If there is a ban?

[legalsea]

The talk about the 'sin' tax reminds me of a skit from "Not the 9 o'clock News" (a British comedy group from the 1970s). The Prime Minister is speaking about how unpopular the taxes on cigarettes and booze are with voters. Therefore, said the Prime Minister, those taxes are being rescinded and new taxes imposed on products used by groups that would not be able to fight back: "wheelchairs, iron lungs, seeing-eye dogs, white sticks....."

 

[Kimpetuous]

The fact is that they don't really want us to stop smoking. Pharma's make gobs of money off of sick people. If people live longer, they tax the Social Security system and Medi-care. Living people cost money. Dead people don't, plus they usually spend a lot of money treating whatever disease is killing them before they die. Not to mention, the tax revenue generated by tobacco users is UNREAL.

If the gov't was serious about wanting people to quick smoking, they would be handing out e-cigs to anyone that wanted one.

Aspartame is far more dangerous than sugar. Follow the money and see who is getting rich. How bout reinstating physical education classes in public schools instead of taxing sugar drinking and encouraging people (financially) to consumer a flat out toxin (Aspartame)??

The FDA is so corrupt and lame that it can't keep pharmaceuticals out of our drinking water, but they want to call Cheerios a drug.

Know your enemy. <-- pretty dramatic, huh

 

[Rorschach]

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???

If Glaxo or Pfizer were working on Personal Vaporizers, none of us would be vaping because it would still be in testing for a few years.

Nicorette gum was developed in 1967 and was available to consumers on an over the counter basis in 1995. That's kind of a long wait.

I make advertising for big pharma and I've seen how agonizingly long it takes for products to be approved and then for claims to be cleared. Good thing they pay us while we wait for their clinical trails.

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

Here's a quote that might be found interesting...

"The FDA 'protects' the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them.
It isn't.

What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."

Dr. Herbert Ley
Former U.S. FDA Commissioner


~~~

Let There Be Vaping

 

[harmony gardens]

If Glaxo or Pfizer were working on Personal Vaporizers, none of us would be vaping because it would still be in testing for a few years.

Nicorette gum was developed in 1967 and was available to consumers on an over the counter basis in 1995. That's kind of a long wait.

I make advertising for big pharma and I've seen how agonizingly long it takes for products to be approved and then for claims to be cleared. Good thing they pay us while we wait for their clinical trails.

yeah,,, you're probably right,,, I bet you have tons of amazing stories,,,

 

[Rorschach]

It WOULD be pretty cool though to do ads for E-cigs given the proper funding from a giant like Pfizer or Glaxo. Tobacco isn't allowed to advertise and e-cigs aren't as lame as smoking cessation pills like chantix.

It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[cadbomb]

Here's a quote that might be found interesting...

"The FDA 'protects' the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them.
It isn't.

What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."

Dr. Herbert Ley
Former U.S. FDA Commissioner


~~~

Let There Be Vaping

This is what it's all about. I wonder how long it will be until the blinded sheep of America stand up to it's gov't... before the gov't takes out those individuals and stop it from ever happening... (I'm sure that's never happened before DOWN WITH THE FDA!!!! Crooked pocket pinching liars and hypocrits. lol

 

[tescela]

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???

You have the right idea. Regulation and taxation is the only way forward for the U.S. e-cigarette industry. It will happen, or ecigs will be banned.

As odd as it may sound, a strong argument could be made that the ECA should be lobbying the government to regulate the industry and levy stiff taxes on it. Why? Because then the government will be turned into a stakeholder (like they are with the analog cigarette industry). Look at what the tobacco companies did with the Master Settlement Agreement with the States' Attorneys General: on the face of it, the settlement looked like a legal loss for the cigarette industry, but the industry actually incorporated provisions into the settlement that made the states effectively dependent on cigarette sales BY THE COMPANIES THAT WROTE THE MSA. The states were put in the position of not only supporting continued cigarette sales, but actually working against competitors of the companies that wrote the MSA.

This was the work of masterful legal minds. We don't have that kind of legal muscle in the ecig community, but we can still lobby for a strategically similar arrangement.

Thoughts?