OFFICIAL - SMOKELESSIMAGE.com Thread

[SandySu]

AHHH - at times this thread can not only be informative View attachment 52157
And where you learn a lot of "STUFF" . . . View attachment 52154
Without-a-doubt, it can be so much FUN ! ! ! View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151 View attachment 52151

View attachment 52156

Thanks for the all the laughs today everyone ! ! ! !View attachment 52152
(especially "Laurae09" - BTW, nice double post there ! )

P.S. Can anyone tell me if I reached 10,000 yet ?
Opps - did I say that
Yep - And I'm stickin' to it . . .
Well. at least for Now - because it's still somewhat Funny - Not hesterical mind you - but Funny ! ! !

This post was numbered 697.

 

[Uncle]

Again - JUST a THOUGHT:

Since, I - like so many other people - happen to be one of those people who have extreme allergies (besides having Asthma. COPD, etc.) and are highly sensitive to perfumes and such, but not "anolog" smoke at all . . . they may want to also address that problem of people who dose them self with "perfume" instead of taking a shower . . . Just, consider what happened in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Halifax Hysteria: Non-scents in Nova Scotia where it is "illegal" to wear anything that "smells. . . and now in many places here in America:FORCES International - OUTCASTING SMELLERS " and some other links to check out on Google too:Google

Now - I bet we can place a Tax on this extreme "luxury" and to get people to "Stop" there practice of "smelling nice" in public - and if not well then we just keep raising TAXES on everything that "smells" Bad - like those perfumes ! ! !

Okay - I'm being sarcastic here - but the point is still the same . . .

 

[marlou]

*DISCLAIMER: ROLYGATE WROTE THIS THREAD ORIGINALLY*

IDEA Full Funding Act (The Saving Lives by Lowering tobacco Use Act)
S. 1403: A bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Please create an account at Popvox and OPPOSE this bill. It is a camouflaged attempt to increase the tax on safer alternatives to tobacco, including e-cigarettes, to the same as or more than cigarettes, and to increase that tax every year - inserted within a disabilities education Act amendment in order to hide it.

Please create an account - login - OPPOSE the Bill. Thank you.

--see the attached pic of the page for detail instructions-

here's where you sign up to oppose it https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

My own addition: Can they get any sneakier???????????? EVIL EVIL MONEY MONGERS!!!!!!!!!!

Done! Thanks for the link, I had seen it somewhere else and didn't save it. Very well set up site, they have made it very easy to include a personal email.

 

[marlou]

One thing that is becoming evident is there is change in the e-cig industry inevitable and we need to stand up for our rights at every turn. Our freedoms are under constant attack on many different levels in America and it's all about greed and people trying to impose their agenda on everyone else from smoking to gun rights as well as many other freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

You are so right. We have to stand up for our rights and freedoms, because once they are lost we will not get them back.

 

[Wuzznt Me]

I don't think so. Alcohol isn't deadly when used as intended which is moderation or medicinal. Look at the bolded underlined. No such thing as a safe cigarette.
My bad. You meant the outlawed list didn't you.

I think you can add alcohol to that list.

 

[MustangSallie]

Hi everyone. *waves hello*

I just posted a response in this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/219441-refilling-carts.html but maybe someone else can be of more help?

 

[SandySu]

I don't think so. Alcohol isn't deadly when used as intended which is moderation or medicinal. Look at the bolded underlined. No such thing as a safe cigarette.
My bad. You meant the outlawed list didn't you.

I guess I was thinking of something that's taxed a lot because it's not good for you. Yes, I hear a glass of red wine a day is actually good for your heart, but most people who drink, consume more than that. And since so many people overdo (think drunk driving), alcohol is generally not healthy for society. They tried prohibition, and it didn't work, so I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but what I think they are trying to do (if I'm reading their minds right) is excessively tax things that are generally unhealthy in hopes it'll curb people from consuming them rather than having to pass difficult laws against them. As I said before, money talks.

 

[keelalagirl55]

keela darlin.. brainstroming is very healthy, and different points of views are as well, we will not all agree....I tried ending my part in the discussion, but this comment needed some love from me...sweetheart

didn't mean to offend

 

[Amy41996]

didn't mean to offend

Bad hair day...am a little sensitive, and I took it wrong Thanks for responding, I have always enjoyed your posts

 

[SandySu]

OK, thinking on this further. I think they are taxing e-cigs because they have nicotine in them, and they know analogs aren't good for you, so they think e-cigs aren't good for you, either. They probably haven't read up on them as much as we have.

And as for taxing things that aren't good for you, it comes down to the argument: Does the government have the right to restrict public consumption of things not considered good for you? Does it have the right to pass a law that we have to fasten our seat belts when we drive? And motorcycle helmets? I have a horse and follow horse-related stuff, and this argument is going on about requiring people to wear riding helmets. I'm sure everyone's familiar with both sides of this kind of argument.

So it seems to me, since I think they are lumping e-cigs in with analogs, they need to be educated about their harmlessness. Which means more, expensive studies, and who will pay for that? Would we all agree to pay increased taxes on e-cigs if the money went to scientific studies of their danger or harmlessness and their effectiveness in helping people stop smoking? Not to say the tax money would go to that, just musing about it.

I have no answers on what should be done, though I do believe the people proposing laws and voting to pass them should be educated about the issue, not just joining the public stampede to think that something is harmful that isn't. And people rely on the information of scientific studies, even if sometimes those methods aren't much better than anecdotal evidence.

 

[Uncle]

OH NO View attachment 52201- I'm watching the National News that has a story about obesity - they're coming after my "PEPSI" and more . . . YES - I'm FAT too - SO WHAT ? ? ? ? . . .
Now they're taking my food away . . . View attachment 52200
THEY ARE REALLY . . .HELP ME ! ! ! ! ! !View attachment 52199

P.S. BTW, I gave up Pepsi a long time ago ! ! ! So no problem, but they are coming after something - anything as long as they can govern it . . . I hate this - I'm a liberal democrat . . . and I sound like a conservative republican . . . Okay - NO FLAMING ALLOWED . . . Just wanted to make a point, about me - no one else ! ! !


EDIT: DAM THOSE SPELLING MISTAKES

 

[Amy41996]

OH NO View attachment 52201- I'm watching the National News that has a story about obesity - they're coming after my "PEPSI" and more . . . YES - I'm FAT too - SO WHAT ? ? ? ? . . .
Now they're taking my food away . . . View attachment 52200
THEY ARE REALLY . . .HELP ME ! ! ! ! ! !View attachment 52199

i am still grieving for my trans fat!

 

[EleanorR]

Rave....yep, you're right this tax would include the liquid nicotine for DIY, and I don't put it past them to include pipes and such....they are not taxed right now, cause they are not "cigarette" related....cigars and pipe tobacco is not taxed yet like ciggies are, but will be with this law.

Amy darlin....if you're thinking the tax will prevent bans...check out NYC....you cannot smoke in ANY public place...no parks, nothing. Individual states and cities will still be able to ban ecigs. And it's not just Cleveland stadium that has banned any smoking anywhere....not in bars, not even PRIVATE clubs.....

My biggest issue with this is that it is being buried in a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with smoking....the same crap smoke and mirror show that capitol hill has become known for anymore....and the fact they are wanting to (right off the bat) tax at a higher rate than the cigs are currently taxed and then increase it EVERY year! They have no clue how to manage money to begin with and have dug themselves in such a hole, they are trying to rape the public in any way they can to try and get out! I'm tired of the sneaky antics and only certain populations getting nailed, scorned, and brutally attacked. Oh...and once it passes federally...hold on to your seats, cause the states are next.



Laura....ADORABLE

+ 100,000 (inflation, ya know . . . or was it that new tax the gubmint just snuck into a wholly un-related bill and passed because, you know, it's not like we pay them to actually READ THE BILLS before making them LAWS or anything . . . )

 

[starsong]

I followed the link and read the text of the bill and don't see where it says anything about "including e-cigarettes". Closest it gets is "Other Tobacco Products- Any product not otherwise described under this section that has been determined to be a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration..." then goes on to clarify what 'other tobacco products' are defined as, none of which hinted at e-cigs or nicjuice, etc.

If it's really there can you point me to the right place? Or is he reading more into this than was really there?

*DISCLAIMER: ROLYGATE WROTE THIS THREAD ORIGINALLY*

IDEA Full Funding Act (The Saving Lives by Lowering Tobacco Use Act)
S. 1403: A bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Please create an account at Popvox and OPPOSE this bill. It is a camouflaged attempt to increase the tax on safer alternatives to tobacco, including e-cigarettes, to the same as or more than cigarettes, and to increase that tax every year - inserted within a disabilities education Act amendment in order to hide it.

Please create an account - login - OPPOSE the Bill. Thank you.

--see the attached pic of the page for detail instructions-

here's where you sign up to oppose it https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

My own addition: Can they get any sneakier???????????? EVIL EVIL MONEY MONGERS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[keelalagirl55]

‘(i) Other Tobacco Products- Any product not otherwise described under this section that has been determined to be a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration through its authorities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act shall be taxed at a level of tax equivalent to the tax rate for cigarettes on an estimated per use basis as determined by the Secretary.’.

This is the first I found.....

I followed the link and read the text of the bill and don't see where it says anything about "including e-cigarettes". Closest it gets is "Other Tobacco Products- Any product not otherwise described under this section that has been determined to be a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration..." then goes on to clarify what 'other tobacco products' are defined as, none of which hinted at e-cigs or nicjuice, etc.

If it's really there can you point me to the right place? Or is he reading more into this than was really there?

 

[starsong]

Right, that's the part I quoted. But it goes on to define what is meant by "other", and it didn't seem to include us.

‘(i) Other Tobacco Products- Any product not otherwise described under this section that has been determined to be a tobacco product by the Food and Drug Administration through its authorities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act shall be taxed at a level of tax equivalent to the tax rate for cigarettes on an estimated per use basis as determined by the Secretary.’.

This is the first I found.....

 

[keelalagirl55]

Other is ANYTHING that is regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product that was not specifically noted in the bill....such as the dissolvable strips, the cigars, the chewing tobacco.....so other would include snus, and nicotine liquid etc. Compliments of the ruling by the courts, we are regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product.

Edit....hahaha...sorry Star, I didn't catch where you did quote part of that

Edit 2.....now I see where you are asking about....after that quote it defines tax definitions....and we would fall under the first one....

(1) TOBACCO PRODUCT DEFINITION- Section 5702(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before the period the following: ‘, and any other product containing tobacco that is intended or expected to be consumed’.

 

[starsong]

I didn't think our stuff included tobacco. I guess I won't be happy until they specifically include or exclude e-cig products but I guess they left it vague on purpose. So I'll oppose on those grounds. Thanks

Other is ANYTHING that is regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product that was not specifically noted in the bill....such as the dissolvable strips, the cigars, the chewing tobacco.....so other would include snus, and nicotine liquid etc. Compliments of the ruling by the courts, we are regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product.

Edit....hahaha...sorry Star, I didn't catch where you did quote part of that

Edit 2.....now I see where you are asking about....after that quote it defines tax definitions....and we would fall under the first one....

(1) TOBACCO PRODUCT DEFINITION- Section 5702(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before the period the following: ‘, and any other product containing tobacco that is intended or expected to be consumed’.

 

[keelalagirl55]

you are most welcome Star.....

They agreed to allow it to be regulated as a tobacco product soley on the basis of the nicotine content And that too caused much controversy....since you can find nicotine in foods as well (just obviously not as high concentrations as in tobacco leaves).

And I am with you....I don't consider them tobacco products either.....

 

[ConnieBGood]

Nicotine is a tobacco by-product. Remember, The FDA lost it's bid to regulate E-Cigs as a drug delivery device. The judge said they may consider anything with nicotine as a tobacco product or by-product.

They haven't done that yet I don't think. But let this bill pass.......
You KNOW they will try.

They can't tax the E-Cig maybe but it is possible they can anything that has nicotine in it..... Like juice and cartos. Patches and such get by because they are considered a cease smoking product. E-cigs don't fall in that category yet.

It's enough to worry me anyhow.

If you only watch the front door they may sneak in the back one.
All they have to do is tax by the concentration of nicotine in a product.....

you are most welcome Star.....

They agreed to allow it to be regulated as a tobacco product soley on the basis of the nicotine content And that too caused much controversy....since you can find nicotine in foods as well (just obviously not as high concentrations as in tobacco leaves).

And I am with you....I don't consider them tobacco products either.....