FDA Why Isn't Vaping the FDA Center for Tobacco Product's Biggest Ally?

[Anjaffm]

Jman, I agree with you.

In a part Puritan and part totalitarian mindset of any zealot, moderation is never an option. It's always, somehow, about total abstinence. Quit or die.

But it's not true that all ECF members are like this. I'm not. And I always warn vaping neophytes about the dangers of becoming militant, intolerant, obnoxious ex-smokers. When new members complain about having a hard time quitting, the ECF mantra is, "don't count the cigarettes you smoked, count those you avoided." We always tell them to have a smoke if they absolutely have to because it's all about harm reduction. Anyway, that's what I've been preaching here for 4.5 years. And nobody will convince me that smokers who went from smoking three packs a day to a pack a week are not better off--because they are.

The Soterra ruling classified e-cigarettes as a recreational tobacco product--and we cheered that decision. I have absolutely no problem with that. And I have no problem with people vaping and smoking, snusing, using WTAs, NTRs, whatever. It's all legal and we are all adults. If they happen to quit paper cigs--they are cheered! If they don't--they are cheered also and encouraged not to give up because they had a stupid smoke. Not the end of the world.

And you are spot on wrt the CDC study--as you know, I sent them an email and they responded. They are beginning to understand that they are wrong--but they have their bloody directives and there's nothing they can do--yet. We just have to bugger on and provide evidence that vaping is way less is harmful than smoking and (accidentally) it also happens to be much more effective than all of their FDA-approved NRTs. Come to think of it, I don't see why BP shouldn't explore e-cigarettes as an inspiration for a new NRT. Heck, if they make a good one, I'll be willing to try it. Let them make a safe and effective e-cigarette! Competition is good! Win-win! The more the merrier!

Live and let live.

Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.

Amen
Thank you for putting it so well!

 

[wv2win]

You mean like the really hard stance they've taken against "other_stuff" for the better part of a century now? There's obviously no equipment available to vape that with, nor any extracts of the active substances in it, and no "other_stuff" users are switching from smoking it to vaping it, right?

And I would not want to be one of the scores of people who ended up in prison for years when they got caught selling "other stuff".

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Paying $3 - $4 for a prescription and another $3 - $4 for a pint of booze was just for rich people, not the masses. The average hourly wage in the 1920's was $0.23 - $0.30 an hour. Paying approximately 25% of your pay for one pint of booze drove many to desperate measures.

I'm seeing anywhere between $1,100 to $2,000 annual -- and that's just average..

Regardless, if they could only get a legal pint every 10 days -- and many people were heavy drinkers back then -- it wouldn't have been enough.. And they could make it & buy it cheaper elsewhere...

But it wasn't 100% black-market..

There were legal alternatives -- just not in sufficient quantities & varieties...


And don't forget the gray market.. A non-drinker who wants to make a few extra quarters goes to his doctor, gets a script for booze, buys said booze, then sells it to his neighbor or co-worker at a mark-up for a profit.. Heck, that kind of stuff even goes on today...

 

[Gato del Jugo]

They were even "doing it for the children" back then...





Life For the Average American During Prohibition

 

[wv2win]

Hard to understand how prohibition isn't a good comparison when prohibition is precisely what we are talking about............................

I don't know how clearer the difference can be.

With alcohol during Prohibition there was NO alternative or substitute. Those who wanted to drink had to get their alcohol illegally or deceptively. With nicotine, there are several legal (but controlled and regulated) means to get nicotine to consume. This would significantly stop the creation of new vapers. Even today there are abundantly more smokers than vapers when there are virtually no restrictions on sales.

And I will sum up the rest of your long post as simply your conjecture that IMO does not track with reality or human nature. I know way more vapers who have never bought anything online, who have never been on ECF, who are not interested in doing any research beyond going to their local B & M and are fine with going back to smoking full time if there is the least bit of "hassle" in vaping. In fact I know many who have already given up vaping because they view it as too difficult to work consistently and understand all the options.

So if you think millions of current smokers will navigate a "black market" environment to vape as we do today and become "new vapers", I think your "rose colored glasses" are real rosy.

 

[Anjaffm]

I don't know how clearer the difference can be.

With alcohol during Prohibition there was NO alternative or substitute. Those who wanted to drink had to get their alcohol illegally or deceptively. With nicotine, there are several legal (but controlled and regulated) means to get nicotine to consume. This would significantly stop the creation of new vapers. Even today there are abundantly more smokers than vapers when there are virtually no restrictions on sales.

....

So if you think millions of current smokers will navigate a "black market" environment to vape as we do today and become "new vapers", I think your "rose colored glasses" are real rosy.

I agree.

And this is precisely why those bans... uhm.. "regulations" will be put in place in the US and in Europe. To stop the transition of current smokers to vaping.

To protect tobacco companies income, to protect cigarette taxes, and to protect pharma income. Both from NRTs and - much more important - from treatment of sick smokers * . To ensure that people continue to smoke and to die earlier = to protect pension funds from making payments to pensioners. * *

* Please note that I say "treatment", not "cure". There is no money to be made in curing people. Cured people are healthy, and thus stop purchasing pharma products. "Treated" people are still sick and will continue to purchase pharma products.

* * Please note that governments love to whine that "the pension fund coffers are empty". Please also note that governments are very quick to throw away billions of tax money for all kinds of silly purposes, including "saving banks" and transferring billions of taxpayer dollars / Euros abroad to "help" some foreign country. (edit: some foreign country in the industrialized countries. I am not talking development aid here) Hm....

And you better believe that people, citizens, human beings do not figure in this equation. Human beings are expendable. And the sooner they die after retiring from the work force, the better. For government coffers.

We, the current vapers, will go and get our supplies on the Black Market. But there will be no future vapers. And precisely that is the intention. To kill the market before more smokers transition to vaping. As such a transition is contrary to the interests of Big Money.

/edit:
Yeah, "for the children".

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”


― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

[Katya]

Oh, Anja...........

 

[Bobbilly]

I think that's the first Godwin's law in the forum.

 

[Anjaffm]

I think that's the first Godwin's law in the forum.

What do you mean by "Godwin's law"? I am stating facts.

While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate

source

You would be surprised at just who invented "second hand smoke". And you would be surprised at just who initiated the first massive anti-smoking campaign. See here. . And yes, the "for the children" "argument" was explicitly stated in that dictator's book.

Godwin's law has nothing to do with stating the truth. The National Socialist period in Germany did exist. Remember D-Day?
By the way, I am from Germany. And yes, I can speak about my country's past.

And as to Godwin's law and smoking, this here makes good reading: Preface to "Tobakkonacht"

............

Oh, Anja...........

What do you mean, dear? I am telling things the way they are.

 

[Bobbilly]

What do you mean by "Godwin's law"? I am stating facts.


source

You would be surprised at just who invented "second hand smoke". And you would be surprised at just who initiated the first massive anti-smoking campaign. See here.

Godwin's law has nothing to do with stating the truth. The National Socialist period in Germany did exist. Remember D-Day?
By the way, I am from Germany. And yes, I can speak about my country's past.

And as to Godwin's law and smoking, this here makes good reading: Preface to "Tobakkonacht"

............


What do you mean, dear? I am telling things the way they are.

I wasn't referring to the content just the reference. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up more.

 

[Anjaffm]

I wasn't referring to the content just the reference. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up more.

Well yes. The "for the children" "argument" goes back to one of the worst dictators in recent history.
And it is still being employed by those whose attitude is dictatorial. Who strive to impose their own views upon others.
Which can indeed be deadly. Like in the case of banning vaping to protect smoking. And attempting to turn public opinion against a great means of harm reduction.

/edit:
And actually, I learned about this quote here on ECF, if I am not completely mistaken.
You see, the post-war generation in Germany is not brought up to know quotes by that ... person.

 

[toddkuen]

...

And you better believe that people, citizens, human beings do not figure in this equation. Human beings are expendable. And the sooner they die after retiring from the work force, the better. For government coffers.

We, the current vapers, will go and get our supplies on the Black Market. But there will be no future vapers. And precisely that is the intention. To kill the market before more smokers transition to vaping. As such a transition is contrary to the interests of Big Money.

...

Not only is it for "the children" they do this but its for all the "poor minority children," after all 80% of smokers are various "minorities."

One presumes that also means 80% of the 430,000 or so (1,200 per day) that die each year from "smoking related causes" are also minorities.

Then in NY, a state strong in their support for "the children," pass laws that so no one can reasonably vape, so these poor, minority children's families, who could be at least saving (for a three PAD family @ $30/day or $210/week) maybe $24/day (or $170/week) that could be used for food or education, instead are stuck smoking analogs.

Its not a far stretch to the "tobacco genocide" which we see today as well as the proposed FDA continuation of it.

I think the now (not deleted) 1939 German dictator quotation is more than apt!

I think I will die of irony poisoning.

 

[Katya]

What do you mean, dear? I am telling things the way they are.

You have to forgive me, it's been a while since I last read Mein Kampf, so it just came as a minor shock.

I much prefer Goethe and Thomas Mann myself.

 

[Katya]

I think that's the first Godwin's law in the forum.

Oh, no!

 

[Anjaffm]

@toddkuen:
Well said indeed!
You see, when they say "children", they do not actually mean living, breathing children - as in very young human beings. They do not give a flying fig about such actual children. Hey, there is some regulation in the States linking support for disadvantaged (actual) children to income from tobacco taxes. Talk about being two-faced.

Their "for the children" is just like Adolf H.'s "for the children". An appeal to emotion in order to get people to acquiesce to loss of liberty. Nothing more and nothing less.

And the quote is not deleted. Why should it be?

 

[toddkuen]

Sorry, I thought it was but its just that the second most recent long post looked as if it had "censored". My apologies!

I am always afraid to post links or mention things because censors appear and snip things out of my posts...

Better safe than sorry!

Google "tobacco genocide" and if you are not familiar with the term you will become so.

It actually extends to other things which I will not mention (read the American Spectator link).

 

[Bobbilly]

Not only is it for "the children" they do this but its for all the "poor minority children," after all 80% of smokers are various "minorities."

One presumes that also means 80% of the 430,000 or so (1,200 per day) that die each year from "smoking related causes" are also minorities.

Then in NY, a state strong in their support for "the children," pass laws that so no one can reasonably vape, so these poor, minority children's families, who could be at least saving (for a three PAD family @ $30/day or $210/week) maybe $24/day (or $170/week) that could be used for food or education, instead are stuck smoking analogs.

Its not a far stretch to the "tobacco genocide" which we see today as well as the proposed FDA continuation of it.

I think the now deleted 1939 German dictator quotation is more than apt!

I think I will die of irony poisoning.

Society has always had to "protect" the poor from themselves. Increased excise taxes on Tobacco is the worst thing they can do to low income families. Yes more may stop smoking but in a lot of cases it's likely the family / kids are eating less.

 

[toddkuen]

For the last several days I have been considering this particular topic "the targeting of minorities with vaping restrictions" very carefully for another new thread.

There are extensive laws that prevent businesses from discriminating but none that address government discrimination as such (these include laws that even make DNA-based discrimination illegal for US insurance companies).

I am thinking of posting about some form of "disparate impact" and how governments use it to target the poor with tobacco and vaping restrictions.

Sadly, I had hoped to find some legal precedents in this area but no luck so far!

I guess I'll just have to do more homework :-(

 

[Anjaffm]

Society has always had to "protect" the poor from themselves. Increased excise taxes on Tobacco is the worst thing they can do to low income families. Yes more may stop smoking but in a lot of cases it's likely the family / kids are eating less.

At the danger of going OT: Those in power do not care in the least about "protecting" the poor. Only about "protecting the poor from themselves", as you so correctly stated. By introducing laws and regulations which will hit the poor the hardest. And laughing all the way to the bank, themselves.

Those in power love to lord it over "the rabble". Meaning all of us - normal citizens. As only those in power claim to know what is "good for us".

This is a good read:
The vision of the anointed

Sowell regards American political discourse as dominated by people who are sure that they know what is good for society and who think that the good must be attained by expanded government action.

And does this sound familiar to vapers?

Suppose that you doubt the necessity or usefulness of some great new government program. You may first be presented with a quantity of decontextualized “facts” and abused statistics, all indicating the existence of a “crisis” that only government can resolve.

.......
Edit:
@toddkuen:

Sin taxes hit the poor the hardest.
One link here: Sin Taxes Are All the Rage - Forbes

Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes don’t discourage consumption and hit the poor hardest

The only significant effects that sin taxes have are to make the poor poorer and black marketeers richer.”

 

[toddkuen]

Ah the wages of sin!

I have paid sin taxes for 30-some years on behalf of my wife and children who smoked.

No more!

Wife is vaping 3.5 years, 3 children no longer smoke vape nor do two son-in-laws who also vape.

I guess we've robbed the "state" of some $10K USD!

Anjaffm: I read Sowell years ago when he was a regular commentator with Forbes. I have long since given up just reading about these things and now take action myself.