# No Taxation without Representation



## Alex (24/3/15)

*NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION*








If we recall back to basic History class, most of us remember early colonial America and its separation from Britain. The concept of _Taxation without Representation_ became a focal of fury. After all, who was going to represent the _colonies_ without any representation in Parliament? Nobody. There are plenty of history enthusiasts, who could easily indent on the politics, but in sum, colonists were not stoked on paying Britain’s debt, and rebellion ensued.

Flash forward to the present. There are computers, there are food processors, there are cars and there are frosted cupcakes. Nobody worries about the cost of tea. These things are now considered luxuries. Necessities have changed.

The world is interconnected so vastly and the streamlining of taxing has become more specific to certain _viceful_ activities/substances/items (often referred to as sin taxes). For instance, the astronomical fees associated with DUIs are supposedly used to assist the government in the monetary costs of roadside cleanup, police officers, ambulances etc... Taxation of tobacco is supposed to assist the government in research, cleanup and medical fees. These are the types of taxes that are considered avoidable and hazardous to the community.






Advancing Forward

Perhaps one of the biggest advancements since colonial America is the medical industry; a primary example of man’s scientific achievements. And in that respect, _another_ innovation has occurred- what _many_ would call a medical break-through, though it doesn’t seem to be getting the attention, support or proper research that it deserves. As you probably have guessed, that innovation is vapor technology. 

The public has been presented with a promising device that many studies are stating could put an end to the smoking epidemic. And what do I mean by_ epidemic_? By epidemic I am referring to the six million people that die every single year, or 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. That’s a lot of death.

This promising innovation certainly hasn’t been perfected, just as _anything_ can be tweaked and researched and improved. Medicine didn’t go from simple herbal remedies to chemo therapy overnight. Still, when something _promising_ comes along, the government is generally quick to run tests and release it. The idea is this: say we find a potential cure for aids. We are going to give this potential aids curing-medicine to dying patients because it might help or even cure their aids (they are already going to die and it’s worth the chance, and the data that will be collected will be of use). We aren’t going to run generational tests. That drug will be released in hopes of a quick-fix (or money, depending on who you ask). Watch the Dallas Buyer’s Club. 

HIV tends to turn a brow when presented to the public. After all, HIV is viral and can be spread to partners. It will eventually kill you if untreated and may stigmatize your stature in your community. It’s a terrible reality that millions face. Similarly, those who smoke cigarettes never intend to become life-long addicts (similarly to how most people don’t think that they’ll contract HIV). Smokers will die, and like a virus, second hand smoke will harm others- anyone- even those who choose not to smoke. Currently, 1.4 million people die every year as a result of aids. (CDC) “Each year, an estimated 443,000 people [about 1/3 of the amount of death caused by AIDS] die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking.” In the USA, these statistics are telling. Smoking has been desensitized as a result of music, film and media (most of which is actually funded by the tobacco companies…go figure).Unlike cigarettes, there is no going back from HIV, whereas people can quit smoking, though many medical sources state that quitting smoking is just as difficult as quitting heroin. AIDS is a serious condition that deserves a sensitive and accurate portrayal, and the examples of HIV statistics in correlation with smoking statistics has been utilized to portray the shocking number of death and illness associated with smoking tobacco cigarettes, which is not only avoidable, but far less stigmatized than HIV/AIDS, which is also a medical epidemic. Unlike self-induced smoking-related death (unless the death is a result of second-hand smoke whereas the deceased had no control), many individuals are born with HIV. Comparing the two is impossible; apples and oranges. There are many women who smoke while pregnant and pass disease and defects to unborn children. Statistics are used to compare rates of USA death. 

Government Cessation

Because we have an epidemic on our hands, the good ol’ government is prepared and ready to help smokers by prescribing patches, lozenges (it doesn’t get much attention, but there are tons of ex-smokers who are addicted to the lozenges far after quitting the cigarettes with sources stating that side-effects range from diarrhea to chronic headaches) and now Chantix; the _dream drug_ that doctors are prescribing to help smokers quit. Chantix has been linked to over 500 _recorded_ SUICIDES, and probably a heap of other disturbing data with crazy side effects that we _aren’t_ aware of. These _mind altering_ drugs (as in, they will literally change your brain’s chemistry to the point where you’re ready to shoot yourself) are perfectly legal while electronic cigarettes (a monkey could understand how they work) are scrutinized as if they are the new crystal-meth. The FDA has said it itself- they need more research to deem e-cigarette technology safe; _generational research_. Unfortunately all 500 smokers who used FDA-approved Chantix will never be able to follow this research because they are already dead. These smokers (now deceased) started smoking, tried to quit smoking and died in the name of it. But Chantix is legal, endorsed and prescribed, and Chantix isn’t facing 95-400% _sin-taxes_.






Birmingham Business Journal: "We've never been able to sell a smoking cessation device, but everyone coming to our shop is basically using it for that reason," Waitzman said. "And you do hear people's doctors telling them their conditions have improved…”

The Colombian: “E-cigarette users and vaping store owners said the devices are beneficial because they keep people away from the known health hazards of smoking cigarettes. A series of speakers told the panel they had kicked years and decades of smoking regular cigarettes almost immediately after deciding to give vaping a try. Zach McLain, owner of Future Vapor in Seattle, said higher taxes would run his vapor store out of the business, which he decided to open after e-cigarettes got him out of a 25-year pack-a-day cigarette habit.”

Sin Taxes

For a while, e-cigarettes were tax-free (and in most places still are). A huge influx of smokers shifted from cigarettes to e-cigarettes (and now PVs) and a movement arose. Thousands of people have switched and/or quit cigarettes. This in conjunction with the growing economy (thanks for taking it out of the clutch of Big Tobacco vapers!), decreased waste and, _potentially_ (we need those affirmative tests) life-saving technology could END the smoking epidemic- like the Bubonic Plague (also called the Black Death) which claimed 25 million lives over the course of 6 years. Smoking claims 30 million lives over the course of 6 years, and is continuing to kill. 

It all sounds so great- less smokers, better economy, more money, the potential of a far better quality of life and health- but halt. Here come those sin taxes- the same ones implemented on traditional tobacco cigarettes (the entire point of e-cigarettes was to NOT contain/be tobacco and there is no smoke) and alcohol and guns- and apparently, this innovation belongs in that _clean up_ category- but why? If it has not been proven that they are dangerous (anything can be dangerous if misused, even aspirin, and electronic cigarettes are still being studied), then why are they being taxed as if they have _already been_ deemed deadly? While nicotine is an addictive drug that should be restricted to adults, it has been proven that the majority of users that switch to e-cigarettes do so to either aid them in quitting or to act as an alternative to the 7000 chemicals produced by toxic tobacco combustion.






Birmingham Business Journal: "If you pass it [SIN TAX], they will be less likely to vape and more likely to choose the alternative in smoking," Waitzman said. "If they want to raise money for their General Ways and Means fund, they need to consider the implications of small business and the economics of public health that it would potentially impact if they raised this tax."

KGW Portland: “‘A 95% tax would do a few different things…One, it would demonize a product, make it look as though it was as bad as smoking. The other thing is that it would make vaping and traditional cigarettes more similar in pricing. It would give us less incentive to the smoke to say, hey, give this a try."…Thompson says the proposal would make all vapor products more expensive, shrinking her profit margin and potentially driving customers back to traditional tobacco cigarettes. "Taxing small businesses out of businesses is bad business," she said.”

Fairness and Impartiality






So here we are; back to Britain and _No Taxation without Representation_. Things have drastically changed, but the desire to be _heard_ and the concepts of _fairness_ and _impartiality_ still apply. Society demands (and desires) certain goods, and economically speaking, nicotine is considered a demand for addicts. Because tobacco cigarettes’ supposed _clean-up fees_ are excessive, sin-taxes act as a means to compensate for the waste and death, as well as to detour others; this is sin-taxing. When it comes to electronic cigarettes, there is both desire and necessity; a unique symbiosis. For many, e-cigarettes are used as a means to taper or eliminate their addiction. Others use electronic cigarettes as an alternative to the thousands of chemicals and toxins. Lastly, there are users who enjoy vaping as a hobby (sometimes without utilizing any nicotine).

So who is representing vaping advocates? Well, there’s CASSA, The American Vaping Association, doctors, scientists… but not nearly as many supporters as non-supporters, and the majority of those in opposition have no idea how the technology works. What these people _do know_ is junk-science, and the great potential of monetary gain as a result of implemented taxes. Yes, there is _representation_, but in an oblique manner that has a sort of ‘smoke in mirrors’ effect; lobbyists receive funding. 

Forbes: “So-called public health advocates claimed the tax hikes were about improving public health. In reality, it was about filling government coffers. Between taxes and the federal Master Settlement Agreement, governments have collected more than $500 billion from tobacco companies for a wide range of spending programs since 1998. However, a new disruptive technology has exposed the fact that many politicians who wanted to raise taxes on cigarettes didn’t care about improving health; they really just wanted more money.”

When the government pushes unfair taxes, the people who are paying these taxes are displeased. Most vapers believe that e-liquid/e-cigs should be regulated, and if that requires a small tax on the behalf of business owners; then that’s fine. Most people want to definitively know that their e-liquid is pure and contains the ingredients and ratios advertised. Similarly, most consumers want an accurate food label on the back of their candy bars. But an _outrageous_ sin-tax on a nicotine-delivery device that has not been linked to _clean-up_ fees is preemptive considering the _positive_ impact that they have made thus far, and may continue to make. If there is no sin, then why is there a sin tax? It seems only logical that there would need to be some sort of representative data suggesting that a sin tax should be instituted.

source: http://www.clearette.com/blog/No-Taxation-Without-Representation/


----------

