Will the same thing happen with Ecigs?

[rothenbj]

Ecigs could easily be declared a safer alternative to smoking, but that would slowly put an end to tobacco settlement tax renewals. If they aren't killing folks, they can't be taxed for it. I'm still under the opinion that the FDA doesn't want to declare ecigs a safer alternative for that simple reason. Wait! That's would be a $25B revenue loss over 25 years! If you aren't increasing medical costs to the government, we can't fine you for that and use the money elsewhere.

I also think that tobacco companies see the handwriting on the wall. It's a smart argument to get out from under the future settlement renewal.

The concept that you're not fully understanding is the same concept that has built the propaganda machine against smokers. "One in Two Smokers Will Be Killed by Smoking!", or some other variation of that concept that gets stated over and over again. My mother at 94, who has recently fallen and broken her hip and has fallen and had a heart attack last year, has been asked on every hospitalization over the last two years if she ever smoked. This was at the same hospital. Why? They desperately want to have that box checked on their records.

99 cigarettes is the cutoff. To be a never smoker you have to stay at or below that number. That's 5 packs and that's the propaganda that is used to vilify smokers. Now you get to the concept that unless you completely stop "puffing the nicotine" or for that matter getting your nicotine from some other source (smokeless tobacco), you are only one day away from returning to being a smoker, thus you continue to need to be punished. There you have justification for establishing any tax structure they want to place on your new, favorite addiction. We all know addicts deserve no better and government needs the money.

We've all bought some form of nicotine hybrid and we'll all continue to drive down life's highway until we get to our final destination. Tax 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Petrodus]

Most mistakenly believe nicotine in cigarettes is what causes cancer
and many here would be shocked to know the percentage of doctors
who also believe it's the nicotine in cigarettes that causes cancer.

This information should come as no big surprise ...
since 1 out of 5 (20%) believe the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[rolygate]

I suppose this argument is a lot more complex than it looks: in reality there is no such thing as 'government', especially somewhere like the US, where things are more complex than most other countries.

There are numerous groups and individuals who together comprise government. The most powerful on a day-to-day basis are the autonomous government agencies who actually run the country. They get left alone as long as things are stable; they receive a high volume of advice and criticism but are rarely forced to alter the way they operate. It is even possible for a government agency to do exactly the opposite of what 'government' has told it to do, and succeed.

Then, in the US, you have another level of local government, the States, which is just as powerful and whose aims may conflict with federal government. So while it may be correct on one level to say 'government' does (or won't do) this or that, in reality the issue may be more like which individual actor is doing or not doing it; and that this may conflict with others who can also be referred to as 'government'. So if you take an issue like 'government will tax e-cigarettes' (or green cars) then what you are actually saying is, "Some parts of it will want to tax X, and may succeed, while other parts will be opposed to new taxes on X".

Mind you, the effect on the consumer is the same: nothing ever gets cheaper once the initial market for a product has stabilised.

 

[aubergine]

Follow the money.

It all has to do with who owns who, not political ideology. Republicans have always been in the pocket of the tobacco industry and have to be if they're to survive politically - if that works for us, terrific, to the extent that it does. But it's not some grand libertarian project.

There's large money to be had from divers quarters in every corner of this debate; read up on the (enormously complicated) history of the tobacco wars. Political rhetoric is political rhetoric.
And corporate lobbies write legislation every day.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I would assume that most on ECF were / are addicts to the nic

And why does the sacredness of tobacco surprise anyone when our Country was practically built from the get go on those brown leaves .. ?? For 150 years, it was our biggest export .. we were the China of the tobacco industry ..

 

[DaveP]

The concept that you're not fully understanding is the same concept that has built the propaganda machine against smokers. "One in Two Smokers Will Be Killed by Smoking!", or some other variation of that concept that gets stated over and over again. My mother at 94, who has recently fallen and broken her hip and has fallen and had a heart attack last year, has been asked on every hospitalization over the last two years if she ever smoked. This was at the same hospital. Why? They desperately want to have that box checked on their records.

99 cigarettes is the cutoff. To be a never smoker you have to stay at or below that number. That's 5 packs and that's the propaganda that is used to vilify smokers. Now you get to the concept that unless you completely stop "puffing the nicotine" or for that matter getting your nicotine from some other source (smokeless tobacco), you are only one day away from returning to being a smoker, thus you continue to need to be punished. There you have justification for establishing any tax structure they want to place on your new, favorite addiction. We all know addicts deserve no better and government needs the money.

We've all bought some form of nicotine hybrid and we'll all continue to drive down life's highway until we get to our final destination. Tax 'em if you got 'em.

But ... it's not the nicotine that kills, it's the tar and chemicals in the smoke. That, and the fact that smoke travels through the lungs and on to the heart and lungs. Vapor is primarily absorbed through the mucous membranes and takes a different route. Smoking kills. Doctors still love vaping as an alternative and the AMA hasn't come out with information toward it's detriment.