CALL TO ACTION - MA to tax e-cigs at 110%

[JENerationX]

This was just posted by CASAA http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...husetts-call-action-e-cigarette-tax-bill.html


H.4291 (link) would change Massachusetts' definition of 'smokeless tobacco' for tax purposes to include electronic cigarettes and dissolvable tobacco.


This bill would also:

Increase the MA smokeless tobacco tax rate from 90% to 110% of wholesale price, and also tax electronic cigarettes and dissolvables at 110% of wholesale price.

The bill has been introduced by the Massachusetts legislature's Joint Committee on Heath Care Financing as a substitute amendment to H2452, which has been referred to Joint Committee on Rules.


Please call, write or fax the members of the Joint Committee on Rules below.

What to say:
1. You oppose H.4291 because it would redefine the state's definition of "smokeless tobacco" to include new life-saving products like smoke-free electronic cigarettes.

2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette or smokeless tobacco has changed your life.

3. Explain that the purpose of increasing cigarette taxes has been to cover governmental healthcare expenditure caused by smoking and to discourage smoking. But since electronic cigarettes, dissolvables and smokeless tobacco products are 98-99% less hazardous than cigarettes, there is no fiscal or public health justification for such a hefty tax.

4. Point out that this bill also would tax "any component, part, or accessory" of e-cigarettes (e.g. hardware, batteries, rechargers, etc.), regardless of whether it contains nicotine. This would be the unfair equivalent of taxing items such as matches, cigarette lighters, ashtrays, etc. at the same rate as cigarettes.

5. Since many/most e-cigarette sales are made online, enactment of this legislation would devastate brick-and-mortar e-cigarette retailers in MA and destroy e-cigarette companies in MA, as they could no longer compete against out-of-state and international online suppliers.

6. Many smokers who switch to less hazardous electronic cigarettes do so because e-cigarettes are less expensive than cigarettes. Increasing the costs of e-cigarettes to that of cigarettes would discourage many smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. It could also encourage some e-cigarette consumers to go back to cigarette smoking.


Senate Members

Frederick E. Berry (Senate Chair) (D)
Phone: 617-722-1410
Fax: 617-722-1347
Email: Frederick.Berry@masenate.gov

Karen Spilka (Senate Vice Chair) (D)
Phone: 617-722-1640
Fax: 617-722-1077
Email: Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov

Stephen M. Brewer (D)
Phone: 617-722-1540
Fax: 617-722-1078
Email: Stephen.Brewer@masenate.gov

Steven A. Tolman (D)
Phone: 617-722-1280
Email: Steven.Tolman@masenate.gov

Michael R. Knapik (R)
Phone: 617-722-1415
Fax: 617-722-1506
Email: Michael.Knapik@masenate.gov
Richard J. Ross (R)
Phone: 617-722-1555
Fax: 617-722-1054
Email: Richard.Ross@masenate.gov

House Members

John J. Binienda (House Chair) (D)
Phone: 617-722-2692
Fax: 617-722-2822
Email: John.Binienda@mahouse.gov

Cory Atkins (House Vice Chair) (D)
Phone: 617-722-2692
Fax: 617-722-2822
Email: Cory.Atkins@mahouse.gov

Byron Rushing (D)
Phone: 617-722-2783
Fax: 617-722-2238
Email: Byron.Rushing@mahouse.gov

Thomas M. Petrolati (D)
Phone: 617-722-2255
Fax: 617-722-2846
Email: Thomas.Petrolati@mahouse.gov

Ronald Mariano (D)
Phone: 617-722-2300
Fax: 617-722-2750
Email: Ronald.Mariano@mahouse.gov

Ellen Story (D)
Phone: 617-722-2012
Fax: 617-570-6577
Email: Ellen.Story@mahouse.gov

Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D)
Phone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Email: Gene.O'Flaherty@mahouse.gov

David M. Nangle (D)
Phone: 617-722-2575
Fax: 617-722-2215
Email: David.Nangle@mahouse.gov

Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D)
Phone: 617-722-2180
Email: KathiAnne.Reinstein@mahouse.gov

Garrett J. Bradley (D)
Phone: 617-722-2520
Email: Garrett.Bradley@mahouse.gov

Patricia A. Haddad (D)
Phone: 617-722-2600
Fax: 617-722-2313
Email: Patricia.Haddad@mahouse.gov

John V. Fernandes (D)
Phone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-626-0706
Email: John.Fernandes@mahouse.gov

Donald F. Humason, Jr (R)
Phone: 617-722-2803
Fax: 617-722-2390
Email: Donald.Humason@mahouse.gov

Paul K. Frost (R)
Phone: 617-722-2489
Email: Paul.Frost@mahouse.gov

Geoffrey G. Diehl (R)
Phone: 617-722-2810
Email: Geoff.Diehl@mahouse.gov

Comma-delimited e-mail list:
frederick.berry@masenate.gov, karen.spilka@masenate.gov, stephen.brewer@masenate.gov, steven.tolman@masenate.gov, michael.knapik@masenate.gov, richard.ross@masenate.gov, john.binienda@mahouse.gov, cory.atkins@mahouse.gov, byron.rushing@mahouse.gov, thomas.petrolati@mahouse.gov, ronald.mariano@mahouse.gov, ellen.story@mahouse.gov, flaherty@mahouse.gov, david.nangle@mahouse.gov, kathianne.reinstein@mahouse.gov, garrett.bradley@mahouse.gov, patricia.haddad@mahouse.gov, john.fernandes@mahouse.gov, donald.humason@mahouse.gov, paul.frost@mahouse.gov, geoff.diehl@mahouse.gov

Semicolon-delimited e-mail list:


frederick.berry@masenate.gov; karen.spilka@masenate.gov; stephen.brewer@masenate.gov; steven.tolman@masenate.gov; michael.knapik@masenate.gov; richard.ross@masenate.gov; john.binienda@mahouse.gov; cory.atkins@mahouse.gov; byron.rushing@mahouse.gov; thomas.petrolati@mahouse.gov; ronald.mariano@mahouse.gov; ellen.story@mahouse.gov; flaherty@mahouse.gov; david.nangle@mahouse.gov; kathianne.reinstein@mahouse.gov; garrett.bradley@mahouse.gov; patricia.haddad@mahouse.gov; john.fernandes@mahouse.gov; donald.humason@mahouse.gov; paul.frost@mahouse.gov; geoff.diehl@mahouse.gov

 

[JENerationX]

Link to the CTA page on CASAA: CASAA: Massachusetts Call to Action on E-Cigarette Tax Bill

 

[CatLady007]

JEN, in point 3 of your original post, it says that smokeless tobacco (dip, snuff, etc?) is 98-99% less hazardous that cigarettes. I had always heard that smokeless tobacco contains the same carcinogens as cigarette tobacco, with high incidence of mouth and throat cancer.
JEN, or someone, correct me if I'm wrong? --we want to be careful what tools we're carrying, when we go to war.

 

[Mroutlaw]

JEN, in point 3 of your original post, it says that smokeless tobacco (dip, snuff, etc?) is 98-99% less hazardous that cigarettes. I had always heard that smokeless tobacco contains the same carcinogens as cigarette tobacco, with high incidence of mouth and throat cancer.
JEN, or someone, correct me if I'm wrong? --we want to be careful what tools we're carrying, when we go to war.

I would agree. That is what is posted on casaa


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JENerationX]

Not my post actually. I copied it from the CASAA post in their forum. I think they're saying e-cigs are 98-99% less harmful, not dip snuff etc. I think it got lumped in. Thanks, I'll point it out to Kristin and the rest of the crew at CASAA.

 

[firechick]

JEN, in point 3 of your original post, it says that smokeless tobacco (dip, snuff, etc?) is 98-99% less hazardous that cigarettes. I had always heard that smokeless tobacco contains the same carcinogens as cigarette tobacco, with high incidence of mouth and throat cancer.
JEN, or someone, correct me if I'm wrong? --we want to be careful what tools we're carrying, when we go to war.

Not my post actually. I copied it from the CASAA post in their forum. I think they're saying e-cigs are 98-99% less harmful, not dip snuff etc. I think it got lumped in. Thanks, I'll point it out to Kristin and the rest of the crew at CASAA.

It is MUCH less harmful than we have been led to believe. Here is CASSAA's page on the actual risks of smokeless tobacco. Like ecigs, smokeless has been vilified by the powers that be without any substantive proof.
Smokefree Health Effects

 

[JENerationX]

This is what I got from Greg Conley.......

Thanks for writing. All modern American smokeless tobacco products are 98-99% less hazardous, and that includes chewing tobacco, snus, and dissolvables. The biggest thing people fear from smokeless tobacco, oral cancer, is actually suffered by twice as many smokers per capita (i.e., risk for oral cancer is 2x higher in smokers than among smokeless users).

 

[kristin]

I had always heard that smokeless tobacco contains the same carcinogens as cigarette tobacco, with high incidence of mouth and throat cancer.
JEN, or someone, correct me if I'm wrong? --we want to be careful what tools we're carrying, when we go to war.

You have always heard that because that is what the ANTZ want people to believe in order to further their prohibitionist agenda. The truth is that smoke-free tobacco has 98%-99.9% less health risks than smoking. (The risk varies between different types of smoke-free tobacco, with snus at the lowest end and a variety used in India/Africa at the highest end.) There is much, much more scientific evidence and research supporting this than there is for electronic cigarettes. In fact, the estimates of the relative safety of e-cigarettes have been primarily based on known statistics of smoke-free tobacco - mainly snus, which they have not been able to link any disease after 30 years of research.

To add to what Greg pointed out, although ANTZ commonly claim smokeless tobacco doubles your risk of oral cancers, not only is the actual risk of "double" still extremely low form American and Swedish smoke-free (jumps from barely over 0% risk to .5% - 1% risk) but the risk of oral cancer from smoking is twice that (something like 1% - 2%). The way the ANTZ word it, they have people mistakenly believing that means that the risk of oral cancer is something like an 50/50 chance or more if you use smoke-free tobacco - that is obviously not the case. So the ANTZ have fooled the public into thinking smoking is actually safer than smoke-free when it comes to oral cancers! They are very sneaky in how they word things to mislead the public and support their demonization of low-risk tobacco products - like warnings that say snus and e-cigarettes are "Not a safe alternative to smoking" when they know darned well that those products are still extremely low risk and magnitudes SAFER. By their standards, they should be telling people that the FDA-approved NRT and drugs for nicotine cessation aren't "safe alternatives to smoking" either! (Of course, they'll never admit that.)

The ANTZ goal is to have the whole world tobacco and nicotine-free. In order to do that, they cannot allow the public to know that there are tobacco and nicotine alternatives that are reasonably safe to use. If people know they can still use certain tobacco and nicotine products and not get sick and die, then they won't have any motivation to quit. Therefore, the ANTZ have to eliminate the safer products and keep people using the most dangerous products, so then they can keep telling us our only choice is "quit or die trying."

So, they strongly support excessive taxes on smoke-free and e-cigarettes to make them as expensive as or more expensive than cigarettes and remove lower cost as an incentive to switch.

 

[Imagine]

please make sure to participate...no matter where you live your state could be next!

 

[Baptyzmbyf1re]

please make sure to participate...no matter where you live your state could be next!

Extensive but appropriate and professional letter sent.

EDIT: Already received 7 auto responses that essentially said they are only addressing emails from constituents. Please provide your name and address. *sigh* maybe someone will read it

 

[1st Officer]

I'm of the opinion that the water runs a little deeper than most people think. I am from a state where analogs and other standard tobacco products are taxed at a rate that when compared to most states seems extremely low almost nonexistent. However when it comes to the ecigs products the prices are about the same as anywhere else I travel (NY, NJ, Md, Pa,) my point being that the efforts to tax the ecig products is being funded in part by big tobacco interest groups in order to keep their products competitive. Yes, I have always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist but then these days is that a bad thing? I am quite politically active (to a fault I'm told) and have found that writing letters to other states governments is pretty much a wasted effort. The best way to support those in other states is to find a group that is fighting the good fight and help them by making a donation to their cause. Most states don't give a fiddlers damn about anyones opinion unless they can vote in their elections...JMHO. So who in Mass is heading up the opposition to this and how can we donate to their efforts?

 

[bluecat]

Pretty much got to echo your thoughts 1st officer. I have many a political nuts as neighbors (I am one of those nuts). I wrote an email to my house rep (who is a smoker) and told him what I thought about e cigs and the various states and issues surrounding them. I also took my volts and went up to his office. I knew he wouldn't be there.. he never is. My wife and kids are on a mini vacation so I had time to spare. I was going to show him the PVs and such and give a little schpeel on them. Unfortunately no one was interested there, but I gave a little 2 to 3 minute talk with some dude who I could see the back of his head when I looked in his eyes.

 

[kia2]

Well, I have written emails and letters in response to the "Call to Arms" for some of this type legislation. I've had two "live" (in that they were not computer generated form responses) answers. I sent a lot more than I received, but even one thought of something different is a start.

 

[JENerationX]

Even if they get letters and calls from out of state, 1,000 contacts does make an impression. NY recently tried to ban sales of e-cigs within NY state. Within a week, that bill was not brought up, they brought up and voted to pass a ban on sales of e-cigs to anyone under 18 instead. I sent letters, my family sent letters. I don't know how many they got from in-state vs. out of state, but apparently it made enough of an impression.

As far as where to donate, it's very hard to find a local group, because these things aren't in place until a bill or action rears its ugly head. I donate to CASAA regularly. These people volunteer to watch legislation closely, get the word out first, find the research, and appear in person to educate where it is most effective.

 

[kristin]

I'm of the opinion that the water runs a little deeper than most people think. I am from a state where analogs and other standard tobacco products are taxed at a rate that when compared to most states seems extremely low almost nonexistent. However when it comes to the ecigs products the prices are about the same as anywhere else I travel (NY, NJ, Md, Pa,) my point being that the efforts to tax the ecig products is being funded in part by big tobacco interest groups in order to keep their products competitive. Yes, I have always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist but then these days is that a bad thing? I am quite politically active (to a fault I'm told) and have found that writing letters to other states governments is pretty much a wasted effort. The best way to support those in other states is to find a group that is fighting the good fight and help them by making a donation to their cause. Most states don't give a fiddlers damn about anyones opinion unless they can vote in their elections...JMHO. So who in Mass is heading up the opposition to this and how can we donate to their efforts?

Honestly, being a conspiracy theorist and a vaper seems to go hand-in-hand, lol! But you do need to know who the enemy is and we have found that it's NOT the tobacco industry but the pharmaceutical and anti-tobacco industries and the governments who are either lobbied by the ANTZ or they are looking for easy tax revenue. After 3 years in this fight, we have seen that the tobacco companies are largely "hands off" and we suspected that they were sitting back and waiting to see if the e-cig market would last and if it did, they'd jump in themselves. Therefore, if they intended to sell e-cigs, they wouldn't want to see them over-taxed or over-regulated anymore than they want the same for their leaf tobacco products. Well, now that two companies are jumping into the e-cig market (one is rumored still, but seems to be a reliable rumor) we know our gut feeling was correct. So, the opposition isn't and never was the tobacco industry - mainly Big Pharma and its long reach into anti-tobacco and government departments like the FDA.

As far as not writing to other states, ordinarily that would be true, but it's nearly impossible to gather up enough vapers in most states and e-cigs are so unknown or misunderstood, the more success stories the legislators get from ANYWHERE can only help. Besides, Massachusetts vapers have unfortunately been horribly uninterested in stepping up to protect their interests. So, there is no local opposition, just CASAA again. The reason vapers in other states should care, though, is that if MA goes down, it swings the door WIDE OPEN for the other states to follow. And based on our experience with other e-cig laws, they LOVE to use other states as an excuse for more laws in their own states!

 

[JENerationX]

Anyone from MA, please PM Greg Conley from CASAA. He'd like to try to get some media on this.

View Profile: Placebo Effect - E-Cigarette Forum

 

[1st Officer]

Soon as I get my 3rd or 4th cup of coffee down I will google your organization and see what I can do about sending some support your way. I will even make an effort to write an email and forward it to everyone on the list Jen supplied. Even though I don't believe they will do more than hit the delete button you never know...

 

[1st Officer]

Ok Kristin, I just spent a good portion of the last hour thumbing through your site and I'm convinced that it's time for me to step up and help. Since I have two Daughters in College currently my funds are limited but since I'm saving quite a bit of money not buying the Analogs I will sign up for the monthly plan and when I get done buying all the gadgets I feel necessary to get the most from my Vaping experience I will recalculate my budget and up my monthly amount. Thanks to you guys for leading the charge!!! I am very interested in reading some of the studies you have linked as one of my Daughters is attending VCU and since Virginia is Tobacco Country those studies should be interesting. Thanks to you and Jen (again) for pointing me in the right direction. Jen, you are rapidly becoming one of my favorite people, thank you for everything you have done to help me get off analogs and on to something that actually works like a charm and for your patience with my impatience!

 

[JENerationX]

Wooohooo..... this one's dead for now.

Thanks to everyone that took some kind of action. We can NOT let any state start taxing e-cigs. If that were to pass, then all of us would be sitting ducks for other states to jump on the taxwagon.

GOOD NEWS: The formal session of the MA legislature has concluded. The bill is, for all intents and purposes, dead. And if it rises from the grave, we'll know about it.

Phone calls and letters are no longer needed. Those in MA should consider thanking the Majority Leader of the MA House, as he has apparently made some sort of 'no new taxes' pledge.

 

[Harplayr]

One thing I’m doing is that I’m very politically active and see our legislators often.
I’m making sure every one of them knows the real scoop on e-cigs. At least when something comes before them there will be at least one person in the chamber that isn’t fooled by the hype spewed by the ANTZ.