4 ms·

Let's be honest, this is a shakedown. E-cigarette manufacturers just need to grease the right palms, this is absolutely not about public health. Amount of mone

Let's be honest, this is a shakedown. E-cigarette manufacturers just need to grease the right palms, this is absolutely not about public health. Amount of money that States in the Master Settlement Agreement profited from tobacco sales this year: $27 billion Amount of tax revenue States collected on tobacco in 2018: $12.86 billion Number of people killed by tobacco last year: 480,000 Number of States that spend the CDC-recommended amount on tobacco prevention programs: 0 Number of states that have made efforts to ban tobacco: 0 https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/us/statereport https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/us/statereport https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/tobacco-tax-revenue https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/tobacco-tax-revenue https://www.statista.com/statistics/248964/revenues-from-tobacco-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/248964/revenues-from-tob... https://cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm https://cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_fac...

nokcha 7y ago
>Number of states that have made efforts to ban tobacco: 0 Do you suggest that states should ban tobacco? I think that would be a mistake, judging by the effects of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the current war on drugs.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  I don't think it should be banned, but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. If states really feel like you can't put a price on human life, and we should think of the children, etc, they could revise their policy and charge taxes at the price that would come extremely close to eliminating all demand.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    This is already true in some locales. NYC’s base price for a pack is $13. The main issue with this is, like guns and alcohol, localities and states all have differences of opinion, so that ends up not meaning much in practice when someone can just drive over the county line to get their cheaper fix. State and city level whack-a-mole is an intractable problem.
  - JoshTriplett 7y ago
    If you tax it high enough, you won't necessarily drive demand down to zero, you'll just drive demand back to illicit sources just like currently illegal drugs.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      I agree that there would be a small black market, but it would be just that: small.
      - admax88q 7y ago
        What is the effective difference between huge taxation and banning?
        vkou 7y ago
        You, or anyone employed, owning, or contracted by any part of the supply chain, can get legal redress from any issues arising in the manufacture, sale, transportation, or consumption an expensive, heavily taxed product. With a black market product, your only form of redress for any issues that may arise from commercial activity surrounding that product is an incredible, and preferably disproportionate amount of physical violence.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    > but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. Tell that to all the people who are still buying weed from dealers in states where recreational is legal (and taxed highly).
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    High taxes won't stop many smokers from smoking. They just switch to cheaper brands, or buy them through illegal channels. That's how "loosies" became a huge business in poor neighborhoods.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      It has marked effects on young adults, and reducing youth smoking is the most bang-for-your-buck public health impact you can have. It's unusual for adults to randomly just take up smoking if they didn't start young. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- vkou 7y ago
  I have been exposed to the argument that prohibition was actually reasonably successful - alcohol abuse and liver cirrhosis hospitalizations went down, crime rates overall did not go up, and there was a net gain to public health.
- brandonmenc 7y ago
  Something like 90% of adults consume alcohol. Banning tobacco would not have the same effect as the 18th Amendment.
FireBeyond 7y ago
So because we fail on tobacco-related public health issues, we should ignore potential health issues from other products?
- yifanl 7y ago
  (In spite of what I said yesterday,) the reason why a policy change is made is important. I might agree with the policy specifically, but the context matters.
CJefferson 7y ago
In 2009 flavoured cigarettes were banned. This just brings e-cigarettes in line with cigarettes
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I was about to make the same call. The same thing happened here in Canada when it was shown that the flavoured versions were drawing in kids.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  There's a very strong drive to make an equivalency with tobacco and e-cigarettes, and I think it's extremely irresponsible. "We don't know the long-term effects" is usually put forward as an argument. However, preliminary evidence is pretty strong that they're orders of magnitude less harmful. Putting e-cigarettes, (which look like they might save hundreds of thousands to millions of lives if all smokers switched to them) in line with cigarettes is potentially a public health catastrophe.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Six people have died so far from what seems to be a vaping-related lung condition. This may be several orders of magnitude lower than the number killed by smoking cigarettes an equivalent amount of time, but it's not something to be ignored. Strangling a baby in its crib is easier than taking out the full-grown adult later.
    - pochamago 7y ago
      All of which appear to be related to black market pods. I don't think that empowering the black market by banning the pods people want to buy is going to fix that.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      > Six people have died so far from what seems to be a vaping-related lung condition. Vaping what, exactly? This whole situation is like if the government allowed (and profited in the billions on sales of) heroin, and a small industry sprang up selling methadone pills. A few people who took some unknown kind of pill got sick or died, and the government then makes moves to shut down the methadone industry.
aphextim 7y ago
Also Phillip Morris and Altria trying to merge. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/philip-morris-and-altria-merger-one-big-tobacco-deal-is-enough https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/philip... Which look at that, Juul is NOT banned because they are owned by the aforementioned companies. This is regulatory capture at its finest.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  It's worth mentioning that Altria was previously known as Phillip Morris. The Phillip Morris you're referencing is Phillip Morris International. It was split off from Altria in 2008. So as far as egregious mergers go, this isn't it. This is getting the band back together.
cptskippy 7y ago
> Let's be honest, this is a shakedown. The settlement money isn't suppose to be for prevention programs, it's to bolster public health institutions who are saddle with providing health care for tobacco related diseases that are a direct result of the misleading practices from the tobacco industry. > Number of States that spend the CDC-recommended amount on tobacco prevention programs: 0 How much does the CDC recommend? How much are they spending? Your statement is designed to trick the reader into thinking states aren't spending any money.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > How much does the CDC recommend? How much are they spending? Your statement is designed to trick the reader into thinking states aren't spending any money. Details are in the links below the facts I listed.
  - cptskippy 7y ago
    Then why don't you share them to support your argument? The burden of proof lies on you.

nokcha 7y ago

>Number of states that have made efforts to ban tobacco: 0 Do you suggest that states should ban tobacco? I think that would be a mistake, judging by the effects of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the current war on drugs.

mullingitover 7y ago
I don't think it should be banned, but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. If states really feel like you can't put a price on human life, and we should think of the children, etc, they could revise their policy and charge taxes at the price that would come extremely close to eliminating all demand.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  This is already true in some locales. NYC’s base price for a pack is $13. The main issue with this is, like guns and alcohol, localities and states all have differences of opinion, so that ends up not meaning much in practice when someone can just drive over the county line to get their cheaper fix. State and city level whack-a-mole is an intractable problem.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  If you tax it high enough, you won't necessarily drive demand down to zero, you'll just drive demand back to illicit sources just like currently illegal drugs.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    I agree that there would be a small black market, but it would be just that: small.
    - admax88q 7y ago
      What is the effective difference between huge taxation and banning?
      - vkou 7y ago
        You, or anyone employed, owning, or contracted by any part of the supply chain, can get legal redress from any issues arising in the manufacture, sale, transportation, or consumption an expensive, heavily taxed product. With a black market product, your only form of redress for any issues that may arise from commercial activity surrounding that product is an incredible, and preferably disproportionate amount of physical violence.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  > but there's a level of taxation that will drive demand down to near-zero. Tell that to all the people who are still buying weed from dealers in states where recreational is legal (and taxed highly).
- reaperducer 7y ago
  High taxes won't stop many smokers from smoking. They just switch to cheaper brands, or buy them through illegal channels. That's how "loosies" became a huge business in poor neighborhoods.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    It has marked effects on young adults, and reducing youth smoking is the most bang-for-your-buck public health impact you can have. It's unusual for adults to randomly just take up smoking if they didn't start young. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
vkou 7y ago
I have been exposed to the argument that prohibition was actually reasonably successful - alcohol abuse and liver cirrhosis hospitalizations went down, crime rates overall did not go up, and there was a net gain to public health.
brandonmenc 7y ago
Something like 90% of adults consume alcohol. Banning tobacco would not have the same effect as the 18th Amendment.

FireBeyond 7y ago

So because we fail on tobacco-related public health issues, we should ignore potential health issues from other products?

yifanl 7y ago
(In spite of what I said yesterday,) the reason why a policy change is made is important. I might agree with the policy specifically, but the context matters.

CJefferson 7y ago

In 2009 flavoured cigarettes were banned. This just brings e-cigarettes in line with cigarettes

52-6F-62 7y ago
I was about to make the same call. The same thing happened here in Canada when it was shown that the flavoured versions were drawing in kids.
mullingitover 7y ago
There's a very strong drive to make an equivalency with tobacco and e-cigarettes, and I think it's extremely irresponsible. "We don't know the long-term effects" is usually put forward as an argument. However, preliminary evidence is pretty strong that they're orders of magnitude less harmful. Putting e-cigarettes, (which look like they might save hundreds of thousands to millions of lives if all smokers switched to them) in line with cigarettes is potentially a public health catastrophe.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Six people have died so far from what seems to be a vaping-related lung condition. This may be several orders of magnitude lower than the number killed by smoking cigarettes an equivalent amount of time, but it's not something to be ignored. Strangling a baby in its crib is easier than taking out the full-grown adult later.
  - pochamago 7y ago
    All of which appear to be related to black market pods. I don't think that empowering the black market by banning the pods people want to buy is going to fix that.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > Six people have died so far from what seems to be a vaping-related lung condition. Vaping what, exactly? This whole situation is like if the government allowed (and profited in the billions on sales of) heroin, and a small industry sprang up selling methadone pills. A few people who took some unknown kind of pill got sick or died, and the government then makes moves to shut down the methadone industry.

aphextim 7y ago

Also Phillip Morris and Altria trying to merge. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/philip-morris-and-altria-merger-one-big-tobacco-deal-is-enough https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/philip... Which look at that, Juul is NOT banned because they are owned by the aforementioned companies. This is regulatory capture at its finest.

dehrmann 7y ago
It's worth mentioning that Altria was previously known as Phillip Morris. The Phillip Morris you're referencing is Phillip Morris International. It was split off from Altria in 2008. So as far as egregious mergers go, this isn't it. This is getting the band back together.

cptskippy 7y ago

> Let's be honest, this is a shakedown. The settlement money isn't suppose to be for prevention programs, it's to bolster public health institutions who are saddle with providing health care for tobacco related diseases that are a direct result of the misleading practices from the tobacco industry. > Number of States that spend the CDC-recommended amount on tobacco prevention programs: 0 How much does the CDC recommend? How much are they spending? Your statement is designed to trick the reader into thinking states aren't spending any money.

mullingitover 7y ago
> How much does the CDC recommend? How much are they spending? Your statement is designed to trick the reader into thinking states aren't spending any money. Details are in the links below the facts I listed.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  Then why don't you share them to support your argument? The burden of proof lies on you.