The Elephant in the Room

[Plastic Shaman]

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!

I love that! It totally makes sense.

But wow, that's a cynical way of thinking. Amazing.

 

[jbnuke]

Thread hijack ... lol

 

[Plastic Shaman]

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)

I'm not going to deny the second part of your post, as I tend to agree that harm reduction is more effective. However, I find your criticism of my explanation of the policy reasons that Congress authorized this type of regulations lacking. Consider the findings in PL 123 STAT 1775:

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation's children is
a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in
new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.
(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical
communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and
cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health
effects.
(3) Nicotine is an addictive drug.
(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under
the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

There's one thing to consider about what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say that any of this regulation or these inferences are correct. I'm trying to say that an increase in users speaks to what the concerns of Congress were in passing these laws and the way the FDA will react. I have a lot of conflicting opinions on what should actually be done, although I'm concerned about a lot of people picking up e-cigs. We have yet to see the numbers. Only time will tell, but I maintain that the policy reasons for tobacco control were the same as I've stated, regardless if you agree with their legitimacy.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

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.

Don't puke!

I think your comment about the flavored cigarette ban proves my point. If they were such a small part of the market, why would Congress bother passing a law explicitly banning them? I have not researched the legislative history, but I'm pretty sure the concern was that children would be more inclined to want to smoke them. As for menthol, I can't answer that other than to say that a lot of people don't associate menthol with something that children like.

 

[dhood]

I'm not going to deny the second part of your post, as I tend to agree that harm reduction is more effective. However, I find your criticism of my explanation of the policy reasons that Congress authorized this type of regulations lacking. Consider the findings in PL 123 STAT 1775:

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation's children is
a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in
new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.
(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical
communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and
cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health
effects.
(3) Nicotine is an addictive drug.
(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under
the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

There's one thing to consider about what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say that any of this regulation or these inferences are correct. I'm trying to say that an increase in users speaks to what the concerns of Congress were in passing these laws and the way the FDA will react. I have a lot of conflicting opinions on what should actually be done, although I'm concerned about a lot of people picking up e-cigs. We have yet to see the numbers. Only time will tell, but I maintain that the policy reasons for tobacco control were the same as I've stated, regardless if you agree with their legitimacy.

in regards to your 4 points:
1) I'm not exactly sure that underage tobacco use qualifies as a "disease". It is not a good thing, but teens will try smoking. the only way to stop it would be to completely and utterly ban all tobacco products.
2) I believe that most tobacco products are inherently dangerous. I'm not sure if nicotine in and of itself is entirely dangerous
3) Sure, that's why I'm tapering off slowly
4) Interesting. But don't we already have laws that prohibit underage users from purchasing tobacco products? If they don't work now, what makes you think adding new ones will work?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

in regards to your 4 points:
1) I'm not exactly sure that underage tobacco use qualifies as a "disease". It is not a good thing, but teens will try smoking. the only way to stop it would be to completely and utterly ban all tobacco products.
2) I believe that most tobacco products are inherently dangerous. I'm not sure if nicotine in and of itself is entirely dangerous
3) Sure, that's why I'm tapering off slowly
4) Interesting. But don't we already have laws that prohibit underage users from purchasing tobacco products? If they don't work now, what makes you think adding new ones will work?

Those aren't my points. Those are Congress's findings of fact in the Tobacco Control Act. Those are only the first four, but there a number more. I'm just trying to demonstrate what Congress's logic is on the topic.

 

[ScottP]

I'm not going to deny the second part of your post, as I tend to agree that harm reduction is more effective. However, I find your criticism of my explanation of the policy reasons that Congress authorized this type of regulations lacking. Consider the findings in PL 123 STAT 1775:

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation's children is
a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in
new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.
(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical
communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and
cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health
effects.
(3) Nicotine is an addictive drug.
(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under
the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

There's one thing to consider about what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say that any of this regulation or these inferences are correct. I'm trying to say that an increase in users speaks to what the concerns of Congress were in passing these laws and the way the FDA will react. I have a lot of conflicting opinions on what should actually be done, although I'm concerned about a lot of people picking up e-cigs. We have yet to see the numbers. Only time will tell, but I maintain that the policy reasons for tobacco control were the same as I've stated, regardless if you agree with their legitimacy.

First, what is "PL 123 STAT 1775"? I have never heard of it and you did not provide a link so it's hard for me to consider the findings.

Second, WHY should Congress (or you) be concerned about people picking up eCigs...ITS NOT THEIR BLOODY CHOICE and it's NOT yours either!!! I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind about what is and is not an acceptable risk. If you don't want to use ecigs, fine don't, but don't try to pass laws that say I can't either.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

That's the public law that was codified as the family prevention and tobacco control act. It's the law that gives the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco.

I think your question about who I am or who the government is to dictate things is a separate argument. The fact is that we have these laws.

 

[Wow1420]

E-cigs are not included in the definition of tobacco products under the tobacco control act. They were barely known in the US at that time. The FDA is trying to get them included under the deeming regulations they have proposed, but that deeming hasn't happened yet. You dismissed the difference between nicotine e-liquid and tobacco product as just semantics earlier, but the difference is very much key to this discussion.

 

[ScottP]

Those aren't my points. Those are Congress's findings of fact in the Tobacco Control Act. Those are only the first four, but there a number more. I'm just trying to demonstrate what Congress's logic is on the topic.

There is almost always a difference between what congress claims are it's motives and what it's motives actually are. For instance nearly every congressional member that supported the various "green energy" bills of the last 6 years ALL OWNED STOCK in the companies that either benefited or would have benefited from those bills. ALL of the supporters of the failed "Cap and Trade" bill were heavily invested in the company that would run the exchange as well as the companies that made the hardware and software to run it on. What I am saying is that citing a public statement of the reason why congress claimed to pass a law has ZERO credibility to me. You have to follow the money to see what the real motives were.

 

[ScottP]

I think your question about who I am or who the government is to dictate things is a separate argument. The fact is that we have these laws.

That does not mean that we need more.

 

[rbrylawski]

First, what is "PL 123 STAT 1775"? I have never heard of it and you did not provide a link so it's hard for me to consider the findings.

Second, WHY should Congress (or you) be concerned about people picking up eCigs...ITS NOT THEIR BLOODY CHOICE and it's NOT yours either!!! I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind about what is and is not an acceptable risk. If you don't want to use ecigs, fine don't, but don't try to pass laws that say I can't either.

Of course, but if you don't think Big Tobacco wants to squash the e-cigarette industry and has Congress on their side, who benefits greatly from the mega zillions of $$ Big Tobacco gives government, then sadly, you've been living under a rock. No offense.

 

[ScottP]

Of course, but if you don't think Big Tobacco wants to squash the e-cigarette industry and has Congress on their side, who benefits greatly from the mega zillions of $$ Big Tobacco gives government, then sadly, you've been living under a rock. No offense.

Yes I understand that the eCig industry is facing a combined effort from the three biggest entities in the country (Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and Big Government). That doesn't mean we go down without a fight. My point was not that Congress doesn't want to pass these laws, it was that they do not want to based on concern for the people. They shouldn't care what we do, and they don't, they care about the money and only the money.

 

[zapped]

Whew I thought for a minute Chris Christie was here based on the title.

 

[Ryedan]

But wow, that's a cynical way of thinking. Amazing.

If you're referring to "What a disaster!", well, I had a sick smirk on my face when I typed that, but I didn't think a smiley was appropriate or would help

If you're referring to the cost analysis, well if it's accurate a lot of people don't understand the reality and get sucked into the BS about how smoking costs the government so much money. There's really no other way to say it but to say it.

 

[rbrylawski]

Yes I understand that the eCig industry is facing a combined effort from the three biggest entities in the country (Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and Big Government). That doesn't mean we go down without a fight. My point was not that Congress doesn't want to pass these laws, it was that they do not want to based on concern for the people. They shouldn't care what we do, and they don't, they care about the money and only the money.

Exactly. And as result, we the poor customer, who wants to live a tobacco free life is going to have some major trouble doing so if the Big Trio gets what it wants.

 

[Ryedan]

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation's children is
a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in
new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.
(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical
communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and
cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health
effects.
(3) Nicotine is an addictive drug.
(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under
the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

Those aren't my points. Those are Congress's findings of fact in the Tobacco Control Act. Those are only the first four, but there a number more. I'm just trying to demonstrate what Congress's logic is on the topic.

These are valid points for cigarettes, but none of them apply to vaping. Vaping gets associated with tobacco through nicotine and the fact that vapor looks like smoke. Legislators that use the above four points are either ignorant or just plain stupid, or understand vaping but have political or financial (hard to separate these two) reasons to ignore the known science and take the convenient way out. Luckily for vaping, not all of them are in these two camps

 

[stevegmu]

If BigBadGovernment really wanted to increase revenue via tobacco taxes and to keep people smoking, they would simply lower the tobacco tax. It is well known lower tax rates actually increase tax revenue. In conjunction, Big Tobacco could slash their prices in half. My guess is a lot of people who vape to save money would consider going back to cigarettes for $1.75/pack cigarettes. Oh, governments would also lift smoking bans and restrictions, rather than propose and enact more every year...

 

[Rossum]

the eCig industry is facing a combined effort from the three biggest entities in the country (Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and Big Government).

There's no question that BT and BP would like to kill off the "wild west" (freedom!) we have in vaping right now, and will use whatever influence they can to get Big Government to do their bidding. But you're wrong that BT and BP are the biggest or most influential entities around. The Big Banks (the ones that are Too Big To Fail) have far more pull. Thankfully, they seem to be rather neutral on the question of vaping.

I'll stop there 'cause I don't want to jack this thread too far.

 

[thewomenfolk]

Well, I would assume that a minor, in this sense, is someone under 18. As with most ages, such as the age to join the military, age of consent, age to drive/drink/run for president, the number is largely arbitrary. I don't think that the concern is that young people are doing it because they are young. I think that the concern is that it's an addictive habit that people struggle with throughout their life and people don't want to see the number growing, especially in the younger generation. Since most people start smoking when they are young, I believe people focus on the age. The real issue, imo, is that people don't want to see the population of tobacco users growing.

I don't think you need to worry about vaping causing children to smoke. They, like us, know the difference between what smells good and what stinks.

Edit: Forgot to add. Those who think vaping is a bad influence on children should already be working daily to get rid of alcohol instead. It kills many more people, and in many different ways. Ever hear of anyone wanting to get rid of the booze? Naw...it's always the exception.