Some idle thoughts - the future of vaping?

[reefcat]

I'm more of a lurker than a poster, and being new to vaping, have followed many of the newbie threads. In my short time as a vaper, I have managed to introduce many work colleagues and friends to the pleasures, some of whom are off the analogues completely. (Thank you Jason) Unlike me by the way, I still smoke 5 or six a day, but can see a time when I will quit "smoking" for good.

It seems to me that the vaping genie is out of the bottle, despite the efforts of big pharma, government, the medical establishment, the tobacco companies etc. Although I suspect that vaping will have a rough ride in the coming years as vested interest groups try to protect themselves, through legislation, taxation, and biased research.

I, and I'm sure many others have thought about jumping on the E Cig bandwagon, setting up a little online business and combining an absorbing hobby with making a living. But after looking around the proliferation of vendors, I suspect that the marketplace is already quite crowded.

My idle thoughts are to do with what would happen if a seriously big player entered the market. I'm certain the tobacco giants, and to a lesser extent the big pharmaceutical companies will one day change sides. They have the scale to ride the legislation that is almost bound to follow, once vaping becomes mainstream.

In the long term, will vaping become another arm of the established mega industrials, Glaxo, Johnsons and the like. Or will the cottage industry vendors continue to thrive?

[DiscoDes]

Sept 19, 2012 17:17:57 GMT reefcat said:

In the long term, will vaping become another arm of the established mega industrials, Glaxo, Johnsons and the like. Or will the cottage industry vendors continue to thrive?

Yes and possibly, though many will fall by the wayside as legislation makes it hard for the small scale supplier to comply.

[Brian]

Good questions, that are supposedly going to be answered in spring of next year, apparently.

The goverment are holding a review of E-Cigarettes and the findings are being released then, or supposed to be.

I guess thats when the big companies will jump on the bandwagon and try and corner a huge market.

Already established vendors, such as. Totally Wicked? Ecigwizard? Vapeescape? Elites? and many others who are instantly recognised by us vapers, will survive. I guess.

What our government decide to do about taxation is anyones guess. However, is wire, wick, batteries, flavourings, VG, PG, etc, You get the picture, taxable as vaping requirements, as they are readily available for many other uses!

[DiscoDes]

It will be the Nicotine juice that will be taxed, probably to the hilt.

BUT here's an interesting thing will the cig-a-like companies that say a carto is equivalent to 20 stinkies face a scale of tax equal to 20 stinkies?
Maybe they've shot themselves in the foot making these claims as the HMCS say "You say it's equivalent to 20 cigarettes, so you pay £5 tax per cartomiser!"

[Brian]

On another point.

We as taxpayers, rely on lower taxes, to a certain extent, because smokers and drinkers pay huge taxes on their habit, which helps keep others to a lower threshhold. However, as more and more people stop smoking and take up vaping, someone has to foot the bill. Taxing ecigs is, I think, is inevitable on the obvious e-cigarette.

Cigalikes will be VAT accountable. Thats a certainty. Also nicotine, Ego batteries and the like.

Torches that can be modded for vaping, never! IMO

[Karma]

Good point Des

I hate these threads, my BIN finger gets very twitchy

[Brian]

Sept 19, 2012 17:34:21 GMT DiscoDes said:

It will be the Nicotine juice that will be taxed, probably to the hilt.

BUT here's an interesting thing will the cig-a-like companies that say a carto is equivalent to 20 stinkies face a scale of tax equal to 20 stinkies?
Maybe they've shot themselves in the foot making these claims as the HMCS say "You say it's equivalent to 20 cigarettes, so you fay £5 tax per cartomiser!"

Serves em right Des.

[Skwoddy]

Governments feeding off addiction, wrong on so many levels, Same as fuel, necessary so its taxed to the high heavens.

Guess im gonna be stocking up in the months leading up to spring.

[Skwoddy]

Sept 19, 2012 17:34:21 GMT DiscoDes said:

It will be the Nicotine juice that will be taxed, probably to the hilt.

BUT here's an interesting thing will the cig-a-like companies that say a carto is equivalent to 20 stinkies face a scale of tax equal to 20 stinkies?
Maybe they've shot themselves in the foot making these claims as the HMCS say "You say it's equivalent to 20 cigarettes, so you fay £5 tax per cartomiser!"

You would think with the £59 that skycig were charging for their kit it had already happened.

[reefcat]

I work in a fairly large head office building, with maybe 1000 staff on site. I'd guess there are 100 plus smokers all together, some of whom are already vapers. I had thought about approaching the company with a view to getting vaping put on the corporate map, as a harm reduction tool, and to generally help with the wellbeing of the smoking staff.

I was talking to someone in the HR department, just to float the idea, and one of the discussions was about maybe trying to find a vendor that would give extra "corporate" discount. The feedback was that vaping would have to become "mainstream" and the vendor a substantial recognised supplier before the company could consider having any sort of financial relationship. Hence the idle thoughts about the future of vaping.

Have to agree with all the comments about taxation, although I suspect that research funded by the pharmaceutical industry will be the first major obstacle.

[azzie]

Sept 19, 2012 17:17:57 GMT reefcat said:

My idle thoughts are to do with what would happen if a seriously big player entered the market. I'm certain the tobacco giants, and to a lesser extent the big pharmaceutical companies will one day change sides. They have the scale to ride the legislation that is almost bound to follow, once vaping becomes mainstream.

Which of the two (three) evils do you bet on: Big Pharma/Gov/Tobacco?

The big tobacco giants are already investing in an ecig future

There is an article on the Financial Times online, if you do a google for it you can view the cached page.

"Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
I don't think its funny.
To see us fade away.
Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
and I think we got it all wrong anyway."

[giles]

Seems to me they will only be able to tax the nicotine - gets too complicated to define legally otherwise.
Also, since its obviously better for you, they will surely set it so that vaping is still cheaper than smoking even if you buy the big company products.

I really hope big pharma doesn't win, because they neither know nor care how much someone enjoys their products.
My money is on big tobacco. I think vaping is becoming a good enough replacement to enable governments to ban tobacco altogether. If the tobacco companies think this is possible then they'll be putting a lot of investment in.

I expect there will still be a healthy on-line service from small suppliers. There is still a lot of product and market development to come, so plenty of room for internet entrepreneurs

[meeee]

Being a newbie when it comes to vaping I was really surprised how many online suppliers there are. I suspect if the government / Pharmaceutical companies do get involved then some are bound to go to the wall. I cannot see the government implementing just a nicotine tax as many of the juices come in nicotine free versions so they probably would not generate enough to worth there while. Also It would also be very hard to control.

Personally I think they will bring in legislation to Make sure all juices have been approved by some health body or another and that they are made by a registered pharmaceutical supplier. They will then be able to come up with a new tax they apply directly to the manufacturer who then in turn will pass it on to us the end user.

[DiscoDes]

Sept 19, 2012 21:54:26 GMT giles said:

Seems to me they will only be able to tax the nicotine - gets too complicated to define legally otherwise. Agreed
Also, since its obviously better for you, they will surely set it so that vaping is still cheaper than smoking even if you buy the big company products.Sorry I disagree, all it will be is a cash cow to replace the tax revenue of people switching from cigarettes to vaping

I really hope big pharma doesn't win, because they neither know nor care how much someone enjoys their products. Unfortunately they have VERY deep pockets, they see vaping as a threat to the revenue they get from NRT, I do agree that they SEEM to know little about vaping, that will however change and they will seek legislation and Government back up to make it very difficult for anyone but them to supply their take on E-cigs.
My money is on big tobacco. I think vaping is becoming a good enough replacement to enable governments to ban tobacco altogether. Not yet it's not but it is getting there as better e-cigs come on the market and the faff factor is reduces it will become more popular, however we are still some way away from the accessability and ease of use that a stinkie has. The filling atomisers/clearomisers/tamks etc it's too much for a lot of people to take on board. If the tobacco companies think this is possible then they'll be putting a lot of investment in. They already are.

I expect there will still be a healthy on-line service from small suppliers. There is still a lot of product and market development to come, so plenty of room for internet entrepreneurs Most will be edged out due to legislation and the consequent control. leaving just the big players.

[booblay]

if you think about it, though lots of money is made from fags, lots is lost too - via the nhs....for all the fag related illness. i mean, tax is high on fags....but tax pays for the nhs, and lots and lots of illness is caused by fags...

i don't know exactly how this relates to what you're all talking about, but it just popped into my mind. if vaping is fine for health, then government doesn't have to recoup its losses so much...

mind you, if that were the case, burgers and sausages and lard would be really expensive.

sorry, i'm a simpleton.