The FDA and hardware (questions)

[DC2]

The biggest bang for everyone's buck is banning all electronic cigarettes except Big tobacco cigalikes.

People keep smoking that way.
The ANTZ keep their jobs that way.
The MSA money keeps rolling in that way.
Big tobacco keeps making money that way.
Big Pharma keeps making money that way.
The "non-profit" health organizations keep getting their donations that way.

It's a win-win for every player in the game.

The idea that taxes from vaping will ever make up for lost taxes in cigarettes is not logical to me.
But that's a story for another thread.

But even if it did, Big Government and Big Tobacco come out even.
And everyone else loses big time.

That's not how the game is played.

 

[Tommy-Chi]

50 years ago, half the adult population smoked and trying to ban tobacco would have been political suicide.

As for the rest, yeah, it would be far better for the goobermint's finances if more people died in their 60s rather than hanging around into their 70s or even longer. In another decade or two, they're going to have a huge problem because the promises they made in the form of Social Security and especially Medicare cannot be kept, in part because so many people already live longer than they were expected to when those promises were made, and if the remaining 20% who still smoke were to quit, it would only make the entire situation even more untenable for them.

What I cannot figure out is, nobody cares how we live when we live, if we live or die, or where, when, how we are buried, yet we have all these running around controlling our very destiny day-in day-out. Who put these simple minded fools in charge of every aspect of our lives?


OK, want to know how I want to out? I'll take a race built Mazda RX-7 GTO car that can hit 200 in to the wall at Laguna Seca, while vaping, playing Freebird at full blast, and I want to be 80 yrs old. I wonder if the fools can regulate that in to law for me? Better than gumming on a banana while sitting in my Depends.

 

[zoiDman]

I never said ban, I said disappear, likely regulated out of existence or to limited existence.

...

I just don't think that would be the Best thing to do at This Point.

What do we have right now? 1/4 ~ 1/3 of Smokers who have moved to e-Cigarettes. And Smokers make up what 12% of the Entire USA Population. What will these people do if e-Cigarettes are Regulated out of Existence?

Seems like All you do is Open the Door for a Humungous Black Market.

And once e-Liquids that contain Nicotine are deemed a "Tobacco Product", isn't there existing Case Law regarding an Individuals "Right" to the Recreational Use of Tobacco? So can the FDA or the Mythical ANTZ's make e-Cigarettes Disappear anyway?

I think they are just going to Dump the Market into BT's Lap and then just Tax the Snit out of it. Seems like Everyone Win's at that point?

Everyone but Existing and Future Vapers that is.

 

[zoiDman]

...

The idea that taxes from vaping will ever make up for lost taxes in cigarettes is not logical to me.
But that's a story for another thread.

...

You don't see Any way that the Feds could Eek Out $1.01 from a Vaper per Day?

Or that a State like California couldn't somehow Squeeze e-Cigarette Users for 87 Cents/day?

Hell, seems like that State of Illinois and the City of Chicago is going to go after 3 Times that amount in One Fell Swoop.

 

[AndriaD]

I never said ban, I said disappear, likely regulated out of existence or to limited existence.

BT benefits by having competition removed both for their cigarettes and for their inferior cigalikes. The government benefits because tax and MSA money is already in place for the cigarette market. Pharma companies would benefit by the continuance of "smoking related illnesses" and their accompanying treatments, grant monies, NRT, cessation medications, etc. Tobacco control groups benefit by their continued existence. Universities benefit by continued grant money.

Depending on how you see things, unrestricted growth of vapor products could realistically lead to the end of smoked tobacco in a generation or two, which would then lead to an end to the various industries that have developed to "combat" tobacco.

Yeah... "I think I'll go into Tobacco Control, to constantly badger and harass and shame smokers, because hey, it's fun to badger and harass and shame people, and of course it'll be useless, most of those I'm badgering, harassing, and shaming WON'T quit, so I'll be assured of a job for life. Yeah, THAT's the ticket!"

Andria

 

[DC2]

You don't see Any way that the Feds could Eek Out $1.01 from a Vaper per Day?

Or that a State like California couldn't somehow Squeeze e-Cigarette Users for 87 Cents/day?

I see ways they could do that, but every other player in the game would suffer.
And in order to do that, it seems to me they need to allow open systems and free-range nicotine liquids.

What scenario do you envision that makes this work?

And don't forget, the Black Market can work for your argument, but also against it.
At least if taxes get high enough.

 

[AndriaD]

Just imagine it for a minute... hordes of useless drones in the unemployment line... "what's your job experience?" "Umm... I'm good at harassing and shaming people." "Ok, you can work in a collections department. And you'll be calling all your fellow useless drones since none of them have jobs either, and thus can't pay their bills. But we have way too many of you useless drones to give all of you jobs, so 3/4 of you, we're gonna have to shoot. So, draw lots."



Andria

 

[zoiDman]

I see ways they could do that, but every other player in the game would suffer.
And in order to do that, it seems to me they need to allow open systems and free-range nicotine liquids.

I think it could be Very Easily done.

And remember Back-n-the-Day when people sold e-Liquid in Pre-Filled Carts, and they told you that a .8ml Cart was Equal to 1 Pack of Cigarettes, that is going to come back to Haunt Us.

 

[DC2]

And remember Back-n-the-Day when people sold e-Liquid in Pre-Filled Carts, and they told you that a .8ml Cart was Equal to 1 Pack of Cigarettes, that is going to come back to Haunt Us.

There's no sustainable future market for such a solution, other than a Black one.

Also, please note that I edited the post you replied to.
You may want to add more thoughts based on my edits, so I wanted to point it out.


EDIT: I'm off to dinner now.

 

[zoiDman]

There's no sustainable future market for such a solution, other than a Black one.

Also, please note that I edited the post you replied to.
You may want to add more thoughts based on my edits, so I wanted to point it out.

Per your Edits...

They just Tax e-Liquids on the Federal Level at Slightly Less that $1.01/per of Average Use. Same with the States, Cap the Tax at Slightly Less that the State per Day a 2009 Tax Basis.

If States (and County/Cites) go Ballistic, kinda like what we are seeing in Illinois/Chicago right now, Sure, a Black Market will Explode.

e-Cigarette Use can have a lower Cost of Use per day for a User in a Regulated Market than Smoking does. But much depends on the Tax Basis that e-Cigarette use is pegged to.

 

[Yiana]

I think it could be Very Easily done.

And remember Back-n-the-Day when people sold e-Liquid in Pre-Filled Carts, and they told you that a .8ml Cart was Equal to 1 Pack of Cigarettes, that is going to come back to Haunt Us.

Frightening. That's how I started vaping, and equal to a pack of cigs, yeah right. Great marketing ploy. I remember buying liquid and popping the tops off to refill them before I bought my first evod. I for one do not and will not return to that. I'm stocking nic, but even as important is the hardware which hopefully I can afford to stock up on soon. I just do not trust the government or the fda once it goes through to give a 2 year grace period. Sure, they say that now. But really once it goes through what's to stop them from moving that date to an earlier one?

 

[Yiana]

Oh, after the evod, I had a 20w istick which ended up stripped out, then 50w istick, and now subox.

 

[daviedog]

That's exactly my take -- I really think the main reason the FDA is dragging their feet so slowly is PRECISELY to make vapers sweat bullets... then, when the "deeming" regs seem to be not so awful, but taxes are ungodly, most vapers will breathe a sigh of relief: "at least they didn't ban it," instead of rising up to raze DC to the ground.

They want money, period. They don't give a ratsazz where it comes from, or who dies or gets sick, even though that is their ostensible raison d'etre -- it's all the same to them as long as they can continue extorting SOMEBODY for ungodly amounts of money.

Andria

I don't think it's about money Andria.
Hail, they can print money. All they want! It's about command & control. They are in our faces & not about to leave soon. Best to you and yours this New year..

 

[roxynoodle]

I don't think it's about money Andria.
Hail, they can print money. All they want! It's about command & control. They are in our faces & not about to leave soon. Best to you and yours this New year..

Its always about money. And whoever has the money has the power and control.

 

[Hans Wermhat]

I'm just not Hearing many who are calling for e-Cigarette to go away.

You'e right. You don't hear them. They don't stand in front of a podium with a microphone. They whisper quietly in darkened back offices when no one is watching. Announcing their intentions out loud would be horrible PR. They want you to think they care about you.

 

[skoony]

Their views will be consider Long After the Financial Benefits of Taxing it are considered.

This may be true for the short term but, it's not a sustainable proposition. When the taxes on e-cig.'s
reach parity to cigarettes the cost factor overall will make the product prohibitive for smokers
to make the switch. One tends to get comfortable in one lifestyle and the health
considerations are not enough as all the negative misinformation will still be out there.
In the post deeming world of highly taxed e-cig products imagine if pricing from Mainland
China resembled current B&M prices. B&M pricing would be proportionally higher. Online
pricing if allowed would be in between. This may be an over exaggeration but,you can
see what I am getting at. They want a revenue stream for sure. It must be a sustainable
revenue stream. Cigarettes are the way to go as they have a 30% dependency rate.
If allowed e-cigs would eventually overtake smoking. Somewhere between where we are at
now and a 50/50 split between vapers/smokers more life time non-tobacco users would
have to be taking up vaping as there will not be enough smokers to keep the party rolling.
The whole thing would eventually die on the vine. Lifetime non-tobacco users do not
develop a dependency to nicotine and as much would not have a hook to put up with
the high prices. The majority of life time non-tobacco users use zero nic anyway.

Regards
Mike

 

[Douggro]

It must be a sustainable
revenue stream. Cigarettes are the way to go as they have a 30% dependency rate.
If allowed e-cigs would eventually overtake smoking. Somewhere between where we are at
now and a 50/50 split between vapers/smokers more life time non-tobacco users would
have to be taking up vaping as there will not be enough smokers to keep the party rolling.
The whole thing would eventually die on the vine. Lifetime non-tobacco users do not
develop a dependency to nicotine and as much would not have a hook to put up with
the high prices. The majority of life time non-tobacco users use zero nic anyway.

Politicians (usually) don't think that long-term; their primary concern is usually the next election cycle. If we take the current crop of teen and young adult smokers, there's still 50+ years of continued revenue potential from tobacco/vape taxes. The cow is still there to be milked.

Smokers at the youngest end of the spectrum are less likely to convert to vaping; they are indestructible and wont for making poor risk-assesment judgments until their brains are fully developed in their mid-20s, by which time they are hooked on tobacco. Uptake of the youth market into vaping is going to be a lower percentage because of the initial cost differential and the relative ease of obtaining a pack of cigarettes. This will be greatly exacerbated if deeming kicks vaping back to the Dark Ages of BT-supplied cigalikes.

I'm still on my first cup of coffee so excuse if this is mildly rambling.

 

[AndriaD]

Its always about money. And whoever has the money has the power and control.

Exactly.

Andria

 

[skoony]

Politicians (usually) don't think that long-term; their primary concern is usually the next election cycle. If we take the current crop of teen and young adult smokers, there's still 50+ years of continued revenue potential from tobacco/vape taxes. The cow is still there to be milked.

Smokers at the youngest end of the spectrum are less likely to convert to vaping; they are indestructible and wont for making poor risk-assesment judgments until their brains are fully developed in their mid-20s, by which time they are hooked on tobacco. Uptake of the youth market into vaping is going to be a lower percentage because of the initial cost differential and the relative ease of obtaining a pack of cigarettes. This will be greatly exacerbated if deeming kicks vaping back to the Dark Ages of BT-supplied cigalikes.

I'm still on my first cup of coffee so excuse if this is mildly rambling.

You are assuming that current rates of new smokers will remain the same in a vaping/smoking
environment as it is now. Left without government entanglements vaping is predicted to
overtake smoking in the future. By that time the MSA money would have stopped because
the smoking rate would have dropped below the level requiring payments. Additionally
more new vapers if at all would more likely be lifetime non-tobacco users who can't
develop a dependency to nicotine because they have never smoked cigarettes.
Sooner or later you will have a market of vaping non-nicotine users without a dependency
to hook them into lifetime habit. They won't be shackled to a product which by then be
a waste of good money. We already know half of cigarette users quit by age forty. I believe
in a environment where there are more vapers than smokers this cessation rate could
be possibly higher even if its just from a money saving point of view. Gotta' send dem'
chillin' to college.

Regards
Mike

 

[Rossum]

One tends to get comfortable in one lifestyle and the health
considerations are not enough

Disagree. There are certainly smokers to whom the price advantage of vaping might indeed be a consideration in making the switch, but it doesn't seem to be that important, otherwise we'd have a heck of a lot more vapers doing DIY liquids rather that paying $15-20 for a bottle of juice. Also, if price was all that important to smokers, why do the overwhelming majority of them buy commercial, pre-packaged cigarettes (with most of those still being "premium" rather than "value" brands) rather than moving to RYO?

I believe that health consideration are and always will be the primary motivating factor in making the switch. The health benefits are plain to see in anyone who smoked for decades and then switched, and they are priceless.

Lifetime non-tobacco users do not develop a dependency to nicotine and as much would not have a hook to put up with the high prices.

I understand there's evidence that this is true under relatively short-term, controlled experiments. Whether it remains true after someone who's never used tobacco has been vaping nic for a decade or longer remains to be seen.

The majority of life time non-tobacco users use zero nic anyway.

I don't doubt that's what the majority of them CLAIM.