How to Get Around Future E Cig Taxes
- Thread starter V8porism
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- ecig taxes taxes
- Status
Stock up, mix your own juice, re-build your own atomizers, use mechanicals that you can repair yourself if necessary. buy a copy of "Walden Pond", "Self-reliance, "Common sense" and the "Federalist Papers" then prepare for the collapse of the regulatory state. The collapse is also "just a matter of when and how bad".
I agree that we need to act in order to save eliquid from being taxed and legislated out of existence. I do not agree with the comparison to coffee. I agree that neither is harmful in moderation but I ingest coffee and inhale eliquid. These are very different delivery systems for these two stimulants.
The eliquid industry needs to start self regulating itself. When it does we will be in a much better position to argue the benefits of vaping. Meanwhile most, not all, of the eliquid industry continues to use diketones in their juices. Certain food grade products are meant for ingesting not vaporizing and inhaling.
We need to become educated consumers. The eliquid industry is putting food grade ingredients into liquid that when vaporized may be harmful to our health. The eliquid industry knows this and is still failing to self regulate in the current free open market. If they will not impose regulations on themselves then we need force them to or the government, as it always does, will. How can we as consumers change the industry? We buy from vendors who test and certify that the product they sell are free of these carcinogens or we make our own (DIY). The government will use this as an additional excuse to "save us from ourselves" and tax or eliminate eliquid.
I personally am tired of the government telling me what I can and cannot do and it is not looking good for us in the long term. In my home state the Governor is trying to enact legislation that will tax all vaping related products by 95%. The only flavors allowed will be tobacco, mint, and menthol. No internet purchases in or out of state (if you think they cannot do this they already have with cigarette and alcohol sales through the liquor control board). Last but not least, all transactions must be face to face. That is what I call going for broke and I am none to happy.
I have been vocal and have contacted my state and local representatives with some success. Now it is wait and see.
The eliquid industry needs to start self regulating itself. When it does we will be in a much better position to argue the benefits of vaping. Meanwhile most, not all, of the eliquid industry continues to use diketones in their juices. Certain food grade products are meant for ingesting not vaporizing and inhaling.
We need to become educated consumers. The eliquid industry is putting food grade ingredients into liquid that when vaporized may be harmful to our health. The eliquid industry knows this and is still failing to self regulate in the current free open market. If they will not impose regulations on themselves then we need force them to or the government, as it always does, will. How can we as consumers change the industry? We buy from vendors who test and certify that the product they sell are free of these carcinogens or we make our own (DIY). The government will use this as an additional excuse to "save us from ourselves" and tax or eliminate eliquid.
I personally am tired of the government telling me what I can and cannot do and it is not looking good for us in the long term. In my home state the Governor is trying to enact legislation that will tax all vaping related products by 95%. The only flavors allowed will be tobacco, mint, and menthol. No internet purchases in or out of state (if you think they cannot do this they already have with cigarette and alcohol sales through the liquor control board). Last but not least, all transactions must be face to face. That is what I call going for broke and I am none to happy.
I have been vocal and have contacted my state and local representatives with some success. Now it is wait and see.
being a realist does not mean I am a alarmist, but anyone who doesn't think regulation will happen is living with blinders on
Yeah I know, I been fighting this since the day I found out about the bill, and unless they changed it the bill itself didn't include tobacco flavors, just mint, menthol and wintergreen
Sin taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
Let me direct you to Volume 47 of The Tax Burden on Tobacco:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/tax_burden_2012.pdf
Look at the chart on page #1 and #3, as well as the table on #6. Notice the trend between taxes and tobacco consumption. However, other factors such as marketing campaigns could also affect results.
You are comparing apples and oranges. All taxes are not meant for the same thing. Different taxes are used with different objectives.
The government does not care about protecting you from yourself. Higher taxes on tobacco reduced consumption. That's the positive effect. Now for the people who will smoke cigarettes no matter what the price is, they earn higher revenue. Double whammy.
Also, I hope you realize the government spends a substantial amount of money on smoking-related health care.
The Toll of Tobacco in the United States - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
Also, refer to the table above on page number 6 on the Tax Burden Volume 47. On table #6, you can notice that as the tax went from 4 cents to 8 cents, consumption actually decreased. This argument can go both ways, but as in the 1980's, I do not believe marketing campaigns were as publicly used as today, that as the tax increased, consumption dropped.
Yet, I know that some state governments that use their revenues from taxes on cigarettes to improve the economy in other ways that aren't for anti-smoking.
What is an argument without an counter-argument? Seeing other perspectives is key to winning an argument, as well as creating a viable solution that will benefit all parties. You are "consuming" a food product in a way that no one else consumes, it's entering your lungs and not your stomach. We know exactly what happens when certain foods enter you stomach. It's been studied. Do you really know what will happen if you put these food products into your lungs, especially in the long run? You don't inhale caffeine into your lungs.
Now I notice you state that you want a safe way to enjoy "consuming" a food product. Wouldn't regulation work best? Let me state some problems with the wild-west vaping community:
- sub-ohming dangers
- diacetyl dangers possibly resulting in popcorn lung and unknowing if certain e liquid companies still use it
- oxidation of copper and brass atomizers
- battery venting
- heart issues related to substantial nicotine ingestion
- etc.
The e-cigarette market is such a vast, diverse and quickly developing, making it difficult to create a viable solution that will work with all the separate aspects of e-cigarettes.
Feel free to show your side
Last edited:
This type of data can only prove that there is a relationship between usage and taxation. Did usage go down because of tax increases, or did the taxes because usage went down to maintain revenue. Why can't it be both. Also you may want to look up buzzair, it's a caffeine inhaler. There are alcohol vaporizers too.Sin taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
Let me direct you to Volume 47 of The Tax Burden on Tobacco:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/tax_burden_2012.pdf
Look at the chart on page #1 and #3, as well as the table on #6. Notice the trend between taxes and tobacco consumption. However, other factors such as marketing campaigns could also affect results.
You are comparing apples and oranges. All taxes are not meant for the same thing. Different taxes are used with different objectives.
The government does not care about protecting you from yourself. Higher taxes on tobacco reduced consumption. That's the positive effect. Now for the people who will smoke cigarettes no matter what the price is, they earn higher revenue. Double whammy.
Also, I hope you realize the government spends a substantial amount of money on smoking-related health care.
The Toll of Tobacco in the United States - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
Also, refer to the table above on page number 6 on the Tax Burden Volume 47. On table #6, you can notice that as the tax went from 4 cents to 8 cents, consumption actually decreased. This argument can go both ways, but as in the 1980's, I do not believe marketing campaigns were as publicly used as today, that as the tax increased, consumption dropped.
Yet, I know that some state governments that use their revenues from taxes on cigarettes to improve the economy in other ways that aren't for anti-smoking.
What is an argument without an counter-argument? Seeing other perspectives is key to winning an argument, as well as creating a viable solution that will benefit all parties. You are "consuming" a food product in a way that no one else consumes, it's entering your lungs and not your stomach. We know exactly what happens when certain foods enter you stomach. It's been studied. Do you really know what will happen if you put these food products into your lungs, especially in the long run? You don't inhale caffeine into your lungs.
Now I notice you state that you want a safe way to enjoy "consuming" a food product. Wouldn't regulation work best? Let me state some problems with the wild-west vaping community:
- sub-ohming dangers
- diacetyl dangers possibly resulting in popcorn lung and unknowing if certain e liquid companies still use it
- oxidation of copper and brass atomizers
- battery venting
- heart issues related to substantial nicotine ingestion
- etc.
The e-cigarette market is such a vast, diverse and quickly developing, making it difficult to create a viable solution that will work with all the separate aspects of e-cigarettes.
Feel free to show your side
Don't Forget "Civil Disobedience." A lot of people around here really need to read that one.
Andria
There's a logical inconsistency here. This:
is not consistent with:
Why does there need to be any "force"? Other than market pressure? When you talk coercion, you're talking regulation, which means the gov't telling "us" what "we" can or cannot do -- buy ejuice with/without diketones, or sell it. I object to that on both philosophical and pragmatic grounds -- I will not buy ejuice or flavors for making it that contain diketones, if I can by any means avoid it, but it's really none of the gov't damn business, it's a consumer concern. If enough people feel this way, then *that* may "force" manufacturers to do something about it, but there are some people who don't care about it, don't feel that vaping exposes them to sufficient quantities of the stuff to warrant undue concern -- and at this point, we have no factually-based idea either way.
Force and coercion are for fascists, and I'm about tired of the US turning into a fascist oligarchy.
Andria
is not consistent with:
Why does there need to be any "force"? Other than market pressure? When you talk coercion, you're talking regulation, which means the gov't telling "us" what "we" can or cannot do -- buy ejuice with/without diketones, or sell it. I object to that on both philosophical and pragmatic grounds -- I will not buy ejuice or flavors for making it that contain diketones, if I can by any means avoid it, but it's really none of the gov't damn business, it's a consumer concern. If enough people feel this way, then *that* may "force" manufacturers to do something about it, but there are some people who don't care about it, don't feel that vaping exposes them to sufficient quantities of the stuff to warrant undue concern -- and at this point, we have no factually-based idea either way.
Force and coercion are for fascists, and I'm about tired of the US turning into a fascist oligarchy.
Andria
It could very possibly be for both reasons as I have stated before. A double win. They earn money and less people use it. However, these revenues barely offset costs.
Good catch, Andria. I will be paying close attention to my ramblings; I would not like to caught holding such inconsistent positions.
One up also on "Civil Disobedience".
One up also on "Civil Disobedience".
Last edited:
heh... I'm sure I'm not always the most consistent person -- I'm a woman, after all, it's kinda my "feminine prerogative."
But there's too much inconsistency between "I'm tired of the gov't telling me what I can/cannot do" and "we gotta FORCE them to do ____". I may not wish to vape diketones myself, but I'll stand up for anyone's right to kill themselves in whatever manner they choose that makes them happy -- before I quit smoking, I SERIOUSLY objected to all the busybodies telling me I should quit smoking because it was bad for me, and if any of them had tried to force me to do so, well, that's where Civil Disobedience comes in. And now they're trying to make me believe I should quit using nicotine, or quit vaping altogether, because it's "bad for me." Shows what THEY know, and that kind of ignorant knee-jerk control-freak puritanism gets on my last nerve; I will not tolerate it, I will not bend to it. Never.Andria
You said there are some people who don't care about it (diketones). I agree it should be a choice. But to choose you need to know about it. From what I've been able to figure out so far it's quite hard to figure out whether you are sucking up diketones. It's like genetically modified food. Some people think it's OK, some don't. But big agri fought like hell to avoid having that disclosed on labels. They even tried to stop other people putting GM Free on their labels.
I don't think we can rely on sellers being either forthcoming, or honest. To have a choice you need information. I don't have much of a problem with the government mandating disclosure. Prefer they don't make the choices for us though.
Yes, I agree with this; I'm all for the idea of consumers making informed choices, but we do need to be informed for that to be possible. The disclosure aspect is probably the only part of regulation I could get behind. Some of the popular flavor manufacturers (mainly TFA and Capella at this point) are really doing a good job with disclosure, and even providing diketone-free alternates; some of those aren't great, but it's all about choice -- I love TFA flavors, and I love the good job they're doing with this diketone situation, but I use Capella Sweet Cream rather than TFA's, because AFAIK, Capella's doesn't have diketones, while TFA's does -- but I couldn't make that choice if TFA wasn't up-front about the content of their flavor. I thank them for that by using a lot of their other flavors, including a lot of their diketone-free and DX flavors.
Andria
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I just want to know what's in it, know that it was made in a sanitary manor, and I'm willing to pay a little more to get it. When I say a little more I'm talking in the neighborhood of $5 per liter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
