Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?

[Smok3man]

Reading all the articles and posts off well informed vapers, and having recently discovered vaping for about 8months now, harmful of not is irrelevant now. It is still better than conventional Cigarettes and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So why are governments so adamant that they are bad for us? It may seem like a conspiracy but i'd be interested to know how many cigarette companies actually lobby Political parties and influence policies?

If governments were bothered about our health they'd BAN cigarettes first, immediately followed by alcohol.

Personally E-cigarettes have helped me and alot of my friends stop smoking, and being free of cigarettes is an amazing feeling, and others should experience that.

 

[generic mutant]

Cue lots of theories...

One thing is certain, there is a lot of money at stake, so you aren't going to get "pure scientific" decisions anywhere.

I've found this site (which seems to be temporarily knocked out) very good, with the bonus that as former director of ASH, Clive can hardly be called a pro-nicotine zealot.

http://www.clivebates.com/

Chris Price (the admin of this site) has a few blogs around as well, and is very well informed about the facts, though personally I find him a little bit cynical about motivation sometimes.

E-Cigarette Politics Blog

 

[buce15]

Q: Why are cigarettes legal?
A: $$$

I'm not convinced any government truly cares about your health. At least not as much as they care about prosperity.

 

[dchest02]

IMO, it boils down to money. Big tobacco and Big Pharma are losing lots of money because of electronic cigarettes. Who are among the biggest lobbies in Washington? BT and BP. People try to make the "there isn't enough evidence about them yet" argument, but they obviously aren't looking in the right direction because there are tens of thousands of people on ECF alone that will tell them otherwise.

 

[Virtual Life]

Q: Why are cigarettes legal?
A: $$$

I'm not convinced any government truly cares about your health. At least not as much as they care about prosperity.

^ Yep. Me also thinks the government cares about prosperity, just not yours.

 

[Smok3man]

^ Yep. Me also thinks the government cares about prosperity, just not yours.

Raises eye brows simply by the speed at which they are trying to implement changes? e-cigarettes have obviously caused abit of a storm at the HQ.

Analyst projection: E-cigs will overtake traditional tobacco revenue at Reynolds in 2021 - Winston-Salem Journal: Local Business

 

[thatguy2]

from my local newspaper - re: Ohio House Bill 144

Opponents of the bill fear that defining e-cigarettes as “alternative nicotine products” will help them skirt the workplace smoking ban and tobacco taxes.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Quick question...has anyone ever gotten a ticket mailed to them by a redlight camera or speed camera

They don't necessarily want the act to stop..but they DO want the revenue from it

They may use the lie of "oh it will make people stop doing it" ploy and "it's for the chiiiiiiiiiiiildren" but ultimately it's about control and that they don't want to loose their cash cow

 

[generic mutant]

IMO, it boils down to money. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are losing lots of money because of electronic cigarettes. Who are among the biggest lobbies in Washington? BT and BP. People try to make the "there isn't enough evidence about them yet" argument, but they obviously aren't looking in the right direction because there are tens of thousands of people on ECF alone that will tell them otherwise.

It may well work for lots of people, but it isn't certain how many, or how many it will cause harm to (presumably more significantly, given the evidence we have, by encouraging uptake of smoking rather than directly - there will be at least some people who will start smoking e-cigarettes then move onto real cigarettes, rather than the other way round). Unfortunately, it will take a few years for good data to emerge (at the moment most still view it as a niche product, so it's impossible to assess long term trends), and governments like to work with solid data rather than anecdotes (no matter how passionate those with the anecdotes may be).

So yes, regulatory capture and financial interests play a huge role, no doubt. But the flipside is you can't just assume that since we're here and they're 'ignoring' us, it's a conspiracy...

 

[catalinaflyer]

Very Easy to answer, follow the money.

As soon as the governments find a way to tax it then they will shift the opinion. However the amount of revenue generated will have to outweigh the lobby money lining law makers pockets courtesy of big tobacco. Vaping looks huge to us but in comparison to big tobacco it's a tiny drop in a large pool. The e-cig industry will have to some how pull together, generate massive profits, hire lobbyists to pay off law makers then and only then will we see a shift in opinion.

 

[wv2win]

It may well work for lots of people, but it isn't certain how many, or how many it will cause harm to (presumably more significantly, given the evidence we have, by encouraging uptake of smoking rather than directly - there will be at least some people who will start smoking e-cigarettes then move onto real cigarettes, rather than the other way round). Unfortunately, it will take a few years for good data to emerge (at the moment most still view it as a niche product, so it's impossible to assess long term trends), and governments like to work with solid data rather than anecdotes (no matter how passionate those with the anecdotes may be).

So yes, regulatory capture and financial interests play a huge role, no doubt. But the flipside is you can't just assume that since we're here and they're 'ignoring' us, it's a conspiracy...

Wow, this is right out of the ANTZ's playbook. Not only is there no evidence that anyone finds vaping as a gateway to smoking, there is evidence that the exact opposite outcome is more likely. Many who have quit smoking and vape, have tried to smoke months after quitting and found it so offensive it made them sick. Here is just one of many threads on that topic, all with the same result:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/508234-back-analogs.html

In the same vein, there are those who believe there is not enough evidence, yet, that men landed on the moon.

 

[MrSelf Destruct]

Lesson 1. The government doesn't care about you
Lesson 2. The government only cares about itself and the power they have
Lesson 3. The government does care about your money as long as it goes to them

 

[generic mutant]

Wow, this is right out of the ANTZ's playbook. Not only is there no evidence that anyone finds vaping as a gateway to smoking, there is evidence that the exact opposite outcome is more likely. Many who have quit smoking and vape, have tried to smoke months after quitting and found it so offensive it made them sick. Here is just one of many threads on that topic, all with the same result:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/508234-back-analogs.html

In the same vein, there are those who believe there is not enough evidence, yet, that men landed on the moon.

The problem with extrapolating from current trends is that e-cigarettes are still a niche product, even if a massively exploding one. The vast majority of people trying them have tried *specifically because they want to quit cigarettes*. They're also rapidly developing (although that's less of a problem, because hypothetical scenarios in which they become too addictive or 'appealing' could be regulated out of existence if need be).

We won't be able to paint an accurate picture of uptake and net flow between cigarettes and e-cigarettes until they're established. We would need years of data on people's actual behaviour in the real world to make a definitive assessment. It doesn't exist, and you can cry about that till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it exist.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

The problem with extrapolating from current trends is that e-cigarettes are still a niche product, even if a massively exploding one. The vast majority of people trying them have tried *specifically because they want to quit cigarettes*. They're also rapidly developing (although that's less of a problem, because hypothetical scenarios in which they become too addictive or 'appealing' could be regulated out of existence if need be).

We won't be able to paint an accurate picture of uptake and net flow between cigarettes and e-cigarettes until they're established. We would need years of data on people's actual behaviour in the real world to make a definitive assessment. It doesn't exist, and you can cry about that till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it exist.

Ya know 20 years ago I would have LOVED to have PV's as an alternative to smoking..I wouldn't have destroyed my health in the process

Honestly...if people DO pick up vaping vs smoking..GOOD...even for young people...if they NEVER touch a combustible tar and carbon monoxide slinging stick they WILL BE BETTER OFF FOR IT...period!

Actually it was proven that the kids they said were flocking to e-cigs were in fact using them to QUIT SMOKING since they already started

Banning e-cigs or over-regulating/taxing them to protect big tobaccos income to "protect the young [that whole it's for the chiiiiiiiiildren]" only sentences smokers who are already caught in the grips of addiction almost NO way to escape them...the government trying to "protect us" (hah) sentences many current smokers to a almost guaranteed cigarette induced life of illness and death, you can put that in your pipe and smoke it...I already put mine down

 

[wv2win]

The problem with extrapolating from current trends is that e-cigarettes are still a niche product, even if a massively exploding one. The vast majority of people trying them have tried *specifically because they want to quit cigarettes*. They're also rapidly developing (although that's less of a problem, because hypothetical scenarios in which they become too addictive or 'appealing' could be regulated out of existence if need be).

We won't be able to paint an accurate picture of uptake and net flow between cigarettes and e-cigarettes until they're established. We would need years of data on people's actual behaviour in the real world to make a definitive assessment. It doesn't exist, and you can cry about that till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it exist.

There are those who can look out their window, see the sun shining but still not believe it until the weatherman tells them the sun is shinning. Then there are those who use common sense, their own personal experience, the experience of thousands of other similar people and critical thinking to believe confidently in the reality of their conclusion. Keep spreading the gospel of doubt. Most of us don't need a study to tell us what is intuitively obvious.

 

[generic mutant]

So if it's literally all about money and not health, why do governments introduce cigarette bans / restrictions?

Surely they'd be better off just bumping up the sin taxes.

It must be very nice living in a world in which there's black, and there's white, and that's just about it: there's the beneficent e-cigarette makers and the evil horrible gubmint and ANTZ, and a vast plane of nothingness in between.

Most people acknowledge that reality is a little more complex than that...

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

The problem with extrapolating from current trends is that e-cigarettes are still a niche product, even if a massively exploding one. The vast majority of people trying them have tried *specifically because they want to quit cigarettes*. They're also rapidly developing (although that's less of a problem, because hypothetical scenarios in which they become too addictive or 'appealing' could be regulated out of existence if need be).

We won't be able to paint an accurate picture of uptake and net flow between cigarettes and e-cigarettes until they're established. We would need years of data on people's actual behaviour in the real world to make a definitive assessment. It doesn't exist, and you can cry about that till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it exist.

It'll never exist if they're restricted to the point where they aren't appealing anymore, or outright banned. Laws, restrictions, and bans should be based on actual evidence that they do real harm. They should not be passed and enforced until that evidence exists. You're right in that we don't know enough yet, but we never will know enough unless we're allowed to continue to put them to the test. If the government wants their money, fine. Put in an age restriction and add some taxes. But that isn't what they appear to be trying to do. It's either outright bans, or restricting it so much that the only ones left will be the cigalikes that Big Tobacco has been investing in, in only menthol and tobacco flavors. I know that a large reason this has been successful for me thus far is because as they DON'T taste like cigarettes. They made cigarettes unbearable to me. That, and actual throat hit, which you don't get much of from a cigalike.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

So if it's literally all about money and not health, why do governments introduce cigarette bans / restrictions?

Surely they'd be better off just bumping up the sin taxes.

It must be very nice living in a world in which there's black, and there's white, and that's just about it: there's the beneficent e-cigarette makers and the evil horrible gubmint and ANTZ, and a vast plane of nothingness in between.

Most people acknowledge that reality is a little more complex than that...

What do you think makes packs cost $5.50 cents here
Cigarette taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proportion of taxes in cigarette prices

While the price of cigarettes has continuously increased since 1965, the percentage of that price going towards taxes is now half of what it was then.[19] While tobacco companies complain about the $1.01 cigarette tax, Phillip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard have all increased their prices by almost $1.00 per pack on their own.[23] Phillip Morris currently lists all taxes, including federal, state, local, and sales taxes, as 56.6% of the total cost of a pack of cigarettes.

So WHO is the one most likely to loose the BIGGEST profit from people QUITTING smoking? And guess what...the TAXES are raw profit..the government doesn't grow the tobacco, harvest the tobacco, process the tobacco, ship the tobacco, pay employees to handle and sell the tobacco....RAW MONEY IN THEIR POCKET PROFIT!

 

[generic mutant]

$5.50? Ha!

Try close to £10. That'll make you want to quit...

 

[Vaslovik]

It may well work for lots of people, but it isn't certain how many, or how many it will cause harm to (presumably more significantly, given the evidence we have, by encouraging uptake of smoking rather than directly - there will be at least some people who will start smoking e-cigarettes then move onto real cigarettes, rather than the other way round). Unfortunately, it will take a few years for good data to emerge (at the moment most still view it as a niche product, so it's impossible to assess long term trends), and governments like to work with solid data rather than anecdotes (no matter how passionate those with the anecdotes may be).

So yes, regulatory capture and financial interests play a huge role, no doubt. But the flipside is you can't just assume that since we're here and they're 'ignoring' us, it's a conspiracy...

More evidence that the ANTZ are doing their best to infiltrate ECF. I have been seeing more and more of this over the last few months. Some try to claim such absurd things as that the vapor we exhale might be harming the environment, others voice a concern over second hand nicotine in our vapor. Then too some even post here trying to vilify anyone vaping in public.

There are people posting here who are NOT on our side.