"Smoker/Vaping Licence?"

[Katya]

How to tax both eliquid and hardware.

And cigarettes!

And have taxpayers subsidize these--for adults and children alike:

Nicorette Mist (Johnson&Johnson):

"Adults and Children over 12 years of age
Use 1 or 2 sprays when cigarettes normally would have been smoked or if cravings emerge. If after the first spray cravings are not controlled within a few minutes, a second spray should be used. If 2 sprays are required, future doses may be delivered as 2 consecutive sprays.
Most smokers will require 1-2 sprays every 30 minutes to 1 hour."

And the list of ingredients:

Propylene glycol
Anhydrous ethanol
Trometamol
Poloxamer 407
Glycerol--(that's glycerine, for those who don't know)
Sodium hydrogen carbonate
Levomenthol
Mint flavour
Cooling flavour
Sucralose
Acesulfame potassium
Hydrochloric acid--
Purified water[/QUOTE]

 

[rothenbj]

And cigarettes!

And have taxpayers subsidize these--for adults and children alike:

Nicorette Mist (Johnson&Johnson):

"Adults and Children over 12 years of age
Use 1 or 2 sprays when cigarettes normally would have been smoked or if cravings emerge. If after the first spray cravings are not controlled within a few minutes, a second spray should be used. If 2 sprays are required, future doses may be delivered as 2 consecutive sprays.
Most smokers will require 1-2 sprays every 30 minutes to 1 hour."

And the list of ingredients:

Propylene glycol
Anhydrous ethanol
Trometamol
Poloxamer 407
Glycerol--(that's glycerine, for those who don't know)
Sodium hydrogen carbonate
Levomenthol
Mint flavour
Cooling flavour
Sucralose
Acesulfame potassium
Hydrochloric acid--
Purified water

[/QUOTE]

Why, why, why, why, that sounds like you could pop the top off, heat a coil surrounded by cotton saturated by the contents and get a pretty good and expensive vape that is in a yummy child attracting flavor. Then again, it's really safe because they use that there Big Pharma improved pharmaceutical grade nicotine that's child safe. As the saying goes, "You get what you pay a lot to BP for."

 

[DrMA]

There is a well established and widely used system of making age-restricted purchases online or f2f for alcohol and it requires no stinkin license. I see no reason why such a license would be required for nicotine, other than to exert Orwellian control on the users.

 

[AgentAnia]

There is a well established and widely used system of making age-restricted purchases online or f2f for alcohol and it requires no stinkin license. I see no reason why such a license would be required for nicotine, other than to exert Orwellian control on the users.

nail -----> head

 

[AndriaD]

Where's the "Dislike" button when you need it?

So, let me get this straight, Jman. You're OK with the ANTZ putting your name in a national/international database for a nicotine license. And then you're fine with whatever nefarious purposes they might have for the data, such as using it to screen for employment, health insurance, life insurance, social benefits, taxes, your right to have kids, or to fly on an airplane? Perhaps they can use the chip on that license to track you, so they know exactly where to pick you up when the time comes for the roundup...

Quite apart from that, you would then be OK with them limiting the amount of nicotine you're supposed to get, and slowly turning off the spigot, when they deem you should be able to quit (or die, doesn't really matter to them now, does it?).

That is the biggest pile of steaming bull I've ever heard in my entire life! THERE ARE NO PROS to a a licensing scheme ONLY CONS! And everybody knows the ANTZ are the biggest cons out there, and if you agree with anything they propose you are a con too.

This post needs an EXTREME LIKE button.


Andria

 

[Jman8]

There is a well established and widely used system of making age-restricted purchases online or f2f for alcohol and it requires no stinkin license. I see no reason why such a license would be required for nicotine, other than to exert Orwellian control on the users.

Can you provide a link to this system? I'd like to see how foolproof it is, how it handles taxation and how it overcomes nefarious intentions.

What is used in F2F alcohol transactions if not a license?

 

[DrMA]

What is used in F2F alcohol transactions if not a license?

It's called "proof of age". You might use your driver's license per se, but it's not a license to purchase alcohol. I myself like to use my birth certificate to prove my age, and I know a few people who don't even have a drivers license and prove their identity and/or age with an ID card or passport. Nowhere have I ever heard of a license to purchase alcohol.

Here's the system for buying alcohol over the internet: UPS: Shipping Wine. I do it all the time when purchasing high-end wines from distant distributors.

 

[aikanae1]

Can you provide a link to this system? I'd like to see how foolproof it is, how it handles taxation and how it overcomes nefarious intentions.

What is used in F2F alcohol transactions if not a license?

Go to any RYO website and try to buy tobacco (General Tobacco is one). You have add your social security number and it's matched to a database. Your credit card needs to match too. This isn't going to stop a very clever 13 yr old, but signature and ID upon delivery does.

I'm not a merchant so I don't know the name of the software used, but shouldn't be hard to find out.

The fact that this exists, acceptable for other restricted purposes and yet the media and ANTZ appear completely in the dark about it (which they aren't) "should" be an example that they have another agenda. Kids are not the problem, neither is "renormalizing" smoking (just ban the cigalikes - he, he, watch BT react to that).

 

[Jman8]

There is a well established and widely used system of making age-restricted purchases online or f2f for alcohol and it requires no stinkin license. I see no reason why such a license would be required for nicotine, other than to exert Orwellian control on the users.

It's called "proof of age". You might use your driver's license per se, but it's not a license to purchase alcohol.

Surprisingly, that point was rather easy to establish. That a license is currently found somewhere in the process.

I myself like to use my birth certificate to prove my age, and I know a few people who don't even have a drivers license and prove their identity and/or age with an ID card or passport. Nowhere have I ever heard of a license to purchase alcohol.

Your license for proof of age works as a gateway to legally purchasing alcohol. Gotta bunch of history established on that one, and it wasn't always pretty. Tobacco is in whole other category and deserves a license that is unique.

That such a license would be automatically run by ANTZ is, dare I say, preposterous.

Here's the system for buying alcohol over the internet: UPS: Shipping Wine. I do it all the time when purchasing high-end wines from distant distributors.

Again, alcohol not quite being in same category, the point is ultimately about how the license would work. You appear to be spinning on nefarious intentions, when I'll contend that is plausibly already going on. If you are using a license, proof of age, to purchase alcohol (anywhere), there is very good chance you are entered into a database. Or that you already came from a database and are now just in well known subset.

At end of your UPS link, I find this note in all caps and bold:

Note: STATE LAWS OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STATES MAY ALSO IMPOSE QUANTITY LIMITS, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, LICENSING OBLIGATIONS, LIMITS ON FREQUENCY OF SHIPMENTS, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS AND MAY PROHIBIT SHIPMENTS TO CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN A STATE (SUCH AS DRY OR DAMP JURISDICTIONS).

Underlined emphasis mine.

While I do have emphasis on licensing, I'd also just note that this all caps part makes it appear like it could be a big old hassle. And yet it works.

I think vaping one would work BETTER. And if somehow vendors/manufacturers were kept out of majority control of 'licensing obligations,' then no, I wouldn't want that system. The one where government will obviously have input, but cannot ban legal use, nor restrict say flavors, nor constantly threaten due to inadequate taxation collection, is the one that I think vaping community can establish as reasonable measure going forward.

Plus address all their piddily concerns about regulation. If the choice is between what current politics/legislation is now showing us, coupled with whatever that looks like post FDA huge announcement (equals plausible end to vaping as we know it) and getting a license that could literally overcome all their stated problems, then why not that?

If there is another solution in the works that we all agree on, I'm really up for hearing that. I don't think the license thing will ever be all agreed upon given part of what your saying plus however militant ANTZ may respond to anything not being as absolutely harsh as it can be. But somewhere in the happy middle, where Big Brother continues to be wonderful myth, I think the license option is our best bet. I think the database thing has been foregone conclusion since 1940 something. And well, we are talking about a licensing situation that could, very easily go the other way. Thus far science, overwhelming anecdotal evidence, and momentum is on our side.

They are yet to deliver their perceived knock out punch, and IMO a licensing paradigm if adopted right now (by us, from us) would tip the scales enormously. If done sometime post FDA message, it could still work, but it'd be filtered through "FDA is out to get us man."

Is licensing a perfect paradigm? Heck no, I like what we currently have. More of that please. I'm okay with indefinitely.

But post FDA, and I think licensing is plausibly best solution to what will likely constantly ail us. Though I'm also thinking we won't even go in this direction. Because, if either side wanted licensing to happen, the other (militant) side would be like, 'heck no. Not unless we get to call the shots, or at least a majority of them."

 

[DrMA]

Jman, you're getting confused in the terminology here. For alcohol and tobacco "licensing" applies to the seller/distributor, not to the buyer. THERE IS NO LICENSE required for purchasing either. In fact, there are very few products out there that require an explicit license for purchasing, and these are at the extreme end of the spectrum of danger, such as high explosives or cultures of dangerous biological agents.

However, in the US, one would not need any license to buy a jet airplane or even a tank. It is true that the authorities would keep track of those purchases, but it's a far cry from requiring pre-registration and licensing to purchase something as innocuous as ecigs.

I stand by my original opinion that vapers would have NOTHING to gain and everything to lose if a license were required to purchase equipment and/or juice.

The "license to purchase" proposition is tantamount to relinquishing your fundamental and inalienable rights to freedom and privacy justified by buying into the "protect the children" meme. No, thank you: "they" may not track, regulate, or dictate my nicotine consumption. In fact, I'd rather "they" but out completely and not know at all whether I engage in any legal activity that may or may not involve nicotine, electronic devices, rubber duckies or anything else for that matter. It is my RIGHT!

 

[AndriaD]

Actually I think I'm somewhere in the middle of this argument.

Agreed, it would be much better if Big Brother would go diddle himself, and leave us alone; we're not hurting ourselves or anyone else. But that's a pipe dream, as anyone who's lived in this country for more than 15 minutes ought to realize.

The fact stands that we ARE hurting gov't taxation of tobacco products, BP's bottom line with their extremely ineffectual and often extremely dangerous (chantix) cessation drugs, and even, to some extent, BT's bottom line, though I stand by what I said a few weeks ago, that BT doesn't necessarily get hurt by e-cigs if they are not classified as tobacco products; if they're not tobacco products, then BT won't have to fork over as much Settlement money.

And knowing this country and how it loves to tax and regulate *everything*, I have to acknowledge that at some point, there are bound to be laws and regulations and taxes, and it seems perfectly logical to me that if the vaping community wants to escape the worst-case scenario (bans, taxes equivalent to tobacco taxes, or worse), we really do need to get in front of this. So, in that context, a "license to vape" doesn't strike me as the WORST idea I ever heard.

However, it does strike me as a potentially fascist control lever -- if they know who we are, to a "man" (person!), they can use that info in very oppressive ways, and knowing how control freaks (fascists) operate, can it really be imagined that that WON'T happen? I don't think so.

So, what about licensing of those who sell the stuff? There could be some potential for abuse there, but perhaps not as much as if they knew the name of every person who vapes or has ever vaped. They license those who sell tobacco, alcohol, and firearms; why not e-cigs and e-juice, too? This also satisfies something brought up in another thread, the safety of this product we're inhaling -- sure it's supposed to be nicotine, PG/VG, and flavorings, but who really knows for sure who hasn't stood and actually watched the mixer mix up that particular bottle of e-juice? And what exactly is in those flavoring? And even if it's safe to eat, is it really safe to inhale? Diacetyl may not be the only "bad thing" that's perfectly safe to eat, but woe if you inhale it.

I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate; I really prefer the "no regulations" status we currently enjoy and I wish it could go on like this forever, but I'm a realist, if not a cynic, and I know that it won't go on unregulated for much longer. So, we, those who actually benefit from vaping, owe it to ourselves to try and figure out HOW this could be SANELY regulated, without it turning into Control Freak Circus. I don't want to be controlled, but it might be nice if everything was all spelled out, about what "They" could control, and what "They" could not.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Jman, you're getting confused in the terminology here.

I'm not confused on terminology. I'm saying licensing is necessary for consumers to make certain purchases.

For alcohol and tobacco "licensing" applies to the seller/distributor, not to the buyer. THERE IS NO LICENSE required for purchasing either.

Correct, currently for tobacco, there is no specific license. I'm saying by having one established, it would overcome problems/restrictions.

I stand by my original opinion that vapers would have NOTHING to gain and everything to lose if a license were required to purchase equipment and/or juice.

The "license to purchase" proposition is tantamount to relinquishing your fundamental and inalienable rights to freedom and privacy justified by buying into the "protect the children" meme. No, thank you: "they" may not track, regulate, or dictate my nicotine consumption. In fact, I'd rather "they" but out completely and not know at all whether I engage in any legal activity that may or may not involve nicotine, electronic devices, rubber duckies or anything else for that matter. It is my RIGHT!

The underlined portion is highly relevant. For they are already regulating and dictating nicotine consumption. That ship has sailed and is only gaining steam. I'm with you on the RIGHT thing, yet unless FDA goes in surprising direction that no vaper is anticipating, I think it is safe to say your / my rights are about to get healthy does of Big Brother trampling. Regulation is all but foregone conclusion. The kind that could decimate the industry (worst case scenario) or whittle away at it, which is currently going on.

In that vein, I see licensing legitimatizing it all to some degree, and keeping to spirit of FSCPTA in not reaching for outright ban. Without the licensing option we already see states try this regulation. What, that one isn't quite up to snuff? How about 15 more just like it, but worded differently? All of this occurring pre FDA deeming which seeks to delegitimatize sales / marketing of tobacco products.

In current paradigm, licensing strikes me as half necessary. The proactive side of me would like to see it happen, to tip the scales. The reactive side will likely advocate for waiting a few more weeks and guess how bad FDA is going to come down on eCigs? And then pretend that we'll find some way to make it work, which may or may not include black market economics and/or lots and lots of DIY strategies in place.

 

[Little White Cloud]

Wow. The right to have a license to sit down and smoke a pipe! My Grandad and our Forefathers would have a rifle up the nose of these idiots. We are truly lost if we let this happen.

 

[AndriaD]

Wow. The right to have a license to sit down and smoke a pipe! My Grandad and our Forefathers would have a rifle up the nose of these idiots. We are truly lost if we let this happen.

I don't disagree with you; however, how exactly do we stop all these big-money interests who have so much at stake? One of those interests is the government, for heaven's sake! I've always heard, you can't fight City Hall, and I know for a fact that it's like wrestling smoke. The only possible way that vapers can keep autonomy over this activity we enjoy is if we self-regulate. Otherwise I'm pretty durn certain it's going to be done FOR us, TO us, whether we like it or not. The best we can hope for is to set our own policies, our own guidelines, our own *controls.*

Andria

 

[Little White Cloud]

I don't disagree with you; however, how exactly do we stop all these big-money interests who have so much at stake? One of those interests is the government, for heaven's sake! I've always heard, you can't fight City Hall, and I know for a fact that it's like wrestling smoke. The only possible way that vapers can keep autonomy over this activity we enjoy is if we self-regulate. Otherwise I'm pretty durn certain it's going to be done FOR us, TO us, whether we like it or not. The best we can hope for is to set our own policies, our own guidelines, our own *controls.*

Andria

One way to look at it is how can they stop us. The components of e juice are hard to control except for the nic. Hmm... Vaporizers are basically just flashlights fitted with a 5-10. And what are they going to do, lock us all up for making little smoke clouds? If it comes to that it will look pretty ridiculous imo.

 

[Jman8]

One way to look at it is how can they stop us. The components of e juice are hard to control except for the nic. Hmm... Vaporizers are basically just flashlights fitted with a 5-10.

My Grandad and our Forefathers would have a rifle up the nose of these idiots. We are truly lost if we let this happen.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[AndriaD]

One way to look at it is how can they stop us. The components of e juice are hard to control except for the nic. Hmm... Vaporizers are basically just flashlights fitted with a 5-10. And what are they going to do, lock us all up for making little smoke clouds? If it comes to that it will look pretty ridiculous imo.

Hmm.. well I seem to be rather dependent on about 8mg nicotine every hour or two, and I'm pretty partial to mods that can set the proper voltage depending on what I set as my preferred wattage.

Honestly, I don't think they'll try to ban any of this, there's way too much money to be made; and that's where I think they'll get us, by taxing it as they tax cigarettes (and alcohol, for those who care about that). Even if they never classify it as a "tobacco product", they'll just think up some new kind of "vice tax" and apply that.

I don't trust anyone in Washington DC half as far as I can throw 'em; they're all crooks, every last one, looking out for their own bottom line and to hell with the country and everybody in it -- except the big money corporations, they care about THOSE. Any little bit of revenue they can generate, in any conceivable way, ethical/moral or not, they'll do it; I think we can all count on that.

Andria