FDA Regulation, Big Tobacco, and Pending Bond Defaults
- Thread starter toddkuen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
as far as i understand the MSA is a legally binding agreement between 46 state attorney generals and the tobacco industry and, as such cannot be changed. having said that it is interesting to note a recent rash of statements calling for a new master settlement. most noticeably at last weeks senate committee drive by shooting. one senator opined perhaps the MSA should be revisited. well it cant its not law,its a legal agreement. i am not saying they wont try some kind of trickery.
regards
mike
regards
mike
Which is why they want to define e-cigs as tobacco products and give it to BT. This way we get to fulfill the legal agreement. Is there some sort of lawsuit we could bring to stop that from happening?
Legacy, Mitch Zeller's former employer & host of his recent interview regarding e-cigs, needs folks to keep smoking, too...
"Legacy was established in 1999 as part of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the major tobacco companies, 46 US states, the District of Columbia and five US territories. The states requested that a portion of the money they received from the tobacco industry be used to establish and fund an organization primarily dedicated to studying and providing public education about the impact of tobacco in order to reduce its use and associated death and disease.
Legacy is that organization..."
Our History - American Legacy Foundation
Aside from the initial funding, does anybody know if Legacy receives ongoing financial support from the MSA? Or did they just receive one lump-sum upfront?
I did a little poking around.. These guys are stacked! See line 22 on page 1 "Net Assets"..
How much exactly was the initial funding??
http://www.legacyforhealth.org/cont...80/version/1/file/ALF+2012+Pub+Insp+Copy+.pdf
Apparently they also pay pretty well.. See pages 7-8..
Anyway, I found the above in the Financial Statements section here...
Annual Reports/Financial Statements - American Legacy Foundation
Seems like only a small part of the money was sold as bonds, then?
BT agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first 25 years..
Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyway, ouch...
The most recently available data on MSA spending by all states (2006) broadly confirm the above-mentioned patterns. As can be seen in Table 1, in most states, tobacco control spending is a small fraction of total MSA spending. In 15 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin), no MSA funds are spent on tobacco control. Health and general purposes spending (including education and social services) account for most MSA expenditures. Not surprisingly, given national economic difficulties and the political difficulties states have in either cutting budgets and/or raising taxes, many states have used MSA monies to close budget deficits.
The Master Settlement Agreement and Its Impact on Tobacco Use 10 Years Later
If Wells Fargo is the only one who can see what's coming and react accordingly (i.e., profit from massive loss), it makes me really glad that Wells Fargo is our mortgageholder.
Andria
How long before they go with the obvious solution?
Taxing candy, snack foods, sodas, and fast foods will provide TONS of money for them to play with.
It's only a matter of time, but the propaganda machine is so far a little slow to get rolling.
Watch for it.
Taxing candy, snack foods, sodas, and fast foods will provide TONS of money for them to play with.
It's only a matter of time, but the propaganda machine is so far a little slow to get rolling.
Watch for it.
This would actually be an extremely wise course of action, IMO... We're been blasted with "tobacco is baaaaad" msgs since 1964, so now it's 50 yrs later, ok, we get it, we'll vape instead of smoke. But you hear these stats just CONSTANTLY about runaway diabetes and obesity in America, and maybe even the whole developed world, I dunno... because people can't seem to grow up enough to realize that *sugar is also bad*... at least, if you eat enough in a week to feed a family of 4 for a year. No, I'm not outright saying that sugar is poison, because if it's used *properly*, it's not, not really -- it's the little extra, the sweet treat, the goodie... but people seem to treat it like it's meat and potatoes, and IT'S NOT, and isn't meant to be, and if you eat it that way, a) it will make you fat, and b) it will make you sick, not necessarily in that order.
But sugar is another one of those things that we've learned to synthesize into a nearly-pure form (sucrose) from a natural source, and every time you do that to a product, the resulting refined product is nearly always more toxic than could possibly have been imagined -- there are numerous drugs this applies to, which I won't mention because the forum would redact them anyway, but you all surely know the ones I mean. But it's even applicable to something as seemingly-innocuous as birch [or willow] bark. For thousands of years people took birch [or willow] bark tea for pain, fevers, swellings, and I bet no one ever died from it -- I hear it's pretty nasty and bitter tasting. And then this canadian guy comes along and synthesizes acetylsalicylic acid from it, calls it aspirin, and suddenly we have this "miracle drug" that will treat your fever, your headache, your arthritis... but don't take too much or your ears will ring and your stomach will bleed. Really innocuous, eh.
So anyway... bring on the sin tax on sugar. I think America and maybe the whole world will be a lot healthier for it. And yes I love sugar... but I'm watching diabetes destroy my mom's body, and it's not pretty, and she just keeps cramming the sugar. *sigh* Maybe if it cost more, she'd buy and eat less of it.
Andria
Last edited:
In the case of tobacco tax vs ecigs, the sins of the father are being visited upon the sons.
It's sad that the states have spent the money and now need the new revenue sourced payments to pay off the bonds. Why not a tax on caffeine, fatty foods, and sugary sweets? If you are going to punish something, punish something that actually has a history of causing early death.
It's sad that the states have spent the money and now need the new revenue sourced payments to pay off the bonds. Why not a tax on caffeine, fatty foods, and sugary sweets? If you are going to punish something, punish something that actually has a history of causing early death.
i am not sure exactly how the money was divided in minnesota. i do know smoke free minnesota gets funding from it every year. if i remember right only cigarette sales are counted against the fund. cigars,pipe tobacco,and smokeless were not. even though states are starting to tax cigars,pipe tobacco,and smokeless products at higher rates,they are not part of the master settlement. as a legal agreement between the states and,cigarette makers and, approved by the courts it is what it is.
predicted new buzz phrase from the ANTZ,"new master settlement".
regards
mike
predicted new buzz phrase from the ANTZ,"new master settlement".
regards
mike
i am not sure exactly how the money was divided in minnesota. i do know smoke free minnesota gets funding from it every year. if i remember right only cigarette sales are counted against the fund. cigars,pipe tobacco,and smokeless were not. even though states are starting to tax cigars,pipe tobacco,and smokeless products at higher rates,they are not part of the master settlement. as a legal agreement between the states and,cigarette makers and, approved by the courts it is what it is.
predicted new buzz phrase from the ANTZ,"new master settlement".
regards
mike
Without going back and reading the background and legal documentation of the MSA, it seems to me the issues w/ ecigs can't be compared (legally) to the issues with the tobacco industry, so would the PTB be able to make a case for a new ecig MSA? (Of course, that probably won't stop them from trying...
)ETA: LOL! If you hover your cursor over "PTB" you'll see that according to ECF, it means "pyramid tea bags." To clarify: According to me, it means "powers that be"... (Of course, now I'm going to sit here and cogitate a while on when the Powers That Be could be considered pyramid tea bags...)
Last edited:
Already being done, at least on a local level. I used to work in West Memphis, AR and the city (or maybe county) has a "fast food" tax. The locals call it the "hamburger tax". If you buy food in a restaurant you pay an extra tax. If you buy the same food in the grocery store, no extra tax.
Already happening in California, with claims that it is widely supported.... well, certainly not by me, but I'm just a whack Libertarian-leaning guy who never supports more government fingers in my rectum (or my wallet).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-soda-tax/
I've long held the belief that once the government was able to convince people those "unhealthy things" called cigarettes were bad for you and required the GOVERNMENT to regulate/control them, we started down the slippery slope of having the government regulate/control other "unhealthy things" too (like sodas, fatty foods, and now e-cigs) in order to protect you from yourself. Hence, the position we vapers are now in.
Last edited:
I don't get why billions (not millions) are collected via MSA and higher rates are charged to smokers/nicotine users for healthcare.
Other than obvious answer of 'corruption,' this doesn't make sense. With MSA in effect, it would seem a case could be made that smokers ought to have lowest health care around. Without MSA, I can understand higher rates. With it in effect, it would kinda be nice to revisit things in light of health care issues and given opposition in Congress (especially on health care), it would seem like it could go the other way. One side of the aisle saying it didn't go far enough, and other side of the aisle saying Obamacare can now be defunded in light of this or (at very least) smokers are fully covered under MSA, as is literally the intention of MSA.
Other than obvious answer of 'corruption,' this doesn't make sense. With MSA in effect, it would seem a case could be made that smokers ought to have lowest health care around. Without MSA, I can understand higher rates. With it in effect, it would kinda be nice to revisit things in light of health care issues and given opposition in Congress (especially on health care), it would seem like it could go the other way. One side of the aisle saying it didn't go far enough, and other side of the aisle saying Obamacare can now be defunded in light of this or (at very least) smokers are fully covered under MSA, as is literally the intention of MSA.
Without going back and reading the background and legal documentation of the MSA, it seems to me the issues w/ ecigs can't be compared (legally) to the issues with the tobacco industry, so would the PTB be able to make a case for a new ecig MSA? (Of course, that probably won't stop them from trying...
Same here, I haven't read the entire MSA either. But, per my understanding, the MSA was an agreement between the states and the tobacco companies to compensate them for health care costs related to smoking, including costs incurred over many previous years. This also benefited the tobacco companies, as it shielded them from future lawsuits for tobacco-related deaths (remember than when this was implemented in the late 1990's, tobacco companies were being sued right and left, asking for huge dollar amounts each).
That being said, I can't see how the states could go after e-cig companies for a separate MSA, at least not for quite some time. First, the states would have to prove damages and additional heath care costs -- that's not possible. Second, the e-cig companies would need to have a vested interest coming to the table, meaning large number of lawsuits for damages/early deaths that they would wish to shield themselves from -- which is not happening.
I think the more interesting question, which I posed in my initial post, is how this deeming impacts how e-cigs are treated with regards to the MSA when the e-cig is owned by tobacco companies that are party to the original MSA (perfect example is Blu, owned by Lorillard). That presents some interesting scenarios that could just fall into place without any MSA changes at all.
Because in the United States, healthcare is still a private/corporate enterprise, even under Obamacare. Insurance companies, which are not government-owned, don't benefit from the MSA, and hence they just use actuarial tables that show smokers cost more in healthcare costs and hence demand higher premiums.
Now, corruption... absolutely happening, jman. Ideally, the money was supposed to fund public healthcare services like Medicare . But, all the evidence shown in this thread indicates that most states are using the funds for run-of-the-mill general fund use, or to steal from in order to prop up budget deficits (another thing California is famous for).
Without going back and reading the background and legal documentation of the MSA, it seems to me the issues w/ ecigs can't be compared (legally) to the issues with the tobacco industry, so would the PTB be able to make a case for a new ecig MSA? (Of course, that probably won't stop them from trying...
ETA: LOL! If you hover your cursor over "PTB" you'll see that according to ECF, it means "pyramid tea bags." To clarify: According to me, it means "powers that be"... (Of course, now I'm going to sit here and cogitate a while on when the Powers That Be could be considered pyramid tea bags...)
I went and found this just for you
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/cartridge-mods/52430-ptb-straw-mod-ptb-made-easy.html
Looks like a chart in an old Forbes Magazine of the NEA membership and student SAT scores
California 'snack tax' passed in 1991, repealed in 1992
"The tax was a disastrous effort. While the tax generated revenues of approximately $200 million during the year in which the tax was in effect, snack sales dropped an estimated 10%, and the snack industries that had ballooned since the 1960s were furious. Ultimately, 60% of Californians voted to repeal the tax in 1992, with intense lobbying efforts by the California Grocers Association and the newly-organized Dont Tax Food coalition, which criticized the tax not only as confusing but regressive and discriminatory. The legislature also recognized the insurmountable administrative problems. Interestingly, to make up for the lost revenue, the bill sought increased taxation of cigarettes, a discretionary product, which would have the additional advantage of helping create a desirable public health outcome and decreased state and local government costs for health care due to tobacco-related illnesses. In fact, one of the arguments for replacing the snack tax with a higher tobacco tax was that tobacco-related illnesses has been associated with $7 billion in health care costs annually and thus taxing tobacco would be more desirable.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...4YK4Cw&usg=AFQjCNH5nRcGBJ6eP72ojdUJRKPyGRoZEQ
the states however used the insurance figures in calculating the sates cost,and of course blaming cigarettes for every imaginable health related cost. it is interesting to note i no of no single case of any insured smoker receiving reimbursement for a smoking caused illness. i cant even find any money coming directly from the MSA going to any individual smoker for health related costs.
regards
mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
