Reaction to WHO guidelines
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- regulation
- Status
i read this in the london times today where he was also quoted saying:
he does raise a good point as the story below also concludes:
Cigarette Price Increase Results in Bootlegging Boost - Health & Fitness - InfoNIAC
he does raise a good point as the story below also concludes:
Cigarette Price Increase Results in Bootlegging Boost - Health & Fitness - InfoNIAC
Last edited:
To regulate is not what im worried about.
Im worried about taxing us to death.
If they cant tax nicotine in general, then they cant tax e-cigs.
A tax on a consumer product specifically is called a excise tax. It is put on mass consumer products because the masses use the product regularly and there for by taxing it can specifically pay for a service in the government that the product relates to.
As an example the tax on gasoline is supposed to be used to pay for roads.
The excise tax on tobacco was put there to force consumer to stop buying the product.
This tax is unconstitutional and although it has been challenged it remains because it is a huge source of tax revenue.
If the excise tax on cigarettes is transferred tot the e-liquid, it will constitute a unfair taxation because the chemical nicotine is used in other products that are not taxed.
Im worried about taxing us to death.
If they cant tax nicotine in general, then they cant tax e-cigs.
A tax on a consumer product specifically is called a excise tax. It is put on mass consumer products because the masses use the product regularly and there for by taxing it can specifically pay for a service in the government that the product relates to.
As an example the tax on gasoline is supposed to be used to pay for roads.
The excise tax on tobacco was put there to force consumer to stop buying the product.
This tax is unconstitutional and although it has been challenged it remains because it is a huge source of tax revenue.
If the excise tax on cigarettes is transferred tot the e-liquid, it will constitute a unfair taxation because the chemical nicotine is used in other products that are not taxed.
rob ...
that is what I was essentially getting at
regulation = taxing plain and simple
from what I have seen, I don't seem to understand. They want to control nicotine in cigarettes, but not the 4000 other chemicals ...
All tobacco products are taxed, NRT products are taxed I believe ... What other products are you talkin about Rob?
EDIT: MINUS trace amounts found in eggplant and potato's like DC just pointed out ...
that is what I was essentially getting at
regulation = taxing plain and simple
from what I have seen, I don't seem to understand. They want to control nicotine in cigarettes, but not the 4000 other chemicals ...
All tobacco products are taxed, NRT products are taxed I believe ... What other products are you talkin about Rob?
EDIT: MINUS trace amounts found in eggplant and potato's like DC just pointed out ...
those guidelines cash really just advised that tobacco products should have to have all their packaging removed bar the name of the brand in black and white. also they need to be removed from display in stores. vending machines are a no-no. no advertising, no sponsorship, no product placement. they want them to disappear. come to think of it, i dont even remember them mentioning tax. so BAC's argument is kind of void. people can still get their product where-ever they used to, bar vending machines, they just can't see them on display.
It still surprises me that Philip "check out our new pink lipstick shaped cigarettes" Morris has not released a statement and refuses to be phased by any of these guidelines even to their investors.
It still surprises me that Philip "check out our new pink lipstick shaped cigarettes" Morris has not released a statement and refuses to be phased by any of these guidelines even to their investors.
Last edited:
When I spoke to the FDA they told me that nicotine is present in the manufacturing of many consumer products. Specifically they mentioned food. I guess a little googleing will determine what and how much.
To regulate to me means to make sure the product does not fall into the hands of people who are to young.
Regulation in that form does not bother me.
What I dont want to see is a $5 tax put on a $.01 product. The e-cig would then become as expensive to use a cigarettes and when you add the complexity of using the ecig to the requirement of maintenance and part replacement, many smokers would never make the switch, even if they knew it was safer.
The main thing a consumer looks at is price. If it is cheaper to use, then they over look the complexities that are associated with it.
To regulate to me means to make sure the product does not fall into the hands of people who are to young.
Regulation in that form does not bother me.
What I dont want to see is a $5 tax put on a $.01 product. The e-cig would then become as expensive to use a cigarettes and when you add the complexity of using the ecig to the requirement of maintenance and part replacement, many smokers would never make the switch, even if they knew it was safer.
The main thing a consumer looks at is price. If it is cheaper to use, then they over look the complexities that are associated with it.
Cash, just got around to your question. I still consider myself a smoker (and always will even if I never smoke a cigarette again) and I think regulation by the U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency was fine. I do not want the FDA regulating tobacco.
Note also that it's not just nicotine that the FDA might seek to restrict if given the authority over tobacco products. It can tinker with the formula all it wants, banning some ingredients and restricting others. There is no limit that stops at nicotine. It can order all carcinogens out. There are more than 40 in tobacco smoke.
While I don't favor the FDA regulating tobacco, I do think a case can be made for that agency regulating our e-liquid. Pure nicotine is a drug. We make recreational use of it. And it comes from China, with no assurances that manufacturing followed any standard (take our word, they say .. sure, but you're the people who killed pets and babies with industrial melamine). Trust no one, the X-Files taught us. In this case, the slogan fits.
Sadly, I think some regulation is coming and even necessary if e-smoking is to become a significant segment of the "smoking" population.
Note also that it's not just nicotine that the FDA might seek to restrict if given the authority over tobacco products. It can tinker with the formula all it wants, banning some ingredients and restricting others. There is no limit that stops at nicotine. It can order all carcinogens out. There are more than 40 in tobacco smoke.
While I don't favor the FDA regulating tobacco, I do think a case can be made for that agency regulating our e-liquid. Pure nicotine is a drug. We make recreational use of it. And it comes from China, with no assurances that manufacturing followed any standard (take our word, they say .. sure, but you're the people who killed pets and babies with industrial melamine). Trust no one, the X-Files taught us. In this case, the slogan fits.
Sadly, I think some regulation is coming and even necessary if e-smoking is to become a significant segment of the "smoking" population.
when cigarette tax increases in america, it wont be to regulate them. it will be to pad out the coffers. check out this story:
Kentucky leaders look to increase cigarette tax to make up $450 million state shortfall this year
also bob, your wish might come true sooner than you imagine. it was in the news last week that the FDA is setting up an office in china to examine all the products that are exported to the states.
F.D.A. Opens Office in Beijing to Screen Food and Drug Exports
it has been criticised though as the chinese office will be made up of a lowly team of eight.
Kentucky leaders look to increase cigarette tax to make up $450 million state shortfall this year
also bob, your wish might come true sooner than you imagine. it was in the news last week that the FDA is setting up an office in china to examine all the products that are exported to the states.
F.D.A. Opens Office in Beijing to Screen Food and Drug Exports
it has been criticised though as the chinese office will be made up of a lowly team of eight.
Last edited:
What I'm worried about is knowing how dumb our gub'mint can be.
They'll reduce only the amount of nic. allowed in real cigs - thus causing people to smoke more of the tar, and other crap just to get the same fix, and thereby die quicker.
It is interesting that the guidelines WHO are asking governments to implement will really show up our leaders' true colours. are they going to step up to the plate and adhere to these guidelines at a risk of actually preventing people from smoking and thereby loosing revenue. my guess and philip morris' i imagine is no..not for many counties anyway.
India were up front about it today. They decided to put off a decision that was supposed to be implemented Dec 1st, to place graphic warnings on cigarette packets. They feared that the move might actually persuade people to quit smoking and would stymy their revenue while they are holding up against the recession. well, least they're honest.
India were up front about it today. They decided to put off a decision that was supposed to be implemented Dec 1st, to place graphic warnings on cigarette packets. They feared that the move might actually persuade people to quit smoking and would stymy their revenue while they are holding up against the recession. well, least they're honest.
Last edited:
DC,
1. Florida faces the same shortfall. Now, I'm always amused at what people here say cigarettes cost in their neck of the woods. I can drive a block and buy a pack of USA Gold (the brand I last smoked) for $2.20 a pack, taxes included. Now, Florida is looking at adding $1 a pack to ease the strain on the state budget by shortfalls in other taxes and tourism.
2. Great on the FDA in China. Great. Eight people can have an amazing impact just by saying no e-liquid (for instance) will be allowed into the United States from China unless it meets the following purity standards ... etc. Conform or die, in other words. We need to get really firm with China. No more crap in food and medicine. No more crap.
1. Florida faces the same shortfall. Now, I'm always amused at what people here say cigarettes cost in their neck of the woods. I can drive a block and buy a pack of USA Gold (the brand I last smoked) for $2.20 a pack, taxes included. Now, Florida is looking at adding $1 a pack to ease the strain on the state budget by shortfalls in other taxes and tourism.
2. Great on the FDA in China. Great. Eight people can have an amazing impact just by saying no e-liquid (for instance) will be allowed into the United States from China unless it meets the following purity standards ... etc. Conform or die, in other words. We need to get really firm with China. No more crap in food and medicine. No more crap.
i see nude beaches might be on the cards down there in god's waiting room too bob. could take the edge off any $1 increase !!
Raise cigarette taxes, allow nude bathing to save budget, residents tell state lawmakers
Here's a story from today that could go either way for electronic cigarettes and one reason we might not want to be contacting any members of congress about our new flavoured nicotine delivery devices.
Attorney General Rob McKenna has said he'll ask the Legislature to ban the shipment of Internet cigarettes to anyone other than licensed wholesalers or retail stores (for the children of course)
Washington may limit Internet cigarette shipments
Raise cigarette taxes, allow nude bathing to save budget, residents tell state lawmakers
Here's a story from today that could go either way for electronic cigarettes and one reason we might not want to be contacting any members of congress about our new flavoured nicotine delivery devices.
Attorney General Rob McKenna has said he'll ask the Legislature to ban the shipment of Internet cigarettes to anyone other than licensed wholesalers or retail stores (for the children of course)
Washington may limit Internet cigarette shipments
Last edited:
Whoa! Take my word for it, you do not want to see a majority of the residents in God's Waiting Room naked on a beach .. or anywhere.
Small aside: As a reporter, I once covered a nudist wedding (we have lots of nudist camps in Central Florida). The deputy sheriff who performed the ceremony and myself were the only ones with clothes. The bride was quite obviously pregnant. I had a devil of a time getting angles for photographs my newspaper could publish!
That ban on Internet sales is only one of many proposals heading for action. Another would ban shipping by the postal service or a private carrier. Another bans use of credit cards or credit services like PayPal for purchase of any tobacco product. So far, the magic words "electronic cigarettes" haven't popped up in the bills.
The bottom line in all this is that anti-tobacco forces, having successfully banned smoking in most public places, now want to make it prohibitively expensive and extremely difficult to obtain smoking materials. Once obtained, the tobacco can't be used in any public (and some private, eg. car with anyone under 18 in it) places. What's next? Licensing of smokers with proof needed at point of purchase? I would not be at all surprised.
Note that the newest thrust is an attack on smokeless. You can rest assured that it won't stop there. E-smoking will be a future target. And don't even think of arguing that e-smoking is "heathy". Healthy, they will tell you, is not using tobacco or nicotine. Quit or die.
Small aside: As a reporter, I once covered a nudist wedding (we have lots of nudist camps in Central Florida). The deputy sheriff who performed the ceremony and myself were the only ones with clothes. The bride was quite obviously pregnant. I had a devil of a time getting angles for photographs my newspaper could publish!
That ban on Internet sales is only one of many proposals heading for action. Another would ban shipping by the postal service or a private carrier. Another bans use of credit cards or credit services like PayPal for purchase of any tobacco product. So far, the magic words "electronic cigarettes" haven't popped up in the bills.
The bottom line in all this is that anti-tobacco forces, having successfully banned smoking in most public places, now want to make it prohibitively expensive and extremely difficult to obtain smoking materials. Once obtained, the tobacco can't be used in any public (and some private, eg. car with anyone under 18 in it) places. What's next? Licensing of smokers with proof needed at point of purchase? I would not be at all surprised.
Note that the newest thrust is an attack on smokeless. You can rest assured that it won't stop there. E-smoking will be a future target. And don't even think of arguing that e-smoking is "heathy". Healthy, they will tell you, is not using tobacco or nicotine. Quit or die.
sounds like a hoot bob, i can well imagine.
The nudist beach idea is to attract naturists into the area, not strip the present residents of their clothes and charge them for the honor. but you have a point. perhaps even having those type of life-stylers in your vicinity wouldn't take the edge off much. having had to browse through quite a few copies of naturist monthly during the great porn prohibition in my school days, i can testify to this.
true story. for evidence to the contrary, i might be able to point some recent research and maintain that i'm only self medicating to stave off Parkinson's and Alzheimer's apparently.
Nicotine: can it save your brain? | COSMOS magazine
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
