Vaping, Economics, Regulation, Misconceptions:

RE: Subsidised Vaping in New Zealand for Cessation:

Many people are stating that they don’t want their tax dollars to pay for people to use e-cigarettes to switch off combustible tobacco.  Even after being advised that their tax dollars already subsidise the current NRT available (gums, lozenges, patches, inhalers, prescriptions for Champix and Zyban) that simply is not working for a large part of the population, some of the rhetoric bandied about is quite shocking in this day and age.

Then there are people who are saying that there should be no regulation just the release of the restriction on the retail sale of nicotine e liquid.  The main fear of regulation seems to be more about taxation of e-cigarettes and nicotine e liquid and less about the well being and safety of vapers and the community.  It is obvious that these people do not realise that regulation will prevent the safety issues that have been documented overseas, or moreso because they are concerned about regulation being the motivation to give the government control over the products themselves and tax the living hell out of it.

Lastly, taxation.  Yes there are some who are talking about taxing nicotine e liquid with an excise same as tobacco.   However, the argument for taxing nicotine eliquid is invalid, because the entire reason for the punitive tobacco excise in New Zealand is twofold – the first is to allegedly cover the costs to the health system for the harms from combustible tobacco and the second is to make tobacco prohibitive in cost so people have to stop smoking.  Invalid because vaping and nicotine e liquid do not have any of the harms, direct and indirect, that combustible tobacco has and has been scientifically proven to be 95% less harmful.

All of the foregoing arguments against regulation miss the big picture.  That being that in order for the vape industry to be legitimate, and to have nicotine eliquid sold retail there needs to be regulation and that said regulation need not be prohibitive or punitive.  There have been no indicators thus far from the government of a desire for punitive or prohibitive regulation.

Now, in my mind I can actually hear some of you saying, how exactly will the government be able to afford the compliance aspect of any regulation without tobacco excise and prohibitive restrictions?  

Pretty simple really, registered vape businesses – the ones that are legitimate and registered to run as a proper business, will need to apply for a licence to sell nicotine e liquid.  Peg that licence fee to the businesses profit margins/sales volumes.  The more you sell, the more you pay.  That should more than cover compliance costs to the government.

Once the licencing system is up and running (probably through MPI) those fees should also cover the cost of subsidising e-cig starter kits taking it out of the tax pool and putting it straight back onto the industry itself. (because ultimately they benefit if there are more customers).  A self supported program that will not require tax dollars after the first 2 years give or take.  

This is how we run the AVCA VIF program.  The one in Masterton was self funding on its own within 2 months.  All the money that comes in go back into more equipment.  We have had to top it up with donations because it was so popular and we were running out of stock here and there at times.  However, the point remains that not only CAN it be done, it IS being done.  And we garner no profit from it,  all funds roll right back into the VIF and we are looking at starting up a similar project in Timaru this year.

Most of the time, the simple solution is sitting right there, under our noses.  This is what we have suggested and will continue to promote. It is merely an expansion of our current VIF program, but on a larger scale.  Which in the end will save us all money, heartache and tax dollars.