Bill would raise taxes on all types of tobacco | JournalNow.com
No mention of ecigs but nice to see an article in a daily newspaper.
No mention of ecigs but nice to see an article in a daily newspaper.
- Status
Some positives in there, like the quote from Scott Ballin. We see the usual uninformed drivel coming from CTFK.
holy crap.... holy crap... a GOOD ARTICLE! I'm impressed! wow this just made my day! especially considering how it was about 80% covering what WE have to say and only 20% of CfTFK's bull isssshhhh. there's nothing like coming home from work, whipping out my bloog, coming to ECF, and reading an article like this!
EDIT: HAHA! YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! check the popvox! there's like 120 new "no" votes! good day for all vapers!
EDIT: HAHA! YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! check the popvox! there's like 120 new "no" votes! good day for all vapers!
Last edited:
Aren't we now a tobacco product or in the category? If so, I don't like this part of the article:
"The bill also would create "tax parity" on tobacco products by sharply raising the federal tax on smokeless tobacco so there is little tax difference between smokeless products and cigarettes."
That means we'll be taxed all to hell also..right? I know we're smokeless but do we fall within these guidelines? Anyone's answers would be appreciated. I'm confused like normal.
"The bill also would create "tax parity" on tobacco products by sharply raising the federal tax on smokeless tobacco so there is little tax difference between smokeless products and cigarettes."
That means we'll be taxed all to hell also..right? I know we're smokeless but do we fall within these guidelines? Anyone's answers would be appreciated. I'm confused like normal.
Last edited:
God that was awful trying to post a comment. It knew who I was, but I couldn't comment in google, needed to switch to explorer and re-register. Anyway overall great article other than the usual smack.
heh... thanks. but seriously, people are really starting to find out about this stuff, it was at like 910 votes when I posted that last night now its up to like 950. even if this bill won't really pass in the first place, this is still a great way for us to get noticed, and I'm sure POPVOX is happy about this too, this is getting their name out there, and I bet a lot of people who vote on this bill click around and check out the other stuff as well. If we can get up to about 10,000 opposing votes, This'll be a good reminder to the FDA not to mess with us.
You're absolutely correct, I'm just surprised you hadn't heard of this issue yet.
That tells me that even as hard as we have been trying, word is still not getting out well enough.
See these threads for more information...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...5-massive-smokeless-tobacco-tax-increase.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-tax-e-cigs-like-they-regular-cigarettes.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...you-want-see-something-will-piss-you-off.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cigarette-tax-bill-join-popvox-oppose.html
Also, I it is listed in the forum announcements as well.
Feel free to help spread the word.
I went looking today for information regarding whether higher taxes lower the smoking prevelance. The Antis also claim that smoking bans are a big factor in lowering smoking prevalence. It ain't necessarily so. I found this very informative page: Smokefree Women: Smoking in Your State: Data View
A state that’s doing everything "right" is New York. The state has the highest per-pack price for cigarettes at $8.97 and has all three types of smoking ban: work, bar, and restaurant. Yet, New York ranks 25th (in the middle of the pack) for smoking prevalence at 17.9%. Texas has an identical smoking prevalence rate at 17.9%, but has none of the three bans and a pack of cigarette costs $5.47. Georgia has an even lower prevalence rate at 17.6%, has none of the three bans, and a pack costs $4.44.
At a 19% prevalence rate, Virginia is below the national average of 19.3%, but the price for a pack is only $4.44. The information is only partly correct concerning the bans. Virignia does have bans on smoking in all three venues, but--probably because it allows a few exemptions here and there--the word "no" was entered for all three. All restaurants are pretty much smoke-free, but some bars are permitted to allow smoking if they have a specially constructed room that keep the smoke out of the rest of the place. An enterprising Virginian started a web site to provide information to smokers on where they can go to light up: Smokefreelyva.com Home This is a clever site name, in view of the fact that "smokefreeva" is the state health department's antismokng web site.
Utah has the absolute lowest prevalence rate at 9.8%, and has all the bans, but does not have that high (relatively speaking) a tax rate, with a pack costing $5.70. Is it possible that the prevailing religious beliefs have a lot more to do with the low smoking rates than any of the other measures? We also see a fairly low (16.3%) prevalence in Idaho, but it doesn't have a work ban or a bar ban, and a pack of smokes is a thrifty $4.53. Idaho also has a large Mormon population which I believe is the biggest factor in its lower smoking rates.
I'm not providing this information because I am pro-smoking. I'd like to help as many people as possible who still smoke to switch to safer alterantive. I believe that this would be a more productive route for government to follow as well. The taxation thing has gotten way out of hand. The oppressive tax rates are creating a huge black market and imposing financial hardships on the poorest members of our society.
A state that’s doing everything "right" is New York. The state has the highest per-pack price for cigarettes at $8.97 and has all three types of smoking ban: work, bar, and restaurant. Yet, New York ranks 25th (in the middle of the pack) for smoking prevalence at 17.9%. Texas has an identical smoking prevalence rate at 17.9%, but has none of the three bans and a pack of cigarette costs $5.47. Georgia has an even lower prevalence rate at 17.6%, has none of the three bans, and a pack costs $4.44.
At a 19% prevalence rate, Virginia is below the national average of 19.3%, but the price for a pack is only $4.44. The information is only partly correct concerning the bans. Virignia does have bans on smoking in all three venues, but--probably because it allows a few exemptions here and there--the word "no" was entered for all three. All restaurants are pretty much smoke-free, but some bars are permitted to allow smoking if they have a specially constructed room that keep the smoke out of the rest of the place. An enterprising Virginian started a web site to provide information to smokers on where they can go to light up: Smokefreelyva.com Home This is a clever site name, in view of the fact that "smokefreeva" is the state health department's antismokng web site.
Utah has the absolute lowest prevalence rate at 9.8%, and has all the bans, but does not have that high (relatively speaking) a tax rate, with a pack costing $5.70. Is it possible that the prevailing religious beliefs have a lot more to do with the low smoking rates than any of the other measures? We also see a fairly low (16.3%) prevalence in Idaho, but it doesn't have a work ban or a bar ban, and a pack of smokes is a thrifty $4.53. Idaho also has a large Mormon population which I believe is the biggest factor in its lower smoking rates.
I'm not providing this information because I am pro-smoking. I'd like to help as many people as possible who still smoke to switch to safer alterantive. I believe that this would be a more productive route for government to follow as well. The taxation thing has gotten way out of hand. The oppressive tax rates are creating a huge black market and imposing financial hardships on the poorest members of our society.
Last edited:
damn this is really picking up! it's up to 1011 votes now with a 94% opposition. that's 100 votes in less than 24 hours, a much faster growth rate than we've had since this got introduced. if this trend keeps up, it'll get to the point where there's a couple hundred "no" votes in every district in about 2-3 months. IMO it's SUCH a good thing we jumped on this when we did, I doubt the antis were expecting this, they aren't used to opposition from consumers, so they don't know how they're gonna deal with us.
I wonder what caused the sudden jump?
I am guessing (and hoping) that suppliers are starting to get involved...
--They could be sending email alerts to their customer base
--They could be posting a sticky thread in their forums
I am guessing (and hoping) that suppliers are starting to get involved...
--They could be sending email alerts to their customer base
--They could be posting a sticky thread in their forums
and honestly I'm hoping vapers aren't the only ones who get involved here, I hope that any kind of tobacco user or anybody who's against prohibition or excessive excise taxes of any kind steps in.
I push the site every chance I get. I've posted messages on various snus, cigarette and other tobacco sites. All it takes is one person to respond and then extend the information to their social networks. The main issue with getting anyone politically involved is the apathy that has developed in this country. Then you take that apathy and magnify it in the tobacco community that has lived with being de-normalized for decades and you have people just accepting that the government will just do what they want to do. I know, I felt that way until they finally got my attention.
No, we are not the only ones against this. The part of the state I live in, lots of coal miners and my husband works at an ammunition plant, there can be no "spark" at all. No cigs, no ecigs. Skoal and chew tobacco is king around here. This bill effects so many people, and getting word out, even if through word of mouth, is what we have to do.
We need money. Let's get it from the poor people. The rich people have ways of fighting back.
now I definently would NOT vape at an ammunition plant.... it PROBABLY wouldn't do anything, but when it comes to hundreds of tons of gunpowder going off, probably just isn't good enough.
Very good question Elaine. Anything battery operated would appear to raise the save level of risk.
actually..... I wouldn't be surprised cell phones WERE banned other than industrial-style cell phones that you see construction workers use, and I bet you anything you gotta use their flashlights too. they probably want something with really thick cover around the battery, which is the part that gets hot. I wouldn't take chances with an ammo plant exlpoding
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
