3 ms·

Who benefits from a temporary demand reduction or regulatory shift in vaping? * Health advocates * Alcoholic beverage producers * Tobacco producers (though I

by Mtinie 7y ago

Who benefits from a temporary demand reduction or regulatory shift in vaping? * Health advocates * Alcoholic beverage producers * Tobacco producers (though I believe they have gone all-in on vaping as a healthier replacement) * Black- and grey-market cannabis growers who prefer not to concentrate their product Who else should be on that list? I’m not suggesting a false-flag or major conspiracy, simply that some group(s) will see a disproportionate benefit from wide-spread social panic over, and rejection of, vaping. If you are interested in trying to forecast economic conditions in order to increase/decrease investment in an industry, where would you look?

notimetorelax 7y ago
Society, if those products are found unsafe earlier rather than later.
- Mtinie 7y ago
  I agree, but my questions have to do with the economics of the panic, warranted or not. To build on your comment: Vaping is not a new concept[0] and if the act of vaping itself— rather than a problem with the supply chain (product purity, dosages, etc.)—was the problem why has it taken 13 years in the U.S. to surface? I can imagine the contemporary spike in numbers of users and frequency has effect on the number of cases. For all we know this condition with the same set of symptoms has been seen before but connections never drawn to a wider-spread problem. This may be the “earlier discovery” you reference, compared to the decades it took for Society to recognize how dangerous cigarettes are. [0] http://www.casaa.org/historical-timeline-of-electronic-cigarettes/ http://www.casaa.org/historical-timeline-of-electronic-cigar... (note: industry source)
- penagwin 7y ago
  This depends - see the alchohol prohibition, if there's a large enough market and the product is easy enough to make then banning the product just creates an unregulated black market. Which can create more problems if there's tainted products being sold, legal users will have to avoid otherwise legitimate shops that have at least _some_ degree of liability vs some random friend of a friend who has "good stuff" - who has no incentive at all to care about health or safety.
mullingitover 7y ago
> Who benefits from a temporary demand reduction or regulatory shift in vaping? Every state receiving funds in the Master Settlement Agreement. They are effectively partnering with the tobacco companies and they lose money when people successfully quit smoking.
- Mtinie 7y ago
  Interesting point. Do you know if the Master Settlement Agreement requires people to stop smoking cigarettes, specifically, or does it broadly classify any usage of nicotine-containing products as "continuing to smoke?" I could see someone who vapes being naively classified as a "smoker."
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    The agreement doesn't require the states to do anything. They simply cash tobacco checks, nothing requires them to spend the money on tobacco harm mitigation. There's a recommended level of funding the CDC advises: no state funds prevention at that level.[1] >Over the years, the states have collected tremendous amounts of commercial tobacco revenue, but are spending little of it on tobacco prevention and cessation programs. According to A State-by-State Look at the 1998 Tobacco Settlement 19 Years Later, states will collect $27.5 billion from the MSA and taxes in Fiscal Year 2018, but will spend less than 3 percent of it on programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit. No state currently funds tobacco prevention at the level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 29 states and the District of Columbia spend less than 20 percent of the CDC recommendation. Thus the states are effectively partnered with the tobacco industry. [1] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...

by Mtinie 7y ago

notimetorelax 7y ago

Society, if those products are found unsafe earlier rather than later.

Mtinie 7y ago
I agree, but my questions have to do with the economics of the panic, warranted or not. To build on your comment: Vaping is not a new concept[0] and if the act of vaping itself— rather than a problem with the supply chain (product purity, dosages, etc.)—was the problem why has it taken 13 years in the U.S. to surface? I can imagine the contemporary spike in numbers of users and frequency has effect on the number of cases. For all we know this condition with the same set of symptoms has been seen before but connections never drawn to a wider-spread problem. This may be the “earlier discovery” you reference, compared to the decades it took for Society to recognize how dangerous cigarettes are. [0] http://www.casaa.org/historical-timeline-of-electronic-cigarettes/ http://www.casaa.org/historical-timeline-of-electronic-cigar... (note: industry source)
penagwin 7y ago
This depends - see the alchohol prohibition, if there's a large enough market and the product is easy enough to make then banning the product just creates an unregulated black market. Which can create more problems if there's tainted products being sold, legal users will have to avoid otherwise legitimate shops that have at least _some_ degree of liability vs some random friend of a friend who has "good stuff" - who has no incentive at all to care about health or safety.

mullingitover 7y ago

> Who benefits from a temporary demand reduction or regulatory shift in vaping? Every state receiving funds in the Master Settlement Agreement. They are effectively partnering with the tobacco companies and they lose money when people successfully quit smoking.

Mtinie 7y ago
Interesting point. Do you know if the Master Settlement Agreement requires people to stop smoking cigarettes, specifically, or does it broadly classify any usage of nicotine-containing products as "continuing to smoke?" I could see someone who vapes being naively classified as a "smoker."
- mullingitover 7y ago
  The agreement doesn't require the states to do anything. They simply cash tobacco checks, nothing requires them to spend the money on tobacco harm mitigation. There's a recommended level of funding the CDC advises: no state funds prevention at that level.[1] >Over the years, the states have collected tremendous amounts of commercial tobacco revenue, but are spending little of it on tobacco prevention and cessation programs. According to A State-by-State Look at the 1998 Tobacco Settlement 19 Years Later, states will collect $27.5 billion from the MSA and taxes in Fiscal Year 2018, but will spend less than 3 percent of it on programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit. No state currently funds tobacco prevention at the level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 29 states and the District of Columbia spend less than 20 percent of the CDC recommendation. Thus the states are effectively partnered with the tobacco industry. [1] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...