What is your Trip Kent?
I'm not Replying or even Directing anything towards You.
No need Read things into my Posts that Aren't there. I have No Problem commenting to You Directly.
FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What is your Trip Kent?
I'm not Replying or even Directing anything towards You.
No need Read things into my Posts that Aren't there. I have No Problem commenting to You Directly.
You got me all fired up over 4 year old news! I almost went on facebook And asked a bunch of people to rage about this old news! I'm just glad I verify everything now! Our gov't has been worthless for a long time. Learn from the past & look to the future. Rehashing the past can only harm our resolve for the good we can do!
Sorry...
I was just trying to make a point about what the FDA can do in order to enforce their regulations. And we're not some innocent Amish goat farmers. We're all drug users, in their eyes.
I'd add - "and control", but yeah - not the health - that's their 'excuse' for the other two.
the video was posted to make a point and you were right to get all fired up, 4 yrs old or not
things haven't changed much
Ok, I'll buy that but let me ask you - there's an implication in your "It is Refreshing to hear from Someone who has a Clear Grasp as to What is going to Happen." ... that there is someone who doesn't have a clear grasp as to what will happen. Otherwise it wouldn't be 'so refreshing' it would just be a fact. So who might that be?
Quit Dissecting things and Trying to Find Hidden Meanings in things.
You are Making Something where there is Nothing to Make.
Not very hidden - just snide like I said. I'm done with you so they don't shut down a good thread because someone thinks they've been offended.
I have a silly question. Does it have to be deemed to be taxed? If not then I don't see that the deeming is about taxing. If the FDA is indeed going whole hog as it appears then would it not defeat tax revenue since there will be so little to tax. I have been thinking more along the lines of the FDA is mad. Not mad in the sense of crazy but more in the sense of buthurt egged on by anti smoking zealots. Dartboard with Njoy, Smoking Everywhere, and Judge Leon on it hanging on a wall somewhere?
That's actually a great question. So...the FDA via the Final rule (TCA/Medical Device) effectively removes 99.9% of all the products in the marketplace. What is left to generate tax revenue for:
- The states/local level: We may find ourselves in a similar situation as the state of Colorado and the Federal law with respect to the "green stuff". Effectively a wink and a nod where Colorado reaps huge amounts of cash from taxing the "green stuff" and the Federal government does nothing to enforce the prohibition against the recreational use of the "green stuff". Voters in Colorado spoke and reap the benefits of this tax revenue.
- The other aspect is the MSA revenue for the States and of course the "Muni Bonds" which some have issued. Effectively betting on the MSA revenue to repay the Muni Bonds rather than a default. On this issue my guess may be clouded but at my age, that's not unusual. /lol As many understand, MSA revenue to the states has declined. Effectively remove 99.9% of our vaping products and unfortunately, some folks return to smoking combustibles and MSA revenue increases.
EDIT: Their are plenty of other angels to my thoughts so I may have over simplified a complex issue. Flash forward a few years and lets guess that we have 6 States that have chosen to effectively "ignore" the FDA final rule in exchange for tax revenue. Welcome to ejuice tourism
I'm moving my ejuice production facility to say North Dakota as just an example. North Dakota gets the tax revenue from my sales and also becomes a tourist meca for vapers who wish to purchase juice. Just my 2 cent guess
Last edited:
?
I think your questions leads us back to the pharmaceutical companies, they really are the only other aspect that would benefit from the deeming outside of tobacco. And FDA isn't exactly impartial when it comes to pharma. It's the only thing that makes sense to me in the context of your question. Wouldn't it be a hoot if pharma came out with their own version of vaping once the deeming takes down the vape industry? Not really but you know what I mean. I wouldn't put it past them.
I think your questions leads us back to the pharmaceutical companies, they really are the only other aspect that would benefit from the deeming outside of tobacco. And FDA isn't exactly impartial when it comes to pharma. It's the only thing that makes sense to me in the context of your question. Wouldn't it be a hoot if pharma came out with their own version of vaping once the deeming takes down the vape industry? Not really but you know what I mean. I wouldn't put it past them.
LOL, think you're onto something. Vaping is a thorn in their side. Think @SeniorBoy and @pennysmalls frame the interests well. If were' going to conjecture and follow the money I'd have to say that "taxes" are merely a tool towards the real take away by these grifters and that's "control". They mean to cap and corral the vaping industry and vapers so as to have a management of the phenomenon's evolution with respect to these alternative interests. One part is the action (taxes, regulation), the other consequences (revenue, containment).
Either way we're being slapped down as a constituency. A model that will go viral in our government…the corruption of our legislative and legal frameworks by delegation to bureaucratic systems and their semantic manipulation of process. As in war smokers and vapers have been "de-humanized" and a moral equivalency established in the popular mindset compromising any sense of public fairness or of adherence to legal principle. In this way, we are the saps taking the hit for this erosion of personal and business rights. Sad.
Good luck.
This is really interesting. Given the ECF rules on the "green stuff" so I can't link to the article I found this:
"Colorado collected almost $70 million in -redacted- taxes during that time, nearly double the $42 million collected from alcohol taxes."
THATS some serious revenue! And if we want to talk trending Colorado shows about a 68% (year to date) INCREASE in green stuff tax revenue when comparing FY 2015 to FY 2014.
"Colorado collected almost $70 million in -redacted- taxes during that time, nearly double the $42 million collected from alcohol taxes."
THATS some serious revenue! And if we want to talk trending Colorado shows about a 68% (year to date) INCREASE in green stuff tax revenue when comparing FY 2015 to FY 2014.
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.” —Frank Herbert
Good luck.
Lol... just watched that yesterday.
Loved the book. It was the first SciFi book I read and it ruined all the others to follow which weren't nearly as good.
Like others - good question! And Rossum points to it - it has to be made into a 'sin' - ie deemed to be tobacco - in order to justify the level of taxation they would like (ie need - to replace the loss of people moving away from cigarettes). They can't make it a 'luxury tax' (like yachts) because they know the average income level of smokers who move to vaping.
Plus it explains in part the demonization that has occurred. If you are a cockroach, (instead of a human) it's easier for them to step on you and the tax then is justified in the eyes of others.
And all of that is just the opposite of the reality of the situation. Rather than a sin, it is nearly, if not actually, a virtue - a 'harm reduction'; a money saver, a cleaner alternative - it neither offends or harms anyone near. It has created thousands of new businesses and jobs. It is innovative and creative. It offers teens who experiment, a healthier alternative and it is not as addictive as cigarettes.
Were it any other product, they'd be incentivizing or subsidizing it, rather than taxing and regulating it.
Malaysia just handed vaping over to pharma.
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/only-pharmacists-and-docs-can-sell-nicotine-e-cigarettes
From the article:
""We will not stop them (vape sellers from selling the product), if not openly sold, they will sell it in the black market. We have to come up with a win-win situation for all parties," he added."
What parties would that be hmm? If this isn't an obvious entry into vaping by pharma I don't know what is.
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/only-pharmacists-and-docs-can-sell-nicotine-e-cigarettes
From the article:
""We will not stop them (vape sellers from selling the product), if not openly sold, they will sell it in the black market. We have to come up with a win-win situation for all parties," he added."
What parties would that be hmm? If this isn't an obvious entry into vaping by pharma I don't know what is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
