The new U.S. ANTZ messaging offensive - is it working? (As never before, it seems.)

[Roger_Lafayette]

BT has been marketing e-cigarettes to kids, in order to create the next generation of (regular) cigarette smokers. This strategy is working very well, as more and more children take up e-cigarettes, and "graduate" to becoming cigarette smokers."

That's the message. Is iit working?

By that I mean, has it become one of those factoids that "everyone knows" - especially members of the press, opinion leaders in general, and policy makers in particular?

I'm beginning to think that the answer is "yes" ... the consensus is hardening rapidly as we speak.

***

Item: Since the introduction of the Protecting Children From Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act of 2014 - about two weeks ago - virtually all stories that I read, and the vast majority of politicians who speak on the subject are taking it for granted that "BT is marketing e-cigarettes to children." The ANTZ have been saying this for a long time now, but it seems to be getting through, loud and clear. It's become one of those "Everybody knows that ..." factoids.

Item: Last week's NYT piece on "vape pens" and "e-hookahs" was more than merely an announcement that two additional surveys were in the works (one involving 20,000 children to be done by the CDC, and the other involving 400,000 California kids to be done by the state of CA): http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/03/05/business/e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities.html

Item: Last week's paper in JAMA Pediatrics by Dutra & Glantz has been very well-recieved by the media. Headline after headline seems to assume that vaping is a "gateway" to becoming a regular tobacco smoker, at least among minors. Very few pieces are even remotely skeptical about the conclusion. Of course there's always the possibilty for the two other studies to add fuel to the fire, but one has to wonder whether they're even necessary. The press seems to be falling meekly in line.

Item: Today's press release by Sen. Schumer brings everything together - the message quoted above is now appearing in headlines all over the country (and presumably will be all over the world by tomorrow): http://newyork.cbslocal.com/
2014/03/09/schumer-looks-to-snuff-out-e-cigarette-marketing-to-kids/

***

Are we going to be seeing a national ad campaign to back up this messaging strategy? (And if so, who or what will counter it? No one with deep pockets, methinks.)

How about national legislation with bipartisan support? (And if so, who or what will work against legislation that serves the interests of the large vaping manufacturers and BP at the same time?)

***

I hear a lot of talk about what the FDA might do, and/or what's going on at the state and local level. All of which is interesting enough. Think of it as our Maginot Line.

But Congress could easily ban flavors and advertising, require face-to-face sales, establish a federal tax, and make it clear that states were more than welcome to pass more restrictive taxes and/or legislation if they so chose. Easy as pie, and not likely to be seriously opposed by any entity with deep pockets.

 

[Stosh]

It's all about the money, taxes. If the federal and states can use the propaganda to pass taxes on vaping they win. The vaping manufacturers will sell their product, but with an additional charge passed on to the consumer. Big tobacco doesn't care, pay the tax on their cig-a-likes or continue smoking and pay the cigarette tax. Big Pharma don't care, their products as ineffective as they are will be priced attractively.

The only losers are all current and particularity future vapers. The only concern is how much tax the different government levels can squeeze out of them.

/cynical rant over

 

[supertrunker]

Taxed on what basis?

T

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

It's all about the money, taxes. If the federal and states can use the propaganda to pass taxes on vaping they win. The vaping manufacturers will sell their product, but with an additional charge passed on to the consumer. Big tobacco doesn't care, pay the tax on their cig-a-likes or continue smoking and pay the cigarette tax. Big Pharma don't care, their products as ineffective as they are will be priced attractively.

The only losers are all current and particularity future vapers. The only concern is how much tax the different government levels can squeeze out of them.

/cynical rant over

Let me raise you one on the cynicism:

1) The tax revenue dries up if vapers successfully migrate to 0% nic. on their own PVs (only nic. can be taxed - PG, VG, and flavorings have too many other commercial applications, and are just too hard to control). So does the revenue for BT.

2) BP needs NTR revenue, which it can't get very effectively from vapers (particularly those who no longer use nicotine).

3) The Tobacco Control industry needs tobacco smokers, not vapers. What if health consequences from smokers + vapers become dramatically less costly/virulent.

So yes, it is about the money - but whose money, and over what time scale?

Anyway the point of my post was: we're sitting here worried about the state and local jurisdictions, and the FDA. That's our Maginot Line. Meanwhile, they're driving through with their messaging blitzkreig.

BTW taxes would normally be levelled on wholesale cost. Typically 75-500% of wholesale.

 

[Stosh]

Taxed on what basis?

On the basis of the propaganda Roger listed. I never said it made sense, but it's coming.

 

[bacc.vap]

Taxed on what basis?

T

I'm sure they want the same revenue as cigs bring in, so on the basis that ecigs are just as bad or worse, Sin taxes. Does'nt matter if ecigs are 1000 times better for us than cigs if they can persuade the public differently with lies.

 

[Stosh]

Let me raise you one on the cynicism:

1) The tax revenue dries up if vapers successfully migrate to 0% nic. on their own PVs (only nic. can be taxed - PG, VG, and flavorings have too many other commercial applications, and are just too hard to control). So does the revenue for BT.

2) BP needs NTR revenue, which it can't get very effectively from vapers (particularly those who no longer use nicotine).

3) The Tobacco Control industry needs tobacco smokers, not vapers. What if health consequences from smokers + vapers become dramatically less costly/virulent.

So yes, it is about the money - but whose money, and over what time scale?

Anyway the point of my post was: we're sitting here worried about the state and local jurisdictions, and the FDA. That's our Maginot Line. Meanwhile, they're driving through with their messaging blitzkreig.

There's the hang up, many vapers like or need their daily dose of nicotine. The difference comes in what form is used, and how much tax is paid.

After 3 1/2 years of only vaping I've managed to reduce my level to 18mg from 36mg to start, not ready in any way for 0 nic.

edit: I agree, the messaging they are putting out is so that the state and local jurisdictions, and the FDA restrictions and taxes are passed without a hitch

 

[ILoveNorCal]

"BT has been marketing e-cigarettes to kids, in order to create the next generation of (regular) cigarette smokers. This strategy is working very well, as more and more children take up e-cigarettes, and "graduate" to becoming cigarette smokers."

Logic says that the youngsters won't have to 'graduate' to cigarettes if Vaping isn't taxed so absurdly high that it no longer becomes a economical alternative to smoking.

then again, logic and politics have never got along.