.
As such, I have never subscribed to the theory that "big tobacco" has the power to get the FDA to ban e-cigarettes. As another poster pointed out, to ban them due to the nicotine would, in theory, mean the banning of all nicotine-related products. Heck, even tomatoes.
I also do not believe that the medical profession as a group wants cigarette smoking to continue so they can continue to treat cancer, pulmonary disease, etc. I know a lot of doctors and I have yet to meet one that did not whole-heartedly want their patients to quit smoking tobacco.
I do believe that the insurance industry wants tobacco gone. The cost to insurance companies for smoking-related illnesses are astronomical. That, simply put, cuts into profits. The goal of a private insurance company is to maximize profits.
If the insurance industry begins to believe that e-cigarettes help people stop smoking tobacco and is not near as harmful as tobacco, then I think the time will come when a doctor could prescribe e-cigarettes to a patient trying to quit smoking, with the insurance picking up part of the cost.
From my own experience the nicotine gum failed, as well as that pill (I forget the name, but it caused all sorts of adverse side-effects). However, the e-cigarette has done the trick.
I have signed the petition and urge others to do so. However, I do not think that there is any danger of a ban. Beware of alarmist who scream, on the one hand, about the danger of radioactive rocks falling out of the sky and holding, in the other hand, lead umbrellas for you to buy.
Finally, the best way to ensure the success of e-cigarettes in the future is probably simple: some enterprising supplies should find out which members of Congress smoke. Send said member(s) a free e-cigarette kit with their complements. If said member is trying to quit smoking and tries the kit, a convert will be born.
I do not recommend sending the kit to President Obama, since the Secret Service is prone to jumping to wrong conclusions and will probably jump in their black helicopters and visit you.
If the sin tax on non-diet soda pop passes, we'll then see parents putting diet soda (filled with those wonderful chemicals such as aspartame) in their babies' bottles, since it'll be cheaper.
So Diet pop is worse for you than regular? I thought I read this in a magazine...man I need to start remembering where I heard all this stuff so I can start quoting it!
So what's next? Taxing Sugar but not taxing artificial sweeteners?
Do a google or youtube search on Aspartame. The internet is your friend, regardless of what the mainstream media tells you. And once you read all abut the joys of aspartame, then look up who owns the crap and who makes the ching off it. Follow the money trail as it were. Tell ya now, couple names you will find are Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, etc etc. Do a search on Tamiflu also, same people, same money trail. Then they go and create the fear needed to sell their wares...
I was just thinking that about the Aspartame. There is a great documentary about some of this health stuff that I saw called "The Beautiful Truth". One of the coolest and scariest videos I've seen in a while. You can stream it from Netflix if you have an account. Definitely would check it out. As far as e-cigs are concerned, I think that they've become quite noticed, and as with everything that gets noticed, everybody wants a piece of the pie, especially the US gov't. *EDITED* Everything in this country is about control. And of course, if the gov't isn't making money on it, it has to be canned. I'm sorry for you guys in NY, I think it's total bull... Tax on "SIN" items... who's right is it? Ours, or our Gov'ts? The line is getting more and more skewed by the year. I'm sorry that my US gov't thinks that it can assume control of our basic human RIGHTS in such a demeaning way. We are absolutely viewed as sheep in this country, and frankly it's becoming quite ridiculous. Put some cuffs on him, he did this or that. Didn't harm a soul or change the course of history, but we didn't want him to do it. Sorry for the rant. I just think that our "Democratic" country has lost sight of it's supporting "Citizens" and freedom has become an imaginative impunity. These are my views, not necessarily facts, but none the less disturbing to me what I see. What did we found this country on? I guess this goes to show how history just repeats itself. Our body of gov't is too large and controlling, and there is no way to come out of it. It can only lead to one possible outcome. It has before, and it likely will again.
Last edited:
There is no special tax on ecigs and liquid. Not sure where you got that idea?
The only 'tax' is VAT (Value Added Tax) which is payable on ALL goods other than basic foodstuffs
I saw a piece on CNN a few weeks ago that said Oregon had placed a 1900% tax on Beer. (no typo - 1900%)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked