New ANTZ Trojan horse looming

[DrMA]

Having failed to get vaping banned, so-called "public health" try to spin it into an opportunity for profit (and control). No thanks. The best thing for us right now is for PH to back out of this field altogether. We've been doing just fine so far, despite their interference.

Industry incentives ‘could lead to rapid end for cigarettes’ | The Times

 

[Lessifer]

It's behind a paywall, care to quote more of the article?

 

[DrMA]

It's behind a paywall, care to quote more of the article?

I saw a screen cap of it on twitter, but can't seem to find it again...

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[OldBatty]

I saw a screen cap of it on twitter, but can't seem to find it again...

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Hard drive space is cheap these days, right click 'Save Page As' is a handy tool.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Branston is arguing that vapor products should be allowed to compete against cigarettes in the market, which is a good thing. He wrote an article about this back in December, and is recyling the arguments in the news media.

J. Robert Branston: How a softly-softly approach could make Big tobacco turn over a new leaf
How a softly-softly approach could make Big Tobacco turn over a new leaf

Push the tobacco industry to change through economic incentives
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-tobacco-industry-economic-incentives.html
http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(15)00376-X/abstract

 

[Vaslovik]

It's behind a paywall, care to quote more of the article?

Of course it's behind a paywall. It's all about the money in the first place.

 

[nicnik]

Having failed to get vaping banned, so-called "public health" try to spin it into an opportunity for profit (and control). No thanks. The best thing for us right now is for PH to back out of this field altogether. We've been doing just fine so far, despite their interference.

Industry incentives ‘could lead to rapid end for cigarettes’ | The Times

Now that I have an idea of what's behind the paywall, thanks to the links Bill G. posted, I have a similar reaction. If Public Health had not gone on a hate vapers / lie about vaping crusade, there'd be a lot fewer smokers today. The incentives for all concerned are built into the reality of vaping vs smoking, the disincentives are in the Public Health lies.

 

[Lessifer]

If I understood that correctly, basically the best thing that Public Health could do, is leave the vaping industry alone, and encourage the Federal and State governments to do the same. Let the free market and innovation of vapor products push the tobacco companies either out of business, or into a better alternative product.

 

[Kent C]

If I understood that correctly, basically the best thing that Public Health could do, is leave the vaping industry alone, and encourage the Federal and State governments to do the same. Let the free market and innovation of vapor products push the tobacco companies either out of business, or into a better alternative product.

That may be what someone is saying - nicnik? ... but the two Branston articles that Bill linked is not free market - it's gov't "steering". More tax for cigs, tax credits (subsidies) for ecigs - stick and carrot - which he says has "worked in the past". His example, although he may be taking about the European experience - making it more profitable to make unleaded gas (I actually doubt that as well but didn't look into the whole Euro history). But in the US, there were mandated regulations - catalytic converters. then a ban on unleaded - stick, stick and no carrot

The way to do a free market test would be to either tax them both the same by removing the extra tax on cigarettes and raise no taxes on ecigs. Ie. no gov't steering and let the market decide.

Branston - Deputy Director of the Centre for Governance & Regulation in the University's School of Management Basically the Cass Sunstein-version of that school.

 

[Lessifer]

That may be what someone is saying - nicnik? ... but the two Branston articles that Bill linked is not free market - it's gov't "steering". More tax for cigs, tax credits (subsidies) for ecigs - stick and carrot - which he says has "worked in the past". His example, although he may be taking about the European experience - making it more profitable to make unleaded gas (I actually doubt that as well but didn't look into the whole Euto history). But in the US, there were mandated regulations - catalytic converters. then a ban on unleaded - stick, stick and no carrot

The way to do a free market test would be to either tax them both the same by removing the extra tax on cigarettes and raise no taxes on ecigs. Ie. no gov't steering and let the market decide.

Branston - Deputy Director of the Centre for Governance & Regulation in the University's School of Management Basically the Cass Sunstein-version of that school.

I saw it more of:
Stick - existing tobacco control regulations and taxation of cigarettes.
Carrot - no TC regulations/taxation of vapor products.

My thoughts, not necessarily the author's.

 

[Kent C]

I saw it more of:
Stick - existing tobacco control regulations and taxation of cigarettes.
Carrot - no TC regulations/taxation of vapor products.

My thoughts, not necessarily the author's.

Here's the author's:

• giving companies tax credits for the development of lower risk products

• more direct measures such as price controls and product licensing that favours lower risk products

IOW, gov't steering. Tax credits didn't save Solyndra, price controls don't work - ask Nixon :- ) and 'product licensing' could be compared to what may come out of the deeming - esp. in eliquids.

 

[LaraC]

Branston - Deputy Director of the Centre for Governance & Regulation in the University's School of Management Basically the Cass Sunstein-version of that school.

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[23]

Sunstein, Cass (September 25, 2006). "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power To Say What the Law Is". The Yale Law Journal www.yalelawjournal.org/. Retrieved 2013-08-07.

 

[Kent C]

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by

nudges.


Nudge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edyle]

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[23]

Sunstein, Cass (September 25, 2006). "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power To Say What the Law Is". The Yale Law Journal www.yalelawjournal.org/. Retrieved 2013-08-07.

A law that is ambiguous needs to go back to the drawing board.
That's common sense.

 

[Kent C]

A law that is ambiguous needs to go back to the drawing board.

Not for those with a "We have to pass the bill before you can see what's in it" mentality.

 

[nicnik]

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his research on risk regulation, Sunstein is known for developing, together with Timur Kuran, the concept of availability cascades, wherein popular discussion of an idea is self-feeding and causes individuals to over weigh its importance.

I clicked on "availability cascades", and what I read sounded like it might be his roadmap for dealing with what he probably considers to be the stupid public.

And then, this appeared near the end of the article:

Policy implications
Technocracy vs. democracy

There are two schools of thought on how to cope with risks raised by availability cascades: technocratic and democratic. The technocratic approach, championed by Kuran and Sunstein, emphasizes assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating risks according to objective risk measures (e.g. expected costs, expected disability-adjusted life years (DALY)). The technocratic approach considers availability cascades to be phenomena of mass irrationality that can distort or hijack public policy, misallocating resources or imposing regulatory burdens whose costs exceed the expected costs of the risks they mitigate.

The democratic approach, championed by Paul Slovic, respects risk preferences as revealed by the availability market. For example, though lightning strikes kill far more people each year than shark attacks, if people genuinely consider death by shark worse than death by lightning, a disproportionate share of resources should be devoted to averting shark attacks.

I guess in his worldview, he's one of the elite technocrats, maybe even top of the heap.

 

[LaraC]

I clicked on "availability cascades", and what I read sounded like it might be his roadmap for dealing with what he probably considers to be the stupid public.
----
I guess in his worldview, he's one of the elite technocrats, maybe even top of the heap.

In his worldview...I think you're right.


"The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.

I'd say he also regards himself as the smartest of "those who operate under him [the President]." In Sunstein's worldview, the outcome *should* instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of (blah blah)... Sunstein.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I see the term "lower risk product" several times, who determines that? Please don't say Congress, FDA or any other politicians...

 

[DC2]

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[23]

That's one of the most horrifying things I've ever read.

A law that is ambiguous needs to go back to the drawing board.
That's common sense.

An ambiguous law is very likely a law that never should have been written in the first place.

 

[LaraC]

That's one of the most horrifying things I've ever read.

I agree. Definitely qualifies for the Horror Files.