Electronic Cigarettes Debated At Legislature

By
Jim Dooley
-
15
5053
article top

BY JIM DOOLEY – A bill that would ban the sale of smokeless electronic cigarettes to minors and impose the 70% tobacco tax on the devices was briskly debated at the state Legislature today.

E-Cigarette kit retails for $74.99 (courtesy volcanoecigs.com/)

All of the testimony favored a ban on sale of the products to minors but more than 1,000 individuals and companies protested imposition of the tobacco tax on “e-cigarettes”.

The devices deliver vaporized nicotine mist to users but contain no tobacco and generate none of the carcinogenic smoke generated by a burning cigarette, proponents said.

State Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy told members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, “There is very little known about the long term health effects of the use of e-cigarettes or the vapors given off. Recent studies have shown that within one liquid nicotine cartridge there is enough nicotine to cause serious illness or even death.”

Cory Smith, president of local retailer Volcano Fine Electronic Cigarettes, said the product actually helps tobacco smokers quit their habits and produces none of the second-hand smoke issues associated with traditional tobacco cigarettes.

“The tohacco tax is aimed at  deterring tobacco use and  generating revenue to pay for health care costs associated with tobacco-related harms,” Smith said.

“Since the research thus far indicates that e-cigarettes show promise as a means to  deter tobacco use and thereby reduce the cost of  tobacco-related harms, it makes no sense to subject e-cigarettes to the tobacco tax,” Smith said.

Taxing e-cigarettes at the 70% tobacco rate would shut down his business and drive customers to the internet to obtain the devices from out-of-state sources, he said.

“The general cost of a fully-functioning electronic cigarette kit is upwards of  $70,” Smith testified. “Levying a 70’% tax on all of these items would virtually guarantee that purchasers will go out of state, or, worse yet, return to tobacco cigarettes.”

But Health Director Fuddy said more scientific study must be undertaken of e-cigarettes.

“We don’t feel that from a Department of Health perspective that the science is really in yet. This is a rather new product,” she said.

Also testifying in favor of the measure were the state Tax Department, Honolulu Police Department and various health organizations including the American Cancer Society and the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawaii.

Coalition executive director Deborah Zsyman told the committee that some sales of e-cigarettes appear aimed at under-aged customers.

“Often the cartridges are candy flavored, making them enticing to youth.   Currently, they are readily available at mall kiosks and small shops throughout our state and are priced as low as $10 for the disposable varieties,” said Zsyman.

The coalition’s concerns about e-cigarettes center on sales to minors and on the lack of scientific evidence on the health effects of the devices.

“I think if we find there’s evidence that this is really a product that is safe and  does help people quit smoking, then, yes, we’d be supportive of it,” she said.

Comments

comments

15 COMMENTS

  2. […] Electronic Cigarettes Debated At LegislatureHawaii ReporterAll of the testimony favored a ban on sale of the products to minors but more than 1000 individuals and companies protested imposition of the tobacco tax on “e-cigarettes.” The devices deliver vaporized nicotine mist to users but contain no tobacco and …E-Cigarettes Under Fire At LegislatureKITV HonoluluState Proposes Absurd Tax on Electronic CigarettesHONOLULUMagazine.comWhere there's no smoke there may still be harmDaily HeraldMarketwire (press release) -SBWire (press release)all 14 news articles » Tweet […]

  4. ““I think if we find there’s evidence that this is really a product that is safe and does help people quit smoking, then, yes, we’d be supportive of it”

    The CDC estimates 2.5 million users. These users have been observed to smoke tobacco cigarettes less, or not at all. Their role in cessation does require further study, but users dropping cigarettes in favor of e-cigarettes is an objective observable fact. To earn a spot in the market place, they only need to be less harmful than cigarettes, roughly 75% less harmful to represent a net neutral if 25% of the population gives up cigarettes, and 100% adopt this product. The objective evidence is it’s less harmful than Chantix, no heart attacks, murders, or suicides reported. The estimates for any alternative product to cigarettes are 98% less harmful, e-cigs are estimated between 99% and 99.9% The people making these claims also claim to not know what’s in e-cigarettes. You’d think after being on the market for 5 years, they’d look at the published safety reports, or buy a sample and test it themselves. It’s why they get paid the big bucks, mainly from the Master’s Settlement with big tobacco.

  5. Taxing electronic cigarettes at a 70% rate would have the following counterproductive public health effects: It would drive former smokers who have finally quit using e-cigs back to smoking; it would drive “vapers” to the internet to purchase their needed cessation method from unreliable, possibly contaminated sources; it will force local merchants out of business. The positives: none. The objections raised are easily countered: They are in fact not marketed to teens; making sales to underage buyers illegal–all agree a wise move–would make sellers lawbreakers; while we do not yet “know” the long-term effects, we DO in fact know the long-term effects of cigarettes: between one-third and one-half will die prematurely. The vaporized nicotine has helped millions quit, by some estimates, while all now acknowledge that the FDA-approved methods: patch, gum, inhalers, pharmaceuticals–do not work and some are known to be toxic as well. This tax should be defeated. Gil Ross MD/ACSH

  9. Let’s really hope they don’t set this stupid precedent and the legislature opens its ears to what people are saying.

    Already the FDA is planning on “redefining the language” of what constitutes a “tobacco product” in order to be able to regulate electronic cigarettes and probably in favor of Big Tobacco… well, let’s keep an eye on things and keep on letting them what we think.

    I’m not a vaper but fully encourage the industry, movement, product, whatever. It’s time health takes precendent over wealth.

    And in passing – maybe the FDA and so-called “medical” establishment should stop waiting on their own research to establish what other countries have already established: the “health risks” associated with e-cigs are at the most a thousandth of a percent those of cigarettes, and the constituent ingredients are known to be safe, or as FDA would put it “GRAS” (Generally Recognized as Safe).

    Greg
    heep://www.ecigbeat.com

Newer Comments »

Comments are closed.