Zero. Zilch. Nada.
But he can Only Vote Once. And I'm not sure he is even a Registered California Voter?
California Prop 56 - Hidden Vape Tax
- Thread starter Haktuspit
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
But he can Only Vote Once. And I'm not sure he is even a Registered California Voter?
Well you brought it up not me. Am I not entitled to respond or do you have some rights to content here ? Is this yet another politically correct closed subject?
I did predict you wouldn't react well to that.... End of discussion for me.
Last edited:
So we brought up that other groups of vapers were infighting just so we could infight? C'mon guys... tobacco sale age is 21 years of age. That ship has already sailed.
Now, back to fighting taxes.
Now, back to fighting taxes.
Well, he can only vote once, but from what I've seen he can buy a LOT of airtime.
I just posted this to one of the posts on his FB page:
As I understand it, the proposed tax in prop 56 would not only raise the tax on cigarettes, but would also include a tax on vapor products. If ridding California of tobacco is truly your goal, you should be encouraging people, including public health, to embrace vapor products. I smoked for 22 years, and I quit 3 years ago using an e-cig. Vaping did what no NRT or inequitable tax increase could ever do.
Cigarette taxes are disproportionately paid by low income people, those who could easily stop smoking already have. For those truly addicted, paying more for cigarettes just means they'll have less money for other things, not that they'll smoke less.
What California needs is not higher tobacco taxes, we need to support better alternatives.
Fighting the tax is simple. You just have to convince the 80% of nonsmoking nonvaping California voters not to pick the pockets of a 15-20% minority.
Actually considering the dynamics of tax by proposition I have no clue how you still have the 14th lowest cig tax in the nation. After all this is a state full of health and environmental nuts where everything made by the hand of man is known to cause cancer.
Not going to Sugar Coat it Les.
If we get a Normal voter turnout we are going to Lose. That is why it is So Important for Vaper's/Smokers/Tobacco Users to know what is Going On.
And to Vote in Masses.
I know, I'm not as dumb as I look. Can't hurt to try though.
Never said you were.
BTW - Here is a Nice, Non-Partisan, Link that Retailers should be Including in their Mailing Lists...
California Election Center - Vote.org
Hmmm what do they know that we don't? Everyone else can sell in California, why not Blu?
Although I will definitely vote no on Prop 56, I predict it will pass:
1) California has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation. Yep, hard to believe, and makes for an easy sell to clueless voters (which is basically 90% of the voting population in this state). It's about the only area of taxation where we are low... well, except for property taxes, I guess.... Jarvis should have won a Nobel Peace Prize for Prop 13 IMHO.
2) Most Californians don't smoke. Most of the coastal liberal Californians actually detest smoking. They have zero concerns over taxing those evil smokers. There are A LOT of these people. They have a lot of voting power.
3) The fact that this includes vapor products has not been widely disseminated, and is probably not known by most voters today. But, even if they did know it, I'm not sure if most socialists in this state would even care.
It still confounds me that anybody would vote yes on a tax. Me, when I read "<blah blah> increase taxes <blah blah>" it is a NO vote, period. I don't care what it is for. They get enough of my money, thanks. I wish everybody thought this way, but alas they do not.
1) California has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation. Yep, hard to believe, and makes for an easy sell to clueless voters (which is basically 90% of the voting population in this state). It's about the only area of taxation where we are low... well, except for property taxes, I guess.... Jarvis should have won a Nobel Peace Prize for Prop 13 IMHO.
2) Most Californians don't smoke. Most of the coastal liberal Californians actually detest smoking. They have zero concerns over taxing those evil smokers. There are A LOT of these people. They have a lot of voting power.
3) The fact that this includes vapor products has not been widely disseminated, and is probably not known by most voters today. But, even if they did know it, I'm not sure if most socialists in this state would even care.
It still confounds me that anybody would vote yes on a tax. Me, when I read "<blah blah> increase taxes <blah blah>" it is a NO vote, period. I don't care what it is for. They get enough of my money, thanks. I wish everybody thought this way, but alas they do not.
Well, Endor, when there's above 40% of the population that doesn't pay Fed. taxes (Generality here as I don't know out of the total pop. in CA how many do pay and how many don't state tax.), tax increases don't bother those who don't pay them. Matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet they think it's for something they think they need and should have.......'cause they're BREATHING!
I don't know about you, but I'm much happier being in the 60% that does pay federal taxes. Making under $25k a year is a tough go.
Been in both situations, Verb; and you're absolutely correct about preferring paying taxes rather than not. However, do know some people who would disagree with me.
By dissuading smokers from switching to vaping Prop 56 will help kill 210,000 Californians
over the next ten years. Perhaps that is a more effective message.
over the next ten years. Perhaps that is a more effective message.
Yes!........ Or, 21,000 Californians will die each yr. due to gov. laws.
Indeed, if the California government (and populace) actually applied logic to their voting, this would very much make sense. This is especially true if you raise cigarette taxes yet keep vapor products tax-free.
However, this logic hasn't worked with the FDA or liberals at the Federal level, and certainly won't work in California, because....
Tobacco taxes were originally sold to the population as a way to dissuade smoking by making it more expensive to smoke. The truth is, state governments rely on these tobacco taxes in their state budgets. Vaping has put a huge damper on that, hence, we need to increase cigarette taxes (less people are smoking or vaping) and add a vaping tax (to capture those, like me, who switched from smoking to vaping) in order to keep that revenue flowing in.
Unfortunately, most people don't see it for what it is. They still think it's to dissuade smoking, or to "save the poor children from lifelong nicotine addiction", or to provide anti-tobacco education.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked