# L.A. votes to ban flavoured tobacco /Calls for complete vaping ban



## Hooked (2/10/19)

https://www.latimes.com/california/...ounty-supervisors-ban-flavored-tobacco-vaping
1 Oct. 2019

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to ban flavored tobacco products, including menthol, and to call on Gov. Gavin Newsom to pass a statewide ban on vaping.

The board had originally held the item for discussion, but ultimately approved it without comment from any of the supervisors as the meeting ran long....

The ordinance will take effect in 30 days. Tobacco retailers then have 180 days to obtain new licenses required under the ordinance and to clear their shelves of flavored tobacco products.

Online sales will not be prohibited and users will not be punished under the ordinance, according to county lawyers.

Department of Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer told the board last week that flavored tobacco products “are driving the current vaping epidemic among youth” and encouraging experimentation that can lead to lifelong addiction.

“Evidence is mounting that vaping can severely impact lung function,” Ferrer said, pointing to nine recent vaping deaths nationwide ...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

Ok so you cant sell rum and maple, cherry, methol etc tobacco anymore? What are the tobacco companies saying about it. Will it hurt their sales?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Hooked (2/10/19)

Jean claude Vaaldamme said:


> Ok so you cant sell rum and maple, cherry, methol etc tobacco anymore? What are the tobacco companies saying about it. Will it hurt their sales?



@Jean claude Vaaldamme Although they said "tobacco products" I wonder if they don't mean juice, not cigarettes? Because they keep on mentioning youth and vaping.


----------



## Hooked (2/10/19)

It's interesting that they would allow online sales, but not B & M shops. Perhaps because it's easy for someone under-age to walk into a shop, but not so easy for them to buy online because they would need to beg, steal or borrow their parent's credit card in order to pay?


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

Hooked said:


> @Jean claude Vaaldamme Although they said "tobacco products" I wonder if they don't mean juice, not cigarettes? Because they keep on mentioning youth and vaping.


Yes agree, maybe all the ban vaping and flavour articles they also meant something else, and was actually promoting vaping.


----------



## alex1501 (2/10/19)

Hooked said:


> Although they said "tobacco products" I wonder if they don't mean juice, not cigarettes? Because they keep on mentioning youth and vaping.



No need to wonder. Everything is included in "Tobacco products"

This is how it started:

https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-product...her-electronic-nicotine-delivery-systems-ends

Just a gist:
*FDA Regulation of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems*
In 2016, FDA finalized a rule extending CTP's regulatory authority to cover all tobacco products, including electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) that meet the definition of a tobacco product. FDA regulates the manufacture, import, packaging, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution of ENDS, including components and parts of ENDS but excluding accessories. Examples of components and parts of ENDS include:


E-liquids
A glass or plastic vial container of e-liquid
Cartridges
Atomizers
Certain batteries
Cartomizers and clearomizers
Digital display or lights to adjust settings
Tank systems
Drip tips
Flavorings for ENDS
Programmable software

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

Jean claude Vaaldamme said:


> Ok so you cant sell rum and maple, cherry, methol etc tobacco anymore? What are the tobacco companies saying about it. Will it hurt their sales?



It has already. Menthol cigarettes were banned in SanFran, along with flavoured vapes. RJ Reynolds fought the legislation tooth and nail, spending millions on campaigning, but lost. Their Newport brand is the top selling menthol cig in the US.

For the longest time, authorities in the US held off banning menthol because it is overwhelmingly the favoured cigarette type of African-Americans, and authorities didn't want to be accused of racism. But after SanFran passed their law without too much pushback, other jurisdictions seem more willing to push for a menthol ban.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

RichJB said:


> It has already. Menthol cigarettes were banned in SanFran, along with flavoured vapes. RJ Reynolds fought the legislation tooth and nail, spending millions on campaigning, but lost. Their Newport brand is the top selling menthol cig in the US.
> 
> For the longest time, authorities in the US held off banning menthol because it is overwhelmingly the favoured cigarette type of African-Americans, and authorities didn't want to be accused of racism. But after SanFran passed their law without too much pushback, other jurisdictions seem more willing to push for a menthol ban.


But Facebook told me all these vaping pressure is coming from tobacco mafia?


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

Well, yes and no. Big tobacco has bet the farm on smokeless tobacco. If PMI has sunk $4 billion into its smokeless products division, you can bet that they don't want the smokeless products banned. But severe restrictions, with regulatory conditions that only huge companies with millions to spend can possibly satisfy, would suit them as it helps them to establish market dominance.

So it's a very finely balanced game that big tobacco has to play. They want the market depressed to the point where vaping competitors leave, but they don't want an all-out ban. The way the FDA set up the PMTAs under Obama was perfect for big tobacco. $300k to license a single product and masses of paperwork to submit was in their wheelhouse. They knew that mom and pop vaping companies couldn't afford it or do the scientific testing or admin required, so would have no choice but to pack up shop. For big tobacco, sinking $10 million into testing and paying $300k per product is chump change. Paperwork is also their bread and jam. PMI's FDA submission for iQOS was two MILLION pages.

However, these latest bans are upsetting the apple cart. No amount of testing or licensing fees will help if smokeless tobacco is banned. So I'm guessing big tobacco is not behind it. It's also worth noting that India has banned JUUL as part of its vaping ban. It's safe to say that Altria didn't envisage the product in which they bought shares being denied entry to a potentially massive market. So big tobacco are probably hurting too. Which, of course, will only spur municipal and state governments to push ahead with further bans. They hate big tobacco and are committed to destroying them, and they don't mind if they take the whole vaping industry down as well in the process. The WHO doesn't even allow tobacco representatives to attend their public meetings, such is the hostility and distrust between them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hooked (2/10/19)

alex1501 said:


> No need to wonder. Everything is included in "Tobacco products"
> 
> This is how it started:
> 
> ...



Thanks @alex1501. Looks like someone systematically stripped a mod and made a list of all its components. Unbelievable!!!

But here's a question: If juice flavours are exactly the same as those used by the food industry, how can they specify "Flavorings for ENDS"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alex1501 (2/10/19)

Hooked said:


> If juice flavours are exactly the same as those used by the food industry, how can they specify "Flavorings for ENDS"?


Only retail juice is going really to take a hit for a now. Individual DIY flavours are not a important target at the moment, too much work for the bureaucracy and too small market share. We'll see in future how they'll try to kill it.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

The only way they could tackle DIY is with a nic ban. Every other component is used legally by some other industry.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## alex1501 (2/10/19)

RichJB said:


> The WHO doesn't even allow tobacco representatives to attend their public meetings, such is the hostility and distrust between them.


If that that was a true relation between them and not just a show for the public, how do you explain WHO push and support of the blanket vaping ban in India, Turkey, Thailand.... and yet no real push for a ban of the cigarettes?

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

I think regulators everywhere reason that it's a lot easier to stop an industry that hasn't reached critical mass yet. Cigarettes have been around too long, banning them would result in major economic disruptions. But vaping is still a fledgling industry, it could be nipped in the bud without major market rumblings. 

Even still, they have probably left it too late. I reckon that, over time, they will accept vaping as being a part of the legit economy. They'll still push for heavy regulations and taxation but will give up on trying to ban it. The toothpaste is out the tube now, they aren't going to uninvent it and it's too easy to make vaping devices and juice with legit products used by other industries. So they may as well accept that it's here to stay.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Adephi (2/10/19)

RichJB said:


> The only way they could tackle DIY is with a nic ban. Every other component is used legally by some other industry.



The thing that worries me about a nic ban is people will start their own nic extraction projects at home.

A simple google search can give many ways to extract nic from tobacco. End result is pure concentrated raw nicotine that will be lying around in peoples kitchens and lounges. A drop on the skin is enough to put an adult into ICU, children won't be that furtunate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RenaldoRheeder (3/10/19)

Hooked said:


> Thanks @alex1501. Looks like someone systematically stripped a mod and made a list of all its components. Unbelievable!!!
> 
> But here's a question: If juice flavours are exactly the same as those used by the food industry, how can they specify "Flavorings for ENDS"?



But here is what gets me thinking - and I might be completely wrong and just grasping at straws: would a pure mech mod fall within the defenition of ENDS? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

RichJB said:


> Cigarettes have been around too long, banning them would result in major economic disruptions.


You are on point here. It's not about health, it's all about a money. Everything else is a cheap fassade for the public. There are many players and interests in this story, but it always goes back to a single goal: More money.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

RenaldoRheeder said:


> would a pure mech mod fall within the defenition of ENDS?



It would (/could), under the flexible interpretation, but good luck regulating something, that can easily be made from a battery and a metal strip.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Hooked (3/10/19)

alex1501 said:


> It would (/could), under the flexible interpretation, but good luck regulating something, that can easily be made from a battery and a metal strip.



Now THAT will be bad! If people can't buy mods they'll just start making their own without knowing what they're doing. Then they'll blow themselves to pieces, the media will have a field day and once more, vaping will be the EVIL MONSTER.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

Hooked said:


> the media will have a field day and once more, vaping will be the EVIL MONSTER



According to the media, it's already "the EVIL MONSTER", so nothing new there.



Hooked said:


> Now THAT will be bad! If people can't buy mods they'll just start making their own without knowing what they're doing. Then they'll blow themselves to pieces,



I have to refrain from comenting this part.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RichJB (3/10/19)

alex1501 said:


> You are on point here. It's not about health, it's all about a money. Everything else is a cheap fassade for the public. There are many players and interests in this story, but it always goes back to a single goal: More money.



How do states make money by banning a product? If money was the goal, they'd follow Pennsylvania's lead and slap a 40% sales tax on all vaping products.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

RichJB said:


> How do states make money by banning a product? If money was the goal, they'd follow Pennsylvania's lead and slap a 40% sales tax on all vaping products.



In short: MSA
Long version: https://www.publichealthlawcenter.o...ontrol-litigation/master-settlement-agreement
but that is the only one facet of the story. States are greedy and like to borrow against the future income, from there you can go wild.

WHO, UN and big pharma are much bigger problem. There is a reason for India and Turkey being targeted (South America as well). Just think how many smokers are in those 2 countries alone. Then ask yourself, who have the biggest interest for those numbers to stay and put everything in at least 20 years (future) perspective. 
Thailand is much easier to unpack.
Have fun.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB (3/10/19)

How has vaping affected MSA payments? This site tracks all MSA payments year by year, both the total annual payment and by the allocations received by individual states. Here are the annual totals paid by MSA at five-year intervals:

2000: $7.9bn
2005: $7.5bn
2010: $7.5bn
2015: $7.1bn
2016: $7.9bn
2017: $7.3bn
2018: $8.2bn

Where is this massive drop-off that the vaping media keep citing? They keep telling us that vaping has killed tobacco sales and therefore MSA payments. But they never quote any figures. Why not? The MSA monies are part of the public record, both the tobacco companies paying MSA levies and states receiving them report the figures in their annual reports.

The vaping media likes to push the narrative that vaping is the only thing, or the dominant thing, that affects cigarette sales. It isn't. Tobacco stocks have been traded on stock markets for decades, market analysts have a very thorough understanding of what drives tobacco volumes and therefore stock prices. The two biggest factors, by far, are taxation and regulation.

With that in mind, we are told by the vaping media that California is in trouble with its tobacco bonds and that the state desperately needs more people smoking so that Cal gets paid more MSA money. Well, let's look at how Cal has motivated people to start smoking or keep smoking:

2016: Cal raises the smoking age from 18 to 21
2017: Cal increases tax on cig packs from 87c to $2.87. This was the result. 

2018: SanFran bans menthol cigarettes along with flavoured vape juice. LA is now set to follow suit.
The national smoking rate in the US is 17.1%. In Cal, it's 11.6%. For a state which allegedly wants more of its residents to smoke, Cal sure has gone about things in a strange way.

Sorry but I just cannot buy that either the federal govt or state governments in the US are trying to get people to smoke. If they wanted to do that, they'd be reducing the taxes and regulations on tobacco, not constantly increasing them. If they wanted to make money from vaping, they'd tax it, not ban it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

RichJB said:


> 2000: $7.9bn
> 2005: $7.5bn
> 2010: $7.5bn
> 2015: $7.1bn
> ...


Now adjust that against inflation, increased gov spending...etc and where the numbers are going for the same period?


----------



## RichJB (3/10/19)

The numbers are going down, which is exactly what govt planned. As you say, inflation counters the reduced volumes of cigs being shipped so annual payments remain about the same. 

However, inflation applies across the 2000-2018 period, vaping sales does not. Vaping only really took off in 2014 or so. So if vaping sales was the dominant factor that the vaping media cite, then we should have seen stable MSA payments from 2000-2014 (reduced volumes offset by inflation) but then a sudden dip from 2014 onwards. That hasn't happened. Clearly, vaping has had little effect on MSA payments. The trends that pertained prior to vaping taking off have continued largely unchanged.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RichJB (3/10/19)

Here is a graph that correlates the decline in cigarette volumes shipped with the annual MSA payments fluctuating year on year but staying stable over the medium term.



As you can see, the decline in shipments of cigarettes has followed a steady downward curve year on year from 1999, with only minor variations. Again, if vaping was the dominant factor that the vaping media make it out to be, we'd see only a gradual decline up until 2014/15 or so, and then a sudden precipitous drop. There is no evidence of that drop.

The single biggest drop in the graph, visible in both the MSA payment and cig shipments, is the drop under the S of "Since 1999" in the heading. That was in 2009/10. It wasn't vaping that caused it, very few people were vaping back then. But 1 April 2009 was the date on which the Obama administration levied an extra 69c tax nationally on all cigarette packs. It had a major effect on consumption.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alex1501 (3/10/19)

RichJB said:


> If they wanted to make money from vaping, they'd tax it, not ban it.


Except if they get better offer from another party.
From ~ approx 1 billion smokers globally, how many develop chronic heart disease, and all of the other illnesses, how much is average monthly treatement, and who ultimately scores.
I know that vaping is in its early stages, but it started growing trend and became potential treat some 20 years down the line. 
However you turn smokers loose.

You can believe in a good state, I have yet to see one. The sad part is that whatever we think and say is absolutely irrelevant.


----------



## CMMACKEM (3/10/19)

Strange how many people are blaming Trump for this when these harsh laws/bans are being past in Democratic states by democratic governors. 
Red states remain largely unaffected.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## RichJB (3/10/19)

Trump instructed the FDA to pursue a federal (i.e. national) ban on flavoured vapes. When/if that happens, red states will have to abide by it, whether they want to or not. So I'm guessing conservatives are a bit ticked off with Trump atm.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------

