possible tax on E-cigarettes pending in congress, PLEASE oppose this.

[Morandir835]

Jmpublius sir comes down to this, we are supposed to have no taxation without representation. I know I'm a fringe individual in the minority belief wise, political view wise, etc. but there is no one in the political system who truly represents me... As for ecig users, don't know of any political figures who partake in that either. If ecig users aren't represented, how can it be justified to attach a tax to it?

 

[jmpublius]

Sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you're not in the minority, and the disillusion with our government is a result of the ambitions of politicians who serve themselves instead of the people. Something our founders warned against.

The purpose of representation is a difficult one indeed, but the theory of representation isn't concerned with one particular group. Our system was deliberately set up in terms of geography to avoid any one group of gaining a majority that supresses the minority and vice-versa. The thought is that your representative represents the conglomeration of interests within your district. Not one particular interest or passion. Read Federalist 10 by James Madison if you ever get the time. This was in direct response to England's system which consisted of a House of Lords (the aristocracy), and the House of Commons (hope this is obvious).

The e-cig community needs to organize just as they have here and mold themselves into a political force. Then they will get the representation you speak of. The more people who get involved, the more their views will be visible in the political realm. I think this forum is a good place for that. Though I disagree with the OP, and his views, I admire what he or she is doing.

 

[incantius]

Prohibition is completely insane if you're supposedly the land of the free. It does nothing but increase crime rates because people are going to do what they want no matter what the law says, and prohibited items will still make it's way into the country..... Stepping out of this thread now...

prohibition has been tried with alcohol, etc. the only outcome from that debacle was a major spike in black market liquor. (hence more government intrusion to try and regulate & enforce the "ban" same as the "War on Drugs") prohibition is more of a drain on the government (taxpayers) than regulation.

 

[incantius]

Personally prefere it to be illegal vs legal and taxed. Black market will always be there and crime as well. Its all about minimizing the damage. Now pot I'm very shocked it passed under "medical" use. Good for the grean stuff but nicotine brings nothing to the table. Nothing it contributes to society. It represents death. Wouldn't be surprised if in some school text book they mark the last 60 years the ash ages or something. 25% people addicted to a lethal substance that the government taxes and profits. We should be ashamed.
OK, getting to cought up here. "Leaves his soap box the way he found it, well used".

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

nicotine, in and of itself, isn't that bad. caffeine is actually in the same class as nicotine as far as addictive & it's effects, you think they'll ban caffeinated drinks, etc? no way. the "harm" from nicotine is when ingested/absorbed in MASSIVE doses. and i highly doubt anyone is mainlining nicotine...if they do then they should be in the running for the Darwin Award...

 

[Darrigaaz]

I know most will hate me for this, but I'm not a steadfast supporter of non-taxation of e-cigs. It's a luxury item IMO, not a necessity. If it happens, it happens. The only thing I would be completely against is any outright ban of the product itself.

You know what else is considered a luxury item and is taxed heavily because it's labeled that? Gasoline. You don't 'need' gasoline to survive. You can walk or ride a bike anywhere you would like. People would need to wash their pants if they realized how much of the price of each gallon is just tax.

On a side note, why do you believe a luxury item tax is ok in the first place? There's only two reasons I can think of that justifies a luxury tax. The first reason is that it helps pay for government spending. The government is well known for being horrible shoppers. They throw money at anything without thinking of the consequences of their decisions. Why is it ok to perpetuate that sort of behavior? The second reason I can think of for the tax is that they want to discourage use of something by making it cost more. What right to they have to do that? If I was the government, and didn't like dogs, so I put a huge tax on dog food just so that more people would switch to having cats, would that make sense?

Luxury tax is just a way to discriminate against a group of people, regardless of the reasons. We are already taxed to death as it is with income tax, land tax, sales tax, gift tax, etc. Did you see a couple years ago that there was talk about a transaction tax? Every time you put money into the bank you'd get taxed 1%, then when you spent that money, you'd get taxed another 1%. That's 2% more of your money gone just by using a bank.

 

[Razz]

k,....this really freaked me out...

i went to a vendor who listed The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association in there links. Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association

When i went to the site and clicked on manufacturer it says that all US banks have stopped online transactions for tobacco & e-cigs effective june, 2011.

in my head i'm going.... dont panic, dont panic, it's not true, it cant be... it just can't.

can it?

 

[Optimo]

Just opposed and my message is up on the main page for the bills...Didn't expect that. 93% oppose nation wide...it's looking good!

 

[Razz]

Just opposed and my message is up on the main page for the bills...Didn't expect that. 93% oppose nation wide...it's looking good!

yeah but it's only out of like 600+ votes...

look at all the organizations pro and only 1 organization against =[

 

[Torrentula81]

k,....this really freaked me out...

i went to a vendor who listed The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association in there links. Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association

When i went to the site and clicked on manufacturer it says that all US banks have stopped online transactions for tobacco & e-cigs effective june, 2011.

in my head i'm going.... dont panic, dont panic, it's not true, it cant be... it just can't.

can it?

I haven't seen a post by someone saying bank denied them purchase. I just bought from 5 different sites with no problems. Even when they denied full tilt I was able to process funds just fine. I don't think the government or banks are very effective in this regard. I worked for a bank in the past. Best they could do is block by merchent I'd. But had to be done manually per account. The only thing they were able to fully automate were tax leans, child support, income tax, etc. Thats just merely freezing funds though. Their systems are very out dated based on dos interface to windows. As meant for dos and poorly ported it to run on windows. They aren't as advanced you would think for it being 2011. They do have some tricks of the trade though.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

 

[waylonjessi4ever]

k,....this really freaked me out...

i went to a vendor who listed The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association in there links. Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association

When i went to the site and clicked on manufacturer it says that all US banks have stopped online transactions for tobacco & e-cigs effective june, 2011.

in my head i'm going.... dont panic, dont panic, it's not true, it cant be... it just can't.

can it?

no its actually just paypal i believe

 

[waylonjessi4ever]

I am like one of you that wont vote unless i read full text a to z. They will figure out a way to tax it if they want to anyway .
Just look at what our FED gov is doing to Gibson Guitars in Nashville .Its been all over the news,and no why as to WHy GIBSON vs all the other guitar makers that use this particular wood .Jobs WILL be lost .I have a friend who works there .
I wish i were represented but my president does not listen to those i have elected soooo ...whats the diff ? Were all screwed .

 

[Darrigaaz]

Don't get me started on how outdated and abused the electoral college is and how we should have all gone to popular vote by now...

 

[jmpublius]

The second reason I can think of for the tax is that they want to discourage use of something by making it cost more. What right to they have to do that? If I was the government, and didn't like dogs, so I put a huge tax on dog food just so that more people would switch to having cats, would that make sense?

The Constitution Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

See excises. Not so much because they want to discourage use, but because the Constitution gives them the right to do so. Contrary to what the Tea Party will tell you, the framers did not believe in eliminating taxes. In fact, the Constitution was created because the Articles of Confederation were considered defective because they gave Congress no power to tax in a time of great government debt incurred during the Revolutionary War.

One of the first things George Washington did as President was institute an excise tax on whiskey under Alexander Hamilton's financial plan. When a group of farmers attempted to oppose the tax by violent means, Washington marched in an army, and put a stop to it post haste. See the Whiskey Rebellion.

One of the first things Thomas Jefferson did as President was get rid of the excise tax on whiskey. He hated it with a passion.

The debate and disagreement on taxes is neither new, or definitive. Every generation renews the debate.

 

[jmpublius]

Don't get me started on how outdated and abused the electoral college is and how we should have all gone to popular vote by now...

2 problems with this. There's more, but I'll throw these two at you.

1.) Recounts. Did we forget the problems in Florida in 2000? Imagine a nationwide recount of a contested election in 50 states---each with their own voting rules, machines, etc. At least under the electoral college the damage is mitigated by the ability to focus on a particular state.

2.) How would a popular vote keep fringe extremist candidates from winning such an election? Imagine a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and a Nazi all run for President. Popular vote totals.

Republican: 24%
Democrat: 24%
Libertarian: 24%
Nazi: 28%

Bam. You got a Nazi for President. I know this is extreme, but it makes the point. And the same kind of popular voting system allowed the Nazi Party to rise to power in Germany prior to WWII.

 

[Razz]

TY for your posts Torrentula81 and Waylonjessi4ever. It helped me a bit!

i think i had a minor heart attack when i read that. I still think i'm going to stock pile as much as my pay check will allow for a while.

My home is VERY off the grid. We raise animals, grow food, have solar power, our own water filtration, make our own soap, and the list goes on. [yes i am one of those crazy ppl]
I know it's dangerous, but i may opt to make my own juice in the future if this is really a persistent matter.... =[
i never want to go back to smoking =[
but i'm not ready to give up my nic

 

[incantius]

Don't get me started on how outdated and abused the electoral college is and how we should have all gone to popular vote by now...

the electoral college is not outdated it was established for a reason. that reason was so that even in the least populated states had equal representation in the vote. otherwise all elections would be determine by the most populous areas (in other words pretty much no votes outside of major cities like LA, NYC, etc would even be worthwhile they could just poll in those areas) while popular vote sounds good taken at face value it's just not equitable to all...which is the whole point of voting, every citizen's vote should actually count for something...

 

[Darrigaaz]

the electoral college is not outdated it was established for a reason. that reason was so that even in the least populated states had equal representation in the vote. otherwise all elections would be determine by the most populous areas (in other words pretty much no votes outside of major cities like LA, NYC, etc would even be worthwhile they could just poll in those areas) while popular vote sounds good taken at face value it's just not equitable to all...which is the whole point of voting, every citizen's vote should actually count for something...

The electoral college was actually started because it would have taken too long to count all the votes in the past. The only reasonable way to give the impression that every person's opinion counted was to have a representative to carry the popular vote from a region into a national election. It was a necessary thing in the past, but now that we have instant communication technologies, that concern has been eliminated.

If what you say is still true, then why is the Senate still around? There are only 2 senators per state, which effectively create more "voting power" per actual person in lower populated states. I put "voting power" in quotes because the Senators and Representatives are under no actual obligation to cast their votes based on popular votes in their respective states. The only motivating factor in voting towards the wishes of their constituents is to get re-elected, which in the case of limited terms allowed to serve, becomes a non motivator during the last term of office that a person will serve.

I agree that every citizen's vote should actually count for something, but as of right now, it actually doesn't because it can just easily be dismissed. Popular vote, imho, shows the actual decisions of the majority (which is true democracy).

 

[incantius]

If what you say is still true, then why is the Senate still around? There are only 2 senators per state, which effectively create more "voting power" per actual person in lower populated states. I put "voting power" in quotes because the Senators and Representatives are under no actual obligation to cast their votes based on popular votes in their respective states. The only motivating factor in voting towards the wishes of their constituents is to get re-elected, which in the case of limited terms allowed to serve, becomes a non motivator during the last term of office that a person will serve.

the Senate exists to ensure equal footing on legislation, not elections and therefore it is still necessary to ensure equal representation. elections are a different animal entirely and your point is moot.

Popular vote, imho, shows the actual decisions of the majority (which is true democracy).

we live in a democratic republic not a democracy. therefore again your point is moot.

 

[jmpublius]

The origins of the electoral college are a little more complicated than both of you are making it. Some of the framers/founders believed that democracy was essential, others believed it was something to be feared. Essentially, it boils down to a compromise within the Constitutional Convention. Instead of indirect elections in all cases, Madison believed that the people needed a direct stake in their government. This is why we ended up with direct elections to the House of Representatives. However, the Senate and the Presidency and the Judiciary, were implied to be higher offices that shouldn't be left to the people. Or in one founders opinion, "mobacracy."

One of the things that doesn't get talked about in the system of checks and balances is that indirect elections (the electoral college, appointments to the Supreme Court) are a direct attempt by the founders/framers to check the people. Or the will of the majority. In other words, many of our founders believed that the people, when conglomerated into large majorities with a single passion, could subvert the government and threaten the public good.

The reason we have two houses with different forms of representation is the result of another compromise. Our legislature is modeled on English Parliament. House of Lords and House of Commons. Senate and House of Representatives respectively. If Madison had his way, both houses would have been based on population. His idea of pure republican representative government. Because the smaller states feared that larger states would bully the smaller, the Senate is comprised of equal representation. The House, by population. Each house of Congress has different powers for different reasons.

If you ever have a lifetime to kill, read The Federalist and Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention. What's awesome is that they're finally online, so anyone who actually wants to know and understand our govt. can get them for free. Someone should tell Palin, Bachman, and Perry. They could stand to learn a thing or two.

But incantius is right, the proper form of our govt. is a Federal Democratic Republic. Federal because of our geographic State and National government distinction. Republic because of the representative form. And the Democratic element is more centered around our rights and liberties, though direct elections to the House would fit in with that distinction.

 

[incantius]

well put jmp i'm just not as verbose but the electoral college has a website that can be a decent read for those who have waaaaay too much time on their hands...(i prefer reading "fun" books that tons of "unfun" stuff...i get enough of that at work )