← Back
Californian authorities in ecig vending machine row
A draft bill by a member of the Californian state authority which would have banned the sale of electronic cigarettes through vending machines, where tobacco cigarettes are also banned, has failed dramatically. The bill was sponsored by Senator Ellen Corbett was a means of reducing the availability of electronic cigarettes to young people. The very fact that many vending machines are situated in bars and other such locations in many ways weakened the idea behind the bill before it even reached the main committee. However, it is the behind-the-scenes rows which have dominated this particular issue.
Ahead of the proposed ban on vending machine sales of electronic cigarettes a number of surveys were released into the public domain confirming that tobacco cigarette company contributions to the California Democratic Party have quadrupled over the last five years. This has placed many politicians in a precarious situation where they need to balance health issues and the demanding vaping community against the obvious influence of the tobacco giants. This latest bill collapsed when both sides accused each other of placing the tobacco cigarette companies ahead of public health which obviously does not make good headlines for the Californian authorities.
What next?
This particular bill failed because 12 of the 17 committee members failed to cast a vote although it is eligible for reintroduction in the future. While the idea of banning electronic cigarette sales via vending machines may seem fairly irrelevant in the overall picture it has prompted the release of some potentially damaging financial information. It is now common knowledge that the tobacco cigarette companies have increased their political contributions with many seeing this as a way of protecting their own markets going forward. Whether or not this is the case, this is certainly the public's perception at this moment in time leaving politicians with very little in the way of wriggle room.
It will be interesting to see how the US authorities respond to the ever-growing power and influence of the tobacco companies which are pushing for a win-win situation. If electronic cigarettes come under the same restrictions as tobacco products then this will help protect their current markets. However, if the authorities look to further the ecig market then the tobacco companies would push for stringent regulations which would be financially detrimental to many small to medium-sized ecigarette companies, potentially leaving the market open for them to step in and attempt to dominate.
Is public health being ignored?
In some ways it is very easy to point the finger of blame at politicians around the world and suggest that they are more led by their budget deficits than public health. However, while the general consensus seems to be that electronic cigarettes are at worst less harmful than their tobacco counterparts, all parties admit there is still work to be done to clarify this. As a consequence politicians do have an obligation to protect the health of the general public until all possible risks can be confidently defined.
One issue which has received little in the way of publicity is the potentially enormous cost savings if more tobacco cigarette smokers switch to e-cigarettes. The link between tobacco smoking and cancer has been mentioned in dispatches as a major cause of millions of deaths around the world and enormous healthcare costs across the globe. If electronic cigarettes offer at worst a reduced risk of medical complications, and at best are more than 90% less harmful than their tobacco counterparts, then surely there are potentially billions upon billions of dollars of health care cost savings to be made?
Are there more potential benefits in promoting electronic cigarettes, and reducing healthcare spending, than taxing electronic cigarettes and reducing their attractions for those looking to give up tobacco cigarettes?
Brought to you buy OK ecigs:
What next?
This particular bill failed because 12 of the 17 committee members failed to cast a vote although it is eligible for reintroduction in the future. While the idea of banning electronic cigarette sales via vending machines may seem fairly irrelevant in the overall picture it has prompted the release of some potentially damaging financial information. It is now common knowledge that the tobacco cigarette companies have increased their political contributions with many seeing this as a way of protecting their own markets going forward. Whether or not this is the case, this is certainly the public's perception at this moment in time leaving politicians with very little in the way of wriggle room.
It will be interesting to see how the US authorities respond to the ever-growing power and influence of the tobacco companies which are pushing for a win-win situation. If electronic cigarettes come under the same restrictions as tobacco products then this will help protect their current markets. However, if the authorities look to further the ecig market then the tobacco companies would push for stringent regulations which would be financially detrimental to many small to medium-sized ecigarette companies, potentially leaving the market open for them to step in and attempt to dominate.
Is public health being ignored?
In some ways it is very easy to point the finger of blame at politicians around the world and suggest that they are more led by their budget deficits than public health. However, while the general consensus seems to be that electronic cigarettes are at worst less harmful than their tobacco counterparts, all parties admit there is still work to be done to clarify this. As a consequence politicians do have an obligation to protect the health of the general public until all possible risks can be confidently defined.
One issue which has received little in the way of publicity is the potentially enormous cost savings if more tobacco cigarette smokers switch to e-cigarettes. The link between tobacco smoking and cancer has been mentioned in dispatches as a major cause of millions of deaths around the world and enormous healthcare costs across the globe. If electronic cigarettes offer at worst a reduced risk of medical complications, and at best are more than 90% less harmful than their tobacco counterparts, then surely there are potentially billions upon billions of dollars of health care cost savings to be made?
Are there more potential benefits in promoting electronic cigarettes, and reducing healthcare spending, than taxing electronic cigarettes and reducing their attractions for those looking to give up tobacco cigarettes?
Brought to you buy OK ecigs:
Related Posts
-
Which is the Most Realistic E-cigarette in 2019?To some people, replicating the look and feel of a cigarette is the most important aspect of shopping for an ecig. This is o...
Read now -
How are "Approximate Cigarettes" calculated with electronic cigarettes?In e-cigarettes, often the first thing a customer looks for is the equivalent number of cigarettes their e-cigarette might de...
Read now -
Why indoor vaping bans could multiply the number of vapersWales is talking about banning e-cigarette use indoors. Will the rest of the UK follow? It's an interesting question and one ...
Read now