I might be tempted to agree if I didn't think the part I bolded was so very, very wrong.
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I was just about to post about how nicotine is starting to be looked at as a cure/treatment for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. All good info.
Looking at the list of people who "liked" this post has enabled me to determine who has read this thread and has a basic clue.
All that has been posted in the post quoted is pretty much indisputable from where I sit.
It's also possible that a giant meteor will crash into Earth in the next 10 minutes killing everyone but I am not going to live in fear of that happening. More and more it seems like you are living in a shady grey realm of "what ifs" and "possibilities". I will never agree to any law based on "what ifs" or "its possible in the distant future". That is how freedoms are usurped and more control of our lives is handed over to the government. People need self control, not government control.
ANYONE that started smoking after 1966 (The year the Surgeon General warnings appeared on the packages) did so KNOWING that they were harmful. Who are we to tell people they cannot make that decision for themselves? Why should the government be able to control what we drink (ban on large sodas in New York), tell us what to eat (laws in Cali trying to hurt Happy Meal sales), etc.? A teen behind the wheel of a car is exponentially more dangerous that a teen with an ecig but we let them make the decision to drive. The fundamental truth is the government has no business trying to control menial day to day decisions. I have made sure my kid understands that decisions have consequences and that the results of her actions/choices are no one else's fault but her own. Too many people today want to point and blame everyone BUT themselves for their bad decisions and think the government should protect people from themselves. That is NOT the job of the government.
Last edited:
It all depends on the laws that do get passed, some/most of which are ill-considered knee-jerk reactions by politicians trying to stay on the gravy train, with little regard to facts or science.
What do you consider vaping to be?
Tobacco product, but not necessarily so unless you use nic liquid - in which case it falls under that set of rules.
Medicine, although vaping is not known to cure anything.
Consumer product, so anyone with the cash to buy it can get it?
I always try to judge these things on the harm that they cause. So consider this:
"For every child who goes from cigarettes to electronic cigarettes, there would there have to be 1,000 going the other way, from e-cigarettes to cigarettes, for this to do any net harm."
This is the full text Transcript of Viscount Ridley’s debate on e cigs in the House of Lords – how it should be done! | Save e-cigs
T
What do you consider vaping to be?
Tobacco product, but not necessarily so unless you use nic liquid - in which case it falls under that set of rules.
Medicine, although vaping is not known to cure anything.
Consumer product, so anyone with the cash to buy it can get it?
I always try to judge these things on the harm that they cause. So consider this:
"For every child who goes from cigarettes to electronic cigarettes, there would there have to be 1,000 going the other way, from e-cigarettes to cigarettes, for this to do any net harm."
This is the full text Transcript of Viscount Ridley’s debate on e cigs in the House of Lords – how it should be done! | Save e-cigs
T
Last edited:
I'll comment on more later, but towlie, read the Supreme Court decision on the ACA. The parts that were upheld were done so under the tax and spend clause. This, and interstate commerce is the authority under which most legislation is passed.
There are so many misconceptions in the above paragraphs its hard to know where to begin.
False. Your are living in the past. This statement hasn't been true for some time. Most people who start smoking today do so at legal age. I know we have been lead to believe that nearly everyone starts smoking under age (18) but more recent surveys are showing the demographics are changing. Tobacco control still clings to the concept that most smokers start under age because it suits their agenda, but the reality is something else. Smoking rates have stayed fairly constant since 2000 yet youth smoking is at an all time low.
part of the policy reasoning and goals of tobacco control was to reduce tobacco use in society This appears to be at the core of your argument but is very tortured logic. First off you are confusing TC (tobacco control) with the FDA and interchanging them. They are related but not at all the same. It creates a good deal of confusion as to who is who and what you are actually trying to say.
The point you are missing, and your more tortured logic about the possible dangers of vaping (even though so far there are no real long term risk we can point to, and certainly no known short term risk, so any real risk is skating on thin ice) is THR. In order to understand a very likely future, assuming no outragous restrictions from the government, we have to look to Sweden. Sweden is the place where THR has largely become public policy. Sweden has the lowest smoking rate in the EU by a long shot, and the lowest of any developed country in the world, but has about the same amount to tobacco use as the rest of the EU. People have not quit using tobacco, they simply switched to low risk snus.
We can expect the same in the US. As people become conscious that there are ways of using tobacco and nicotine that are vastly less harmful then smoking the over all use of nicotine may actually increase in the US because of the artificially induced abstinence now taking place. Of course as people switch (and new users forgo high risk smoking and begin and stay with alternatives) smoking rates fall, just is it has done in Sweden, but overall public health increases as the risk of the alternatives is so low compared to smoking. You are under the idea that increased nicotine and tobacco use is a negative but that is simply false. As far as public health goes the only thing that matters is how many people are smoking cigarettes. If smoking continues to fall its all good (with the exception of the Puritans who will never be content until we are all living lives of purity and goodness.... at least their version of goodness)
Last edited:
PS. your arguments are a LOT of "if" and "might" and "could be". you are also equating nicotine in e-liquids as being equivalent to smoking. I'm sorry but I still don't agree there. And although you don't specifically state that vaping will be a gateway to smoking analogs, you sure do imply it (or maybe I'm just inferring that).
You seem concerned that e-liquids (and other of our primary products) are being marketed with "fun" sounding names that kids would love to try. Sorry, missing that point too. I don't see a lot of marketing that is directly aimed at those under 18. Hell, I don't see that much marketing aimed at adults, period. Well, there is that new NJOY video for the "Artist Collection" - geez, start off saying vaping is "an all-encompassing sensual experience"???? really???? I mean, how many commercials do you see on TV/cable for Kangertech/Aspire/innoken. You don't. Where is this mysterious marketing?
I'd still like to see some real evidence that shows that teens start vaping, then start/increase nicotine dosages and graduate to analogs. Government agency reports that don't differentiate between vaping and vaping with nicotine are meaningless to me.
You seem concerned that e-liquids (and other of our primary products) are being marketed with "fun" sounding names that kids would love to try. Sorry, missing that point too. I don't see a lot of marketing that is directly aimed at those under 18. Hell, I don't see that much marketing aimed at adults, period. Well, there is that new NJOY video for the "Artist Collection" - geez, start off saying vaping is "an all-encompassing sensual experience"???? really???? I mean, how many commercials do you see on TV/cable for Kangertech/Aspire/innoken. You don't. Where is this mysterious marketing?
I'd still like to see some real evidence that shows that teens start vaping, then start/increase nicotine dosages and graduate to analogs. Government agency reports that don't differentiate between vaping and vaping with nicotine are meaningless to me.
They were possibly responsible for declining smoking rates, or maybe it was just people learning about the dangers of smoking.
Regardless, the smoking rate decline was stagnating until electronic cigarettes came on the scene.
Now the smoking rate is declining much more rapidly, and those ANTZ keep trying to take credit for it.
But they are so full of crap that it boggles the mind.
Yikes.
You're darn right people will disagree with you, and if nobody has yet, then let me start...
Flavored cigarette bans? Really? Flavored cigarettes made up such a small percentage of the market that it was nearly meaningless.
But menthol flavor? Yeah. That made up a very large percentage of the market, but was not banned.
As for the whole "making up for healthcare costs" thing goes, no way.
They make so much more money in smoking taxes then they have ever needed to treat smoking related diseases.
That is why they use those funds for just about anything and everything EXCEPT for treating smoking related diseases.
I think I'm about to puke.
Since Wickard v Filburn the federal government basically holds the stance of rep Yarmuth I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldnt do,
I am aware that loose interpretation of a clause currently supposedly grants unlimited government beyond the scope of a framework solely drafted to limit government. Question is how is this possible without a binding contract outside this scope? The contract is there and society must find it to unravel this mess. A bank note is a contract.
If I decided the only thing that pays my taxes levied on my subjects is that which I print on my press I might be inclined to such interpretations of something created to limit me as well, it's only natural to want to be unlimited.
Last edited:
actually, some e-liquid is a tobacco product. liquids with WTA's are, and the one im vaping right now although does not have WTA's is made from real tobacco.
Some of the discussion in this thread has made me curious about smoking statistics over time in Canada and the US. Smoking numbers seem to be fairly well documented and there really isn't much difference in the charts I found. Here is Canadian usage since 1965. The surgeon general's report on smoking was released in 1964. Smoking decline has been pretty steady through this whole timeline.
The next chart is very interesting. US cigarette consumption seems to be very similar to ours since 1980 and taxes charged on cigarettes seems to have minimal effect on how much people smoke.
Our cigarette taxes in Canada are quite high these days. There's an add campaign on TV about the prevalence of illegal smokes on the market claiming an estimated 1/3 of them are not taxed. It would surprise me if the number was that high, but they are pretty easy to get so it could be true.
The next chart is very interesting. US cigarette consumption seems to be very similar to ours since 1980 and taxes charged on cigarettes seems to have minimal effect on how much people smoke.
Our cigarette taxes in Canada are quite high these days. There's an add campaign on TV about the prevalence of illegal smokes on the market claiming an estimated 1/3 of them are not taxed. It would surprise me if the number was that high, but they are pretty easy to get so it could be true.
Last edited:
On; the healthcare costs of smoking from the New England Journal of Medicine. From the article:
"Conclusions
If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."
Thought health care costs for smokers are higher than for nonsmokers, smokers live shorter lives so there is money saved there. In the end if all smokers quit, the article claims about a net 5% health care cost increase and of course all tax money from smoking would be gone.
What a disaster!
Last edited:
So by us saving money and living longer lives we are costing more money.... hmmmm wonder why the guvmint would be against a highly effective cessation device.... oops its not a cessation device... it just happens to be that ive tried everything else and this is the only thing that worked. Aaah the great debate lol.
On another note I decided since I was spending about 70 a week less due to not buying cigarettes I would put that into my 401k..... and my quitting will add.... wait for it.... 1.1 million dollars to my retirement by the time I hit 65... think about that for a minute... expecially you younger folks like me.
On another note I decided since I was spending about 70 a week less due to not buying cigarettes I would put that into my 401k..... and my quitting will add.... wait for it.... 1.1 million dollars to my retirement by the time I hit 65... think about that for a minute... expecially you younger folks like me.
I was at Starbucks this afternoon. It was a pretty afternoon, so we sat outside. There were 3 teenagers at the table next to us. Two of them lit up cigarettes and you could tell they were pretty new to smoking (I'm pretty sure they weren't of legal age to smoke yet). One of them was a young lady using an unregulated mod and a dripper (boy could she ever blow clouds!). The two who were smoking tried very hard to get the 3rd to smoke a cigarette and I overheard them arguing with her that e-cigs are more dangerous than cigarettes. I was happy to hear the young lady tell them to mind their own business and she encouraged them to do some research and even said her parents supported her vaping as opposed to smoking. I wanted to .... in, but I chose not to as I'm older and felt it would have been unwelcome, but man oh man did I ever want to say something.........
Well, that's why Wickard, and the subsequent cases, played such a big role in the child labor cases. The Court did not like the idea of unlimited power and thus struck down a lot of stuff in the new deal until the Court was packed. Thus, these clauses, mostly interstate commerce, became the standard throughout history up until Garcia v. Sam Antonio Metro. Now, the ACA case suggest even more limits on interstate commerce, even though they justified the statute through tax and spend.
Anyways, I see what you're saying. But, I would posit that the government does have an undefined power under the unenumerated powers. The only limitation, from this point of view, is the Constitution. In other words, the government can do it unless it violates one of the amendments or it interferes with another branch's powers.
S&P 500 has appreciated at 10.4% annually for the past 100 years. Do the math on that.
- Status
Similar threads
