Here we go - Happy New year Hoosier

[Chesh97]

Proposed bill would tax, include e-cigarettes in smoking ban | WANE


including a 24% Tax. ...!

 

[pennysmalls]

I read the comments and Hoosiers are ....... The one commenter asked "How is taxing going to stop children from using them? Alcohol and cigs are taxed and kids still use those." People aren't stupid and see right through this nonsense.

 

[pennysmalls]

Just found this nifty little nugget online:

"Indiana is expected to receive $63 million less in tobacco funds in 2014. Its payments are expected to be reduced from $131 million to $68 million. The state can appeal the arbitration panel’s ruling and a spokesman for the Indiana Attorney General noted that “legal action is likely to be taken soon.” The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the ruling will not cause an immediate budget crisis, but that future similar rulings will likely need to be taken into consideration when negotiating future budgets. Additionally, a member of the House Ways and Means committee noted that the ruling will impact the state’s ability to fund health programs"

 

[Lisa Belle]

I sent a letter to them. I am worried about being targeted from this, but I did it anyway.

"Dr. Molly Johnson
Atty. Greg Zoeller:

In your words... "youth before they get hooked on this new insidious method of nicotine delivery". So wrong. A miraculous technology 6 million ex-smokers worldwide, but closed eyes that are not open wide need to stop turning a blind eye to those facts.... and every day 100's of thousands of taxed, banned and hated smoking adults find refuge from smoking by using vaping devices and 46 Million American Smokers who are adults have to be considered first! Not the mis-behaving youths who are not going to be used to scapegoat the lives of adults in need of tobacco harm reduction products. Youths who are young enough to not suffer the losses that adult smokers do, they can quit, fine them the kids, make their parents responsible (oh maybe that's too old fashioned an idea). You are missing the boat entirely, this is for adult smoking consumers who should have affordable, accessible, SAFer alternatives to TAXED & DEMONIZED Tobacco burning cigarettes and unfair prejudicial bans on smokers who last year contributed $16.8 billion in gross cigarette excise tax revenues. Not so much as a thank you. Well well!

About nicotine, you are going to make vaping as expensive as smoking leaf tobacco, which by the way... illicit drugs can be loaded onto burning cigarettes just as easy as liquid ones. Find out why youths are using drugs, if you really care? You would decree a death sentence on older smokers based on UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS ABOUT NICOTINE AS ADDICTIVE! Wrong again.


I challenge you Atty. General Greg Zoeller, to debate with science experts that have no connection with Big Tobacco or Big Pharmaceuticals Legacy Inc., or are in receipt of campaign contributions and Tax revenues from Smokers!

American Council on Science and Health
Nicotine and Health

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/184-passive-vape

Dr. Joel Nitzkin
http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RSTREET11.pdf

Dr. Gerry Stimson of the UK
Interview with professor Gerry Stimson about the Global Forum on Nicotine. | Save e-cigs

Dr. Michael Siegel
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Casaa.org

Dr. Igor Burstyn, I, Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks?, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health Drexel University, 2013 July-Aug.
BMC Public Health | Abstract | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
Senator Durbin Asks Attorneys General to Violate the Constitution and Misinterpret the Master Settlement Agreement to Reign in Electronic Cigarettes

Now in democracy you are supposed to represent the people that would be 20% of all adult Americans who are smokers or use vaping products to quit and should not be punished for it with the same insidiousness the punitive treatment, when they smoked. You must tell us how you represent our voices not the voices of teens who break laws and it must be based on science, not on the fear of Master Settlement Agreement monies shrinking and drying up! I look forward to a transparent year on this issue.

I WON'T BE SHAMED, BLAMED AND TAXED TO DEATH FOR >>>> QUITTING SMOKING!<<<< Even if it looks like smoke it isn't. Water looks like Vodka and it isn't!

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ex Smoker, Voter, taxpayer, American who chooses a less harmful way to stop smoking Vaping Electronic Devices.
Lisa Bell "

 

[pennysmalls]

I was prepped to send a letter but will be changing it for the second time now. I say good job Lisa, being honest is always a good thing and when you're being targeted, as all vapers are, being blunt is necessary. Did you send this as a hand written note? Or if not which method of electronic contact did you use?

 

[Lisa Belle]

@pennysmalls Hello thank you I was worried it might get me on the Gov. watchlist. I sent it to the person who wrote the article I read and I'll search for that link. The email I found on the bottom of the article was this: Molly.Johnson@atg.in.gov
I also posted the letter here on FB on Greg Zoeller's FB page, haven't checked back, bet it was removed? https://www.facebook.com/AttorneyGeneralZoeller

 

[pennysmalls]

Thank you for the links Lisa! The facebook comments were great to read and yours was by far the best. I just left one too. I've been going to the Indiana State AG's website trying to figure out how to make contact that way but it's kind of hard to figure out.

Thanks again!

 

[charly1954]

The following article was in our Monday Pharous Tribune paper in Cass County, I am ......! I will be writing to the paper Public Formun and also my state Reps.




INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana would require stores to have a license to sell electronic cigarettes and would tax the battery-powered devices like traditional tobacco products under a bill a state lawmaker said Friday he'll sponsor in the legislative session that starts Tuesday.

State Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany, said his bill is aimed at protecting Indiana's youth from e-cigarettes and the prospect that it could lead them to a lifetime of nicotine addiction.


His bill also would add e-cigarettes to Indiana's statewide smoking ban and require containers holding the nicotine-infused liquid that is vaporized in the smoking process have child-resistant packaging to prevent accidental poisonings.

Clere said much remains unknown about the health risks posed by e-cigarettes — which don't have the same chemicals and tar found in regular cigarettes — and he noted the surge nationwide of young people using e-cigarettes, which are sold in "vape shops."

"These shops are springing up all over the state and flying under the radar," he said during a Statehouse news conference.

E-cigarettes are often described as a less dangerous alternative than regular cigarettes for regular smokers who can't or don't want to kick the habit.

Indiana law currently prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to people under 18, but Attorney General Greg Zoeller said the federal government hasn't done enough to regulate them.

"Let's all be clear — e-cigarettes are a new drug-delivery device," Zoeller said, noting that they can also reportedly be used to smoke a liquid form of ... — the active ingredient in ......... — and other illegal drugs.

In August, he joined 28 other attorneys general in urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to adopt new measures to protect minors from e-cigarettes. Their joint letter to the FDA came four months after the agency proposed regulations that include banning sales to minors and requiring health warning labels.

The federal government's annual drug use survey, released last month, showed that e-cigarettes have surpassed traditional smoking in popularity among teens and that use rose with age — with 17 percent of high school seniors reporting using e-cigarettes.

Tobacco Free Indiana spokeswoman Brianna Herndon said the group supports the legislation and said if it passes the measure would help prevent youths from entering "a pathway to a life of addiction." She noted that the liquid containers used in e-cigarettes come in myriad flavors, including cotton candy, bubble gum and fruit flavors that appeal to children.

"These are the kinds of flavors that kids like to eat, and I think everyone can agree that e-cigarettes have no business being in the hands of minors," Herndon said.

Clere said Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, will co-sponsor his bill and state Sen. Pat Miller, R-Indianapolis, will sponsor companion legislation in that chamber.

The provision to require stores to be licensed would allow staffers from the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission to check whom the stores are selling e-cigarettes to — just as they currently can at stores that sell traditional cigarettes, Clere said.

He also noted taxing e-cigarettes like traditional tobacco products would boost e-cigarettes' wholesale price in Indiana by 24 percent.

The Legislative Services Agency is currently calculating how much new revenue taxing e-cigarettes would generate, and Clere said the measure would put that money toward Indiana's tobacco cessation programs.

 

[DC2]

The Legislative Services Agency is currently calculating how much new revenue taxing e-cigarettes would generate, and Clere said the measure would put that money toward Indiana's tobacco cessation programs.

Yeah, sure it will.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, sure it will.

(not that I care.... I think they should repeal/rescind the program and send the extorted money back to the tobacco companies.)

States that are spending 50% or more of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending 25% - 49% or more of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending 10% - 24% of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending less than 10% of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs

 

[BuGlen]

(not that I care.... I think they should repeal/rescind the program and send the extorted money back to the tobacco companies.)

States that are spending 50% or more of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending 25% - 49% or more of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending 10% - 24% of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs.

States that are spending less than 10% of CDC recommendation on tobacco prevention programs

Now we just need an overlay of the actual decline in smoking for each of these states. I'm guessing that the numbers will not correlate in most instances.

 

[twgbonehead]

Living in MA, I totally reject the notion that we should be in the category of "States spending less than 10%".

Nevermind the tobacco-settlement money, we also have extremely high state taxes on cigs, which makes even the cheap generics sell for over $9/pack.

And there is NO state support for quit-smoking programs (I think they're probably including MassHealth payments for BT products, and still can't get near 10%)

ETA: That was confusing; what I meant is that MA should be in the "States spending less than 1%" category.

 

[Kent C]

Now we just need an overlay of the actual decline in smoking for each of these states. I'm guessing that the numbers will not correlate in most instances.

Best I could find:

RWJF DataHub - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

If you hit the green 'play' below the map, that will show you changes from 2001 to 2010 and then hit the button above for the most recent for that page 2011-2012.

 

[Kent C]

Living in MA, I totally reject the notion that we should be in the category of "States spending less than 10%".

Nevermind the tobacco-settlement money, we also have extremely high state taxes on cigs, which makes even the cheap generics sell for over $9/pack.

And there is NO state support for quit-smoking programs (I think they're probably including MassHealth payments for BT products, and still can't get near 10%)

ETA: That was confusing; what I meant is that MA should be in the "States spending less than 1%" category.

Massachusetts

 

[pennysmalls]

I was just reading an article the other night that stated Indiana spent 8.9% of 68 million in 2014 on smoking cessation/education programs. I was looking for info on how much smoking related illness/medical cost the state for 2014 but couldn't find it. I'm betting it was less than what was spent on cessation/education.

 

[Kent C]

I was just reading an article the other night that stated Indiana spent 8.9% of 68 million in 2014 on smoking cessation/education programs. I was looking for info on how much smoking related illness/medical cost the state for 2014 but couldn't find it. I'm betting it was less than what was spent on cessation/education.

Any search on 'smoking healthcare costs' is going to get the usual over-exaggeration that include 'smoking related illness and death' where anyone who has ever smoked 100 cigarettes (say at 15 yrs old then quits) then dies at 92 from 'heart disease' is a smoking related death.

A few, imo, good (older) articles. First from 'our own' Brad Rodu:

Calculating the ‘Big Kill

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2007/12/v30n4-2.pdf

And one from Regulation magazine (a Cato publication):

The New Cigarette Paternalism

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2005/12/v25n4-13.pdf

"One of the many misconceptions about cigarettes is that smokers
cost society substantial amounts in terms of insurance costs.
Beginning with the debate over the Clinton administration’s
health insurance proposal in the early 1990s, there have been
repeated claims reported in the press that smokers cost us $1 to
$2 a pack*** in medical costs and other insurance expenses. The
Centers for Disease Control continue to report such estimates,
which are dutifully covered in the press.

The calculations fail, however, to take into account the net discounted lifetime costs
for medical care and also ignore the reduction in costs that occurs
because of smokers’ premature mortality. The consensus in the
economics literature is that at reasonable rates of discount, such
as a real discount rate of three percent, cigarette smokers more
than pay their own way excluding the influence of excise taxes."

*** That cost of $1-2 a pack was from Gruber and Koszegi, and that's Jonathan Gruber of the recent "We lied about Obamacare and fooled the stupid American public" fame. He earlier worked on "Hillarycare" in the 90's. And this estimate was part of the assessments made at that time.

The author, Viscusi:
My estimates of the national insurance costs associated
with smoking indicate that there is a net cost savings of
32¢ a pack excluding the role of excise taxes.

 

[pennysmalls]

Thank you Kent, I have some reading to do!

 

[skoony]

Any search on 'smoking healthcare costs' is going to get the usual over-exaggeration that include 'smoking related illness and death' where anyone who has ever smoked 100 cigarettes (say at 15 yrs old then quits) then dies at 92 from 'heart disease' is a smoking related death.

A few, imo, good (older) articles. First from 'our own' Brad Rodu:

Calculating the ‘Big Kill

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2007/12/v30n4-2.pdf

And one from Regulation magazine (a Cato publication):

The New Cigarette Paternalism

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2005/12/v25n4-13.pdf

"One of the many misconceptions about cigarettes is that smokers
cost society substantial amounts in terms of insurance costs.
Beginning with the debate over the Clinton administration’s
health insurance proposal in the early 1990s, there have been
repeated claims reported in the press that smokers cost us $1 to
$2 a pack*** in medical costs and other insurance expenses. The
Centers for Disease Control continue to report such estimates,
which are dutifully covered in the press.

The calculations fail, however, to take into account the net discounted lifetime costs
for medical care and also ignore the reduction in costs that occurs
because of smokers’ premature mortality. The consensus in the
economics literature is that at reasonable rates of discount, such
as a real discount rate of three percent, cigarette smokers more
than pay their own way excluding the influence of excise taxes."

*** That cost of $1-2 a pack was from Gruber and Koszegi, and that's Jonathan Gruber of the recent "We lied about Obamacare and fooled the stupid American public" fame. He earlier worked on "Hillarycare" in the 90's. And this estimate was part of the assessments made at that time.

The author, Viscusi:
My estimates of the national insurance costs associated
with smoking indicate that there is a net cost savings of
32¢ a pack excluding the role of excise taxes.

i would like to add when government says cost's it does not mean
what the government shelled out. it adds in what your insurer paid and
your personal out of pocket expenses which is the greater percentage
of the cost's they talk about. here in Minnesota with there excessive
tax and separate agreement(6.2 billion over 20 years) they have yet
to reimburse any smoker or there insurance company one penny
for medical expenses.

regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

The quote from the 2nd article:

"there have been repeated claims reported in the press that smokers cost us $1 to
$2 a pack*** in medical costs and other insurance expenses"

Only if gov't took over the healthcare industry (along with Medicare and Medicaid), would it be a gov't expense.