Counterpoint: This sin tax is not about protecting kids(Opinion)

[Jman8]

I don't think it's 'blurry' whether one potentially harms oneself or whether one harms another person.

It can 'blurry' whether what one does to themselves is harmful or not, which may be an interesting debate, but that isn't the focus of that particular piece.

It is very blurry. Lots and lots and lots of examples. But let's stick to the topic.

If I distribute something to you that will harm you, then have I committed a crime or have I just contributed to your vice?

Please name the mythological products that cause zero harm to their users. I'm collecting such a list and so far it is empty.

 

[Kent C]

If the Ten Comendments must be removed from government so should all sin taxes.

I 'liked' but agree both should be removed.

 

[Kent C]

If I distribute something to you that will harm you, then have I committed a crime or have I just contributed to your vice?

No

Please name the mythological products that cause zero harm to their users. I'm collecting such a list and so far it is empty.

No

 

[Jman8]

No



No

Well that debate was an easy victory.

Yes, yes it was.

 

[skoony]

I get all that, but you are not addressing that it can and will be challenged. You're just saying they've made their minds up and will not allow a challenge. That isn't how courts work.

You could say all that you said about the 2009-10 case and it would've appeared accurate. Clearly nicotine is a drug and if there is an administration in the U.S. that governs the distribution of any (legal) drug, then it would make sense that they have oversight of that drug. But that got challenged and they lost. IMO, that case seems far bigger than anything else that could come up going forward. That our side won that one makes it seem like all others will be a cakewalk. I realize they won't be and we may lose some ground along the way, but putting forth non-nic liquid as a tobacco product will surely make never smokers and never vapers sit up and take notice. Not a lot of them, but I imagine if any of them hear the points of the case, they'll scratch their heads and wonder how soon orange juice might be considered a tobacco product given the logic at work.

Its the same logic they are starting to apply to the ever changing category of designer
illegal stuff. it doesn't mater what it is. Its what its taking the place of. E-cigarettes with
nicotine,PG,distilled water, and maybe some food coloring and flavors came first. The
intent was clear. To replace cigarettes. Now we have many more flavors,natural extractions
and VG. Removing or adding anything including nicotine does not change anything. A electronic
cigarette is a electronic cigarette used to vaporize liquid in order to inhale it. You can remove
all the nicotine from a cigarette and its still a cigarette. You can remove the nicotine from
e-juice and its still e-juice used in a electronic cigarette. If modern day e-cigarettes were employed
with out nicotine and it turned out they helped smokers quit anyway which in some cases would
be true, if the percentage of users got high enough to affect cigarette sales we would still be
right where we are at right now.
Look at Indiana's law. It not only regulates e-cigs but is written in such a way to regulate
anything that takes the place of cigarettes for any reason and, in any way shape or form.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

Its the same logic they are starting to apply to the ever changing category of designer
illegal stuff. it doesn't mater what it is. Its what its taking the place of. E-cigarettes with
nicotine,PG,distilled water, and maybe some food coloring and flavors came first. The
intent was clear. To replace cigarettes. Now we have many more flavors,natural extractions
and VG. Removing or adding anything including nicotine does not change anything. A electronic
cigarette is a electronic cigarette used to vaporize liquid in order to inhale it. You can remove
all the nicotine from a cigarette and its still a cigarette. You can remove the nicotine from
e-juice and its still e-juice used in a electronic cigarette. If modern day e-cigarettes were employed
with out nicotine and it turned out they helped smokers quit anyway which in some cases would
be true, if the percentage of users got high enough to affect cigarette sales we would still be
right where we are at right now.
Look at Indiana's law. It not only regulates e-cigs but is written in such a way to regulate
anything that takes the place of cigarettes for any reason and, in any way shape or form.

Regards
Mike

So, then adding illegal substances to an eCig would only make it a tobacco product, right?

 

[skoony]

So, then adding illegal substances to an eCig would only make it a tobacco product, right?

Seriously? Of course not. It wouldn't make them legal either.
Nice try though. If it could work you might be on to something.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

Seriously? Of course not....
Nice try though. If it could work you might be on to something.

^^ How I imagine a fellow half hearted ANTZ agent responding to his full blown ANTZ partner when he said, "do you think we can get non-nic liquid to count as a tobacco product?"

 

[skoony]

^^ How I imagine a fellow half hearted ANTZ agent responding to his full blown ANTZ partner when he said, "do you think we can get non-nic liquid to count as a tobacco product?"

Maybe its just me but, isn't that what they are doing?
Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

Maybe its just me but, isn't that what they are doing?
Regards
Mike

Exactly. But I see it doomed to failure (in court) and I wonder if they are that brazen to discuss it openly, as in exact words are spoken in that manner.