To Vape or Not to Vape
- Thread starter JerryRM
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
fickle is the beast. People are so full of bs. For example. If I had a nickel for every mall-goer who gave me a dirty look I'd be retired right now. But no one even looks twice at the guy at Mcdonalds pushing processed chemically altered Massively unhealthy junkfood advertising directly to children with a clown for a mascott? I mean really, If you are going to be a facist bully trying to dictate what is and isn't healthy, why pick and choose which employee to hassle? Me? I am completely unapologetic and it is totally my pleasure to smile right into their hypocritical faces.
If you want to ban something , ban friggen hand grenades and leave me the hell alone.
If you want to ban something , ban friggen hand grenades and leave me the hell alone.
Mac, they don't know a thing about e-cigs, but they have already passed judgment on them because they contain the word "cigarette". It's not a health issue with them but a moral one. Pure ignorance of their part.
They have already started attacking junk food, give it a few years, they will be picketing McDonalds and carrying signs saying "think of the children".
They have already started attacking junk food, give it a few years, they will be picketing McDonalds and carrying signs saying "think of the children".
And from there? A televison with no off switch. Our society is fast heading toward an orwellian nightmare.
They have all those satelites in space, looking down on earth. They are probably watching me type this message !!
I think we are all getting paranoid and with good reason.
Personally I think you're still giving them too much credit. E-cigs will not be determined based upon what is healthy for us (which by the way who the heck gave the government the right to take that decision out of our hands) but nor will it be decided on a moral basis. It will however be decided on a financial basis.
I've been doing a ton of research trying to determine the realities of a potential ban on e-cigs and, admittedly, have been up in arms thinking something was imminent. Based upon all info I can find that is not the case currently (please correct me if I'm wrong but do so with info as to your source). I see nothing in this Pact Act (which by the way tomorrow 11/19 is a milestone date for) which applies to e-cigs due to the fact that e-cigs are neither an inhaled tobacco product nor are they a smokeless tobacco product but rather an unclassified product which incorporates nicotine (derived from tobacco but not actually tobacco). This tells me that an addendum or further legislation will be required before we are threatened. Again please correct me if you know something I don't.
Here's how I see it going down. I already see e-cigs beginning to boom. The ban on flavored tobacco products is going to further that by sending the consumers of those products into the market as well. (already read a post tonight about a guy who's turning to e-cigs for precisely that reason). I have also read unofficial estimates stating that it is believed that the success rate of quitting tobacco and switching to vaping is in the 70-80% range as compared to conventional cessation methods (patch, gum etc) which have a long term success rate of under 10%. What does this mean? The pharmaceutical companies and big tobacco are paying close freaking attention I'm sure!!! So you can bet that throughout Washington at this very moment lobbyist for these industries are chumming it up with elected officials who have the ability to pass legislation empowering the FDA to remove our right to vape or hand control of that right over to these industries. To Lobby: A term created by our government in order to avoid using the phrase "to bribe". These elected officials will then classify e-cigs (or more specifically e-liquid as I don't think they'll be able to touch the devices themselves. As with marijuana paraphernalia or hypodermic needles) as either a tobacco product or a cessation drug. Their public disclosure for this will be sold to the public as being within the interest of public health but the actual final classification will certainly be based upon potential profit margins. Either classification will put it squarely within the control of the FDA who will then have to determine just how far out of the bag the cat has gotten. My opinion is if the benefits of e-cigs (tobacco cessation, second hand smoke, fire danger, litter) have reached enough of the public then you will not see e-juice banned but you will be buying it at the pharmacy next to the nicotine patches. It will be flavorless, $49.99 for 20ml, intended to be as unsatisfying as possible so as to keep the success rate in the 15%-20% range, haled as a breakthrough product that doubles the success of current cessation methods and manufactured by Pfizer! Honestly I really think this is the most likely scenario. However, if the FDA finds that the e-cig kitty is close enough to the bag that they can stuff him back in then you'll see a ban.
Now if the end result is a ban our elected officials will receive healthy campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. If the end result is to place e-liquid in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies they'll be getting those contributions from them. Campaign Contribution: The method by which our elected officials collect compensation from the aforementioned lobbying entity.
Bright side is I don't see tomorrows decision on the Pact Act effecting us immediately unless I'm missing something so we have a little time to stock up. Probably not long however as they'll certainly want to nip this in the ..... Nor do I see them banning the devices themselves as how can you ban a battery, an atomizer and a hunk of cotton. If they do ban the device foreign manufacturers would still be producing them and could stick a small air pump on em, include a small bottle of something that puts off a pleasing odor when vaporized, label them with "not intended for the inhalation of controlled substances" and we're back in business! It's gonna be about the control of liquid nicotine ultimately.
Regardless however, it will have absolutely nothing to do with what's best for the approximately 40 million tobacco users in the US. Nor will it have anything to do with the huge percentage of the population subjected to and offended by second hand smoke. Nor will it have to do with the financial loss caused by the countless forest and structural fires which occur annually (HUGE in my area and all too familiar due to my several friends who are paid firefighters), nor will it have to do with the huge rafts of trash in the middle of the ocean which always come with the presence of thousands of cigarette butts and packaging (seen first hand as I worked offshore as a commercial diver for two years)!! And it absolutely, positively will have nothing to do with what we want and desire as second-class citizens addicted to nicotine!
God bless America the land of the....umm...uhh...oh yeah we're free right?
Vape On!
Very well said Canute! This is all about money and power. The drug companies and Altria want to monopolize the nicotine market for now but if that were the case, you would expect Altria or Reynolds to buy out the e-cig makers and start selling actual Camel and Marlboro e-cigs since they are the closest thing to a safe cigarette anyone has ever seen. You would think that this would have the FDA's blessing to since there regulatory power is to reduce the amount of harmful toxins in cigarettes.
That is if they really were about serving the people, which is a sad joke.
I think one of the drug companies tried to market a nicotine inhaler a few years back (Nicotrol?) and it flopped, like all there other NRT crap.
I also think that with more and more companies refusing to hire nicotine users - we are headed towards the prohibition of nicotine, not just tobacco. The point being to force the users onto the suicide pill (Chantix) or the nicotine vaccine which is still a few years away and will require boosters every couple of years. What company wouldn't want to have a captive market of 45 million?
That is if they really were about serving the people, which is a sad joke.
I think one of the drug companies tried to market a nicotine inhaler a few years back (Nicotrol?) and it flopped, like all there other NRT crap.
I also think that with more and more companies refusing to hire nicotine users - we are headed towards the prohibition of nicotine, not just tobacco. The point being to force the users onto the suicide pill (Chantix) or the nicotine vaccine which is still a few years away and will require boosters every couple of years. What company wouldn't want to have a captive market of 45 million?
Also, the government wouldn't want this, because I don't think you can just tax nicotine. they tax tobacco, and this would mean less tax revenues. Imagine if they taxed nicorette or patches, even though they are intended to get people off smoking. Would never happen.. Loss of revenue for the states if more and more people vaped. But honestly, I don't see it as a satisfying alternative.. It's not the same as smoking.
The government can tax anything they want anyway they want. Look at alcohol. Spirits are taxed a much higher amount than beer, even though they both contain the same active ingredient.
Imagine if a drug came out that was used to treat alcohol addiction. Do you think they would tax that druck to make up for the lack of alcohol sales due to the people who were no longer alcoholics as a result of it?
Dear Canute,
Thank you for that thoughtful post. I am a political scientist, and I could not have said it better myself. The problem of "legalized corruption" - i.e., campaign funding - has become so rampant in our country the international community has invented a new term of art, "state capture." From this perspective, I think your analysis is spot on.
And, yes, I think the now cash-strapped federal and state governments will find a way to tax the trash out of e-liquid, if they don't ban it altogether.
At this point, our greatest hope is that the government of China will come to the aid of its manufacturers. Despite the burgeoning growth of this industry - as reflected in Ruyan's 105 percent year-on-year growth - I am afraid China has much bigger fish to fry right now. Also, it seems Ruyan itself is making (ill considered, if you ask me) efforts to lobby governments to oust "copycats" from the market.
Thank you for that thoughtful post. I am a political scientist, and I could not have said it better myself. The problem of "legalized corruption" - i.e., campaign funding - has become so rampant in our country the international community has invented a new term of art, "state capture." From this perspective, I think your analysis is spot on.
And, yes, I think the now cash-strapped federal and state governments will find a way to tax the trash out of e-liquid, if they don't ban it altogether.
At this point, our greatest hope is that the government of China will come to the aid of its manufacturers. Despite the burgeoning growth of this industry - as reflected in Ruyan's 105 percent year-on-year growth - I am afraid China has much bigger fish to fry right now. Also, it seems Ruyan itself is making (ill considered, if you ask me) efforts to lobby governments to oust "copycats" from the market.
Last edited:
It's really a sad commentary about our country right now, but true. Any time you want the truth, all you have to do is follow the money trail.
- Status
Similar threads
