so.... think this new tax bill will pass?

[sqirl1]

so I just officially joined you guys, and have it set up to donate $5 a month (and I wish I could donate more!), and I figured I'd make my first official post here as a CASAA member about the biggest potential disaster for us right now: the new tax bill. for those of you who haven't seen it, VocalEK posted it in the legislation news section here http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...5-massive-smokeless-tobacco-tax-increase.html

I wanna know what you all think, will this thing pass or is this going to be a no go? I figured I'd ask you guys since I know some of the people on here are the most experienced in dealing with situations like this. what's your guys opinions? are we in trouble or can we stop this thing?

 

[Vocalek]

CASAA officially supports the concept of tobacco Harm Reduction (THR). THR involves substituting any smoke-free source of nicotine for inhaling smoke. The three categories of products we discuss in the Harm Reduction section of the CASAA web site include smokeless tobacco products such as snus and dissolvable orbs, strips, and sticks; electronic nicotine vaporizers such as electronic cigarettes, cigars, and pipes; and pharmaceutical nicotine products, aka Nicotine Replacement Therapy, such as the patch, gum, lozenges, and prescription inhalers. The latter products would be used as a permanent replacement source of nicotine, not necessarily to wean down and off nicotine. We also feel that they need to be made available with higher nicotine dosages. Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

Dr. Carl Phillips has written extensively on the subject and he has just agreed to serve as CASAA’s science advisor. He and Paul Bergen started the site Tobaccoharmreduction.org which predates the formation of CASAA.

One of my favorite articles authored by Dr. Phillips is “You Might as Well Smoke. the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco." BioMed Central | Full text | You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco

CASAA opposes S.1403 because it would tax products that are up to 99% safer than smoking at the same rate as cigarettes. As cigarette prices go up, these safer alternatives need to remain less expensive, thus providing an additional incentive for smokers to make a life-saving switch.

See this, tweet it, and share it on your Facebook page: CASAA.org=

Oh, and thank you for your support! It is greatly appreciated. Every little bit helps.

 

[Higbe33]

I wrote my 3 senators about this bill. Boxer and Fienstein have been there way too long and don't have a handle on reality, but I have faith in Duncan Hunter. We shall see.

Hig

 

[sqirl1]

oh I know we all hate this bill and none of us want to pass, I'm just seeing what everybody thinks is going to wind up happening in the end. what makes this bill scary IMO is that the supporting groups focus more on what this bill is (supposedly) funding and don't mention the word "tobacco" once in the whole supporting statement.

 

[laurel099]

I hope enough people speak up so that our voices are heard loud and clear.

 

[rbuck9]

ive been trying to share my thoughts about this bill for weeks but everytime i think of it my bp goes thru the roof

 

[Thulium]

From what I can tell S. 1403 has nearly no chance of passing as is, BUT something very much like it could potentially come as a House bill, so it is critical that we remain vigilant and educate our senators and representatives on this issue because the ANTZ are getting sneakier every day.

I've noticed that all of the statements supporting the bill from organizations were actually retrieved by PopVox and they are all discussing the organization's support of the IDEA project. I think I would support the IDEA project myself, but extorting funding from people who are unable or unwilling to stop using recreational nicotine or tobacco is unethical and unconstitutional.

 

[linda49]

I"m pretty new here myself and still learning my way around. You know what we all think about the new bill! It's going to be just like with the analog smokes. If they can make someone else pay the taxes so they don't have to it will pass. That kind of makes it funny the tax the heck out of it and then say it's killing us. So we try to quit. They lose tax money so they have to find something else to tax. Since we are a minority, we don't have a lot of clout, so we always end up paying more tax.
Not many vapors in my area so I can't even get together with a group around here to discuss any possible solutions. Sure hope someone has some ideas. I don't get around much any more, but I'm in to try to help if someone has an idea.

so I just officially joined you guys, and have it set up to donate $5 a month (and I wish I could donate more!), and I figured I'd make my first official post here as a CASAA member about the biggest potential disaster for us right now: the new tax bill. for those of you who haven't seen it, VocalEK posted it in the legislation news section here http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...5-massive-smokeless-tobacco-tax-increase.html

I wanna know what you all think, will this thing pass or is this going to be a no go? I figured I'd ask you guys since I know some of the people on here are the most experienced in dealing with situations like this. what's your guys opinions? are we in trouble or can we stop this thing?

 

[Higbe33]

I heard back from one of my representatives and he's the best of the three. This is what Duncan Hunter wrote;

Dear Paul:

Thank you contacting me with your opposition to taxing electronic
cigarettes. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter.

I share your concern with the federal government's use of taxes to
discourage alternatives to smoking such as electronic cigarettes. I
believe efforts to decrease smoking and use of other tobacco related
products are more effective through awareness campaigns and continued
education on the adverse affects tobacco has on our health. Also, the
policy of linking tobacco use to fund government programs creates a
conflict of interest in terms of pursuing the dual goals of decreasing
smoking and ensuring federal programs are properly funded.

In addition, one of my primary responsibilities as your representative
in Congress is to lessen the burden which the federal government places
on the taxpayers and support efforts to reform the tax code making it
more fair and equitable to all working Americans. The current tax
burden on the American people is already excessive with some working
families paying in excess of 40% of their earned income on taxes. Rest
assured, as we continue to debate proposed taxes on electronic
cigarettes; I will keep your thoughts firmly in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. If you have any further questions
or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future.


Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter

Member of Congress

 

[Thulium]

Also, the policy of linking tobacco use to fund government programs creates a conflict of interest in terms of pursuing the dual goals of decreasing smoking and ensuring federal programs are properly funded.

I'm so glad to see that at least ONE Congressman recognizes this fact!

The Individuals with Disabities Education Act is an important cause, in my opinion, and it is unconscionable to tie funding for this program to tobacco sales. There is no evidence that this act would actually reduce tobacco use and not just increase blackmarket sales of counterfeit products.

 

[sqirl1]

I heard back from one of my representatives and he's the best of the three. This is what Duncan Hunter wrote;

Dear Paul:

Thank you contacting me with your opposition to taxing electronic
cigarettes. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter.

I share your concern with the federal government's use of taxes to
discourage alternatives to smoking such as electronic cigarettes. I
believe efforts to decrease smoking and use of other tobacco related
products are more effective through awareness campaigns and continued
education on the adverse affects tobacco has on our health. Also, the
policy of linking tobacco use to fund government programs creates a
conflict of interest in terms of pursuing the dual goals of decreasing
smoking and ensuring federal programs are properly funded.

In addition, one of my primary responsibilities as your representative
in Congress is to lessen the burden which the federal government places
on the taxpayers and support efforts to reform the tax code making it
more fair and equitable to all working Americans. The current tax
burden on the American people is already excessive with some working
families paying in excess of 40% of their earned income on taxes. Rest
assured, as we continue to debate proposed taxes on electronic
cigarettes; I will keep your thoughts firmly in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. If you have any further questions
or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future.


Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter

Member of Congress

is he running again next year? because that right there just made me consider voting for him.

 

[Luisa]

Believe me,Duncan Hunter is a good guy. I wish Ohio people would contact Boehner. He,too,is on our side and would be much more helpful if only people from his district would make their feelings known. Plus,at this time,he has a great deal of power.

 

[Higbe33]

Make your voice heard.

OpenCongress - 112th Congress - Track bills, votes, senators, and representatives in the U.S. Congress

 

[Higbe33]

For the record - I still have not heard back from Boxer or Fienstein. We need more folks to write them and please post any results.

Hig