No, you need to take a handful of pieces from each of 5 different jigsaw puzzles and try to put them all together.
FDA FDA calculates costs of lost enjoyment if e-cigarette rules prevent smoking
- Thread starter oplholik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No, you need to take a handful of pieces from each of 5 different jigsaw puzzles and try to put them all together.
This is how I read it too. (But I still stand by my belief that you can't put a dollar amount or percentage on "enjoyment" either way.)
ff to the puzzle table:
LOL, make sure you have a hammer handy to pound the annoying pieces into where they're supposed to go.
Or, perhaps more accurately: a handful of pieces from each of 5 different puzzles, none of which comes with a picture.
Again, they give no link to any fda doc about this but in the 'impact doc'
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM394933.pdf
....as I've pointed out before in the impact thread, they state - pg27:
"We acknowledge that product exit reduces product variety and the range of choices available to consumers, but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice."
So now it appears they do estimate the value
There is more discussion of 1.Welfare Gains - pg 14:
"We acknowledge, however, that the effects of using other tobacco products may differ from the effects of smoking cigarettes; some may have very similar effects to cigarettes, while others may differ substantially."
There's more, what I'd say is a confused evaluation, on pg 19
b. Electronic Cigarettes and Other Non-Combustible, Novel tobacco Products
"Due to the emerging nature of these products, their health effects, which are not fully known, and their yet-to-be established relationship to other tobacco products, the benefits of including electronic cigarettes in this proposed rule are unknown and therefore cannot be quantified."
... although they make a lame attempt to do so in the following few pages....
I see no '70%' mentioned so this may not be what the article is about but the original comment above: ", but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice." .... tends to contradict what is said in the article.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM394933.pdf
....as I've pointed out before in the impact thread, they state - pg27:
"We acknowledge that product exit reduces product variety and the range of choices available to consumers, but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice."
So now it appears they do estimate the value
There is more discussion of 1.Welfare Gains - pg 14:
"We acknowledge, however, that the effects of using other tobacco products may differ from the effects of smoking cigarettes; some may have very similar effects to cigarettes, while others may differ substantially."
There's more, what I'd say is a confused evaluation, on pg 19
b. Electronic Cigarettes and Other Non-Combustible, Novel tobacco Products
"Due to the emerging nature of these products, their health effects, which are not fully known, and their yet-to-be established relationship to other tobacco products, the benefits of including electronic cigarettes in this proposed rule are unknown and therefore cannot be quantified."
... although they make a lame attempt to do so in the following few pages....
I see no '70%' mentioned so this may not be what the article is about but the original comment above: ", but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice." .... tends to contradict what is said in the article.
This is how I read it too. (But I still stand by my belief that you can't put a dollar amount or percentage on "enjoyment" either way.)
Wouldn't the cost of enjoyment be how much you spend on gear and juice? Even though the pleasure of vaping may be worth more to you personally.
Not necessarily. If you diy your cost is much less than if you buy the eliquid ready made. I haven't bought a mod in more than a year now. I'm perfectly happy with my Provari, Lambo, and Vision Spinner (9 months ago). My monthly expense as far as gear is replacing Evods when they break and coils. So my monthly expense is from $100 to $140 a month at the most. But, oh man, I enjoy my vapes immensely now that I've found my ejuice flavors!
Is this how they estimate how much we'd be willing to pay in order to enjoy our precious? The higher the enjoyment count, the more likely they can rape and plunder to their hearts desire. Smoke tax anyone?
I really hope industry lawyers are trying to make sense of all this! This DOES seem to be contradictory. This stuff has to be dissected effectively, and brought up in court WHEN it gets there!Again, they give no link to any fda doc about this but in the 'impact doc'
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM394933.pdf
....as I've pointed out before in the impact thread, they state - pg27:
"We acknowledge that product exit reduces product variety and the range of choices available to consumers, but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice."
So now it appears they do estimate the value
There is more discussion of 1.Welfare Gains - pg 14:
"We acknowledge, however, that the effects of using other tobacco products may differ from the effects of smoking cigarettes; some may have very similar effects to cigarettes, while others may differ substantially."
There's more, what I'd say is a confused evaluation, on pg 19
b. Electronic Cigarettes and Other Non-Combustible, Novel Tobacco Products
"Due to the emerging nature of these products, their health effects, which are not fully known, and their yet-to-be established relationship to other tobacco products, the benefits of including electronic cigarettes in this proposed rule are unknown and therefore cannot be quantified."
... although they make a lame attempt to do so in the following few pages....
I see no '70%' mentioned so this may not be what the article is about but the original comment above: ", but we do not estimate the value of this loss of consumer choice." .... tends to contradict what is said in the article.
Be careful not to confuse or conflate cost (an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something) and value (the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something).
That is how I understood it as well.
And, after all, most of the so-called cost of smoking in such calculations is "cost to society", which is a dollar value put mainly on things like family being sad when an 80-year-old person (an ever-smoker) dies.
Thus, when they put a dollar value on being sad, they might as well do it both ways. Which they did in this case, to my understanding.
And rightly so, I think. How productive is a person - in their business and private lives - who is not content because they are being nagged /face bans / get attacked / read crap about them (and those like them) in the papers? Does anybody go out volunteering if they are annoyed and henpecked by busybodies? Destroy contentment, destroy happiness, destroy motivation - and you destroy productivity. And yes, that has a cost.
Let alone not going on a shopping spree -and feeding the economy - when you feel ...... off / unhappy.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
