nice article,
we need more unbiased viewers
we need more unbiased viewers
Since you're newer to the forum, you may not have read yet the discussions here about taxing.So it's either regulated as tobacco or ban. Well it figures, e cig companies are not big business like pahrm and tobacco so, as usal the little guy get it in the patootie no matter what and, we as individulas either lose it altogether or are taxed out of being able to afford it. Well, I guess it's time to find out who the nic drug lords will be in my area or become one myself.
No wonder I did not see it yesterday in the WSJ. It was in todays" paper---the 25th.If someone wants to write or email the Editor with a positive comment and add their own experience with the ecig that would be a very good thing to do. The antis will be flooding them. The address and e-mail are posted below:Thanks for posting this good article. I read the WSJ everyday and missed that in todays" paper. The person who got this done deserves a medal.
As much as we do not like taxes, taxing e-cigs would legitimize the industry. The key will be to tax them fairly and not at the same rate as cigarettes.
I'm curious, too. Since the smokeless products cost society very little (if anything) in terms of increased medical costs shouldn't we be advocating removing any existing taxes on these products? This would provide a financial incentive to switch, whcih is important, because most smokers have been brainwashed to believe that there is no health advantage to switching.
I'm sorry, Bill, but from what I have seen, when you give these folks an inch, they take the proverbial mile. As soon as you advocate for a modest tax on smokeless, the legislators run with it (spurred on by the Alphabet Soup Gang) and jack up those rates as you have described. Don't give them any ideas that they can use to inflict harm on us. They have enough of those on their own.