Question

[warrior3995]

They keep saying that it can be a gateway to tobacco for kids, my question is why would anyone change from vaping at a low cost to something that costs ten times the amount? But if they get their controlling tax fingers in to vaping and ejuice we will end up paying a lot more to vape I am sure!!!
Would it not be the other way where vapers would tell kids smoking tobacco that they should try vaping instead?

 

[Norrin]

It's a gateway to smoking like drinking water is a gateway to drinking [edited], it doesn't natter about sense or facts they look similar so it's something they can claim and the general public will believe it making vaping look bad.

 

[warrior3995]

we need to put out questions like this, to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the MPs

 

[BigBoyBlue]

The only way I can look at that statement logically would be if the kid began vaping. Then he/she is hanging out with friends but they smoke instead of vaping. They say it's way cooler so he/she begins smoking to fit in.

Then again the story would make more sense if he/she didn't vape or smoke. Friends smoke so he/she begins smoking. The same way most of us started.

The fact is that currently 99% of vapours are ex-smokers. No one is starting this habit. It is being used by reformed smokers because it is safer. It has not been proven to be a gateway to smoking. As you have mentioned what teenager wants to spend $10.00+ on a pack of cigarettes when you can spend $2.00 a day and vape your face off.

 

[belecp]

This issue of government regs. etc. is troubling to say the least. What bothers me more than anything is how the gov. can make decisions with no credible info. I have signed a petition and sent an email to my MPP but that just doesn't seem to be enough. Now that bill C 35 is in committee after 2nd reading it is almost sure to pass 3rd reading and into law. Very frustrating.

 

[warrior3995]

The only way I can look at that statement logically would be if the kid began vaping. Then he/she is hanging out with friends but they smoke instead of vaping. They say it's way cooler so he/she begins smoking to fit in.

Then again the story would make more sense if he/she didn't vape or smoke. Friends smoke so he/she begins smoking. The same way most of us started.

The fact is that currently 99% of vapours are ex-smokers. No one is starting this habit. It is being used by reformed smokers because it is safer. It has not been proven to be a gateway to smoking. As you have mentioned what teenager wants to spend $10.00+ on a pack of cigarettes when you can spend $2.00 a day and vape your face off.

Yes you are right, but I am saying that lobbyist are using that argument, the gateway thing and the public and MPs are buying it as a legitimate reason to control vaping sales and class vaping products as tobacco products. I am suggesting questions that devalue the Cancer Societies claims that ejuice and vaping are in no way a gateway to tobacco use, these claims have no merit and are ridiculous but they are still being lobbied in parliament debate about e-cigs, where also we should be calling them PV devises (Personal Vaporizers) and not e-cigarettes, e-cigarettes make it all sound like tobacco and we should be pointing out that vaping is not in anyway a tobacco product, it is like saying nic gum and regular gum are one and the same, if you chew gum you may try nicotine gum, ridiculous yes, now lets point it out to the public and the MPs listening to the debate.

 

[belecp]

My reply said C35. It is bill C45.

 

[belecp]

The date stamp is wrong on my posts. Not sure why

 

[vexxis]

... these claims have no merit and are ridiculous but they are still being lobbied in parliament debate about e-cigs, ...

The gateway argument of youth taking up smoking is only ridiculous to us vapers who know better; the other 80% of the population that are non-smokers are buying it so that makes it a good argument to keep using to push their agenda for the real reasons.

 

[Maiar]

I'm concerned that this is all due to lost tax dollars on cigarettes. With the way vaping is taking off here, it's easy to imagine that there's some people feeling the pinch in their wallets. But they'd never admit to that, because then we'd know they're douche bags instead of only being 99% sure their douche bags.

 

[grahamc]

I'm concerned that this is all due to lost tax dollars on cigarettes. With the way vaping is taking off here, it's easy to imagine that there's some people feeling the pinch in their wallets. But they'd never admit to that, because then we'd know they're douche bags instead of only being 99% sure their douche bags.

This is it. Debating it past this point is irrelevant.

While I hope the current freedoms of e-smoking remain the same and its business as usual, the gov't isn't getting a piece of the pie as they do with almost everything else. Conspiracy theory or otherwise, the plan something like this, cover up the greed with the threat of a health impact, until it's taxed. Slap a label on the liquid bottle outlining it's health impact, tax it to death, run a couple small business owners in the ground with lost revenue. I should add I'm not advocating that products with health warnings are safe, it's more of an indicator that gov't regulations have been applied.

 

[edyle]

I guess driving cars is a gateway to riding horses.

 

[vincom]

ban all forms of hunting..........its a gateway to murder

 

[DaveP]

Vaping is the OFF-RAMP from smoking. I can't for the life of me understand how people in power could actually believe that people could prefer something that is a known killer over something that satisfies the nicotine urge without the debilitating effects from smoking.

Peer pressure can be a strong influence. If I were advising teenagers who felt pressure from other kids to smoke "real" cigarettes, I'd tell them to laugh and inform anyone who dared them to smoke to say, "That cigarette will definitely kill you, this ecig has been tested and found to be relatively harmless". Are they smoking to indicate their lack of will to grow old, or what? It's a no brainer, IMO.

What really bothers me is that I've been asked by a couple of people if I used it for illegal substances. Where do they get that idea? If that's true, then we have a bigger battle to fight.

 

[towelie]

This issue of government regs. etc. is troubling to say the least. What bothers me more than anything is how the gov. can make decisions with no credible info. I have signed a petition and sent an email to my MPP but that just doesn't seem to be enough. Now that bill C 35 is in committee after 2nd reading it is almost sure to pass 3rd reading and into law. Very frustrating.

The simple answer to that is that we are all voluntary wards of the state. Like parents they really don't need to answer "why" and like parents often the answer is "because I said so". Canada is just like the US in this regard in that we all traded restricted government for a safety net.

 

[BigBoyBlue]

Yes you are right, but I am saying that lobbyist are using that argument, the gateway thing and the public and MPs are buying it as a legitimate reason to control vaping sales and class vaping products as tobacco products. I am suggesting questions that devalue the Cancer Societies claims that ejuice and vaping are in no way a gateway to tobacco use, these claims have no merit and are ridiculous but they are still being lobbied in parliament debate about e-cigs, where also we should be calling them PV devises (Personal Vaporizers) and not e-cigarettes, e-cigarettes make it all sound like tobacco and we should be pointing out that vaping is not in anyway a tobacco product, it is like saying nic gum and regular gum are one and the same, if you chew gum you may try nicotine gum, ridiculous yes, now lets point it out to the public and the MPs listening to the debate.

You are 100% right. I have sent out emails to MPPs and have included links to various studies proving these statements. It certainly isn't a gateway to tobacco but saying that leads the public to support this crazy bill that is aimed at retaining the grip BT has on us. The sad fact of the matter is that out of 118 billion of provincial yearly revenue, taxes on cigarettes accounts for around 1.1 billion. That's fairly close to 1%. A rather large chunk that will be protected at all costs. Also a smoker costs anywhere from 70k - 100k less in government spending than a healthy non smoker. There are a variety of studies that prove this. So with the taxes people pay to smoke and less government spending a full life smoker is a 150k-200k net gain over a healthy individual. A very good incentive for staying with the status quo.

Part of me feels that the majority of politicians do not believe that vaping is all that bad. I truly think that they are working behind closed doors to maintain the revenue that they receive from cigarettes. The people are easily manipulated and stating that children are at risk does the trick. Combine that with half complete studies showing PVs contain more toxins than cigarettes and you have a bill passed. Unfortunately the majority of citizens are easily convinced and happy when these bills pass. I don't think anything we send these politicians will matter. I have received several email responses so far(always from assistants and never the mpp) that pretty well all say the same thing. Paraphrased they say "we are always concerned about our constituents well being. We do not pass any bill lightly and will be gathering all the information to make the proper decision, the decision our voters and citizens want". Now all they have to do is get the majority of voters to support the bill that they already support and then they are passing what they both want.

 

[Maiar]

You are 100% right. I have sent out emails to MPPs and have included links to various studies proving these statements. It certainly isn't a gateway to tobacco but saying that leads the public to support this crazy bill that is aimed at retaining the grip BT has on us. The sad fact of the matter is that out of 118 billion of provincial yearly revenue, taxes on cigarettes accounts for around 1.1 billion. That's fairly close to 1%. A rather large chunk that will be protected at all costs. Also a smoker costs anywhere from 70k - 100k less in government spending than a healthy non smoker. There are a variety of studies that prove this. So with the taxes people pay to smoke and less government spending a full life smoker is a 150k-200k net gain over a healthy individual. A very good incentive for staying with the status quo.

Part of me feels that the majority of politicians do not believe that vaping is all that bad. I truly think that they are working behind closed doors to maintain the revenue that they receive from cigarettes. The people are easily manipulated and stating that children are at risk does the trick. Combine that with half complete studies showing PVs contain more toxins than cigarettes and you have a bill passed. Unfortunately the majority of citizens are easily convinced and happy when these bills pass. I don't think anything we send these politicians will matter. I have received several email responses so far(always from assistants and never the mpp) that pretty well all say the same thing. Paraphrased they say "we are always concerned about our constituents well being. We do not pass any bill lightly and will be gathering all the information to make the proper decision, the decision our voters and citizens want". Now all they have to do is get the majority of voters to support the bill that they already support and then they are passing what they both want.

And there it is. Public support isn't always a good thing. Especially when the general public is so easily convinced about things. Look at the drops in vaccination rates in the states because a few celebrities said some bad things about them. That's all you need to know about public opinion. It bugs the .... out of me that the general public is going to decide this. It should be decided by a properly informed general public with information from actual scientists about the risk. Scientists who have done peer reviewed and published work on it and aren't cashing a check from ....ing tobacco companies. But sadly, once the public has been exposed to wrong information it's really hard to convince them otherwise, even with concrete evidence. And the people who are being told they're wrong are the loudest and most persistent opponents of anything you can think of.
So this is going to be decided by people who don't vape and have only heard bad things about it. Because they're the loudest and the ones the politicians will listen to.

 

[robvanhooren]

we need to put out questions like this, to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the MPs

I have to say, you act like the politicians actually give a [censored] ?

there's absolutely no doubt in their minds: you have to understand their real motivation.

it's not about smoking or your health, it's about Money and Control.

they're $350 Billion in debt, and losing $7 Billion per year in direct sin-tax revenues.

their buddies in BP and BT are set to lose even more in sales.

and the Feds are on track to lose more in CPP/OAS/etc BECAUSE HOW DARE YOU REFUSE TO DIE ON SCHEDULE !!!.

unless something as an alternative (i) gets their attention, and (ii) lets them save face when they have to backpedal?

the 99%/taxpayers will lose. again.

don't kid yourself about why the game is being played, and by whom.

I think it's going to have to get ugly to alter the course.

but, considering it's Canada, and there's no polite way to get ugly, history tells us the sheepish electorate will wake up every 4 years, vote for the wolves, and go back to sleep.

off the top of my head, I don't know that there's been a Canadian with guts since Louis Riel -- and let's not forget: they hanged him.

/oldgrump