Should e-cigarettes be taxed? Great common sense, fact based article.

[Jake6731]

Great article, Tweeted earlier today by Greg Conley:
Should e-cigarettes be taxed? - Economics - AEI

"They conclude that e-cigarettes should not be subjected to tobacco taxes at this time, because the current medical evidence does not point to any significant adverse health effects."

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

Good article! I just hope we see more like it! We need good publicity.

 

[VapieDan]

Great article, Tweeted earlier today by Greg Conley:
Should e-cigarettes be taxed? - Economics - AEI

"They conclude that e-cigarettes should not be subjected to tobacco taxes at this time, because the current medical evidence does not point to any significant adverse health effects."

They will be taxed to replace the lost revenue from Cigarette tax losses. The facts mean nothing. Politicians will slander them to get the excuse they desire.

 

[Kent C]

Great article, Tweeted earlier today by Greg Conley:
Should e-cigarettes be taxed? - Economics - AEI

"They conclude that e-cigarettes should not be subjected to tobacco taxes at this time, because the current medical evidence does not point to any significant adverse health effects."

Good for not penalizing the healthy. And rather than delegating vapers to the current 'smoking designated areas', imagine how smoking might decline to 10% (CDC's goal is 12% which they'll never achieve) IF they created 'vaping sections' in restaurants and airplanes and 'vaping rooms' in hotels/motels, allowed vaping at work, and no restrictions outdoors. Smokers would flock to ecigarettes or at least try them for those situations, which might get more smokers using ecigs.

 

[Jake6731]

They will be taxed to replace the lost revenue from Cigarette tax losses. The facts mean nothing. Politicians will slander them to get the excuse they desire.

That issue was also addressed in the article:
"Another unfounded argument asserts that e-cigarettes should be taxed because they are re- placing cigarettes and therefore reduce tobacco tax revenue. If a product that doesn’t have the harmful effects of cigarettes replaces them, the resulting decline in tobacco tax revenue is not a problem, as the harms that the tobacco tax is intended to prevent are also diminishing."

 

[darkcelestialillumination]

It is said that most smokers are low income. I do not know if this is true. But we are the ones with the most difficulties paying their insane "sin taxes" on cigarettes. A lot of people could end up switching to ecigarettes for the financial savings alone and should be able to do so. We should not continue to be denormalized, demonized and over taxed, no matter what one's income level is. What kind of government starts a hate campaign on its own citizens.

 

[wv2win]

That issue was also addressed in the article:
"Another unfounded argument asserts that e-cigarettes should be taxed because they are re- placing cigarettes and therefore reduce tobacco tax revenue. If a product that doesn’t have the harmful effects of cigarettes replaces them, the resulting decline in tobacco tax revenue is not a problem, as the harms that the tobacco tax is intended to prevent are also diminishing."

Then they had better put a sin tax on NRT products such as the gum, patches, inhalers, Chantex, etc.

 

[wv2win]

My guess is some vapers on ECF would never share this excellent article with anyone simply because the authors work for the American Enterprise Institute think tank. Thank goodness we have some groups on our side.

 

[Sundodger]

Page 274 of the article states:

Out
of 1,300 college students, only 43 said that their first
nicotine product was an e-cigarette. One of those
went on to initiate regular smoking.
59


I would think that this student probably picked up regular cigs because at the time ecigs were looked at as weird in his group. The same thing I thought when I first saw one. Then, he went on to be cool and REALLY smoked with the cool kids.

 

[rothenbj]

That issue was also addressed in the article:
"Another unfounded argument asserts that e-cigarettes should be taxed because they are re- placing cigarettes and therefore reduce tobacco tax revenue. If a product that doesn’t have the harmful effects of cigarettes replaces them, the resulting decline in tobacco tax revenue is not a problem, as the harms that the tobacco tax is intended to prevent are also diminishing."

If in fact, as the prohibitionist spout, smoking costs $96 or $97b a year in lost productivity, any loss in taxes should be covered by productivity. Of course if the states continue to ban where they can be used, nothing will change about health costs.

 

[claudebo]

Maybe I will be taxed on the cigarettes I did not buy in the last year

 

[Jake6731]

Maybe I will be taxed on the cigarettes I did not buy in the last year

Shush!! Don't give them any ideas!!

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

Sally Satel!

Sally authored this Washington Post op-ed on Valentines Day: "How E-cigarettes could save lives"

She is such a clear thinker, and enhanced by being such a clear communicator

Swear I have a vague memory of seeing her being interviewed somewhere along the way...

Her new piece is extremely share-worthy!

 

[TLS01]

Maybe I will be taxed on the cigarettes I did not buy in the last year

With it being tax day in the US today, they'll get the bill right out to you in the mail by midnight tonight.

 

[SingedVapor]

That issue was also addressed in the article:
"Another unfounded argument asserts that e-cigarettes should be taxed because they are re- placing cigarettes and therefore reduce tobacco tax revenue. If a product that doesn’t have the harmful effects of cigarettes replaces them, the resulting decline in tobacco tax revenue is not a problem, as the harms that the tobacco tax is intended to prevent are also diminishing."

They are being backed into a corner. Sooner or later somebody is gonna push it hard enough and SOMEBODY just might admit that the tax on tabacco has nothing to do with public safety, but a sure fire way for the government to line thier pockets


Sent from my iPhone because I'm awesome like that.

 

[leerm8680]

Sally Satel!

Sally authored this Washington Post op-ed on Valentines Day: "How E-cigarettes could save lives"

She is such a clear thinker, and enhanced by being such a clear communicator

The Washington Post is know for stumbling into actual journalism now and then. One of the few papers I read.

 

[mostlyclassics]

I wish I could find it now. Stupidly, I didn't print it out when I first ran across it back in 2003 or 2004, [but it's since been deleted — note: see my post #22 below]. I know I read it. And Charles Krauthammer mentioned it several times in passing, both in print and on the air. And my internist mentioned the study to me. So I'm sure it wasn't a figment of my imagination.

The article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is peer-reviewed and generally regarded as authoritative. The authors, whose names escape me, were all well-regarded epidemiologists.

The principal point was that, if everyone quit smoking, or tobacco had never existed, and all other epidemiological factors were held even, the national health care bill would be about 18% higher than it was at that point, with 20% of adults smoking.

The majority of our health care expenses are concentrated in end-care, the last year(s) of life. And smokers tend to die cheaply: lung cancer (few operations, and the chemotherapy regimes are relatively inexpensive), critical cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (heart attacks and strokes, which require intensive but extremely short-term care), etc. Smokers tend not to die of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other long-term degenerative conditions, which require long-term, 24/7, extremely expensive care.

 

[rothenbj]

I wish I could find it now. Stupidly, I didn't print it out when I first ran across it back in 2003 or 2004, but it's since been deleted. I know I read it. And Charles Krauthammer mentioned it several times in passing, both in print and on the air. And my internist mentioned the study to me. So I'm sure it wasn't a figment of my imagination.

The article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is peer-reviewed and generally regarded as authoritative. The principal point was that, if everyone quit smoking, or tobacco had never existed, and all other epidemiological factors held even, the national health care bill would be about 18% higher than it was at that point, with 20% of adults smoking.

The majority of our health care expenses are concentrated in end-care, the last year(s) of life. And smokers tend to die cheaply: lung cancer (few operations, and the chemotherapy regimes are relatively inexpensive), critical cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (heart attacks and strokes, which require intensive but extremely short-term care), etc. Smokers tend not to die of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other long-term degenerative conditions, which require long-term, 24/7, extremely expensive care.

I have no doubt that the article existed and that it disappeared. How dare anyone challenge the fact that smokers are sending this country into bankruptcy and everyone else is paying for the smoker's unhealthy habit. The is the story line provided by the prohibitionjists and they've sold it so long and hard that, as they say, perception has become reality.

 

[mostlyclassics]

[rothenbj, when I discovered that the article had been deleted, my esteem for the New England Journal of Medicine took a hit. — please note: I retract this statement. See post #22 in this thread.]

 

[squee]

rothenbj, when I discovered that the article had been deleted, my esteem for the New England Journal of Medicine took a hit.

You "discovered that it was deleted"? OR.... you just couldn't find it. Because it seems to be right where they left it:

THE HEALTH CARE COSTS OF SMOKING

And here it is, referenced in the British Medical Journal

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/53/suppl_2/S38.full.pdf

And here is the same article available on one of our own government websites

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1765898/pdf/v053p00S38.pdf

So if we could maybe dial back on the giant government conspiracy stuff and focus on what is actually going on and who actually has a stake in this, that would be a good thing.