4 ms·

Yep to be honest the whole vaping scene is a good template for what regulatory capture looks like in the USA. I'm not sure if it's due to lawmaker/parent ignor

Yep to be honest the whole vaping scene is a good template for what regulatory capture looks like in the USA. I'm not sure if it's due to lawmaker/parent ignorance, or an actual plan by larger tobacco companies. Probably a mix of both.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Both the incumbent tobacco companies and the state have a huge financial interest in ensuring that a) competition stays out or b) they get the right sized cut from any competitor. The states scrambled to delay and regulate ecigs just enough to figure out how to tax it because they were afraid of losing revenue from cigarette taxes. They were not just haplessly corrupt but active in that effort.
- ryandvm 5y ago
  > states scrambled to delay and regulate ecigs just enough to figure out how to tax it because they were afraid of losing revenue from cigarette taxes I hear permutations of this theory mentioned a lot, but I'm not sure I buy it. The political incentives just aren't there on an individual level. It would require politicians on both sides of the aisle to be actively interested in budgetary policy. The reality is that there is a strong survival bias among politicians to be almost obsessively focused on party fund-raising and perpetual campaigning. It has become exceedingly rare for politicians to be bothered working on bi-partisan legislation that isn't culture war bullshit.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Because of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in 1996, states get money based on the smoking rate (units sold). When the smoking rate goes down, they get less money. Like it or not, states /pols are incentivized to keep smokers around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre... >It would require politicians on both sides of the aisle to be actively interested in budgetary policy. They are much more so at the state level because states can't print money.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Both the incumbent tobacco companies and the state have a huge financial interest in ensuring that a) competition stays out or b) they get the right sized cut from any competitor. The states scrambled to delay and regulate ecigs just enough to figure out how to tax it because they were afraid of losing revenue from cigarette taxes. They were not just haplessly corrupt but active in that effort.

ryandvm 5y ago
> states scrambled to delay and regulate ecigs just enough to figure out how to tax it because they were afraid of losing revenue from cigarette taxes I hear permutations of this theory mentioned a lot, but I'm not sure I buy it. The political incentives just aren't there on an individual level. It would require politicians on both sides of the aisle to be actively interested in budgetary policy. The reality is that there is a strong survival bias among politicians to be almost obsessively focused on party fund-raising and perpetual campaigning. It has become exceedingly rare for politicians to be bothered working on bi-partisan legislation that isn't culture war bullshit.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Because of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in 1996, states get money based on the smoking rate (units sold). When the smoking rate goes down, they get less money. Like it or not, states /pols are incentivized to keep smokers around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre... >It would require politicians on both sides of the aisle to be actively interested in budgetary policy. They are much more so at the state level because states can't print money.