Testimony needed to defeat 70% TAX on e-cigs in Hawaii (and eventually other states!)

[Placebo Effect]

**Your testimony is needed regardless of what state or country you live in**

Testimony can be submitted here -- Measure Status

Volcano E-Cigs, a Hawaii-based company, has an informational page here -- https://volcanoecigscom.createsend.com/t/ViewEmail/r/6B671BFC184F53E3/C67FD2F38AC4859C/

SB 2819 would tax each and every e-cigarette product and accessory sold in the State of Hawaii at a 70% wholesale rate.

We should point out the tax provisions would not only destroy existing e-cigarette companies in HI, but would prevent businesses from developing there in the future, and would prompt most/all e-cigarette consumers in HI (now and in the future) to purchase e-cigarette products online or by mail order from out-of-state, and that it won't be feasible for the HI Rev Dept to collect taxes on these purchases.

Bottom line, it could cost the HI Revenue Dept more to try collecting the tax than the revenue it would bring in. This is our STRONGEST point.

Please be civil -- none of the Committee members proposed this law, they are just being asked to vote on it. We need to convince them that this is an awful, counterproductive idea.

Hawaii residents: The hearing is on Wednesday, February 8th at 9 AM at the state house. Can you attend? E-mail us at board@casaa.org for more details.

Guidance from Bill Godshall

Additional arguments against the proposed 70% tax in HI include the following:

- would destroy existing e-cigarette companies in HI, and prevent future e-cig businesses in HI in the future.

- would prompt most/all e-cigarette consumers in HI (now and in the future) to purchase e-cigarette products online or by mail order from out-of-state,

- won't be economically feasable for HI Rev Dept to collect taxes from out-of-state online and mail order purchases, and legislation could cost the HI Revenue Dept more trying to collect taxes owed than the resulting revenue would generate.

- bill's current definition of "e-cigarettes" is overly broad and could result in multiple 70% taxes, and taxes on products used for things other than an e-cigarette.

"E-cigarette means any mechanical heating element, battery, or electronic circuit, which can be used to deliver a vapor of nicotine or any other substances, and the use of inhalation of which simulates smoking. The term shall include any such device, whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, any cartridge or component of the device or related product, or under any other product name or descriptor."

- "mechanical heating element, battery, or electronic circuit" could result in taxes imposed upon many products that are used in e-cigarettes as well as many other products. This clause may give the HI Rev. Dept the legal authority to tax any mechanical heating element, battery, or electronic circuit it desires (to obtain additional revenue).

- "whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold" appears to impose multiple taxation, which could impose a 70% tax on products when sold by the manufacturer, another 70% tax when sold by distributor, another 70% tax when marketed by anyone else, and another 70% tax when sold by a retailer to the consumer.

- "or component of the device" could also result in double or triple taxation (if the components are bought, assembled and subsequently sold in as e-cigarettes in HI). HI doesn't impose an additional tax on products that are "components of" cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars or pipe tobacco.

- "or related product" is so vague it could allow the HI Revenue Dept to impose a 70% tax on many different products that may or may not be related to e-cigarettes. HI doesn't impose a tax on any products that are "related to" cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars or pipe tobacco.

 

[Dan1911]

70%?!?!?!

Wows

 

[yzer]

Interesting. In California e-cigarette hardware and e-liquid containing nicotine is not taxed as tobacco because none of these products contain leafy material from the tobacco plant, hence they are not tobacco and cannot be taxed or subject to tobacco sales permits as tobacco. Even if the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as a tobacco product California requires tobacco to actually be tobacco.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Bump for the day crew. It is very possible to defeat this bill.

 

[Placebo Effect]

And here's the first article written about this terrible, counter-productive bill

Hawaii Legislation Highlights How E-Cigarette Taxes Are Anything But Productive @PolicyMic | Cameron English

 

[mooreted]

Ok, here's my proposed rebuttal:

While I agree that nicotine products should not be sold to minors, exorbitant tax provisions would not only destroy existing e-cigarette companies in HI, but would prevent businesses from developing there in the future, and would prompt most/all e-cigarette consumers in HI (now and in the future) to purchase e-cigarette products online or by mail order from out-of-state, making it infeasible for the HI Rev Dept to collect taxes on these purchases.

Bottom line, it could cost the HI Revenue Dept more to try collecting the tax than the revenue it would bring in.

Electronic cigarettes only contain nicotine, a base, and flavoring. They do not contain tobacco, do not cause cancer and emphysema, and do not affect others with second hand “smoke” because they produce vapor, not smoke.

The reason for high taxation on cigarettes and other tobacco products is to offset the cost of health-care accrued from the damage caused by those products. Since electronic cigarettes do not cause the diseases that traditional tobacco products cause, it makes no sense to raise taxes on them to offset non-existent costs to society.

The goal of the electronic cigarette community is to help smokers find a healthier alternative to smoking which saves lives and reduces the financial and human cost that traditional tobacco consumption causes. The pharmaceutical industry has failed to produce an effective product for smokers who have trouble quitting. Curtailing the purchase and use of healthier alternatives by informed adults will only drive those smokers back to tobacco use and eventual death.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Excellent mooreted -- short and effective, and a great example for the rest of the e-cigarette community.

Some newer vapers may not be aware, but every major 'public health' organization in the United States is against YOU, the ex-smoker who quit with electronic cigarettes. They could not succeed in banning the product, and so now they want to discourage use by making prices skyrocket.

 

[mooreted]

Great, thanks.

Posting.

 

[mooreted]

And, done.

Good luck.

 

[mikeinbc]

I'm afraid this type of legislation will be the future trend in the world. E-cig taxes will most likely be imposed in the guise of "addiction control" rather than "health control". Of course, the real reason would be to offset tobacco tax losses.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I'm afraid this type of legislation will be the future trend in the world. E-cig taxes will most likely be imposed in the guise of "addiction control" rather than "health control". Of course, the real reason would be to offset tobacco tax losses.

Please make your voice heard by submitting testimony in opposition to the tax.

 

[DC2]

This deserves a bump if anything ever did...

I hope EVERY person reading this takes a few minutes to speak up and be heard.
It is really easy to do using the link in the first post.

 

[mooreted]

Bump

Sent from my easy chair using brainwaves.

 

[azzaman]

This is where it starts, spreading like a sick parasite. This has to stop here.

 

[bigtiime]

Bumpin it up to the top!

 

[mooreted]

Morning bump.

 

[pyro13g]

Ok, here's my proposed rebuttal:

While I agree that nicotine products should not be sold to minors,....

Unfortunately there is no proof to the health claims you make. Lot's of inhaled substances that are not smoke, cause cancer and other health issues. No one is going to stop regulation or taxation of a tobacco product and liquids that are vaporized for inhalation. And if it's a 70% wholesale tax, that's really not all that bad. Boge carto's can be acquired wholesale for 0.65 a piece, a decent PV for $15.00 wholesale. So 70% tacked on isn't all that bad. My vape cost is under $30.00 a month retail with DIY so a tax like that is anon issue. So learn to DIY! and not pay tax on things like PG, VG, Batteries, switches, chargers, pass throughs. The tax can't reach that component level.

Sorry to say, but it is reality, your vaping habit will be supplied by big business that is regulated by the FDA and taxed just like tobacco, booze, etc.

Pray to the nicotine gods that they just don't make nictotine Rx, and be done with it.

 

[mooreted]

Well, I'm not going to just roll over and give up. I've never run from a fight in my life, and I'm not going to start now.

 

[JoeInferno]

We are all fighting it as hard as we can, spreading it to all the social networks we can. Telling friends, family, neighbors, complete, strangers, and anyone else who will listen. We are hoping everyone that can that is in HI will come to the hearing on Wednesday. I have received emails back from a couple WAM board members saying they do not agree with the bill. But some are also supporting it. We are hoping with the testimonials and all the people that show up to the hearing, along with all the people taking the time to sit down with the members will prove that the people do not agree with this bill.

 

[pyro13g]

Doesn't matter where you spread it to. Fact is there is already regulation and taxation in place for tobacco products and big money behind lobbying to get this tobacco product into the current system. It's a no brainer and slam dunk. Everything is already in place except or the official regulation pushing vaping into the system of regulation, taxation, quality/manufacturing/testing rules for juice, and licensing to sell the products.