have you ever noticed how the governments solution to EVERY problem is.... Tax more or increase prices....
Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?
- Thread starter Smok3man
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
have you ever noticed how the governments solution to EVERY problem is.... Tax more or increase prices....
They are taxing tobacco because it is bad for you ... BG's excuse for raising cigarette taxes ... they say they want to make the choice to quit easier because of cost.
meanwhile, they rake in billions because people cannot quit
Makes you wonder if they are going to start taxing you extra for your Starbucks because it has caffeine in it, because that's all that nicotine is really except for the addiction part which makes it even more deplorable for it to be taxed in the first place. It would literally be the government taking advantage of its constituents.
big money... that is why.... that is why after 10 years plus they have squelched all of the research to be done on the safety of e-cigs...my thoughts is that they are healthier and better for you and big money has stopped that info from getting out to the public.... big money and big tobacco and big pharma all have deep deep pockets to lie to us all and to keep information from us... may sound cynical but the truth of our govt is horrendous
I'm talking big taxes like the 70% sales tax on e-cig products that Hawaii was going to try to pass if it were not for CASAA. Besides, I already pay my sales tax.
No, it's much, much, much more than that. Most of what Big Tobacco does is launder bribes through campaign contributions. It's how you bribe most politicians, it's why the transparency websites for political donation are so important (and overlooked by the media). They have a dinner with them to bargain with them. "Hey, Mr. Senator, I really need you to vote "yes" on this ecig legislation that's coming up, those pesky e-cog guys are killing our profits. And, of course, we'll be making a very generous contribution to your next run for office. I'll have my office send your aides some key points to support your decision." All legal, and done every day, all day.
It's why there will be NO reform on political contributions without a MAJOR, end of the world as we know it fight in the Congress and Senate to pass any legislation curbing it.
One of the biggest recipients of BT money in 2012 is Kay Hagen, of North Carolina. A quick google found that she's right in the middle of attempting to support tobacco subsidies, and a couple of days ago was pontificating that ecigs need to regulated by the FDA, because "We don't know what's in them".
That's how Washington works.
precisely. And yes, this statement is "100% safe" and 100% accurate.
As to municipalitiesin the US, why do they ban public use of e-cigs? Because they get paid to do so.
Few dare call it bribery: OK grants, e-cigs, and another brick in the wall « Watchdog.org
It is all about money.
.........
oh, and I particularly enjoyed the piece about the "penis envy"
Last edited:
Of interest perhaps, is the connection of light bulbs going on over politicians heads, in unison.They are taxing tobacco because it is bad for you ... BG's excuse for raising cigarette taxes ... they say they want to make the choice to quit easier because of cost.
meanwhile, they rake in billions because people cannot quit
Before early 1960's, a few states had set a state tax (for hospital care in their state) of roughly 30 cents a pack. Naturally, the state received the overflow.
In 1962, Nicki Cruz book, the "Cross & the Switchblade debuted". Nicki was a street gang member who discovered that quitting smoking was harder than quitting other substances found on the street.
Enter popularity of book.
Enter a huge flash across the USA and notice that now, by 1967-9, every single state is raping smokers pockets. Oh, it started innocently enough, as a a guise for local hospitals, health care, ... and now look at us, 2014 paying dollars & dollars in taxes per pack, fighting for the right to use safer alternatives, and being forced into a health care system that hates smokers/nicotine & calls them moochers.
Meanwhile in NC, she is running ads on how wonderful she is for signing legislation that reduces mercury emissions (aka closing coal fired plants) . . . while Duke energy wants to raise the rates for electricity. . . who operates two nuc plants within 50 miles of me. . .
Yeah, surprise surprise.
When two parties sit down to negotiate a compromise, they start by asking for everything.
They start from a position of strength.
To do anything other than that would be like walking into a fight with one arm tied behind your back.
Really? So when you ask for a raise, you first say; "Well, I'd say 4.5 billion annually and a helicopter would be reasonable"
You don't think there's a risk of undermining your own credibility by seeking to downplay other stakeholders, or appearing inflexible?
You think we have the ability to negotiate regulation with the FDA? (This is not just directed at you, GM)
By proxy, yes.
'Politics is the art of the possible'. Applies to government agencies, as well as elected officials.
If we're seen as reasonable people, not making extravagant health claims, not needlessly violating other people's rights to what they perceive as 'clean air', and just trying to beat our addiction or enjoy it safely, I think we're in a fundamentally better position, because nobody wants to see such reasonable people being condemned to the health risks of smoking.
Exaggerating my point a little bit, aren't you?
Can you give me an example of that so I can understand what you're getting at?
Yes, and her and Burr, another representative of her state are fighting tooth and nail for Big Tobacco. I was just reading that last May, the Senate rejected a bill proposed by Feinstein and McCain (surprisingly) that would end the Federal subsidy of crop insurance for Big Tobacco, money that is NOT needed by them, they can afford to pay their own premiums. From my reading, crop insurance subsidies are VERY murky, and often just who benefits from tax dollars is hidden. Feinstein, again surprisingly, nailed it - why should we pay for your insurance, when your industry is making record profits, when your products cause billions of dollars of harm to Americans and their health? The responses I saw were from people like Hagel and Burr, hemming and hawing about how much Big Tobacco contributes to the country, how many jobs they provide, blah blah blah. It's disgusting.
Negotiating with the FDA as a private citizen would be like trying to nail jello to the wall. If you want to see how little regard Federal agencies have for private citizens, just try to get involved with the process. If you're lucky, you might find out when meetings and hearings are to take place, but don't expect to be invited in. At most, you'll get 5 minutes with a PR hack who will spew some bullet points at you, and send you on your way.
Not that I'm against trying to crash and participate, mind you.
What do you feel would be too much to ask for as a starting point in negotiations?Exaggerating? No more than you, if you think we should 'ask for everything'
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
