No, we are only sitting ducks if we do nothing, I we stand together and fight, then we more like a coiled snake.
Last edited:
Washington bill (6569) would tax tobacco substitutes (including e-cigs) at 95%, referred to Senate Ways and Means Cmte
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just sent my letter to the senators
"As a Washington resident and ex-smoker, I must admit my disgust regarding the new proposed tax on e-cigarettes. First and foremost, I think I should make something clear; I FULLY support a *reasonable* tax on e-cigarette fluid (WHEN it contains nicotine), the proceeds of which should go to healthcare, stop smoking aids etc, as well as monitoring/controlling nicotine-containing substances to be sure the purchaser is over the age of 18. However, to apply such a monstrosity of a tax on a quit-smoking aid by grouping them with "tobacco products" is utterly asinine. E-cigarettes have NOTHING in common with tobacco, besides nicotine (which is NOT present in all products) and the ILLUSION of "smoking". I have always taken pride in Washington State's concern for the health of both its residents and its environment, and this is a true blow to what I believe it means to be a Washingtonian. E-cigarettes and personal vaporizers have done NO HARM to anyone but big tobacco. There is not a single reliable study in existence supporting (let alone proving) that e-cigarettes have any more than a negligible impact on one's health, besides the *proven* health BENEFITS of reduction or cessation of smoking tobacco. A large tax on e-cigarettes will only result in higher healthcare costs in the long run, due to individuals' inability or unwillingness to quit smoking, and move to a healthier (and far less disgusting might I add) nicotine intake mechanism, and to deny this would prove an utter lack of lucidity.
E-cigarettes SAVE LIVES and to tax them into oblivion is akin to taxing vegetables, only to drive more consumers to the frozen food section in search of ice cream and chicken nuggets.
E-cigarette fluid *should* be controlled, however, ungodly taxes and banning of sales is absolutely NOT the way to go about it."
"As a Washington resident and ex-smoker, I must admit my disgust regarding the new proposed tax on e-cigarettes. First and foremost, I think I should make something clear; I FULLY support a *reasonable* tax on e-cigarette fluid (WHEN it contains nicotine), the proceeds of which should go to healthcare, stop smoking aids etc, as well as monitoring/controlling nicotine-containing substances to be sure the purchaser is over the age of 18. However, to apply such a monstrosity of a tax on a quit-smoking aid by grouping them with "tobacco products" is utterly asinine. E-cigarettes have NOTHING in common with tobacco, besides nicotine (which is NOT present in all products) and the ILLUSION of "smoking". I have always taken pride in Washington State's concern for the health of both its residents and its environment, and this is a true blow to what I believe it means to be a Washingtonian. E-cigarettes and personal vaporizers have done NO HARM to anyone but big tobacco. There is not a single reliable study in existence supporting (let alone proving) that e-cigarettes have any more than a negligible impact on one's health, besides the *proven* health BENEFITS of reduction or cessation of smoking tobacco. A large tax on e-cigarettes will only result in higher healthcare costs in the long run, due to individuals' inability or unwillingness to quit smoking, and move to a healthier (and far less disgusting might I add) nicotine intake mechanism, and to deny this would prove an utter lack of lucidity.
E-cigarettes SAVE LIVES and to tax them into oblivion is akin to taxing vegetables, only to drive more consumers to the frozen food section in search of ice cream and chicken nuggets.
E-cigarette fluid *should* be controlled, however, ungodly taxes and banning of sales is absolutely NOT the way to go about it."
Sorry, mitey, but I disagree. There's no reason whatsoever to tax nicotine. Nicotine containing liquid should be treated just like caffeine containing liquid for all legal, policy, regulation, and tax purposes as far as I'm concerned.
Got my first "real" (non-automated) response from Senator Michael Baumgartner:
Mitch, thanks for your note- I agree that the proposed 95% tax on e-cigarettes is a dumb idea.
Best, Mike"
Mitch, thanks for your note- I agree that the proposed 95% tax on e-cigarettes is a dumb idea.
Best, Mike"
Me too. I sent them all an email and this is my 1st real response.
Sen. Michael Baumgartner
J.F., thanks for your note- I agree that the proposed 95% tax on e-cigarettes is a dumb idea.
Best, Mike
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:44 PM
To: Hill, Sen. Andy; Baumgartner, Sen. Michael; Honeyford, Sen. Jim; Hargrove, Sen. Jim; Keiser, Sen. Karen; Ranker, Sen. Kevin; Bailey, Sen. Barbara; Becker, Sen. Randi; Billig, Sen. Andy; Conway, Sen. Steve; Dammeier, Sen. Bruce; Fraser, Sen. Karen; Frockt, Sen. David; Hasegawa, Sen. Bob; Hatfield, Sen. Brian; Hewitt, Sen. Mike; Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne; Padden, Sen. Mike; Parlette, Sen. Linda Evans; Rivers, Sen. Ann; Schoesler, Sen. Mark; Tom, Sen. Rodney
Subject: Senate Bill 6569
Sen. Michael Baumgartner
J.F., thanks for your note- I agree that the proposed 95% tax on e-cigarettes is a dumb idea.
Best, Mike
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:44 PM
To: Hill, Sen. Andy; Baumgartner, Sen. Michael; Honeyford, Sen. Jim; Hargrove, Sen. Jim; Keiser, Sen. Karen; Ranker, Sen. Kevin; Bailey, Sen. Barbara; Becker, Sen. Randi; Billig, Sen. Andy; Conway, Sen. Steve; Dammeier, Sen. Bruce; Fraser, Sen. Karen; Frockt, Sen. David; Hasegawa, Sen. Bob; Hatfield, Sen. Brian; Hewitt, Sen. Mike; Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne; Padden, Sen. Mike; Parlette, Sen. Linda Evans; Rivers, Sen. Ann; Schoesler, Sen. Mark; Tom, Sen. Rodney
Subject: Senate Bill 6569
Thank-you for send a letter to you Politian's. I have e-mailed my two senators and congressman. CASAA is helping, but they can't do it all.
This is the time to support the troops in the field. Become a member of CASAA and donate.
Thank-you Mitey for stepping up to write your congressmen.
This is the time to support the troops in the field. Become a member of CASAA and donate.
Thank-you Mitey for stepping up to write your congressmen.
UPDATE! a second meeting on SB 6569 will be held Friday Feb 28th at 10am, we need to get a lot of people to attend.
Just got this from Mt. Baker:
Attention: Washington State vapers! Let's beat this bill!
Near the top is a link to a petition to sign...
Attention: Washington State vapers! Let's beat this bill!
Near the top is a link to a petition to sign...
All of the Reps. on the House Finance Committee need to hear about your opposition to SB 2795 ASAP.
Committee Members and Staff
Hearing scheduled tomorrow at 10 AM!!!
Committee Members and Staff
Hearing scheduled tomorrow at 10 AM!!!
Last edited:
Here's another one I recieved today.
Dear John,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senate Bill 6569 which would place electronic cigarettes and vaporizers in the same category as tobacco and other nicotine products. This is a complex issue and one that I am still studying.
As you are aware tobacco products are dangerous and cause many preventable diseases and deaths each year. I am glad that these electronic versions have helped many people combat their dependence on tobacco. However, I do have concerns that these new forms of smoking will encourage young people to take up smoking, something no one wants to see.
Thank you again for writing to me on this important issue. I will certainly keep your comments in mind as I consider this piece of legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any further questions or concerns.
Always,
Keiser2
Senator Karen Keiser
33rd District of Washington
Sen. Karen Keiser – Washington State Senate Democrats
Dear John,
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senate Bill 6569 which would place electronic cigarettes and vaporizers in the same category as tobacco and other nicotine products. This is a complex issue and one that I am still studying.
As you are aware tobacco products are dangerous and cause many preventable diseases and deaths each year. I am glad that these electronic versions have helped many people combat their dependence on tobacco. However, I do have concerns that these new forms of smoking will encourage young people to take up smoking, something no one wants to see.
Thank you again for writing to me on this important issue. I will certainly keep your comments in mind as I consider this piece of legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any further questions or concerns.
Always,
Keiser2
Senator Karen Keiser
33rd District of Washington
Sen. Karen Keiser – Washington State Senate Democrats
^^ I just got the same letter from Keiser
----------My response-----------
Senator Keiser,
While I understand your thoughts regarding young people and e-cigarettes, couldn't the same be said for flavored liquers? How is alcohol that tastes like fruit juice any different from e-cigarettes that taste like desserts? Besides of course, the obvious fact that alcohol can kill in a single sitting, is highly addictive (and *please* don't compare this to nicotine, as multiple studies have shown, nicotine is no more addictive than caffeine, with tobacco dependencies formed primarily by the chemicals that are added to cigarettes *specifically* to keep customers coming back), while e-cigarettes have not been shown to do *any* physical harm that we know of?
I appreciate you taking the time and write back. While I agree that we need to find a way to keep nicotine products out of the hands of youngsters (at least until more studies are done to show that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, and as recent studies show, can actually be highly beneficial to our health in small amounts), but ridiculously high taxes and banning internet sales is NOT the proper way to go about this. If kids want to smoke (or as the case may be, "vape" using e-cigs), they will. Would you rather have your 14 year old child/niece/nephew/etc take up a pack-a-day smoking habit, or be introduced to an e-cigarette? While this bill *may* make it SLIGHTLY more difficult for kids to get their hands on personal vaporizers, it could also force many current smokers and vapers back to cigarettes. If you *have* to look at it this way, we're choosing between to evils, of which the e-cigarette is (far and away) the lesser.
This bill could literally cost LIVES, all for a little state revenue (which will of course be negated when these smokers come down with emphysema, lung cancer and pneumonia later in life, requiring medical care which many cannot afford).
E-cigarettes are a tool for people to break the bind of tobacco, and replace it with a cheaper, safer, less intrusive nicotine delivery method. Many (if not most) people who start using e-cigs in my experience quit with nicotine completely after less than 2 years. The success rate is FAR higher than that of nicotine gum, patches, prescription drugs, and cold turkey. They are saving lives, and this bill could seriously harm thousands of people's health.
Again, I'm not saying E-cigarettes should go unregulated. But is significantly increasing cost and reducing availability of potentially life-saving devices really what our state needs? Washington is at the forefront of many medical advances and policy changes. It's part of what makes me proud to live here. Why can't we keep it up?
----------My response-----------
Senator Keiser,
While I understand your thoughts regarding young people and e-cigarettes, couldn't the same be said for flavored liquers? How is alcohol that tastes like fruit juice any different from e-cigarettes that taste like desserts? Besides of course, the obvious fact that alcohol can kill in a single sitting, is highly addictive (and *please* don't compare this to nicotine, as multiple studies have shown, nicotine is no more addictive than caffeine, with tobacco dependencies formed primarily by the chemicals that are added to cigarettes *specifically* to keep customers coming back), while e-cigarettes have not been shown to do *any* physical harm that we know of?
I appreciate you taking the time and write back. While I agree that we need to find a way to keep nicotine products out of the hands of youngsters (at least until more studies are done to show that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, and as recent studies show, can actually be highly beneficial to our health in small amounts), but ridiculously high taxes and banning internet sales is NOT the proper way to go about this. If kids want to smoke (or as the case may be, "vape" using e-cigs), they will. Would you rather have your 14 year old child/niece/nephew/etc take up a pack-a-day smoking habit, or be introduced to an e-cigarette? While this bill *may* make it SLIGHTLY more difficult for kids to get their hands on personal vaporizers, it could also force many current smokers and vapers back to cigarettes. If you *have* to look at it this way, we're choosing between to evils, of which the e-cigarette is (far and away) the lesser.
This bill could literally cost LIVES, all for a little state revenue (which will of course be negated when these smokers come down with emphysema, lung cancer and pneumonia later in life, requiring medical care which many cannot afford).
E-cigarettes are a tool for people to break the bind of tobacco, and replace it with a cheaper, safer, less intrusive nicotine delivery method. Many (if not most) people who start using e-cigs in my experience quit with nicotine completely after less than 2 years. The success rate is FAR higher than that of nicotine gum, patches, prescription drugs, and cold turkey. They are saving lives, and this bill could seriously harm thousands of people's health.
Again, I'm not saying E-cigarettes should go unregulated. But is significantly increasing cost and reducing availability of potentially life-saving devices really what our state needs? Washington is at the forefront of many medical advances and policy changes. It's part of what makes me proud to live here. Why can't we keep it up?
I'm glad you got responses. For some reason, my own senator and reps are non responsive for both SB 6569 and HB 2795.
Can somebody who went to the meeting provide an update please?
Can somebody who went to the meeting provide an update please?
I'm also writing as a Washington resident, even though I'm living in Michigan temporarily... I spent the first 25 years of my life in WA, and have been in MI for less than 1, and I'll be back in WA within a few years. I'm only twisting the truth a tiny bit ;-)
Yesterday I posted a link in my news summary to an article that said SB 6569 died in cmte, but HB 2795 is identical. I d/l'd 2795 but it actually doesn't specify a tax % - it only says that the tobacco tax would apply (including to equipment). I'm guessing that the tobacco tax is 95% but I haven't checked that. Anyway is this all correct? (It's hard for me to keep track of this stuff, w/ everything happening so quickly these days in so many places.)
Got this from Sen. Becker's office yesterday, only took them a week to reply. But it does seem the Senate bill goes nowhere this session, not sure about the house bill...
Dear David,
On behalf of Senator Becker, thank you for writing in and voicing your opposition to Senate Bill 6569. To date, this bill has not received a hearing and is not scheduled for a hearing. It appears the bill will not advance. Senator Becker values nothing more than the comments of her constituents, realizing this is one of the most effective tools she has in order to represent you effectively. Regardless of a bill's status, Senator Becker appreciates knowing the position of her constituents on proposed measures.
Bill progress can be monitored on the legislative website: Washington State Legislature . Additionally, if you would like to receive updates about key legislative issues via Senator Becker’s e-newsletter, please reply to this email; we will be happy to add you to Senator Becker’s mailing list.
Thank you for your communication, and your involvement in our state’s legislative process.
Kind regards,
Barbara Yunker
Legislative Aide to Senator Randi Becker
Irv Newhouse Building, Room 110
360-786-7602
Dear David,
On behalf of Senator Becker, thank you for writing in and voicing your opposition to Senate Bill 6569. To date, this bill has not received a hearing and is not scheduled for a hearing. It appears the bill will not advance. Senator Becker values nothing more than the comments of her constituents, realizing this is one of the most effective tools she has in order to represent you effectively. Regardless of a bill's status, Senator Becker appreciates knowing the position of her constituents on proposed measures.
Bill progress can be monitored on the legislative website: Washington State Legislature . Additionally, if you would like to receive updates about key legislative issues via Senator Becker’s e-newsletter, please reply to this email; we will be happy to add you to Senator Becker’s mailing list.
Thank you for your communication, and your involvement in our state’s legislative process.
Kind regards,
Barbara Yunker
Legislative Aide to Senator Randi Becker
Irv Newhouse Building, Room 110
360-786-7602
Yeah and I think it woudl have to be reintroduced next year, so it's basically kaput.
I'm pretty sure the hearings that I see reports about are referring to the house bill. Whether the tax rates work out to be exactly the same is something that I can't seem to fathom right now, because 6569 contains language about including the shipping costs, etc. I'm not sure these nuances matter much - it's a whopping tax however you look at it.
No. The plan by supporters is for HB 2795 to be incorporated into the House budget, and then pass the House budget (w/ the e-cig tax) onto the Senate.
This bill is VERY much alive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked