The Final Count Down -- Are You Ready?

Status
Not open for further replies.

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
I just bought some more flavors, for fun.

100 days. This is when most moms look down at their stomach and start to think, 'HOLY GOODNESS there is only ONE exit for that thing, and there is NO turning back NOW,.*CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED,."

Hopefully your stashes bring you the same feeling of inevitability,. LOL.

Anna

No one wants anything to die. However, if the pandemic is "real" (I am not too impressed so far) maybe everyone will be too busy trying not to die, dude. I mean, the FDA should be like, spending all it's time on a vACCINE.
Etc,
 

UncLeJunkLe

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 29, 2010
10,627
2
28,689
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What if the FDA was not in charge of all this :censored: ...

(never say never)

I just don't see it being any different because the goal is to control it and tax it.

States are already attacking vape harder than anyone at the federal level has with bans and heavy taxes. Which is why I believe even if the FDA and Federal govt said tomorrow, "screw it, let them vape", it wouldn't really change a thing for most USA vapers. We'd still be screwed unless we move to a state that remains vape-friendly, which might end up being 1 or 2 at best when it's all said and done, if we're lucky. Some states are ferocious with their taxes and controls/bans. And they just follow suit, one-by-one.
 
Last edited:

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
The advantage to another, or even "new" agency is they'd need time to set up. To figure out it is "vapor" coming out of the end of a vape not "smoke."

They'd need to figure out their angle of approach etc.

So like, I could see that as a mild advantage. Also, two heads of the agency would need to either retire or get fired by Trump and that also takes time.

I'm for it.

Anna
 

BigPappa

Ultra Member
Sep 21, 2019
2,052
10,558
Fort Myers, FL
i'd rather see a tax than a ban.
i've been expecting a sin tax forever.
as long as it's not more expensive than cigs
people will still have a chance to quit smoking.
From what I have read about the bills on the floor is that they tried to calculate things to make the vaping tax be approximately as much as smoking. This is to deter teens apparently, who cares if the 450,000 cigarette smoking related deaths per year continue?
 

LoveVanilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 23, 2013
1,926
3,736
Texas
Yep, but just so wrong... Indeed, government should be subsiding vaping to get people off of cigarettes for the dramatic improvement to public health and substantial reduction of healthcare costs. Unfortunately, with our profit-driven healthcare system, incentives run the other direction. When this nation finally gets healthcare for all, we will see a complete reversal in public policy on vaping, e.g. Britain.
 

Bronze

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 19, 2012
40,240
187,955
Yep, but just so wrong... Indeed, government should be subsiding vaping to get people off of cigarettes for the dramatic improvement to public health and substantial reduction of healthcare costs. Unfortunately, with our profit-driven healthcare system, incentives run the other direction. When this nation finally gets healthcare for all, we will see a complete reversal in public policy on vaping, e.g. Britain.
Well, I believe you're conflating separate issues. Gov't needs to stay out of vaping, healthcare, and a whole mess of other things they have no business in. I come from the belief that government screws up everything they touch.
 

englishmick

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 25, 2014
6,619
35,986
Naptown, Indiana
Well, I believe you're conflating separate issues. Gov't needs to stay out of vaping, healthcare, and a whole mess of other things they have no business in. I come from the belief that government screws up everything they touch.

Gov doesn't do everything well. Maybe nothing. But it could still be true that there are things the corporate sector do even worse. Having seen the alternatives, I give you,,,, private health insurance.

If your belief in Less Government comes from ideological principle then fine. But sometimes it's worth considering outcomes.
 

Bronze

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 19, 2012
40,240
187,955
Gov doesn't do everything well. Maybe nothing. But it could still be true that there are things the corporate sector do even worse. Having seen the alternatives, I give you,,,, private health insurance.

If your belief in Less Government comes from ideological principle then fine. But sometimes it's worth considering outcomes.
I never said government should be abolished. It has a role. But much of what they have their claws into is not only unnecessary, but downright destructive. As for private corporations we at least have the option to fire them so they disappear for bad business practices. We don't have the option to make gov't disappear. There is a level of gov't that is beneficial. We just aint at that level.

BTW, private health insurance sucks to be sure. You get no argument from me. But is bad as it is the gov't has, can, and will make it even worse. I give you 26 week wait times to get many common surgeries in most foreign universal healthcare systems.
 

Brewdawg1181

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Aug 30, 2017
3,910
14,716
Metro ATL
Gov doesn't do everything well. Maybe nothing. But it could still be true that there are things the corporate sector do even worse. Having seen the alternatives, I give you,,,, private health insurance.

If your belief in Less Government comes from ideological principle then fine. But sometimes it's worth considering outcomes.
But your statement implies that "private health insurance" became what it is free of government interference. Not only is that 100 percent untrue since Obamacare, but you can look to mostly forgotten government interference by Nixon in 1971 that really greased the slide. The "Shock" imposed wage freezes, ostensibly to control inflation. Companies that wanted to entice employees responded by offering health insurance at record rates. That never reversed, and somehow, incredibly, today everyone believes it's up to their employer to take care of their health. Why? No one even questions why anymore, even though it doesn't make sense.

edit: Oh, and since the government "helped" with Obamacare, and I don't qualify for subsidies, my annual healthcare cost (premiums+deductibles) have literally tripled since.
 

LoveVanilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 23, 2013
1,926
3,736
Texas
(looking over shoulder...) In most cases profit motives align really well with desired outcomes. However, in others the profit motive actually runs counter to desired outcomes. Prime examples include healthcare, prisons, and schools. And setting up largely unaccountable corporations to suck on the public teat is just not smart. (okay guys, running for cover now...)
 

UncLeJunkLe

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 29, 2010
10,627
2
28,689
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(looking over shoulder...) In most cases profit motives align really well with desired outcomes. However, in others the profit motive actually runs counter to desired outcomes. Prime examples include healthcare, prisons, and schools. And setting up largely unaccountable corporation to suck on the public teat is just not smart. (okay guys, running for cover now...)

No need to run for cover (not from me anyhow). Very well- and succinctly-said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread