The Founding Fathers wanted local government to handle local matters. The Duluth decision is totally consistent with Jeffersonian principles.
Is Big Tobacco behind Anti-Vaping sentiment?
- Thread starter teamhypoxia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- baker
- Status
The Founding Fathers wanted local government to handle local matters. The Duluth decision is totally consistent with Jeffersonian principles.
One of the major reasons people want it banned is because there are no regulations for it. That means technically, kids CAN purchase them. They aren't considered medication, tobacco, or a drug. Though every shop requires you to be 18 (which was their moral choice), we have the issue with the wide availability of these products on the Internet.
But rationally speaking, I'd much rather catch my kids vaping than doing anything else. I hate the gateway argument. The only gateway to drugs is adolescence.
It’s an interesting topic, for sure. I’m not certain of the laws under which restaurants/establishments are able to make certain codes...I'm sure the “wear a t-shirt and shoes” has something to do with their right to ensure public decency/ hygiene. Establishments may have open authority to "ban" certain things, because they own the business, but you cannot include vaping in the current government-based smoking restrictions, because cigarettes are defined as a tobacco product that produces smoke. E-cigarettes are not a tobacco product and they do not produce what is defined as smoke. Sorry, but you'd have to re-write the laws to include e-cigs specifically…which they’ll probably try to do because of the stigma surrounding smoking. Then there's the whole issue of etiquette. Someone can use obscenities or do something to disturb me, like burp or pick their nose while I'm eating, and there's nothing I can do about it. They are free to do so because there is no harm to me. The reason smoking in establishments really became an issue was in light of all the research that shows second hand smoke is harmful to the health of others in addition to being smelly and invasive to others.
Sorry, still new to boards...
It’s an interesting topic, for sure. I’m not certain of the laws under which restaurants/establishments are able to make certain codes...I'm sure the “wear a t-shirt and shoes” has something to do with their right to ensure public decency/ hygiene. Establishments may have open authority to "ban" certain things, because they own the business, but you cannot include vaping in the current government-based smoking restrictions, because cigarettes are defined as a tobacco product that produces smoke. E-cigarettes are not a tobacco product and they do not produce what is defined as smoke. Sorry, but you'd have to re-write the laws to include e-cigs specifically…which they’ll probably try to do because of the stigma surrounding smoking. Then there's the whole issue of etiquette. Someone can use obscenities or do something to disturb me, like burp or pick their nose while I'm eating, and there's nothing I can do about it. They are free to do so because there is no harm to me. The reason smoking in establishments really became an issue was in light of all the research that shows second hand smoke is harmful to the health of others in addition to being smelly and invasive to others.
I completely agree with Silver Zero - posting No. 4.
That is the way it is.
Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Government - they all stand to lose .. uhm ... Big Time.
One more thing about Big Goverment (I live in Germany, where Big Government is really .. uhm.. big):
Smokers die sooner. And thus, they cannot consume the old age pension for which they paid big money every month (deducted from their paychecks).
A smoker is Big Government's best friend.
He / she pays at least 3.65 Euro cigarette tax per pack of cigarettes. Every day. Plus VAT.
- In Germany, the cigarette tax is the No 2 "consumption" tax after the gasoline tax. We are talking Big Money here.. really big money. -
And then, after decades of smoking and paying all that money, the smoker may get sick, suffers severely, but for a short time - - and then he / she dies. And all the paid-in pension money remains with the government.
Best citizen you can imagine. Pays, pays, pays, and then dies. Instead of consuming pay-outs for what they paid in, all their lives.
In Europe, where Big Government is a reality, the EU is now trying to regulate e-cigs out of the market.
In Europe, Big Government and Big Pharma want only our best - our money.
Never mind our health. Who cares about that?
/Edit:
And before somebody counters with the alleged high health care cost caused by smoking:
A smoker who gets cancer and dies - suffers for a short time (Big Pharma makes good money for a short time) , and then he / she dies.
A non-smoker who lives to be 80 or so will suffer many more age-related illnesses and cause much more cost to health care than a smoker who dies - on average - 7 years sooner.
Plus the old-age pension that the smoker does not consume for those 7 years.
(I have a link somewhere.. if somebody really wants to know)
- I am speaking from Europe, where health care is subsidized by the government (in addition to the very high mandatory health-insurance premiums that are deducted from our paychecks every month. Hey, we pay for that sh** )
Edit2:
An ex-colleague of mine, a very heavy smoker, retired - and died about 2 years later.
You think the government did not just love that guy?
Paid in all his life - and then conveniently died 2 years after starting to consume his old-age pension.
I have no illusions about Big Government's aversion to e-cigs. No illusions at all.
That is the way it is.
Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Government - they all stand to lose .. uhm ... Big Time.
One more thing about Big Goverment (I live in Germany, where Big Government is really .. uhm.. big):
Smokers die sooner. And thus, they cannot consume the old age pension for which they paid big money every month (deducted from their paychecks).
A smoker is Big Government's best friend.
He / she pays at least 3.65 Euro cigarette tax per pack of cigarettes. Every day. Plus VAT.
- In Germany, the cigarette tax is the No 2 "consumption" tax after the gasoline tax. We are talking Big Money here.. really big money. -
And then, after decades of smoking and paying all that money, the smoker may get sick, suffers severely, but for a short time - - and then he / she dies. And all the paid-in pension money remains with the government.
Best citizen you can imagine. Pays, pays, pays, and then dies. Instead of consuming pay-outs for what they paid in, all their lives.
In Europe, where Big Government is a reality, the EU is now trying to regulate e-cigs out of the market.
In Europe, Big Government and Big Pharma want only our best - our money.
Never mind our health. Who cares about that?
/Edit:
And before somebody counters with the alleged high health care cost caused by smoking:
A smoker who gets cancer and dies - suffers for a short time (Big Pharma makes good money for a short time) , and then he / she dies.
A non-smoker who lives to be 80 or so will suffer many more age-related illnesses and cause much more cost to health care than a smoker who dies - on average - 7 years sooner.
Plus the old-age pension that the smoker does not consume for those 7 years.
(I have a link somewhere.. if somebody really wants to know)
- I am speaking from Europe, where health care is subsidized by the government (in addition to the very high mandatory health-insurance premiums that are deducted from our paychecks every month. Hey, we pay for that sh** )
Edit2:
An ex-colleague of mine, a very heavy smoker, retired - and died about 2 years later.
You think the government did not just love that guy?
Paid in all his life - and then conveniently died 2 years after starting to consume his old-age pension.
I have no illusions about Big Government's aversion to e-cigs. No illusions at all.
Last edited:
My brother is a chemical engineer, and although the PG and VG in pure forms should not be harmful longterm, apparently it's the byproducts left over from the engineering process that could be harmful. That's why holding manufacturers to strict standards is important. But knowing what he knows, he still bought a starter kit, because at his is yearly checkup he spoke to his doctor. And his doctor said "Can't be worse than smoking cigarettes"
And that's what it's all about. The government is so concerned about protecting young people, but what about the billions of current smokers? You're right when you said that the only gateway is in fact, just BEING an adolescent. They're going to try what they're going to try. Bottom line. You can't really regulate behavior. There are just the consequences that follow.My brother is a chemical engineer, and although the PG and VG in pure forms should not be harmful longterm, apparently it's the byproducts left over from the engineering process that could be harmful. That's why holding manufacturers to strict standards is important. But knowing what he knows, he still bought a starter kit, because at his is yearly checkup he spoke to his doctor. And his doctor said "Can't be worse than smoking cigarettes" And that's what it's all about. The government is so concerned about protecting young people, but what about the billions of current smokers? You're right when you said that the only gateway is in fact, just BEING an adolescent. They're going to try what they're going to try. Bottom line. You can't really regulate behavior. There are just the consequences that follow.
...new to all this but confused but don't agree with the banning of ecigs.
the government/news media keeps talking about protecting the kids but yet they go out and legalize the other smoke substance...it makes no sense.
the government/news media keeps talking about protecting the kids but yet they go out and legalize the other smoke substance...it makes no sense.
Well said.
And I am getting sick and tired of that "gateway" nonsense.
Think of the children... just think of the children..... bull poo poo! It is the parents' responsibility to watch over their children. And not the Nanny State's responsibility to prohibit things for use by adults - because children could (mis)use them.
Anything can be misused. I can take off my shoe and hit somebody over the head. Ban shoes? Bah!
The be all, end all issue is that it looks like smoking. There is no way around it. It isn't that kids will see it and want to vape, it is because businesses don't have the resources to hire someone to walk around telling concerned customers that a vaper isn't smoking, or to tell smokers who light up when they see someone vaping that vaping is allowed, while smoking isn't. It is just easier to prohibit vaping. There's also the fact that someone will always complain. Management doesn't want to deal with that, either, so it is easier to prohibit vaping.
In answer to the OP, BT is NOT behind anti-Vaping sentiment as much as most people think, understand that BT well make millions upon millions of dollars from Vapeing as they well be of the few who can afford the regulations that are coming. BT well sell both vices it's a win win for them.
Also understand Vapeing well not be banned as a whole, but it well drastically change from the way we currently know it. Once Vapeing is taxed and heavily, this tax well make up for the loss to BP.
Here's another catch, since BT well be able to sell ecigs, then smokers well still have a safer alternative to quit smoking. That said I DO NOT trust BT to sell me liquid the way I get it now (safe). Look what they did to cigarettes.
Also understand Vapeing well not be banned as a whole, but it well drastically change from the way we currently know it. Once Vapeing is taxed and heavily, this tax well make up for the loss to BP.
Here's another catch, since BT well be able to sell ecigs, then smokers well still have a safer alternative to quit smoking. That said I DO NOT trust BT to sell me liquid the way I get it now (safe). Look what they did to cigarettes.
Not the " what about the kids" comments again. :face palm:
Trivia question time!
Q. Who said this?
"Among youth who experimented with electronic cigarettes in 2012, the overwhelming majority—90.6%—were smokers."
A. Was it:
A. CDC with their creative math skills
B. Uma with her psychic abilities
C. A professor of HEALTH and science?
Trivia question time!
Q. Who said this?
"Among youth who experimented with electronic cigarettes in 2012, the overwhelming majority—90.6%—were smokers."
A. Was it:
A. CDC with their creative math skills
B. Uma with her psychic abilities
C. A professor of HEALTH and science?
Could not have put it any better myself SilverZero!! No need for me to say anything more.
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.
My wife made a good observation today about why they want it to look like a Pre 2007 cigs like is because using the "cool" looking batteries and such will appeal to people more than something that looks like an analog.
And this in turn helps the antz to demonize it since it looks so much like smoking it must be as bad as smoking.
I know All the political reasons. Just thought I would post her thought, since it really seems to hold a big truth.
And this in turn helps the antz to demonize it since it looks so much like smoking it must be as bad as smoking.
I know All the political reasons. Just thought I would post her thought, since it really seems to hold a big truth.
Oh by the way: "gateway" my foot!
Have you seen this? - http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf
And in Europe, Big Tobacco is very much for "regulating" the e-cig as a medicine product.
Because they are the only ones who can then spend millions of Euros to get the certification and then sell their overpriced crap. After having used Big Government to "regulate" all the small e-cig companies out of existence.
Oh and no, I do not trust any e-cig liquid sold by Big Tobacco either. Look what they added to analog cigarettes to make and keep us addicted - to their products.
Have you seen this? - http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf
And in Europe, Big Tobacco is very much for "regulating" the e-cig as a medicine product.
Because they are the only ones who can then spend millions of Euros to get the certification and then sell their overpriced crap. After having used Big Government to "regulate" all the small e-cig companies out of existence.
Oh and no, I do not trust any e-cig liquid sold by Big Tobacco either. Look what they added to analog cigarettes to make and keep us addicted - to their products.
Last edited:
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-OKand 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).
Mormons (LDS) are anti caffeine and smoking/chewing (I don't know if it's "tobacco" or "nicotine", no one defined it when I was growing up as one) but it doesn't stop them from taking aspirin, drinking colas, etc., etc. If it's the nicotine, maybe they should include the ingestion of tomatoes?
As stated before, the first and most important thing is to follow the money. To me that trail lands on the government (taxes) and Big Tobacco companies. However each of these entities can make the most money, all while making it look like they are "making the most responsible decision for the good of the public" is the way it will end up.
Right now, we are in the propaganda phase. You see articles in major news publications and if you look closely, they refer to e-cigs as "tobacco products". This is the first thing that they want to plant into the heads of the public. They want people to think that we are blowing out clouds of tobacco smoke. They want to do everything possible for the public to label e-cigs as cigarettes. This is why you are starting to see bans and restrictions similar to the ones in existence for cigarettes. It is partly due to the ignorance of the American public and partly due to the propaganda machine, better known as the media...
I have heard mentions of the FDA wanting to ban TV ads. Essentially, what does that do? It saves BT millions of dollars on advertising something that clearly does not need advertising in the first place.
They talked about banning internet sales. I think that this would likely affect e liquid more than PV devices. So what does that mean? BT, with their distribution chains already setup at every gas station, grocery store and drug store in the country, will buy up the surviving e liquid companies and make money off of their products.
As for PV devices, I think they would have a hard time banning the sale of those, however, BT with all of their money, will likely start producing (or buy up current PV companies) high quality PVs and of course, keep the cheap disposable ones.
The first step is getting the public to label e-cigs as tobacco products. The second step is closed door talks leading to the government taxing the crap out of e liquid. The last step basically hands all of the business into the hands of BT, with their existing distribution chains. During and after the steps previously mentioned, we will see more and more restrictions about how and where we can use our e-cigs. Likely, we will find ourselves huddled outside in the cold next to the analog smokers. It is greed and ignorance...
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see more research done about what exactly I am bringing into my body. However, I am certain that it is better for me than tobacco smoke. For the most part, we are going to be paying the same rich, crooked people that (most of us) have been paying for most of our lives. And that is what really ticks me off.
TM
Right now, we are in the propaganda phase. You see articles in major news publications and if you look closely, they refer to e-cigs as "tobacco products". This is the first thing that they want to plant into the heads of the public. They want people to think that we are blowing out clouds of tobacco smoke. They want to do everything possible for the public to label e-cigs as cigarettes. This is why you are starting to see bans and restrictions similar to the ones in existence for cigarettes. It is partly due to the ignorance of the American public and partly due to the propaganda machine, better known as the media...
I have heard mentions of the FDA wanting to ban TV ads. Essentially, what does that do? It saves BT millions of dollars on advertising something that clearly does not need advertising in the first place.
They talked about banning internet sales. I think that this would likely affect e liquid more than PV devices. So what does that mean? BT, with their distribution chains already setup at every gas station, grocery store and drug store in the country, will buy up the surviving e liquid companies and make money off of their products.
As for PV devices, I think they would have a hard time banning the sale of those, however, BT with all of their money, will likely start producing (or buy up current PV companies) high quality PVs and of course, keep the cheap disposable ones.
The first step is getting the public to label e-cigs as tobacco products. The second step is closed door talks leading to the government taxing the crap out of e liquid. The last step basically hands all of the business into the hands of BT, with their existing distribution chains. During and after the steps previously mentioned, we will see more and more restrictions about how and where we can use our e-cigs. Likely, we will find ourselves huddled outside in the cold next to the analog smokers. It is greed and ignorance...
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see more research done about what exactly I am bringing into my body. However, I am certain that it is better for me than tobacco smoke. For the most part, we are going to be paying the same rich, crooked people that (most of us) have been paying for most of our lives. And that is what really ticks me off.
TM
Last edited:
Following the money will show you the politicians against vaping aren't the ones getting money from Big Tobacco. They are getting money from Big Pharma.
- Status
Similar threads
