Hawaii latest committee rendering

[Hulamoon]

Here...............

SSCR2327

and here

http://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB2495/id/978799/Hawaii-2014-SB2495-Amended.html

 

[D4rk50ul]

Oh god did this pass?

 

[Hulamoon]

I don't know what the amendments were at this committee level - the tax on vaping product is still as yet unspecified. It is the first time I have seen an indication of what the tax could be "between 10 & 50%" of wholesale price. I guess it has to go the Finance committee next?

Good things that have happened:
- while the City & county has declared their beach parks to be non smoking. non vaping areas, the state beach parks ban did not pass.
- E-Juice was EXEMPTED from a ban on flavored tobacco - This was HUGE for vaping obviously. This may well be terrifying for menthol cigarette smokers, though I guess there would be a counter lobby from the tobacco industry on that one. Not sure if swishers would come under this or if they're a cigar product.
- Banning online sales is dead.
- Vaping ban in public housing was squashed. Absolutely ludicrous ignorant measure anyway because it's unenforceable and undetectable.
- Age to purchase vaping products is still 18. An attempt was made to increase the age to 21 until Clayton Hee realised they already had a law on the books.
- Dumped the original suggestion that licenses needed to be obtained from the Department of Health.

Items in discussion:

- wholesalers of tobacco and vaping products pay an increased annual fee from 25.00 to 250.00
- sellers of tobacco and vaping products pay an increased annual fee from $20 to $50
- deeming vaping to come under tobacco products (as opposed to NOT being deemed a tobacco product (best case) or department of health (worst case).
- regulating use of vaping products in public buildings and I assume places like the bus
- the biggest unknown - how much the tax on vaping materials might be.

If anyone has more detail please weigh in

I have to say that Hawaii's vapers and sellers came out in great force. Thank you to ALL who attended and testified.

I'll keep an eye out for any further developments (I think the bill still has to go to the Finance committee, before being reissued to the House

So far any success is a major one as Hawaii has only ONE Republican senator, and the Hawaiian politicians pride themselves on being heavily Democratic in their philosophy. This is not a political statement except insofar that it was the democratic party at national level (headed by Pfizer no doubt) that declared open season on us late last year.

 

[DrMA]

What a travesty! My hopes are you can defeat this.

If you find this helpful, here's my letter to the WA legislature advocating for opposition against taxation. Please feel free to modify and send to the HI legislators after changing the personal and WA-specific details. I suggest you contact all the members of the HI Senate Ways&Means Committee and voice your opposition to HI SB 2495. In addition to opposition to excise tax, you should also mention your opposition to the other abusive and overreaching provisions of this bill, including
- defining vapor products as tobacco products
- defining the use of vapor products as smoking
- changing the definition of "smoke" to include vapor

Dear Senator,

I am a Washington resident and would like you to OPPOSE Senate Bill 6569 because it would unjustifiably impose a 95% tax on the sale of electronic cigarette devices and liquids. In effect, SB 6569 would protect tobacco cigarette markets, threaten the lives of vapers and smokers, and do nothing to benefit public health.

I have been using electronic cigarettes for over three years and have not touched tobacco in the mean time. After many failed attempts over the years at quitting smoking tobacco cigarettes using FDA-approved nicotine replacement drugs (NRT), the only approach that decisively worked for me was the use of electronic cigarettes. I have no doubt I’d still be smoking today had I not discovered electronic cigarettes in early 2011.

With regards, to SB 6569 all scientific reason and moral compass justify your strong opposition:
• While high cigarette taxes may be justified by some as necessary to cover governmental healthcare expenditures caused by smoking and encourage smokers to quit smoking, trying to impose similar levels of tax on reduced risk products like e-cigarettes is unwarranted and would do great harm to public health.
o E-cigarettes are estimated to be at least 100 times safer that smoking tobacco. Given the low risks, imposing ANY additional tax (let alone a punitive tax of 95%) on e-cigarettes is not only completely unjustified, but abusive, arbitrary, and capricious.
o The low risks of e-cigarettes are supported by a growing body of scientific literature in research done by Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Thomas Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University. In fact, the 2009 FDA testing failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in e-cigarette vapor (in spite of the widely popularized misconceptions about those results printed in the mass media). Please visit this webpage for a comprehensive library of this and other research regarding the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes: Learn About Electronic Cigarettes
• Supporters of this legislation claim that punitive taxes should be imposed on all tobacco products for public health reasons. However, the truth is that there is absolutely no public health benefit to excessively taxing products that pose a risk less than 100 times lower than that of smoking. In fact, imposing high taxes on low-risk products will work against the interests of public health by discouraging smokers from using a much safer alternative to smoking.
• Imposing such taxes on e-cigarettes could have devastating effects on many Washington small businesses, and would result in the loss of e-cigarette related manufacturing jobs here in Washington.
• Many smokers who switch to less hazardous e-cigarettes instead of continuing to smoke start doing so because e-cigarettes are less expensive than cigarettes. Increasing the cost of e-cigarettes with punitive taxes would discourage many smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. It could also encourage some e-cigarette consumers to go back to cigarette smoking.
Thank you for your consideration.