(September 10, 2019 at 9:33 am)Vince Wrote:

(September 9, 2019 at 6:52 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Any pharmaceutical is banned if it has too many side effects. The tobacco lobby is way too powerful.
It's been linked to bad disease. Of course it should be banned. I don't understand why it has been allowed to get this big to begin with.
And yes, I happily voted for Whitmer.

Why should something be banned because it is harmful to people?  How do we determine what to ban?  We should make sure that the companies are telling the truth about their product and let people make their own decisions.

This is why the FDA was formed, to protect the public from drugs like thalidomide. Drug makers can do all the right research, but there are still sometimes unforeseen problems that come to light after the drug is marketed. 

The tobacco companies are NOT required to regulate their products. Why is that?

(September 10, 2019 at 11:52 am)Mermaid Wrote:

(September 10, 2019 at 9:33 am)Vince Wrote: Why should something be banned because it is harmful to people?  How do we determine what to ban?  We should make sure that the companies are telling the truth about their product and let people make their own decisions.

This is why the FDA was formed, to protect the public from drugs like thalidomide. Drug makers can do all the right research, but there are still sometimes unforeseen problems that come to light after the drug is marketed. 

The tobacco companies are NOT required to regulate their products. Why is that?

Can you answer my questions?  

Why should something be banned because it is harmful to people?  How do we determine what to ban?

(September 10, 2019 at 11:53 am)Vince Wrote:

(September 10, 2019 at 11:52 am)Mermaid Wrote: This is why the FDA was formed, to protect the public from drugs like thalidomide. Drug makers can do all the right research, but there are still sometimes unforeseen problems that come to light after the drug is marketed. 

The tobacco companies are NOT required to regulate their products. Why is that?

Can you answer my questions?  

Why should something be banned because it is harmful to people?  How do we determine what to ban?

Are you asking about drugs or cigarettes? There are very clear rules on how we determine drugs that are harmful to people. Why shouldn't something be banned because it's harmful? Drugs need to be safe and effective, or they are illegal. Should heroin be legal? A lot of people think it should, and that anyone who uses it knows what they're getting into. I don't happen to think that way, but maybe you do.

(September 10, 2019 at 12:07 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Are you asking about drugs or cigarettes?

I am asking about anything?  What criteria should we have to ban something in a free society?

Quote:There are very clear rules on how we determine drugs that are harmful to people. Why shouldn't something be banned because it's harmful?

You need to define harmful?  Cars, guns, pencils, sugar etc. can be harmful to people.  I would say that we should make things illegal that if used present a higher than normal risk to others who don't want to make that same choice.  Smoking is banned in most public places and around all entrances to buildings.  I am not exposed to second hand smoke ever in a public space.  This is sufficient to allow smoking in my opinion as long as the companies are truthful about the effects.  Alcohol is legal as long as it is not abused and then translates into danger for others that do not want to make the choice of drinking as in drunk driving.  

Quote:Drugs need to be safe and effective, or they are illegal. Should heroin be legal? A lot of people think it should, and that anyone who uses it knows what they're getting into. I don't happen to think that way, but maybe you do.

No.  Heroin presents a high risk to to others when people use it.  I think the criteria should be  what harm it will do to others when someone chooses to use or do something.

The criteria for bans should be-normal, advertised and suggested use kills or seriously injures people. In other words, use as intended has extremely dangerous effects.

Clearly, this isn't a problem with all e-cigs, so I am not down for banning e-cigs. However, I think they require regulation because bad shit is clearly getting into them.

(September 9, 2019 at 10:43 am)Vince Wrote:

(September 8, 2019 at 7:39 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Because e-cigs are a threat to traditional big tobacco that doesn't want to compete with a new, safer (please note I am not saying they're safe, only safer than cigarettes) alternative to the poison big tobacco trades on, and big tobacco spends a ton of money on special interest every year keeping their crap legal.

Altria Group, Ballantyne Brands, Hay Island Holding, Reynolds American and Swedish Match AB are all big tobacco companies that have opposed regulation and taxes on e-cigarettes.  These companies own a significant portion of e-cig companies.  For example Altria Group (Marlboro) owns a 35% stake in Juul and VUSE is ultimately owned by Reynolds America.  Ballantyne Brands owns NEO and Mistic.

Big tobacco companies are not against e-cigs they are investing in them and opposing regulation. This only makes business sense.  The e-cig market is huge and tobacco companies have the money to buy/invest in these companies.  I bet soon all will be owned by tobacco companies.

I stand corrected. When I left the e-cig game, big tobacco was still pissing and moaning about them, failing to produce their own e-cigs that would sell. It's good to hear they're correcting that. I switched to homemade nicotine candies back in April and haven't had a cigarette since. It is, quite literally, the longest I've gone without a smoke since junior high.

(September 10, 2019 at 7:32 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(September 9, 2019 at 10:43 am)Vince Wrote: Altria Group, Ballantyne Brands, Hay Island Holding, Reynolds American and Swedish Match AB are all big tobacco companies that have opposed regulation and taxes on e-cigarettes.  These companies own a significant portion of e-cig companies.  For example Altria Group (Marlboro) owns a 35% stake in Juul and VUSE is ultimately owned by Reynolds America.  Ballantyne Brands owns NEO and Mistic.

Big tobacco companies are not against e-cigs they are investing in them and opposing regulation. This only makes business sense.  The e-cig market is huge and tobacco companies have the money to buy/invest in these companies.  I bet soon all will be owned by tobacco companies.

I stand corrected. When I left the e-cig game, big tobacco was still pissing and moaning about them, failing to produce their own e-cigs that would sell. It's good to hear they're correcting that. I switched to homemade nicotine candies back in April and haven't had a cigarette since. It is, quite literally, the longest I've gone without a smoke since junior high.

Big Tobacco is still bemoaning the wild popularity of vaporizers despite having a market share in e-cig business, though---Because vape users generally turn their noses up at mass-produced e-cigs as well. Vaporizers are customizable, don't rely on cartridges, and e-liquid can purchased (or made at home) with no nicotine at all. 

The tobacco industry is unable to manipulate/control consumers' nicotine consumption as they do with traditional tobacco products and e-cigs.

(September 11, 2019 at 11:35 pm)Athene Wrote: Big Tobacco is still bemoaning the wild popularity of vaporizers despite having a market share in e-cig business, though---Because vape users generally turn their noses up at mass-produced e-cigs as well. Vaporizers are customizable, don't rely on cartridges, and e-liquid can purchased (or made at home) with no nicotine at all. 

The tobacco industry is unable to manipulate/control consumers' nicotine consumption as they do with traditional tobacco products and e-cigs.

I saw a stat that JUUL accounts for 75% of all e-cig sales in the US. My two HS daughters know how bad it is in their school, most kids in their HS that vape use a JUUL product. I think it will be a matter of time before tobacco companies own nearly 100% of the e-cig/vap market. They have the money and why would they care if they sell cigarettes or e-cig type products? They are about making money not about a particular way to do that.

So it went just like that? But, but what happened with "good guy with the vape pen" and "vape pens don't kill people but people kill people"?
Or other classics like "liberal media", "Hitler banned vape pens", not to mention George Soros and Hillary...

(September 12, 2019 at 11:39 am)Vince Wrote:

(September 11, 2019 at 11:35 pm)Athene Wrote: Big Tobacco is still bemoaning the wild popularity of vaporizers despite having a market share in e-cig business, though---Because vape users generally turn their noses up at mass-produced e-cigs as well. Vaporizers are customizable, don't rely on cartridges, and e-liquid can purchased (or made at home) with no nicotine at all. 

The tobacco industry is unable to manipulate/control consumers' nicotine consumption as they do with traditional tobacco products and e-cigs.

I saw a stat that JUUL accounts for 75% of all e-cig sales in the US.  My two HS daughters know how bad it is in their school, most kids in their HS that vape use a JUUL product.  I think it will be a matter of time before tobacco companies own nearly 100% of the e-cig/vap market.  They have the money and why would they care if they sell cigarettes or e-cig type products?  They are about making money not about a particular way to do that.

See above.

They can't corner the custom vaporizer market and guarantee long-term, repeat consumption if folks are to control their own nicotine intake (or eschew nicotine together) and are able to buy customized vape liquid from Mom and Pop vendors or make it themselves.

One can buy and use a liquid vaporizer for years and never put a dime in Big Tobacco's pockets and never, ever become addicted to nicotine.
That's not good news for the future of Big Tobacco.