Posted on 02/28/2014 7:27:32 AM PST by Kaslin
It’s all about money...The free market sells it...not like the nico patches sold by the drug companies.
But they promote pot to the same demographic.
And teachings on sex and perverted sex
From article: “So why, exactly, aren’t we welcoming a decidedly healthier alternative to Lucky Strikes, Camel Menthols and American Spirits? Shouldn’t such migration into healthier lifestyles be welcomed?”
Loss in tax revenues cannot be tolerated. It’s definitely NOT about concerns for anyone’s health. Jurisdictions will push to regulate e-cigs in such a way that they can collect tax revenue on them, also, in order to replace the losses they are projecting or already seeing from the decline in regular cigarettes.
Gosh, if everyone switches to e-cigarettes, how are they going to collect those tobacco taxes?
I was typing #7 as you were posting #6. I obviously concur.
It’s a new product and the lawmakers want to make sure they get their due tribute. Everybody has to share the wealth with the politicians. They want donations (extortion).
Phyllis “Wrath Of” Kahn here in MN is the Demrat sponsoring banning e-cig smoking in any place real cigs cannot be smoked. (also ‘for the children’)
Let them smoke blunts instead!
Yet these same people have no problem with tar laden, lung clogging marijuana or the effects of it's second hand smoke, or the fact that it's a gate way drug to harder substances.
I suppose they don't like the e-cigaretts because they don't kill enough people.
.
As soon as they are able to group e-cigs in with tobacco products......BLAM, same taxes. People have switched to vapors by the droves and the government wants a piece of it. I smoked my e-cig on a plane all the way to California, under my blanket. No one knew a thing and I loved every minute of it, especially the minute I was over CA airspace.
Yes, I’ve heard about that. I can’t understand—for the life of me—how a certain practice can be banned/restricted based solely on an emotional feeling by a certain group. The e-cigs are not harmful to anyone sitting in the vicinity of someone vaping. Shouldn’t the legislature be required to provide at least some shred of scientific evidence for their new law?
The way I see it, this proposed law would have the impact of hurting the MN economy due to the emergence of so many new businesses that sell e-cigs. I believe while many people switched from traditional cigarettes to e-cigs for health reasons, many also probably did so because of the exorbitant taxes attached to cigarette purchase. If the legislature removes from e-cigs the positive aspect of less regulation/taxes, I predict that e-cig use and conversion from cigarettes will also decrease. Thus, the state gets to preserve its “cash cow.”
This should not be a partisan issue. I’m all for individual liberty but if you’re going to go after one method of allowing people to become addicted to nicotine, it only makes sense to go after other methods. There is no question that an e-cig is a drug deliver device, and most other such devices are subject to FDA regulations.
On the other hand, if it’s to be left to individuals to determine which substances they want to become addicted to and sustain the health-related problems that come as a result, then the logical course is to eliminate bans on everything. And that puts most of us on a slippery slope...
Those who argue that nicotine is a special case have a huge burden of proof, since the same can be argued for nearly every other addictive substance.
Hydrogen car prototypes expell water vapor,too.
Guess we better ban them from future production.
For the children.
Ya know, I use both real cigs and e-cigs but I can’t recall seeing a single ad anywhere of any kind for e-cigs that seemed to be targeted at “the children.” None. Unless they consider 40-odd year old Jenny McCarthy some kind of teen influencer these days (which she isn’t.)
“Guess we better ban them from future production.
For the children.”
Nope. They’ll just tax the heck out of them, or start taxing people by the number of miles they drive.
Correction:
Because it isn’t TAXED by the Nannycrats who hope to control your life.
Fixed :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.