Leaford: Totally correct.
I'm going to post this here because the other thread is an out-of-control "sue the senator" etc mess of extreme views.
Let's assume Big Pharma contributes to a campaign (most campaigns, I would imagine). For that contribution, they do not expect direct action. But they do expect to get a senator's "ear" when a matter affecting their business arises. So what would they say to the senator about electronic cigarettes?
"Senator, we have numerous nicotine replacement products on the market today, for which we spent untold millions of research dollars in order to assure public safety and gain FDA approval of our drugs. These products are not to replace cigarettes, but to wean smokers away from that deadly addiction. We consider that a good thing.
"Now we are faced with a new Chinese-made toy cigarette that delivers an unapproved nicotine mixture as vapor to smokers. What studies have been done on this drug-delivery device? Has this new drug cocktail been approved? What studies assure the liquid used is safe as manufactured? What assurance do you have -- unlike the studies we paid so dearly for -- that these are suitable and safe? You have none. You are allowing competitors from China to siphon off money that should be used to quit smoking, not continue an addiction. And you are allowing this without any studied approval. That's unconscionable. These should be banned today."
Unreasonable? Nope. What's good for the goose, etc ..
Big
tobacco has paid dearly, too, hasn't it. Bad as it is, it doesn't have its hands stuck out for Uncle Sam to bail it out with billions of taxpayer dollars. No, it has had to endure imposed smoking bans that have shrunk the number of smokers. It now faces yet another huge tax increase -- none of the new money to pay for smoking-related diseases -- that will drive still more smokers off
tobacco. So it has a case:
"Senator, I know you don't like us. I know you've authored a number of no-smoking laws. But let's be fair. A cigarette, some have said, is a self-contained dose of nicotine for an addict. As such, it's taxed at far more than the cost of its marketing. It's taxed to such an extreme that some smokers can no longer afford to smoke, but must instead suffer. Now along comes a Chinese gizmo that looks like a cigarette and delivers a self-contained dose of nicotine. Yet it has no taxes beyond sales tax, if that. Is that fair? All we want is to level the field of play here. The only right thing to do is to remove this unfair player or tax it to high heaven, as you do our products."
Unreasonable position? Not at all.
And those campaign contributions assure the ears of the important will listen. Better word our arguments very, very carefully or they'll just be a whisper in a whirlwind.
