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

[AegisPrime]

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

It's a love/hate relationship.

Governments love the tax revenue that smoking generates but they hate the smokers. I honestly can't give you an answer as to why smokers and vapers are treated like pariahs - the only thing I can suggest is it's because we're different.

We stand out from the crowd in a very visible way - we continue to indulge in a habit, despite the health risks and the government insisting we should stop.

We're not 'normal' citizens - we're a disobedient (though harmless) counter-culture that non-smokers or ex-smokers feel is anachronistic and shouldn't exist any more.

And despite all their best efforts and billions of dollars invested into encouraging people to quit, we're still here, still enjoying our nicotine with no intention of listening to them or obeying them.

Guess that pisses some people off

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

$5.50? Ha!

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

Yet people are still choking em down ain't they? I wonder how much Tax is on cigs in the UK

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-prices/

The total tax burden (excise duty plus VAT) accounts for 88% of the price of the cheapest cigarettes on sale in the UK.

 

[AegisPrime]

Yet people are still choking em down ain't they? I wonder how much Tax is on cigs in the UK

UK cigarette prices » Tobacco Manufacturers' Association

77-88% tax here in the UK.

 

[generic mutant]

It's a love/hate relationship.
...

It's complicated. It'll always be complicated.

Anybody that tries to paint a complex social / scientific / political issue as one with a "This is right. Everything else is unambiguously wrong, always" answer probably just isn't looking at it very hard.

I'll not bother saying anything about people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is an 'enemy agent' of some kind.

 

[Smok3man]

UK tobacco Taxation: 16.5% of retail price plus £176.22 per 1,000 cigarettes.

£5bn a year is spent by the National Health Service in the UK treating people with tobacco related problem whereas £13bn is made through tobacco taxation. Makes alot of sense when those numbers are involved.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

It's complicated. It'll always be complicated.

Anybody that tries to paint a complex social / scientific / political issue as one with a "This is right. Everything else is unambiguously wrong, always" answer probably just isn't looking at it very hard.

I'll not bother saying anything about people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a paid agent of the enemy.

Yet you sound JUST like them...

 

[generic mutant]

Yet you sound JUST like them...

Hmm... Don't know how much attention you're paying.

The topic is "Why are governments trying to ban e-cigarettes."

I've articulated some of the reasons why, largely without stating whether I agree with them or not.

Including regulatory capture, and financial interests.

Do you need me to explain this again, or do you think you've got it now?

 

[glasseye]

I have a question for those in the UK. Do you get charged more for smoking and/or vaping? You have 'free' health insurance right? Do you get charged more for being overweight? We have more of a problem here in the US than just BT and BP. Even the health insurance companies are not for our health. We have to fight to get claims approved, we're getting charged more for even vaping because of their nice little pigeon-hole cotinine testing. Just wondering if you get that there. <If that sounded cantankerous it wasn't meant to be (maybe it was a little, but not at you)- I'm just curious.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Hmm... Don't know how much attention you're paying.

The topic is "Why are governments trying to ban e-cigarettes."

I've articulated some of the reasons why, without stating whether I agree with them or not.

Including regulatory capture, and financial interests.

Do you need me to explain this again, or do you think you've got it now?

Fair enough...apologies for my insinuation

Just burns me up with the whole "nanny state" bull malarkey

 

[AegisPrime]

It's complicated. It'll always be complicated.

Anybody that tries to paint a complex social / scientific / political issue as one with a "This is right. Everything else is unambiguously wrong, always" answer probably just isn't looking at it very hard.

I'll respectfully disagree

Not that I'm saying it isn't complicated but there's certainly a lot of unfounded bias against vaping from government officials and anti-smoking organizations and when you strip away their spin-doctoring the only thing I see left if that they don't want something that looks like smoking to be socially acceptable - irrespective of whether it helps smokers quit or is harmless to bystanders.

You might believe that there's complicated, logical reasoning behind all these policies and legislation but personally, I just see a *lot* of militant anti-smoking activists in panic mode.

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

$5.50? Ha!

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

$14 in NYC. It'll be hard if they tax e-cigs as much, but I'll still stick with them over my old Marlboro lights.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

$14 in NYC. It'll be hard if they tax e-cigs as much, but I'll still stick with them over my old Marlboro lights.

Only think they will be able to get a choke hold on is the nicotine in the e-juice...if they crack down..I will be mixing my own and using a daggum Cree flashlight as a mod (or build me a PUCK MOD)...they CAN'T control the hardware or the PG or VG or even the artificial flavors...they are used in HUNDREDS of products people consume on a daily basis...all they can get ahold of is the NIC extract...

 

[zoiDman]

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.

I don't know Exactly what is going on in the Rest of the World. Only Bits and Pieces of News Articles. But here in the USA, the Government is not trying to Ban e-Cigarettes.

There going to be around for a Long Time. Now in what Form? Or being sold how, that is the 64,000 Dollar Question.

That, and will e-Liquids be allowed to be sold in Liquid Form?

 

[AegisPrime]

$14 in NYC. It'll be hard if they tax e-cigs as much, but I'll still stick with them over my old Marlboro lights.

If they tax e-cigs *any* higher than the current rates, I'm gonna struggle

I was spending £2 a day ($3.30) on tobacco but now I'm spending £1.40 per day on e-liquid ($2.30) - if they raise the tax to even half of what tobacco is here it's going to cost more than smoking.

 

[generic mutant]

I have a question for those in the UK. Do you get charged more for smoking and/or vaping? You have 'free' health insurance right? Do you get charged more for being overweight? We have more of a problem here in the US than just BT and BP. Even the health insurance companies are not for our health. We have to fight to get claims approved, we're getting charged more for even vaping because of their nice little pigeon-hole cotinine testing. Just wondering if you get that there. <If that sounded cantankerous it wasn't meant to be (maybe it was a little, but not at you)- I'm just curious.

Many people have private insurance as well here, and I can't say whether they're tested.

The NHS is free to British nationals (and many other residents, but I don't know the details), but prescriptions are charged a flat rate of something like £7 (can't really remember).

There are no penalties under the NHS for smoking (or obesity, drunken self-injury, or anything else as far as I know), but introducing them is often discussed - I think most commonly about the drunken self injury one, at least in the papers.

There are situations where your behaviour penalises you, for example you won't be put on a liver transplant list if you're still drinking, and that's what caused your liver failure.

You are heavily encouraged to quit, and given a fair bit of support (e.g. heavily subsidised, or sometimes free NRT). I think the NHS also runs stop smoking groups etc, though I've never looked into it.

NHS politics is extremely complex, and it isn't all for health or science either - it has it's own institutional interests. Overall I'd say the vast majority of the British public support it as an institution (to some it has near sacred status, even), though we usually admit it has flaws too.

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

I'll respectfully disagree

Not that I'm saying it isn't complicated but there's certainly a lot of unfounded bias against vaping from government officials and anti-smoking organizations and when you strip away their spin-doctoring the only thing I see left if that they don't want something that looks like smoking to be socially acceptable - irrespective of whether it helps smokers quit or is harmless to bystanders.

You might believe that there's complicated, logical reasoning behind all these policies and legislation but personally, I just see a *lot* of militant anti-smoking activists in panic mode.

NYC council members have even openly admitted that they passed the e-cig ban based on appearance, and no scientific data. Apparently, laws are created to protect the lowest common denominator in intelligence. Something with a blue glowing tip, or something like my MVP 2 is obviously NOT a cigarette, yet I still see people walking past me while holding their noses and glaring at me like I'm trying to infect them with radioactive fumes.

 

[Smok3man]

I have a question for those in the UK. Do you get charged more for smoking and/or vaping? You have 'free' health insurance right? Do you get charged more for being overweight? We have more of a problem here in the US than just BT and BP. Even the health insurance companies are not for our health. We have to fight to get claims approved, we're getting charged more for even vaping because of their nice little pigeon-hole cotinine testing. Just wondering if you get that there. <If that sounded cantankerous it wasn't meant to be (maybe it was a little, but not at you)- I'm just curious.

Vaping is cheaper than Smoking and yes we have 'free' health care though waiting times and actual care is something else all together. In general the Health service is not bad.
End of the day the UK government is making more money off Tobacco taxation than they are spending in treating individuals.

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

Only think they will be able to get a choke hold on is the nicotine in the e-juice...if they crack down..I will be mixing my own and using a daggum Cree flashlight as a mod (or build me a PUCK MOD)...they CAN'T control the hardware or the PG or VG or even the artificial flavors...they are used in HUNDREDS of products people consume on a daily basis...all they can get ahold of is the NIC extract...

Perhaps I'll stock up on nic, and if the taxation starts, I'll buy 0 nic juice with extra flavor shots and mix in the nic myself.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Many people have private insurance as well here, and I can't say whether they're tested.

The NHS is free to British nationals (and many other residents, but I don't know the details), but prescriptions are charged a flat rate of something like £7 (can't really remember).

There are no penalties under the NHS for smoking (or obesity, drunken self-injury, or anything else as far as I know), but introducing them is often discussed - I think most commonly about the drunken self injury one, at least in the papers.

There are situations where your behaviour penalises you, for example you won't be put on a liver transplant list if you're still drinking, and that's what caused your liver failure.

You are heavily encouraged to quit, and given a fair bit of support (e.g. heavily subsidised, or sometimes free NRT). I think the NHS also runs stop smoking groups etc, though I've never looked into it.

NHS politics is extremely complex, and it isn't all for health or science either - it has it's own institutional interests. Overall I'd say the vast majority of the British public support it as an institution (to some it has near sacred status, even), though we usually admit it has flaws too.

There is in AHA here
ObamaCare and Smokers

 

[glasseye]

Thanks for the answer generic mutant. I've been wondering about that for some time now. Also smok3man. Appreciate it.