Proposed Pa. Tax on Smokeless tobacco

[Stubby]

Chesco lawmaker wants Pa. to tax smokeless tobacco - The Mercury

The only state in the country that has a rational progressive tobacco tax now wants to join the rest of us

 

[Bill Godshall]

I just posted the following comment on that article, which is awaiting moderation.


Senator Dinniman’s proposal would be reasonable if smokeless tobacco was as hazardous as cigarettes, and if smokeless tobacco imposed similar healthcare costs to PA taxpayers as cigarettes.

But smokeless tobacco products are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes, and should be taxed accordingly.

Cigarettes cause >99% of all tobacco attributable tobacco morbidity and mortality, and >99% of all tobacco attributable healthcare costs. In contrast, smokeless tobacco use causes <1% of all tobacco attributable morbidity and mortality, and <1% of all tobacco attributable healthcare costs.

Besides, several million smokers (mostly white males) have already quit smoking by switching to far less hazardous smokeless tobacco products, and millions of more smokers would do the same if they knew that switching to smokeless tobacco products reduces risks nearly as much as quitting all tobacco use.

Unfortunately, for the past 25 years, federal and state health agencies have been intentionally deceiving smokers (and the public) to believe that smokeless tobacco products are just as hazardous as cigarettes, which is why 85% of smokers (and the public) inaccurately believe that smokeless tobacco is as hazardous as cigarettes.

Imposing excessive and punitive taxes on smokeless tobacco products discourages smokers from reducing their disease risks (by switching to smokeless), which is precisely the goal of drug industry funded anti tobacco extremists (e.g. CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA) that have been advocating taxing smokeless tobacco at the same rate as cigarettes.

For more than a decade, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated a reasonable and responsible taxes on smokeless tobacco products and cigars, and accordingly, we'll urge PA Senators to significantly reduce Sen. Dinniman's excessive and punative proposed smokeless tax rates, to tax smokeless tobacco by the ounce instead of as a percentage of price (as a $2 can of smokeless should be taxed at the same rate as a $4 can), and to tax cigars at a similar rate that was proposed by Governor Rendell several years ago (i.e. $.038/cigar).

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[Elnroth]

Just to confirm Bill, there wasn't any mention of ecigs was there? I live in Delaware county, and I'm ready to start spreading the word if need be. I'll most likely write my rep to oppose this bill anyway, but any direct action against ecigs in pa will result in a lot more fervor on my part.

 

[cra59]

I live in Adams county and I'm all ready spreading the word about e-cigs that they are safe and they work and I have to agree with Elnroth that this would result in high blood presser

 

[Stubby]

Just to confirm Bill, there wasn't any mention of ecigs was there? I live in Delaware county, and I'm ready to start spreading the word if need be. I'll most likely write my rep to oppose this bill anyway, but any direct action against ecigs in pa will result in a lot more fervor on my part.

Either you are for tobacco harm reduction or not. Being an e-cig fanboy is not the same as supporting THR

 

[Placebo Effect]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[Elnroth]

Either you are for tobacco harm reduction or not. Being an e-cig fanboy is not the same as supporting THR

I am for thr, and I am also against the tactic of using taxes in an attempt to limit people's choices. But, I am an ecig user. I have only dipped a handful of times in my life, and I have never used snus. As a result, I have very limited knowledge and almost no personal experience with smokeless tobacco. This leaves me at a loss when attempting to rally people around me for thr as a whole compared to ecigs alone. Maybe fervor was the incorrect term. Either way, I will write my rep and any other reps directly involved.

 

[kristin]

CASAA members should remember that we fight for ALL reduced harm tobacco alternatives, not just e-cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco user members also step up and fight against e-cig bans. Additionally, a significant number of vapers rely on ST to remain smoke-free because e-cigs alone don't work. And it all ties together since ST has a LOT more scientific proof of low risk. So if e-cigs are equally low risk and they can add more sin taxes to low risk ST, it opens the door to doing the same to e-cigarettes. So please fight for our ST members just as hard. If you need to make it personal - just consider that if ST goes down, e-cigs are next! CASAA will likely be issuing a Call to Action on this soon. All non-ST members need to do is send in whatever talking points provided and oppose tax increases on products that reduce the heath risks of smokers. You don't have to be using ST to do that, right?

Just FYI, CASAA science director Dr. Carl Phillips doesn't use e-cigs but he DOES use ST (snus) and advisor Bill Godshall doesn't use either, yet both fight for vapers. We shouldn't be myopic.

 

[kristin]

Stubby - cigarette sales must be down, so they're suffering from tax withdrawal and need a new deal(er).

 

[Elnroth]

Can we get a few links four st info? As I stated before, my knowledge is limited on the topic. I'll need some talking points when I start writing.

Edit: luckily due to location, Bill's opinion will most likely carry a lot weight on this matter.

 

[kristin]

Smoke-free Tobacco

For Smokers Only

Tobaccoharmreduction.org


And if CASAA has to do a Call to Action for this (if it doesn't die first) we would put in talking points for people like we usually do. That makes it a lot easier.

 

[Elnroth]

I just noticed PA resolution 57. This is push for ecigs to be lumped in with traditional cigarettes. Granted the resolution is mostly a ban on sales to minors, but I am unsure of the ramifications of classifying ecigs in this manner.

Edit: I should probably make a thread to help organize telling the pa legislature how we want them classified before an actual bill I'd proposed.

Edit: or maybe it's just a resolution to get ecigs on the agenda. . .

 

[Placebo Effect]

I just noticed PA resolution 57. This is push for ecigs to be lumped in with traditional cigarettes. Granted the resolution is mostly a ban on sales to minors, but I am unsure of the ramifications of classifying ecigs in this manner.

Edit: I should probably make a thread to help organize telling the pa legislature how we want them classified before an actual bill I'd proposed.

Edit: or maybe it's just a resolution to get ecigs on the agenda. . .

Please post a link to the legislation.

 

[Elnroth]

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=R&bn=57

To me a bit to get the link. I'm on my phone.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Sen. Dinniman is a liberal Democrat from the Philly suburbs (where smokeless tobacco use is virtually nonexistant).

But the PA Senate and PA House are controlled by Republicans primarily from rural counties (where nearly as many men use smokeless as smoke cigarettes). To date, no proposal to tax smokeless tobacco has been approved by any PA Senate Committee, and the Senate Finance Committee even rejected Gov. Rendell's modest 2009/2010 tax proposal on smokeless tobacco ($.38/oz) and cigars ($.038/cigar).

Also, Gov. Tom Corbett ran on a "no new taxes" pledge, and he he's kept his word.

In PA, House and Senate Democrats from Philly and Pittsburgh (where smokeless and cigar consumption are very low) have been introducing bills for the past 15 years to tax smokeless tobacco and cigars, and that would appropriate most of the tax revenue for health programs that benefit residents of Philly and Pittsburgh.

The overwhelming majority (probably more than 90%) of smokeless tobacco users in PA live in House and Senate districts that are represented by Republicans. I've been pointing that out to Republican legislators for the past few years (when I inform them that smokeless tobacco is 99% less hazardous than cigarettes).

A similar pattern exists throughout the US, as urban Democrat legislators have been campaigning to impose huge taxes on smokeless tobacco users from Republican districts to pay for state health programs that primarily benefit urban Democrats.

Reminds me of Senator Huey Long's quote "We won't tax you and we won't tax me. We'll tax the guy behind the tree."

Some would call it robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[kristin]

Yep, having Bill in PA definitely gives us the advantage!

 

[Elnroth]

Yep, having Bill in PA definitely gives us the advantage!

Well against PA legislation

Bill should run against Toomey. I'd vote for him

 

[orson]

Senator Dinniman: “Smokeless tobacco contains more nicotine than cigarettes, making it that much more addictive,” Manley said. “Taxation is absolutely necessary as one step toward decreasing its use and abuse.”

Anyone care to refute or confirm this statement?

My guess is that because they are smokeless the products contain higher amounts of nicotine to create absorption levels at or below the rate of absorption by smoking a cigarette.....

(Answered my own question through research, the answer is murky and complex or I'd share it)

 

[orson]

I just noticed PA resolution 57. This is push for ecigs to be lumped in with traditional cigarettes. Granted the resolution is mostly a ban on sales to minors, but I am unsure of the ramifications of classifying ecigs in this manner.

Edit: I should probably make a thread to help organize telling the pa legislature how we want them classified before an actual bill I'd proposed.

Edit: or maybe it's just a resolution to get ecigs on the agenda. . .

WHEREAS, Additionally, it is crucial to properly define
tobacco-derived products and electronic cigarettes in State
statutes and prohibit the purchase and possession by minors;
therefore be it

Seems fairly straightforward stuff about restricting sales to minors and including e-cigs as an age restricted product.

 

[Elnroth]

There's no mention at all of e-cigs in that piece of proposed legislation. If passed it will surely be amended once FDA regs become clear.

Read the attached pdf. It has the agenda for the proposal. What you see on the page the link goes to is just a quick overview

It explicitly mentions ecigs several times