mechaet

Governor Jay Inslee:

I smoked for 23 years until I encountered one of the newer-generation vape devices. I was able to use it to completely stop smoking, and have been cigarette-free for almost a year now. My level of nicotine has consistently dropped in this period. I started at 18mg/mL, and am now on 6mg/mL (and soon 3). This has very likely saved my life, as well as the lives of anyone who used to be near me when I smoked cigarettes.

When the 95% tax on tobacco products was put forth, one of the goals was to get people to stop smoking. Now that people are stopping smoking, you're finding yourselves short on cash because the tax revenue from smokers isn't as much as you had projected. Instead of letting it be and stopping the unfair and unnecessary punishment of this particular group of people you are now doubling down and hitting their most viable exit strategy from tobacco consumption. Why is this? Why does one group of people get repeatedly unfairly punished via the taxation system? Do you think that's legal? Do you think it's moral? Do you think that's ethical?

With vaping having no proven secondhand effects, the possible boon to public health is not just for the smokers, either. There are a number of public health officials who have stated this is vastly less harmful for the now-former smokers, and harmless to those around them. Why do we need to stop or curtail a behavior that is essentially harmless to non-participants?

On the topic of flavor bans, why are these flavors on the chopping block to be banned in vaping, but I can still get all the same flavorings in alcohol?

I vape, and I vote, and I live in Washington State. Thanks for this AMA, and I very much look forward to your responses.

Thank you so very much for your response to my question. I really appreciate you taking time to read and respond to my comment.

The single most effective tool for preventing children from using vaping products is an age restriction on purchase, which I am highly in favor of. I won't shop at a store that would sell these things to minors. Increasing the price keeps it out of reach of the least fortunate adults, who are by far larger consumers of cigarettes and other tobacco products and can least afford the preventative care to keep them from dying as a result.

One of the fulcrum points of my concern was equality. It is not fair, in my opinion, to repeatedly gouge a particular set of people using children as the reason. Is it fair in yours? You say you want to undo the regressive tax system in this state, and then heap this super-regressive tax onto the pile. How do you reconcile the two?

http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

Actually, it is a vitamin: Nicotinic Acid (oxidized nicotine, essentially) is Niacin.