Well, thanks. I am honored.
Good luck.
Sent from my easy chair using brainwaves.
Good luck.
Sent from my easy chair using brainwaves.
Testimony needed to defeat 70% TAX on e-cigs in Hawaii (and eventually other states!)
- Thread starter Placebo Effect
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- volcano
- Status
Still time to get your testimony's in..... if you haven't please get them in. If you are in HI please come out on Weds.
This kind of thing ****es me off. Lazy legislation, badly-drafted, too wide. I've seen too many cases of it from my government over here. GOOD LUCK to you Hawaiians in defeating this! 
My testimony:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Hawaii State Legislature:
I am not a citizen of the state of Hawaii or even of the USA. I am writing in opposition to SB2819 because I believe the State of Hawaii would be making a damaging mistake, and setting a bad precedent for legislators worldwide, by passing this measure:
a) In terms of justice
b) In terms of the equity and clarity of purpose of State legislation, and thus the dignity and authority of the State government
c) In terms of the public health of State citizens
d) In blurring the clear distinction between the separate aims of protecting minors, assisting in the safety of adult citizens, and raising necessary funds to provide government services.
I personally agree with one purpose of SB2819: that supplies and equipment for the delivery of nicotine (such as e-cigarettes) should be restricted to purchase by those over 18.
However, there is no possibly excuse for abusing the strong arguments that exist for this first purpose to supposedly justify another, second purpose, slipped in under cover of the first: the second purpose of classifying e-cigarette equipment as "tobacco products" for the purposes of taxation.
Whatever arguments exist for taxing cigarettes at a high level, the State must make a case that those arguments also apply to e-cigarettes. That both classes of products share the common feature of being undesirable for general unrestricted sale to minors is not a sufficient argument.
I am convinced that the public-health benefits of e-cigarettes - and specifically the benefits of ensuring that they remain available and attractive to smokers at a reasonable price - are so strong that the case for punitive taxation on these products would have to stand up to serious scrutiny.
I myself have given up smoking cigarettes and am starting to enjoy the health benefits. This is largely thanks to the availability of e-cigarette products at a reasonable price, which has encouraged an informed, helpful, enthusiastic community of e-cigarette users and suppliers, many of whom are US citizens and businesses. A punitive taxation rate would have made, and could still make this kind of health benefit impossible.
My testimony:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Hawaii State Legislature:
I am not a citizen of the state of Hawaii or even of the USA. I am writing in opposition to SB2819 because I believe the State of Hawaii would be making a damaging mistake, and setting a bad precedent for legislators worldwide, by passing this measure:
a) In terms of justice
b) In terms of the equity and clarity of purpose of State legislation, and thus the dignity and authority of the State government
c) In terms of the public health of State citizens
d) In blurring the clear distinction between the separate aims of protecting minors, assisting in the safety of adult citizens, and raising necessary funds to provide government services.
I personally agree with one purpose of SB2819: that supplies and equipment for the delivery of nicotine (such as e-cigarettes) should be restricted to purchase by those over 18.
However, there is no possibly excuse for abusing the strong arguments that exist for this first purpose to supposedly justify another, second purpose, slipped in under cover of the first: the second purpose of classifying e-cigarette equipment as "tobacco products" for the purposes of taxation.
Whatever arguments exist for taxing cigarettes at a high level, the State must make a case that those arguments also apply to e-cigarettes. That both classes of products share the common feature of being undesirable for general unrestricted sale to minors is not a sufficient argument.
I am convinced that the public-health benefits of e-cigarettes - and specifically the benefits of ensuring that they remain available and attractive to smokers at a reasonable price - are so strong that the case for punitive taxation on these products would have to stand up to serious scrutiny.
I myself have given up smoking cigarettes and am starting to enjoy the health benefits. This is largely thanks to the availability of e-cigarette products at a reasonable price, which has encouraged an informed, helpful, enthusiastic community of e-cigarette users and suppliers, many of whom are US citizens and businesses. A punitive taxation rate would have made, and could still make this kind of health benefit impossible.
Sounds like the big tobacco lobby has been at work to stamp out the ecig blight in its tracks. Do they want us all to go back to cigarettes ... or quit completely? My guess is that BT sees terrific potential losses from cigarette to ecig converts and is working to eradicate the competition. Government is cooperating to keep the court settlement money from BT coming in.
That's a common misconception. BT doesn't particularly care about us. In fact, they like us because they see e-cigarette users (those continuing to use nicotine) as potential customers for their snus and dissolvables.
If BT was against us, the first negative actions against us would've been in the Carolinas and Virginia, and there has been no attacks on us there.
Hawaii is a very anti-tobacco state, and they have been following the suggestions of the pharma-funded alphabet groups (Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, etc.) for many years.
This still has a very good shot of being defeated.
I'll add that it's not been BT we are fighting against, but rather the FDA and Big Pharma (who are in bed together). Now more and more studies are confirming the success of e-cigs as a quit smoking method. Big Pharma "protected" by the FDA doesn't like this at all. Big Pharma cannot make or sell E-cigs that are FDA regulated and have a product that solely belongs to them. Big Pharma has a multi billion dollar a year global, stop smoking pharmaceutical based product industry - and their best products show success rates of at best 10 % effectiveness over a 6 month period - if they are lucky, the average is closer to 6 to 7 percent. E-cigs studies consistently confirm at least a 40 % success rate. Big Pharma is so threatened by this they will do anything by hook or by crook to destroy e-cigs for good. The trick is to have enough numbers on our side working with enough non corrupt lawmakers to strive to keep e-cigs afloat. Not an easy task at all.
Tomorrow is the big day... hope everyone that can make it to the hearing shows up. there are still a few hours to get your testimonies in on SB2819 as well they will take them up 24 hours before the hearing, the hearing is at 9am HST So only a few hours left. If you havent yet please get your added. We need to fight this and show them they can not push us around.
Would love to read a report on how it went. We may need the benefit of your experience here in the UK at some point...
I noticed that right after I posted, lol. Good luck guys, hope it goes well!
Unbelievable outpouring of testimony -- http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/Testimony/SB2819_TESTIMONY_WAM_02-08-12.pdf
1251 pages, and there appear to be only 2 or 3 letters in support of the tax. One comes from the Department of Revenue, and they're hardly a neutral player. What appears to be the sole letter in support comes this ignorant individual
1251 pages, and there appear to be only 2 or 3 letters in support of the tax. One comes from the Department of Revenue, and they're hardly a neutral player. What appears to be the sole letter in support comes this ignorant individual
Yup things seemed to go really well. Now we just have to wait till they come back on Friday and give us their final decision. But form what we heard today it sounds good. We will just have to wait and see.... I know waiting is not one of vapers better suits. But it is only a couple of days.
Awesome! It makes my day when legislators actually scrutinise claims. Here in the UK it's generally the Lords who actually read and think about what's in front of them. (The Lords are unelected, which makes for some weird paradoxes - are unelected reps a good idea? Maybe if not bothering about elections allows them to concentrate on the matter in hand... a tricky one!).
That "sweet flavours to entice kids" claim just made my blood boil, so it's good to see it shot down.
Some things caught my eye:
This is interesting, given that the PD's submission was completely throwaway. Basically "we support protecting minors" and that's it. I think the police chief had a full in-tray that day... Are the DOH really expecting additional enforcement at no cost in terms of police manpower?
This is the familiar "OMG, no-one told me running a government department, coming up with policy, and enforcing laws would be so COMPLICATED! Mommy, can I go home, I can't cope? Or pass a completely ridiculous law just to keep things simple for me?"
I hope someone pointed out that enforcing a no-smoking policy is simple. Take a sniff.
This is just priceless. The argument here for discouraging e-cigarette use is "All the other kids are doing it. Hey, even the cool kids with guns and awesome jetplanes are doing it! It must be a good thing to do!" Just Say NO. Think For Yourselves!
Thank you for posting this info PlaceboEffect and JoeInferno. I'm disappointed in a way, the In Support arguments are so poor. But it gives an idea of what we're up against: bad arguments, utterly absent evidential backup, with "think of the kids" and "X has been linked to Y" rocket-boosters attached.
BTW, that respiratory therapist you quoted might be open to some educational info on how e-cigs actually work.
Last edited:
Sounds like we did very good at showing them we do not support the tax part of the bill:
The Volcanites and vaping community can do amazing things when we band together and fight against these bills and other bans.
I would also like to thank everyone at CASAA for all the work they do to find these things and bring them to the vapers so we can fight them and for all the hard work they do helping us fight them.
The Volcanites and vaping community can do amazing things when we band together and fight against these bills and other bans.
I would also like to thank everyone at CASAA for all the work they do to find these things and bring them to the vapers so we can fight them and for all the hard work they do helping us fight them.
Awesome Video!! That's so cool! ^^
Oh damn... I may be too late?
Here is my testimony:
While I do support legislation to keep electronic cigarettes out of the hands of minors, I feel this particular legislation is going to far. It goes too far to hurt business and the beautiful state of Hawaii itself. This tax would be far more burdensome and expensive on Hawaii in an attempt to collect such a tax. Furthermore it greatly hurts wonderful business that is in business to help safe lives by providing a reduced harm alternative to real tobacco. There is no actual tobacco leaves present in electronic cigarettes or the overwhelming addition of carcinogens that are in tobacco cigarettes. I find a 70% tax on them quite obtuse. Here there is a product that does not cause disease, helps tobacco smokers stop smoking as there is no smoke and improves quality of life. Please re-consider this legislation. It will do much more harm then good in its present context. I understand the concept of electronic cigarettes are hard to understand for those who have never smoked. It doesn't seem good enough. For smoker's it may be their only way to stop smoking. Even if it doesn't appear as a perfect solution to non-smokers, this alternative is a miracle to former smokers. It is the only product that actually does anything about the hand-to-mouth habit so many smokers face. Smokers who can't seem to quit cigarettes cannot do so because of the habit itself. Electronic cigarettes are the only alternative that actually incorporates the habit to help smokers stop. Please don't hurt the smokers of Hawaii of finding this alternative and in doing so, save their lives, happiness, and family in the process. This legislation will cost Hawaii so much more monetarily in attempts of reinforcement then any actual tax gained.
Oh damn... I may be too late?
Here is my testimony:
While I do support legislation to keep electronic cigarettes out of the hands of minors, I feel this particular legislation is going to far. It goes too far to hurt business and the beautiful state of Hawaii itself. This tax would be far more burdensome and expensive on Hawaii in an attempt to collect such a tax. Furthermore it greatly hurts wonderful business that is in business to help safe lives by providing a reduced harm alternative to real tobacco. There is no actual tobacco leaves present in electronic cigarettes or the overwhelming addition of carcinogens that are in tobacco cigarettes. I find a 70% tax on them quite obtuse. Here there is a product that does not cause disease, helps tobacco smokers stop smoking as there is no smoke and improves quality of life. Please re-consider this legislation. It will do much more harm then good in its present context. I understand the concept of electronic cigarettes are hard to understand for those who have never smoked. It doesn't seem good enough. For smoker's it may be their only way to stop smoking. Even if it doesn't appear as a perfect solution to non-smokers, this alternative is a miracle to former smokers. It is the only product that actually does anything about the hand-to-mouth habit so many smokers face. Smokers who can't seem to quit cigarettes cannot do so because of the habit itself. Electronic cigarettes are the only alternative that actually incorporates the habit to help smokers stop. Please don't hurt the smokers of Hawaii of finding this alternative and in doing so, save their lives, happiness, and family in the process. This legislation will cost Hawaii so much more monetarily in attempts of reinforcement then any actual tax gained.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
