Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#121

Post by Shivetya »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

it is the same reason we have the opioid mess, nice sounding but stupid policy decisions; namely beating on doctors correctly prescribing pain killers to those who needed them to the point they no longer did.

like the current bugaboo over vaping causing deaths the CDC crows about yet statistics show its not legal over the counter products.

sensationalism sells papers and gets votes. exploiting ignorance with something that sounds truthful if not plausible has always been the game. when all else fails, "for the children" is the go to.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#122

Post by scriptkiddy »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #119
scriptkiddy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From one perspective I would be in favor of this as long the tax on cigarettes is higher than the tax on vaping products. That way both appear unattractive, but cigarettes more so. From another perspective I wouldn't be in favor of higher taxes on vaping products because it would be yet another tax affecting primarily lower income people. So, while I don't think it's a bad idea, I think I would need to do some more r…

Why do you say it would primarily affect lower income people? You mean because the cigarette smoker user base skews low income? I guess it affects them in the sense that some pay more, but many others quit something that is harmful which "helps" them (but of course net negative if you value personal will higher than the health cost and believe that people who smoke are entirely rational) But agreed, in light of the c…

> Why do you say it would primarily affect lower income people?

For the reason you stated here. It's more a conflict in personal philosophy I guess.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#123

Post by cowpewter »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #66
scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

I just switched to unflavoured base + nicotine shot. It's tastes fine and costs about 80% less. I can buy 1 litre(!) of base for $15, a premix of flavour 60ml costs the same!

Yeah, I make my own juice as well, though I do flavor mine, usually with fruit or mint flavors.

A 60ml bottle of commercial juice easily costs $15-20.

I buy my nic, PG, and VG from Liquid Barn and my flavors from a variety of sources (though mostly through Nicotine River). My materials cost for 60ml of homemade juice is only around $1.53 per bottle (not including the bottle itself, which you can recycle from commercial juice, or you can buy some, which only costs like $1/bottle). That's one hell of a cost savings!

That's made up of approx $0.33 of nicotine base, $0.09 of PG, $0.33 of VG, and $0.78 of flavoring. I buy PG/VG in 1000ml bottles and flavors I use a lot of in 2oz bottles, so I'm saving a bit by buying in bulk, but it still should only cost around $35 for the ingredients to get started in DIY ejuice - the cost of around 2 bottles of commercial juice. Grab yourself 500ml each of PG/VG, 125ml of nic base, and a handful of flavors and you have enough materials for at least 10 60ml bottles of ejuice (and you'll probably have PG, nic, and flavor leftover, the VG is by far the most used ingredient).

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#124

Post by Scoundreller »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #108
alistairSH wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible Not true. Big Tobacco owns (partially or outright) most of the big players in the vaping industry. Vuse is owned by Reynolds, Vype is owned by BAT, and Altria has a massive stake in Juul. It's in Big Tobacco's interest to ensure vaping is easy and viewed as an alternative to cigarettes. It's also in their interest to keep the product i…

Maybe the US market turned out very different, but the UK market has be pushing 90%+ coming from independent vape shops, stalls and some discount chains selling e-liquids from non-tobacco connected vape specialists. It's where just about everyone seems to get their switch to vaping when they decide to give up smoking. The big tobacco owned products like Vype are almost always seen in petrol stations, off-licences and…

GP isn’t wrong and neither are you. The industry is so fragmented that Big Tobacco owning the 5-10% players means they do own the biggest players.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#125

Post by nv-vn »

wcarron wrote: post #102
cronix wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with candy flavors that appeal to younger consumers. Because no adults enjoy candy, or flavors? That's exclusive to "younger consumers" only? The vast majority of people who vape are adults. They also enjoy flavored e-juice. Maybe we should put stuff in alcohol that makes it so disgusting no one wants to drink it as well by that logic. Ban flavored alcohol and mixers... too many kids getting drunk off peach schnapp…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28318902 From this study: > Current flavored (including menthol) tobacco product use was highest in youth (80%, aged 12-17 years); and young adult tobacco users (73%, aged 18-24 years); and lowest in older adult tobacco users aged ≥65 years (29%). Flavor was a primary reason for using a given tobacco product, particularly among youth. Eighty-one percent of youth and 86% of young ad…

How is flavor the #1 reason for use? I don't get how they determined that.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#126

Post by atlasunshrugged »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #122
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it would primarily affect lower income people? You mean because the cigarette smoker user base skews low income? I guess it affects them in the sense that some pay more, but many others quit something that is harmful which "helps" them (but of course net negative if you value personal will higher than the health cost and believe that people who smoke are entirely rational) But agreed, in light of the c…

> Why do you say it would primarily affect lower income people? For the reason you stated here. It's more a conflict in personal philosophy I guess.

Fair enough, lots of people do consider tobacco and "sin" taxes to be regressive. The counter I said is just a reframing of it, I honestly have mixed feelings about it too

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#127

Post by magashna »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #95
magashna wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see how well banning red meat and cars would go over. Vapes are an easy target right now. Heart disease and auto accidents are some of the greatest threats to the average American, but you'll never hear a politician going after those.

Cars and red meat aren’t really comparable as they have a long history in society. But Cars are probably the most regulated thing you interact with day to day. You need a license, insurance and have to follow precise rules to operate them safely. Red meat also has restrictions from government bodies. In the free market those rules wouldn’t exist and people would be upset about taking their rights away when you regula…

Nicotine doesn't have a long history here? Cigarettes, cigars, pipes, dip, snuff, chew, hookah, all different methods, some with histories hundreds of years old. Vaping is just the modern equivalent.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#128

Post by fnord123 »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #81
fnord123 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On a more philosophical note, are we really OK with the government reaching this far into our personal lives? It's not reaching into your personal life. It's reaching into businesses to stop them from selling damaging and highly addictive products. Banning tobacco would be optimal but not feasible since too many people are already addicted.

So are you in favor of banning fast food and alcohol as well?

None of these, including smoking, are possible to ban due to the addictive qualities. But indeed there should be initiatives to wean people off them and reduce the damage they do.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#129

Post by Circuits »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

Honestly, I wish cigarettes were illegal and the same goes for e-cigarettes. Neither is needed by society and one for sure brings nothing but pain and misery to the masses. Had they been illegal I wouldn't be dealing with a 17 year long addiction problem.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#130

Post by aphextim »

alistairSH wrote: post #39
scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible Not true. Big Tobacco owns (partially or outright) most of the big players in the vaping industry. Vuse is owned by Reynolds, Vype is owned by BAT, and Altria has a massive stake in Juul. It's in Big Tobacco's interest to ensure vaping is easy and viewed as an alternative to cigarettes. It's also in their interest to keep the product i…

TL:DR - Flavored Juices make up 80% of the market, ban flavors will leave big players left to own the market.

Opinion: There are many ways we could regulate this better than an outright ban. Banning things will only lead to black market sales. We should go to all brown packaging, ban any outside advertising, actually fine shops who don't comply and by using education and transparency explain to the youth why it is detrimental to their health.

I cannot even remember how many flavored alcohol ads I saw during the NFL games over this past weekend....yet they get a free pass...

I agree we have to do something, but whenever a politician says, "It's for the kids" it tends to be for anything but and they are using that line to pull the heartstrings of parents.

Why isn't Juul being regulated? They are partnered with Altria.

There was recently a merger between Phillip Morris and Altria

https://www.vapor4life.com/blog/altria-pmi-merger/

FTA

>Altria supports a flavor ban, which would benefit a combined Phillip Morris- Altria. The one-note iQOS is a much more appealing option when pitted against tobacco ejuice flavors, which simply are not as popular with adult smokers as the sweeter varieties.

>With no fruit and dessert flavors to compete with, it would boil down to who has the best tobacco flavor. Altria clearly thinks the iQOS would win that contest. The edge is even greater when it comes to novices and smokers who have never tried vaping.

>Where Juul ends up, and if it will be pitted head to head against the iQOS is another market disruption that is nearly impossible to predict.

>We are fast approaching a scenario that resembles regulatory capture. The practiced hands of the tobacco industry are the largest and most influential stakeholders. They are pushing for regulations that destroy the competition and leave their own products untouched.

>How the public would react to this sleight of hand and a restructured vaping industry dominated by Big Tobacco and Juul could end up making this power move a pyrrhic victory.

Post reply on HN