Slightly miffed.

[SissySpike]

Well, that's the reality. Even if they didn't need more, they certainly can't handle getting less! I think their main problem with vaping is that it is TOO good, TOO popular, and TOO successful at getting people off the cigarettes. They've already factored in the sin-tax from cigarettes into the budget for the next 20 years, (Not kidding, look at the bonds that states have issued just from the Master Settlement, and how every smoker who quits makes it more likely those bonds will go south!)

Smokers quitting cigarettes (by any means) is a financial disaster for just about every state in the US. Particularly the big ones (like CA, who are so overextended in every area that the government controls, and aren't even going to be able to get water, and have no way out). Desperation causes desperate measures, which is the main reason you see so much opposition.

We can fight, or we can quit (smoking). But either way there are hard times ahead, financially most states are in real trouble, and so far nobody can find a way out.

(Here's a hint, why not tax <other stuff> at the same rate as cigarettes, or even higher, for those states who have made it legal?)

or better yet force states to down size its mismanaged governments and operate with in its budget. CA is a prime example of a very poorly managed state government.

I just built a roof over a water reservoir Its on top of a hill in San Rafael just a few very local people will see it yet they spent an extra 5 mill making the roof architectural vs industrial and practical.

I think the slippery slope of any sin tax should not be applied.

 

[AndriaD]

Don't you know vaping causes appendicitis!

Don't say that, some newbie will come along and be convinced that vaping killed their appendix!

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

(Here's a hint, why not tax <other stuff> at the same rate as cigarettes, or even higher, for those states who have made it legal?)

I've been ranting that for years. And it would save BT's bacon if they got into THAT market -- they certainly know how to grow stuff!

Andria

 

[beckdg]

I've been ranting that for years. And it would save BT's bacon if they got into THAT market -- they certainly know how to grow stuff!

Andria

Big agri grows tobacco... and its subsidized and gets big tax breaks for equipment and supplies just like the rest of agriculture in the US.



Tapatyped

 

[AndriaD]

Big agri grows tobacco... and its subsidized and gets big tax breaks for equipment and supplies just like the rest of agriculture in the US.

The thing that keeps recurring to me over and over is that the tax burden has to be shifted, from finished tobacco products, to the tobacco crop -- we still need tobacco; it's the best source of nicotine, after all. So it just makes sense that the gov't should bail itself out of the predicament it finds itself in by shifting the tax burden. It's really the only sensible way for the gov't to recover from all these soon-to-be-defaulted bonds.

Andria

 

[beckdg]

The thing that keeps recurring to me over and over is that the tax burden has to be shifted, from finished tobacco products, to the tobacco crop -- we still need tobacco; it's the best source of nicotine, after all. So it just makes sense that the gov't should bail itself out of the predicament it finds itself in by shifting the tax burden. It's really the only sensible way for the gov't to recover from all these soon-to-be-defaulted bonds.

Andria

If they want to make money from it, they'll shift all burden as far away from the farmers as possible.

Tapatyped

 

[AndriaD]

If they want to make money from it, they'll shift all burden as far away from the farmers as possible.

Tapatyped

Why? I mean, if they're losing tax money because fewer buy finished tobacco products, doesn't it seem sensible to simply shift that tax burden to the crop itself? It's still essential to production of nicotine, so there's the cash crop!

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Andria

 

[twgbonehead]

Why? I mean, if they're losing tax money because fewer buy finished tobacco products, doesn't it seem sensible to simply shift that tax burden to the crop itself? It's still essential to production of nicotine, so there's the cash crop!

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Andria

It's extremely difficult to tax agricultural products, except at the point-of-sale to the consumer, or (in the case of tobacco) when it is manufactured into a product. How do you put a tax stamp on a bale of tobacco? How do you split that tax stamp up into 10,000 individual tax stamps, one for each pack of cigarettes? And which state gets to collect the taxes? Does Virginia get all the state-tax revenue for the tobacco it grows, regardless of whether the final product is sold in VA or in MA?

There are lots of other issues, as well; once the tax has been paid on something, it needs to be tracked (and protected) much more rigorously, and the agricultural system just isn't structured this way. Tobacco-curing barns, tobacco bulk shipments, etc. are all relatively low-security because there isn't an enormous amount of value in a truckload of tobacco at $1.20/lb (farmer's price) as compared to a truckload at something like $30/lb. (taxed price just for the federal tax, estimate, for cigarette tobacco).

 

[DC2]

Has anyone here compiled a list of the LD50 of all the various B vitamins? Seems it would make a powerful defense against the "Nicotine is a deadly poison" argument if even one is close to nicotine's modern corrected LD50.

This is posted without considering the probability that the LD50 listed for nicotine is way off...
Median lethal dose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the median lethal dose (LD50) were updated for nicotine...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/476535-dr-farsalinos-nicotine-dosages.html

It might probably come in somewhere around caffeine...
And be LESS "poisonous" than capsaicin.

NO HOT PEPPERS FOR YOU!!

 

[DC2]

The thing that keeps recurring to me over and over is that the tax burden has to be shifted, from finished tobacco products, to the tobacco crop -- we still need tobacco; it's the best source of nicotine, after all. So it just makes sense that the gov't should bail itself out of the predicament it finds itself in by shifting the tax burden. It's really the only sensible way for the gov't to recover from all these soon-to-be-defaulted bonds.

Andria

The only "sensible" way is to shift the taxation over to sugar and fast foods.
Which is what they will most certainly do eventually.

NOTE: I put "sensible" in quotes because there is nothing sensible about ANY of this.

 

[AndriaD]

The only "sensible" way is to shift the taxation over to sugar and fast foods.
Which is what they will most certainly do eventually.

NOTE: I put "sensible" in quotes because there is nothing sensible about ANY of this.

I agree. If the only way to approach what I suggested, about shifting the tax burden, is to tax some finished product, then it would appear that we're right back where we started, with them imposing ridiculous taxes on nicotine itself. I gotta get crackin on my stash; got about 2 or 2.5 yrs' worth, but I guess I need to double if not quadruple that. Honey, that ice cream's gotta go.

Andria

 

[skullblade789]

One, the clerk is just there to sell you the product, not to give advice. Two, I agree that you should not shop there anymore. Three, I also get upset because no one, besides the vaping community, knows what good it is doing us. Everyone else just sees a cloud in front of us and assume it is a cigarette and they are going to get second hand smoke cancer. I am miffed for just reading this. (Not at the author, but at the clerk.)

 

[beckdg]

Why? I mean, if they're losing tax money because fewer buy finished tobacco products, doesn't it seem sensible to simply shift that tax burden to the crop itself? It's still essential to production of nicotine, so there's the cash crop!

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Andria

[emoji38] Did you just ask a semi - rational human being WHY the gooberment chooses to tax things a certain way?

You're funny.

But i don't have that answer.

All I can tell you is I've never met a farmer (aside from other stuff) that didn't benefit from tax deferments and subsidies. And I grew up with people who's parents were tobacco farmers.

Dad got a cool mil in '95 just for tractor and tractor attachments. Don't want to know what else... or updates for today's prices.

Tapatyped

 

[Woofer]

The only "sensible" way is to shift the taxation over to sugar and fast foods.
Which is what they will most certainly do eventually.

NOTE: I put "sensible" in quotes because there is nothing sensible about ANY of this.

I have to disagree with this vehemently!
The only "sensible" way is to shift the taxation over to the corporate freeloaders and parasites.
I don't see that happening anytime soon.

There is an interesting link on Andria's site Angry Vaper - Home
http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(14)00100-5/fulltext
Disruptive technology!

 

[twgbonehead]

There is an interesting link on Andria's site Angry Vaper - Home

How did I not know Andria has a site (never mind such an awesome one!)

 

[Woofer]

How did I not know Andria has a site (never mind such an awesome one!)

Awesome indeed, now if I just spelt her name correctly. Sorry Andria.

 

[AndriaD]

Awesome indeed, now if I just spelt her name correctly. Sorry Andria.

I've probably heard -- or seen? -- pretty much every variation by now. I most commonly get called "Adrian" -- same letters, different order, which makes me suspect that dyslexia is far more widespread than previously supposed.

I asked my mom why "andria" and not "andrea" -- she said "because it's different." Yep, mom, it's different, and therefore difficult for many people. But I have actually seen "andria" -- a reporter for one of our local newspapers, Andria Simmons, I think her name is.

Andria

 

[vcanfield]

Yeah, my husband got that from his dentist. "They don't really know the long term complications." My husband's reply, "Well they know the long term complications of smoking, do you recommend I go back to that?" His answer was no.

Seriously, show me the empirical evidence from double blind studies NOT sponsored by the tobacco industry or it's just a bunch of made up crap. My mother's friend's husband's dog's doctor comment doesn't count as a peer reviewed study.

 

[DC2]

I have to disagree with this vehemently!

I'm not sure if you understood, but I don't agree with it either.
That's what I meant by the whole "sensible" thing.


As for who should be taxed, how much, and when...
I don't pretend to know any of that...

I'm probably more inclined to lean towards some form of flat tax.
But only after we have reduced the government to the point it really needs to be.

 

[Woofer]

I'm not sure if you understood, but I don't agree with it either.
That's what I meant by the whole "sensible" thing.


As for who should be taxed, how much, and when...
I don't pretend to know any of that...

I'm probably more inclined to lean towards some form of flat tax.
But only after we have reduced the government to the point it really needs to be.

Opps my bad, I was thinking how uncharacteristic of you to say that... twenty lashes for me