Expect a new tax on analogs after total ecig ban!

[rtbob]

RANT ON
Okay, now the individual states who are beginnning to see a drop in there cig tax revenue are inacting their own legislation using misleading information supplied by the FDA as a basis to outright ban the sales of these life saving devices. They refuse to look at the real issue of saving smokers lives.

Smokers like me have been abused and discriminated against for 20 plus years. I, like most just roll with the punches, pay their exorbitant taxes, and live my life. Now something finally comes along that actually worked for me to end my slow and agonizing life ending habit. The powers that be use the excuses "Smokers drive up health costs!" "Tax them so they are not affordable" "Everyone should just quit" to justify the continuious increase in taxes. The last excuse is the biggest joke of all. This is the last thing they want.

The federal and state goverments know that most of the people still using cigarettes have tried the worthless patches, gum, chantex and go right back to smoking. This is a huge cash cow. They state "We will use the money for uninsured childrens health care" which was the last justification used by my state, Texas. I for one would like to see a detailed report of where all the cigarette tax dollars have gone.

Now we have something that works, is affordable, meets the goverments excuses for the taxes and yet they scream "FOUL". This is not what we want. We are to used to receiving $135,000,000 a day every day of the year (using $3.00 per pack in taxes x 45 million US smokers at 1 pack a day). We don't care if it kills 400,000 people a year. This is way to easy for you to quit smoking. They must be made illegal until we can figure out how to make money on them.

I'm sure I'll just roll with this punch when it happens, go back to my analogs, and live my life. Expect a new cigarette tax increase of around a dollar a pack to finance a new five year study on electronic cigarettes very shortly after they are banned.

RANT OFF

 

[PlanetScribbles]

It will make no difference to me. Ban or no ban, I will continue to use my PV.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Like many things in life, freedom comes at the expense of being eternally vigilant. Those in the know will benefit from their knowledge: the world has always been this way and always will. That's the way of the world.

Whatever happens in this e-cig ban/analog tax scenario, as long as we are educated and cunning, we will be able to find a way around these obstacles. We can't save everybody, but we can try to get the word out about e-cigs as much as possible before all this goes down. Those people currently outside our forum/group who we eventually reach will become a part of our "e-cig special forces unit" which will continue the undeground battle. Even in this battle-torn atmosphere, if you really want to continue to vape, you will find a way.

There are also enormous opportunities that abound in an envirnoment of e-cig prohobition. Look at the Kennedy family and how they became a powerful force in politics (even putting one son in the White House). How did the Kennedys become so powerful? Bootlegging alcoholic beverages during the 1920s. Here is an opportunity for some very clever wheelers and dealers to make a killing, create a legacy well into the future, and in doing so will probably get e-cigs reinstated to legal status because the politicians will have realized they just created another monster.

 

[rtbob]

I for one will not be able to take the chance of breaking the law. It could cost me my job. The position I hold is a licensed position in the medical field. Every two years when I renew my license I must check the little box "Have you been arrested in the last two years, even for a misdeamenaor?" If yes please explain.

Of course they can create more jobs to build more jails to imprison the non-violent multiple violators along side the users of that other plant some people smoke. Which by the way is a "monster" that has been created and delt with by the law makers for many years now.

This also increases the very cheap labor pool provided by the unjustly incarcerated. With corporations now moving into the business of prisons there is nothing they would like more to increase their profits.

 

[dmtnt]

I'd rather be a LIVING outlaw than a DEAD sheep, er I mean law abiding citizen.

 

[rtbob]

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing I would like more than to organize a march on DC with about one million of us. We could each bring a carton of cigs with us. When we reach the White House we could tear the things apart and urinate all over them in protest.

The past however shows that we smokers just take the abuse piled onto us, gripe a little bit amongst ourselves, and move on. Why would it change now? I'm not going to show up by myself in DC. What I see here is "bla bla bla" I'm just gonna keep on doing, I'm big and bad etc etc posted here on the ECF. Alot of good that will do.

I have written every state senator and representative in this state, also the govenor.
I'm yet to receive any response.

 

[scheherezade]

Thought you might like to see this, this one is from all the way back in 2007. There are articles like this going all the way up to this month. Just proof that they really don't want smokers to quit!

22 Million New Smokers Needed: Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Lab]

the thing with the ban is banning sales of the product not the use of it.. so you would not be able to sell them in your state but you can still buy and use it from out of state.. even if all states banned sales could still be ordered legally from overseas.. now the pact act stopping mailing of nicotine.. that does not include courier services.. will just cost more to have it shipped to you.. ups is out though since it is volunteer restriction..

so unless they make nicotine an illegal drug then use of a pv will always be legal..

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing I would like more than to organize a march on DC with about one million of us. We could each bring a carton of cigs with us. When we reach the White House we could tear the things apart and urinate all over them in protest.

While I love the visual I'm getting here, protesting high taxes by paying the taxes and then destroying the product doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It won't be illegal to vape. To do that, they would have to classify nicotine as a controled substance (which would put the tobacco companies out of business, and destroy NRT sales as well), and hand control of the substance over to the DEA. Never happen. The FDA's got a real stiffy for the control of Nicotine. They ain't gonna give it up now that they're on the home stretch.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing I would like more than to organize a march on DC with about one million of us. We could each bring a carton of cigs with us. When we reach the White House we could tear the things apart and urinate all over them in protest.

The past however shows that we smokers just take the abuse piled onto us, gripe a little bit amongst ourselves, and move on. Why would it change now? I'm not going to show up by myself in DC. What I see here is "bla bla bla" I'm just gonna keep on doing, I'm big and bad etc etc posted here on the ECF. Alot of good that will do.

I have written every state senator and representative in this state, also the govenor.
I'm yet to receive any response.

I understand your hesitancy at getting all militant, and I don't have anything to lose like you do. But I got screwed over by the system last year, and so did my dear mother before she passed away, so i've honestly had it with playing the game. I don't let the system ride me any more. If they want to try to incarcerate me for using a completely legal substance for harm reduction purposes, let them try it. We all know that they won't make nic an illegal substance as that would create a defacto ban on cigarettes. Can't have that now, can we?

 

[rtbob]

Thank you for the link to the article.

Ecigs and liquid nicotine require the following controls only:

No sales to persons under the age of 18.

Child proof containers should be the standard. If this provides difficulty for some people, as does medication containers, a normal bottle can be requested by the consumer.

Each bottle shall be properly labeled as to the contents of such bottle.

Periodical inspections of liquid to verify contents and strength of nicotine

The following is an outline of an exceptable bill IMO. Please offer suggestions to this.



A stamp will be purchased annually from the federal goverment by the consumers of liquid nicotine to off-set the cost of the e liquid inspections. The cost of the stamp is yet to be determined.

No person shall use, or be in possesion of liquid nicotine containing substances with out having said stamp in their possesion or on display at their place of business.

Use of liquid nicotine with out the stamp shall be considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of at least ten times the cost of the annual stamp.

Recurrent offenses shall be fined accordingly. Second offense 15 times 3rd offense 20 times.

Multiple offenders with greater than 3 offenses shall be charged with a class C felony and be incarcerated for a period not to exceed ten years with a minimum of two years served. They will also have their privelage to purchase a nicotine stamp pemanently revoked.



A license will be issued bi-annually to distributors of liquid nicotine. Liquid nicotine distributors shall be subject to unannounced inspections of their liquid nicotine product with a minimum of one inspection occuring annually.

Any person or persons selling liquid nicotine with out the proper federally issued license shall be charged with a class C felony and subject 10 years of incarceration and a $50,000 fine. Their privelage to have a license to distribute liquid nicotine shall be permanently revoked.

If a distributor of liquid nicotine fails an annual inspection they will be given one week to correct the violation(s). After such a period of time has elapsed if the distributor continues to be in violation, the distributor shall have his license revoked for a period not to exceed two years.

Something like this I could live with.

 

[tmbrown327]

I for one will not be able to take the chance of breaking the law. It could cost me my job. The position I hold is a licensed position in the medical field. Every two years when I renew my license I must check the little box "Have you been arrested in the last two years, even for a misdeamenaor?" If yes please explain.

Not sure, but this seems somewhat pessimistic with respect to your chances of actually being charged with a crime. All the bills are directed at selling or distributing e-cigs, not with buying them. Seems to me if you can find a place to buy them, you're not breaking any laws.

 

[shanobi187]

I'm with several people on here. I really hope that they see the light, but i'm not holding my breath about it. I'll continue to vape whether the government tells me it's ok or not.
I live in oregon and one of our officials here is fighting against PVs and his reasoning is that they are marketing to children with flavors kids would like... because alcohol isn't readily available in flavors like kiwi, and strawberry. Of course THAT'S totally different.
I am ashamed to say I'm from Oregon, which is odd because i'm generally really proud of my state.

 

[taz3cat]

Not sure, but this seems somewhat pessimistic with respect to your chances of actually being charged with a crime. All the bills are directed at selling or distributing e-cigs, not with buying them. Seems to me if you can find a place to buy them, you're not breaking any laws.

I do believe that is standard practice to charge some one with sell/distributing ban articles when they have more than 1 such item in their possession. If I am going to be away from home I take 3 to 4 with me in case of failures, That would put me at risk of being arrested. What about our e-cigarettes collectors, I know people that have a ton of stuff, and if someone reported them, to jail they would go. This like saying we will buy them on the black market, without any recourse to doing anything about poor quality/dangerous e-liquid or equipment. We must stop these bad laws, that is the bottom line. I personally do not want to become a criminal and it will keep other smokers from switch. Especially as cigarettes remain legal.

This is not just about ourselves, it is about others who need the opportunity to switch to PV and improve their lives.

RTbob, I do like most of your ideas on how the PV should be regulated. We have some really good suppliers right now, I would like to see that the regulations don't put them out of business. No, I don't have any vested interest just a consumer who want to keep vapiing legally, get others to do so, and have some kind of quality control for the get rich quick sellers (you won't find them on the forums for very long), that sucker in new Vapers.

 

[tmbrown327]

Maybe someone with more experience with legal matters can chime in here, but I believe you have to be actively engaged in the act of selling something you're not allowed to be selling before you can be charged with a crime. I think 'possession with intent to sell' is more of a drug related issue, and since none of this material is illegal to own, it wouldn't apply.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Some perspective is needed here.

Every day in this country laws get passed banning this and that and this and that. Most of these laws are pretty much unknown by the public at large, and are simply not enforced. They are created simply as juggernauts to get Senators and Congresspeople re-elected. They play off of public emotion and fear. The laws themselves are virtually meaningless in any other context. Banning e-cigs falls pretty much into this. You aren't going to hear much about it on the news if it gets banned.

What the state governments are really after is to put an end to this upstart industry before more smokers find out about it. It's really that simple. Nobody in law enforcement is going to give a rat's ... about your personal vaping use in your own home or car. They will be after the distributors and upstart businesses that are slowly putting a dent in cigarette sales, which means big tax dollars for the states.

I just saw a piece on CNN today, it said that citizen outrage at government regulation and takeover of industries is growing by leaps and bounds in this country. E-cigs are only the tip of that iceberg. The report said that there are like 15 to 20 states that are actively challenging Healthcare Reform (with opt-out clauses) and at least one state (Idaho) said they will sue the federal government if Healthcare Reform happens.

Now, look at the continual relaxing of pot laws across the country. At least 10 states have legal medical mj use, and a few others (my state included) have decriminalized possession of an ounce or less. How on earth are local law enforcement agencies going to crack down on PV use when a drug which is still illegal at the federal level is growing in popularity? Your average cop would laugh his ... off.

I honestly think if you are just a PV consumer, you have nothing to really be worried about. Just supply and demand issues will be the problem. Relax people.... just stock up a little and watch the circus from a safe distance.

(This is not to say that I'm a slacker who doesn't try anything to keep e-cigs legal, I just think the usual round of petitions, writing congresspeople, etc. is a complete waste of time. What we really need is a massive pro-PV publicity effort to counter their message. We need somebody like George Soros who can throw a couple million into an advertising campaign.)

 

[rtbob]

After further thought the "Stamp" concept will only work in retail store fronts. This would leave are great internet suppliers out in the cold. What would be a fair tax per ml? Would .25 cents per ml be to much? That would be $2.50 per 10 ml. The charge would be assessed against the distributor and of course passed onto us consumers.

 

[taz3cat]

ChipCurtis, I am really proud of you. You quit smoking and now are kicked back watching the circus and telling everyone else to give up and do the same.

We stopped the ban in Utah and California, and that was not by kicking back and watching the circus. Our numbers will not grow if the e-cigarette becomes illegal. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[ChipCurtis]

ChipCurtis, I am really proud of you. You quit smoking and now are kicked back watching the circus and telling everyone else to give up and do the same.

We stopped the ban in Utah and California, and that was not by kicking back and watching the circus. Our numbers will not grow if the e-cigarette becomes illegal. What part of that don't you understand?

I don't want the e-cig to become illegal. I've posted enough on here that it should be clear that's where I stand.

We don't have enough evidence to say why Schwartzenegger vetoed. He may have simply done it because he felt like it. He's that kind of a guy.

The Utah thing was a lucky shot in the dark. It was also a cliffhanger. Just count your blessings on that one, because by the looks of things, that may be the only victory we may see for a long time. If states like IL, MD and NY are poised for a ban, it's just not looking good. Like I said, most politicians just want to get re-elected. They tend to shy away from controversies and go for the "save the children" stuff that gets people emotional.

Hey taz3cat, go easy on me. I've been through a lot of crap in my lifetime dealing with crooked lawyers and shady politicians. I don't expect anyone else on here to necessarily share my opinions, I just want to call things as I see them and share that. I also don't want to get on an emotional rollercoaster on this e-cig/legal thing. You know I've said a lot on here that should indicate that I'm in your camp, I'm not your adversary. But after decades of experiencing what selfish business/legal/political interests do to ordinary people and seeing the carnage for myself, I'm just getting at the end of my ropes with 'playing by their rules'. It's time for a game change.

 

[kristin]

the thing with the ban is banning sales of the product not the use of it.. so you would not be able to sell them in your state but you can still buy and use it from out of state.. even if all states banned sales could still be ordered legally from overseas.. now the pact act stopping mailing of nicotine.. that does not include courier services.. will just cost more to have it shipped to you.. ups is out though since it is volunteer restriction..

so unless they make nicotine an illegal drug then use of a pv will always be legal..

I guess I'm not up on internet sale laws, so help me understand?

So the way the law currently looks at it, if someone is sitting on their laptop in Illinois (say ecig sales are banned there) and buys ecigs online, the purchase is not considered to have happened IN Illinois? (Kind of why the vendor doesn't have to collect taxes for a state unless they have a physical location in that state?

Additionally, don't those proposed bans include the word "distribution" in their language? Would shipping an ecig to Illiniois be considered "distribution?"