What will you do?

[Underwhelmed]

Not even remotely!

E-cigs are a harm minimisation product, something that is a low harm alternative to a very addictive drug.

It is thus like methadone. No one would have a problem morally with taxing "junk" if it were legal, but taxing methadone would be actively encouraging use of "junk". Thats a morally quite difficult to defend position, and would create a crap storm.

Taxing booze and cigs is okay, because their presence as products creates measurable harm to society and individuals. E-cigs by comparison, remove existing harm from society. Even if it weren't for tobacco's popularity, e-cigs are basically equivilant to caffiene.

I personally do not see how you think these things are equivilant. You must at least be able to see that taxing a low harm alternative, actively encourages smoking, no?

If anything e-cigs should be _subsidized_.

And any government organisation, that is seen to be actively encouraging smoking, should to be prepared for some serious backlash IMO!

(That wont stop them from doing stupid things sometimes, but if any of these regulations go the wrong way, either in the US, or the EU, there will be a loud and definitive opposition voiced - there can't not be when, regardless of intention, a bad law will be causing tobacco smoking numbers to rise)

Never try and apply logic to US political issues.

We are a nation largely of ...... and having a representative government, we are nearly perfectly represented.

The only thing these people want, care about, or respect is money and they will do whatever is required to get as much of it as they can.

 

[Heavyrocker]

There is only one God ruling this planet his name is Money.

 

[kristin]

Nicotine is part of the nightshade family of plants. Nicotine is in eggplants you can buy at the store. I'll start jucing eggplants and vaping that. Nah....

Seriously, those who are leading the charge in this fight, should make the argument that nic juice can't be classified as a "tobacco" product, because it is naturally occurring in the nightshade family of plants/vegetables. Nicotine is not directly associated with tobacco only, period. If the idiots do ban nicotine juice, I see vapers growing nightshade plants in their back yard, and coming up with ways to extract nicotine from them, then adding that to their 0nic juice they buy.

CASAA? Are you reading this?

Nicotine is considered an addictive chemical. It would be highly unlikely for the FDA to not attempt to regulate it's use whether it came from tobacco leaves, synthetically created in a lab or eggplants. And even if the FDA gave non-tobacco sourced nicotine a pass, it would fall upon the e-liquid companies to prove their product contains no tobacco-sourced nicotine. As DC2 pointed out, synthetic nicotine and non-tobacco nicotine is extremely expensive to produce.

 

[HOPS]

Hate to admit it, but I'd probably go back to rolling my own cigarettes once my (limited) supply of liquid ran out... Really love how the govt' tries to say they are trying to do this for "our safety"! Get real! Who doesnt see that they just realized they are missing out on cashing in on the addictions we have? I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who'd smoke again... Seems to me when the forefathers started a war against England, two of their primary issues were government intrusion in private citizens lives and unjustified taxes... Boston Vape Party anyone?

 

[NancyR]

Not even remotely!

E-cigs are a harm minimisation product, something that is a low harm alternative to a very addictive drug.

It is thus like methadone. No one would have a problem morally with taxing "junk" if it were legal, but taxing methadone would be actively encouraging use of "junk". Thats a morally quite difficult to defend position, and would create a crap storm.

Taxing booze and cigs is okay, because their presence as products creates measurable harm to society and individuals. E-cigs by comparison, remove existing harm from society. Even if it weren't for tobacco's popularity, e-cigs are basically equivilant to caffiene.

I personally do not see how you think these things are equivilant. You must at least be able to see that taxing a low harm alternative, actively encourages smoking, no?

If anything e-cigs should be _subsidized_.

And any government organisation, that is seen to be actively encouraging smoking, should to be prepared for some serious backlash IMO!

(That wont stop them from doing stupid things sometimes, but if any of these regulations go the wrong way, either in the US, or the EU, there will be a loud and definitive opposition voiced - there can't not be when, regardless of intention, a bad law will be causing tobacco smoking numbers to rise)

When the judge made the ruling that stopped the FDA from being able to ban e-cigs and e-juices it was ruled that they are a tobacco product. It is only because they where ruled as such the FDA was unable to ban them. So we NEEDED them ruled as a tobacco product. With that tho comes the fact they can and WILL tax and regulate it.

 

[Fizzy-Penny]

As far as I know, it is fairly well-known that it is financially unfeasible at this time to extract nicotine from anything other than tobacco.
And it is also financially unfeasible to make synthetic nicotine.

Last I checked, it was legal in all 50 states here in the U.S. to grow your own tobacco. There may be limits which vary from state to state, but then again ... enforcing a limit usually is more time consuming than it's worth.

And before someone pops off about not living in the right climate: Decades ago in northern Montana, 9/10 of the 20-somethings working in the oil field there had grow-lights for the li'l indoor "gardens". What they were growing, they intended to smoke.

So, yeah... most of us could grow our own. It'd be a pita extracting nicotine from home-grown baccy leaves, but it could be done.

 

[NancyR]

Last I checked, it was legal in all 50 states here in the U.S. to grow your own tobacco. There may be limits which vary from state to state, but then again ... enforcing a limit usually is more time consuming than it's worth.

And before someone pops off about not living in the right climate: Decades ago in northern Montana, 9/10 of the 20-somethings working in the oil field there had grow-lights for the li'l indoor "gardens". What they were growing, they intended to smoke.

So, yeah... most of us could grow our own. It'd be a pita extracting nicotine from home-grown baccy leaves, but it could be done.

The government does limit tobacco crops, they give tobacco farmers a set number of plants each year. If they grow too much the following year they get less, bad crops they get more.

 

[Fizzy-Penny]

The government does limit tobacco crops, they give tobacco farmers a set number of plants each year. If they grow too much the following year they get less, bad crops they get more.

This is simply erroneous info and I can't imagine where you got such a notion. The feds here do not limit it (much less give out plants, for heaven's sake!); where it's limited, it's limited by state regulations. A quick google-search will lead one to sites to buy tobacco seeds online in the U.S., as well as pertinent legalities.

 

[NancyR]

This is simply erroneous info and I can't imagine where you got such a notion. The feds here do not limit it (much less give out plants, for heaven's sake!); where it's limited, it's limited by state regulations. A quick google-search will lead one to sites to buy tobacco seeds online in the U.S., as well as pertinent legalities.

ok then the tobacco farmers I use to be related too must have dreamt the whole thing up every year, including the year my sister was there when the plants came in.

 

[Fizzy-Penny]

ok then the tobacco farmers I use to be related too must have dreamt the whole thing up every year, including the year my sister was there when the plants came in.

Nancy, we're discussing individuals growing tobacco for their own use; I've no idea what the regs are for commercial farmers selling to or working for BT ... that's a whole other ball game. I was not talking about growing tobacco to sell the extracted nicotine ... if you thought I was, then I surely wasn't making myself clear. Hth.

From what I found on the net, one can even buy leaves to ryo smokes; I don't see any reason (other than perhaps over-the-top inconvenience) one couldn't extract nicotine from leaves to vape. I personally don't think I'd want to go that far; but I'm saying it could be done.

On another note, you can bet that if push ever comes to shove ... outlawing vaping and even analogs... will fail miserably. Witness: TWOD and old time prohibition.

 

[kristin]

When the judge made the ruling that stopped the FDA from being able to ban e-cigs and e-juices it was ruled that they are a tobacco product. It is only because they where ruled as such the FDA was unable to ban them. So we NEEDED them ruled as a tobacco product. With that tho comes the fact they can and WILL tax and regulate it.

Just to clarify, Judge Leon's ruling was not that e-cigarettes are tobacco products, but that the FDA could not treat them as drug delivery devices absent therapeutic claims. The FDA later announced its intent to regulate them as tobacco products, based on Judge Leon's ruling. However, the FDA still has not officially classified e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. ("Tobacco product" is different from "cigarettes." It's defined as a product made or derived from tobacco for human consumption/use and any accessory for use.)

Additionally, the FDA does not tax tobacco - that is done by congress and individual states. Even if they are taxed beyond a simple sales tax, not all tobacco products are taxed at the same rate as cigarettes and CASAA is working to keep it that way (and reverse sin taxes applied to smoke-free tobacco products.) The justification the ANTZ use for "sin taxes" on cigarettes is the "cost to society," smokers' healthcare costs and to pay for programs to get people to stop smoking. By that reasoning, there is no justification to tax e-cigarettes and other smoke-free tobacco products "sin taxes," because they do not have ANY evidence that smoke-free products create any "cost to society" that we, as users, would "owe."

The whole purpose of the "deeming regulations" coming in April is to establish just HOW the FDA will regulate the products. They have indicated they intend to regulate e-cigarettes as other smoke-free tobacco products and this would be bad for many reasons, because certain sections of the FSPTCA regarding regulation of ST would essentially make it impossible for most e-cigarette companies to stay in business. That is why CASAA is trying to make people aware of the public comments that will need to be made once the FDA announces its proposed regulations. If vapers never stepped up and answered a Call to Action from CASAA before, they MUST step up when we issue one in or around April. This will be the single, most important event for vapers to be involved in to date.

 

[Skinny Pete]

great post !!!!!

 

[Stringer63]

Thank you Kristin for the informed, clear description of what is actually happening.

Just to clarify, Judge Leon's ruling was not that e-cigarettes are tobacco products, but that the FDA could not treat them as drug delivery devices absent therapeutic claims. The FDA later announced its intent to regulate them as tobacco products, based on Judge Leon's ruling. However, the FDA still has not officially classified e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. ("Tobacco product" is different from "cigarettes." It's defined as a product made or derived from tobacco for human consumption/use and any accessory for use.)

Additionally, the FDA does not tax tobacco - that is done by congress and individual states. Even if they are taxed beyond a simple sales tax, not all tobacco products are taxed at the same rate as cigarettes and CASAA is working to keep it that way (and reverse sin taxes applied to smoke-free tobacco products.) The justification the ANTZ use for "sin taxes" on cigarettes is the "cost to society," smokers' healthcare costs and to pay for programs to get people to stop smoking. By that reasoning, there is no justification to tax e-cigarettes and other smoke-free tobacco products "sin taxes," because they do not have ANY evidence that smoke-free products create any "cost to society" that we, as users, would "owe."

The whole purpose of the "deeming regulations" coming in April is to establish just HOW the FDA will regulate the products. They have indicated they intend to regulate e-cigarettes as other smoke-free tobacco products and this would be bad for many reasons, because certain sections of the FSPTCA regarding regulation of ST would essentially make it impossible for most e-cigarette companies to stay in business. That is why CASAA is trying to make people aware of the public comments that will need to be made once the FDA announces its proposed regulations. If vapers never stepped up and answered a Call to Action from CASAA before, they MUST step up when we issue one in or around April. This will be the single, most important event for vapers to be involved in to date.

 

[Heavyrocker]

Repost,sorry.

 

[Heavyrocker]

What happens if an under ground chemist starts making is own pharma grade nicotine,how cant the legalized mafia control that?

 

[Tanti]

I believe from what ive seen FDA do before with otherthings it will come down not with a ban but lots of restrictions. Restriction on nic to only having x,x,x strengh, prefilled carts and not being able to buy nicotine unless you have a permit to do so. There will be companies that will be FDA approved to sell, Candy,fruit and pastry type flavors will be gone. Im no sure what or if they will do anything about the batteries. I believe their will be alot of black market. People will still manage to mix their own juice, even with proabition people still had booze. proabitions dont work. Guess this would be the worst case.

The best case would be they do nothing. and move along. But I dont see that happening with all the people and associations pushing, and BT and BD will be right there pushing.

Could happen where juices and batteries have to be FDA approved but since they made it a tobacco item, that would be hard for them to do to, they would have to FDA approve analogs, loose tobacco and cigars.

I still see where they could restrict the market by having permits and safety checks and proof of safety for the batteries, they could get the EPA in on it to.
I could see people having to order from other countries to get past all that.

 

[Heavyrocker]

How bout banning flouride added too water?

 

[shan57]

Our plan against meddling bureaucrats: Stock up on nicotine base, rebuildable attys and mechanical mods.

They probably will tax the heck out of nic juice, or regulate it to the point it is worthless to vape. They won't touch wire, wick, mesh, VG, PG, food flavoring and batteries without running over into "legitimate" uses. Slowly lowering nic strength in our juice to make stash last a few years

 

[kristin]

Our plan against meddling bureaucrats: Stock up on nicotine base, rebuildable attys and mechanical mods.

That's great for you, but what about the other 42 million smokers who haven't even had a chance to try e-cigarettes yet, let alone knowing about DIY liquid, rebuildable attys and mechanical mods? People have been stepping up to protect e-cigarettes for 3 years so that you had the opportunity to build up your stockpile now. Will you pay it forward and fight for those who come after you?

 

[SissySpike]

I believe from what ive seen FDA do before with otherthings it will come down not with a ban but lots of restrictions. Restriction on nic to only having x,x,x strengh, prefilled carts and not being able to buy nicotine unless you have a permit to do so. There will be companies that will be FDA approved to sell, Candy,fruit and pastry type flavors will be gone. Im no sure what or if they will do anything about the batteries. I believe their will be alot of black market. People will still manage to mix their own juice, even with proabition people still had booze. proabitions dont work. Guess this would be the worst case.


The best case would be they do nothing. and move along. But I dont see that happening with all the people and associations pushing, and BT and BD will be right there pushing.

Could happen where juices and batteries have to be FDA approved but since they made it a tobacco item, that would be hard for them to do to, they would have to FDA approve analogs, loose tobacco and cigars.

I still see where they could restrict the market by having permits and safety checks and proof of safety for the batteries, they could get the EPA in on it to.
I could see people having to order from other countries to get past all that.

I really cant see batteries that would mean every cordless tool, cell phone , lap top tablet using person would be affected they think they have trouble with some ex smokers fighting them almost every house hole in America would scream foul!