Is Big Tobacco behind Anti-Vaping sentiment?
- Thread starter teamhypoxia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- baker
- Status
Why? Because of the money they make treating smoking related illness?
Just my 
.
I doubt Big Tobacco wants it banned, they probably just want it regulated as severely as possible so that they are the only companies who can afford to comply with those regulations, thereby owning the market with their junk products that will turn people off to vaping and force them to buy cigarettes again.
Big Pharma would benefit from it being banned because, for every person who wants to quit smoking and transitions to vaping instead of buying NRTs, fewer nicotine patches, packets of nicotine gum and prescription pills will be sold.
Anti-Smoking organizations want it banned because (a) it looks like smoking, and (b) it encourages kids to transition to smoking tobacco (which is utter garbage, since I have yet to meet anyone who tried a quality vaping setup and and decided that cigarettes tasted better). Also, if smoking rates start dropping due to e-cig use that means their funding will decrease.
The medical and health insurance companies don't have any interest in supporting e-cigs because they make more money when more people are sick and need chemo treatments, surgeries, etc.
Local, state, and federal goverments can't support e-cigs because that would mean less tax dollars coming in from tobacco sales. Unless they can tax the hell out of it like they do with tobacco don't expect any government bean counters to support it.
The only people who support vaping are vapers themselves, vapers' family members, and medical professionals who don't make any money from the aforementioned industries. That's why supporting the work of organizations like CASAA is vitally important.
.I doubt Big Tobacco wants it banned, they probably just want it regulated as severely as possible so that they are the only companies who can afford to comply with those regulations, thereby owning the market with their junk products that will turn people off to vaping and force them to buy cigarettes again.
Big Pharma would benefit from it being banned because, for every person who wants to quit smoking and transitions to vaping instead of buying NRTs, fewer nicotine patches, packets of nicotine gum and prescription pills will be sold.
Anti-Smoking organizations want it banned because (a) it looks like smoking, and (b) it encourages kids to transition to smoking tobacco (which is utter garbage, since I have yet to meet anyone who tried a quality vaping setup and and decided that cigarettes tasted better). Also, if smoking rates start dropping due to e-cig use that means their funding will decrease.
The medical and health insurance companies don't have any interest in supporting e-cigs because they make more money when more people are sick and need chemo treatments, surgeries, etc.
Local, state, and federal goverments can't support e-cigs because that would mean less tax dollars coming in from tobacco sales. Unless they can tax the hell out of it like they do with tobacco don't expect any government bean counters to support it.
The only people who support vaping are vapers themselves, vapers' family members, and medical professionals who don't make any money from the aforementioned industries. That's why supporting the work of organizations like CASAA is vitally important.
Some tobacco companies own electronic cigerette companies. Lorillards bought Blu for 135 million. RJ Reynolds has their VUSE. What they are doing is not as much as being antivaping as NOT opposing federal regulations that might be imposed on electronic vapor delivery devise that would put these products in the same class as their tobacoo products. They have spent millions to comply with federal regulations and if those regulations are imposed on electronic devises they are setting pretty.
The Drug companies are going to support anything that rises the price of our juice to the same level as their nicotine products.
The Drug companies are going to support anything that rises the price of our juice to the same level as their nicotine products.
^^^ What SilverZero said. ^^^
Check out the Legislation and Media forums here to learn more about the "usual suspects" in tobacco/smoking/ecig prohibition.
Join CASAA to add your voice in support of vaping: Become a CASAA Member It's free and takes just minutes.
Check out the Legislation and Media forums here to learn more about the "usual suspects" in tobacco/smoking/ecig prohibition.
Join CASAA to add your voice in support of vaping: Become a CASAA Member It's free and takes just minutes.
Just my
I doubt Big Tobacco wants it banned, they probably just want it regulated as severely as possible so that they are the only companies who can afford to comply with those regulations, thereby owning the market with their junk products that will turn people off to vaping and force them to buy cigarettes again.
Big Pharma would benefit from it being banned because, for every person who wants to quit smoking and transitions to vaping instead of buying NRTs, fewer nicotine patches, packets of nicotine gum and prescription pills will be sold.
Anti-Smoking organizations want it banned because (a) it looks like smoking, and (b) it encourages kids to transition to smoking tobacco (which is utter garbage, since I have yet to meet anyone who tried a quality vaping setup and and decided that cigarettes tasted better). Also, if smoking rates start dropping due to e-cig use that means their funding will decrease.
The medical and health insurance companies don't have any interest in supporting e-cigs because they make more money when more people are sick and need chemo treatments, surgeries, etc.
Local, state, and federal goverments can't support e-cigs because that would mean less tax dollars coming in from tobacco sales. Unless they can tax the hell out of it like they do with tobacco don't expect any government bean counters to support it.
The only people who support vaping are vapers themselves, vapers' family members, and medical professionals who don't make any money from the aforementioned industries. That's why supporting the work of organizations like CASAA is vitally important.
Amen SilverZero
No need for me to even get my
out of my pocket.....Generally if you want to know who is really pushing an agenda just follow the money - who stands to benefit.
For those that use juice with nicotine it's a vice that doesn't carry a federal sin tax like alcohol and tobacco, so the government would benefit from regulation. In a sick twisted way big pharmacy stands to benefit from banning because they supply cancer cures that is often necessary for the people continuing to smoke. The tobacco companies won't really benefit, they have just been slow to jump on the band wagon, they know their way of life will come to an end in the next 50 years or so. Then there are also the fundamental religious groups that are against anything that is different from the way they think you should live your life.
I can also see that there may be some who are just cautious and would prefer that testing be done to prove it isn't introducing harm. Many of the flavors have only been tested and approved use in foods. As the heater coils are used they break down - what effect will inhaling metallic oxides and ions have on us? It is known the silica often used in the wicks presents a risk of some lung damage.
Taking a look at the big picture we would all be better off if we didn't inhale anything but clean air.
For those that use juice with nicotine it's a vice that doesn't carry a federal sin tax like alcohol and tobacco, so the government would benefit from regulation. In a sick twisted way big pharmacy stands to benefit from banning because they supply cancer cures that is often necessary for the people continuing to smoke. The tobacco companies won't really benefit, they have just been slow to jump on the band wagon, they know their way of life will come to an end in the next 50 years or so. Then there are also the fundamental religious groups that are against anything that is different from the way they think you should live your life.
I can also see that there may be some who are just cautious and would prefer that testing be done to prove it isn't introducing harm. Many of the flavors have only been tested and approved use in foods. As the heater coils are used they break down - what effect will inhaling metallic oxides and ions have on us? It is known the silica often used in the wicks presents a risk of some lung damage.
Taking a look at the big picture we would all be better off if we didn't inhale anything but clean air.
I read an article that said ecigs is a billion dollar a year business. It went on to say that there is not enough research to say whether it has any benefits or harmful effects. Now anyone that believers that statement, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell cheap. I believe that no harmful effects can be found and the one's suppressing that information are the one's who have the most to lose, big tobacco. I don't care if they are getting in the ecig business. Big tobacco does not have the best history of being honest and having a great value system.
Hm, I know several very religious types that fully support me getting off smoking via e-cigs. When smoking was banned in restaurants and bars, I don't remember the religious ones coming out in favor of the smoking ban, in fact it seemed to be the libs. The same could be said for ANYBODY that wants to control how you live. But, you're in Texas and I'm not so from your perspective you could very well be right.
Thumbs up.
No one has any idea what the long term effects of vaping are at this point. No one can know until they are used for decades. To say that e-cigs are completely safe is a bit irresponsible. That said, does the legitimate science so far say that e-cigs are orders of magnitude safer than smoking tobacco? No doubt about it.
Vaping is simply a method of achieving nicotine harm reduction. People are going to want nicotine, so why not let them have it in the safest possible way.
Recently a gentleman was posting on Twitter saying that e-cigs needed to be banned because he was not convinced that they were perfectly safe; David Dorn from vapourtrails.tv replied that we should then ban motorcycle helmets because if you fall off of a bike it will hurt less. I like that analogy.
no I agree, i don't believe religious groups have any negative influence on e-cigs. After-all Smoking is considered a sin. Fairly sure vaping is not. As for what we know, there are much MUCH less negative consequences, and your much less likely to cause bodily harm or death. ( which is where the sin part comes in ) Any church that is pro-cigarette over vaping would be a church that needs to re-evaluate their beliefs. If a church is pro smoking, they are very misguided, and the views should be solely directed at the individual promoting smoking vs the whole religion. I have not seen or heard anything that would even imply this either way. Seems like a unjustified chance to take a blow at religion.
I definitely agree that the government and companies are against it though.
Money. Its a horrible thing we have to abide by.
I did not know churches had smoking beliefs..
Why?, unless they are some sort of holistic group maybe..
Moralistic evictions seem to be the popular equation with most beliefs, along with lore of how the religion was formed, and the survival of their beliefs.
Why?, unless they are some sort of holistic group maybe..
Moralistic evictions seem to be the popular equation with most beliefs, along with lore of how the religion was formed, and the survival of their beliefs.
Any entity making money off the anti-smoking movement. Government taxes will be easily applied to e-liquids - I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet. And see my sig below about Puritanism!
No, but they do have beliefs on sin, which is the point I was trying to make. If it can keep people from sinning, why would they not support it. After-all 99% of "vapers" are ex-smokers or current smokers trying to quit. So being against vaping would be directly supporting smoking, no way around it.
with that said, supporting vaping would certainly be more parallel with thier "moralistic evictions" ( i think you meant convictions?) would it not?
I think the reason they haven't been taxing liquids: the parts and accessories generate much higher revenue than the e-liquid business itself. And they cant readily put a tobacco tax on vaping devices, as they can be sold separately as a NON-tobacco product. it would be similar to them trying to put a tax on lighters. there would have to be alot of paper signing and government meetings to classify them as a tobacco product. They could simply pursue the juice itself, and easily classify it as a tobacco product + slap a nice huge tax on it. but This would undoubtedly piss off millions. To try and regulate the devices later would be a big sticky political mess. I think they are waiting to get it all at once.
No real basis on this theory, just my opinion
it's easy for them to raise taxes on cigarette products, because they are really bad for you.. and they have been doing it for ages.
Vapor devices fall in a strange grey zone, and there would have to be alot of extensive tests and procedures from ALOT of people to declare vaping as unsafe.
AND there are a ton of liquids that do NOT have nicotine. so no vapor device is exclusive to only nicotine products.
AND nicotine is NOT a chemical exclusive to the tobacco plant, to avoid the tobacco tax we currently have, companies could derive it from other plants. which would cost us more in the long run, but not the companies making the liquid necessarily. The government would still see no cash from this either.
AND vaporizers for "tobacco" use have been around for a long time before e-cigs were made public, With no tax.
Theres alot of hurdles before they can tax the crap out of us.
going to stock up next couple of months though lol. I think we all know how little justification our government thinks we need. It will happen, that I know for sure. How they will do it.. not so much
Last edited:
The religious argument is about worshiping false gods, which expands to "things for which you have unusual desires".
Let's not forget the anti-smoking activists, which have decided (misguidedly) to include e-cigs. They are the ones behind all these local bans.
Let's not forget the anti-smoking activists, which have decided (misguidedly) to include e-cigs. They are the ones behind all these local bans.
I'm not completely sure what you mean in the first sentence?
Yeah i've actually heard about an activist group in houston that is trying to make it illegal to vape in public places. Only problem is that they don't have any evidence "second hand vape" has any negative consequences.
I've also heard of a couple city ordinances trying to ban the use of vaping because it give off a bad image. And they use the children will use them crap as well. Honestly if I had a teenage son or daughter and they said "i'm vaping now" I wouldnt not be nearly as ...... as if they said they were smoking cigarettes. I mean of course i woudl prefer if they did niether... but realistically, we all tried cigs as a kid. if vaping was the new "try it because your friends are doing it thing" I would gladly accept it over the other choice
Analogs leave you with an "unusual desire" to get one again, within ~2 hours, so you're (by some stretch of the imagination) "worshiping" analogs, instead of (the one and only) God. 
But coffee is A-OK
and since nicotine is about as addictive as coffee, it should be ok too.
At least that's the argument, as I understand it (I grew up catholic).
But coffee is A-OK
and since nicotine is about as addictive as coffee, it should be ok too.At least that's the argument, as I understand it (I grew up catholic).
- Status
Similar threads
