The Legislature has kept Governor Noem’s promise that “We Won’t Raise Taxes,” at least electronic cigarettes.
![Take it outside... [photo by Benjamin Balazs]](https://dakotafreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vape-2081227_960_720.jpg)
On Tuesday, the House concurred with the Senate’s amendment of House Bill 1209, which started as Representative Carl Perry’s (R-3/Aberdeen) plan to impose the wholesale tobacco tax on vapor products but which turned on the House floor into the inclusion of e-smokes in the state’s indoor smoking ban. E-cig maker Juul opposed the tax increase in House Health and Human Services; the company backed off once the tax was hoghoused out and even sent their lobbyist Genevieve Plumadore to speak in favor of including her company’s fancy death sticks in the indoor smoking ban.
E-cigarettes emit junk I’d rather not breathe:
…e-cigarettes don’t actually emit vapor, but aerosols, which contain tiny particles of harmful chemicals like nicotine, lead and carcinogenic chemicals, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Exposure to such particles can exacerbate the symptoms of conditions like asthma, and is partially why many municipalities and states have instituted laws banning vaping indoors. Way back in December 2016, the Surgeon Generalcalled vapes “a major health concern,” noting that second-hand aerosols could potentially pose a health risk.
…some e-cigarettes have been found to contain potentially hazardous chemicals like formaldehyde and diacetyl, a substance that is used as a flavoring additive, which when ingested has been linked to a condition known as “popcorn lung.” (Juul has stated that their product does not contain either.)
…A small 2014 study found that vaping indoors decreases the quality of indoor air, increasing the concentration of nicotine, aluminum and particulate matter [E.J. Dickson, “No, Secondhand Vaping Isn’t Harmless,” Rolling Stone, 2019.03.11].
South Dakota isn’t taxing e-cigarettes yet, but if Governor Noem signs HB 1209, e-cig smokers will stop taxing the lungs of folks sitting next to them indoors.
So far, so good. Carl, try the tax again next year. It’s still not something anyone who cares wants to encourage people to smoke.
Enough with the taxes on the poor. Religion is much more dangerous to society that electronic cigarettes. Or even real cigarettes. It’s time to start taxing churches more. Why should these terror mills get to roll in dough and not pay their fair share? I’d rather be bombarded with second-hand vapor in public than second-hand sermon.
Ryan, I appreciate the principle of taxes designed to deter unhealthy behavior and pay for the externalities caused by those who persist in that unhealthy behavior. However, we’ve got a pretty high Constitutional hill to climb to have the state declare tax war on religion as a public health hazard. Even if one can establish that the harms of religion outweigh the benefits (I’m not taking a position here, just inviting the discussion), the First Amendment will still reasonably prevent the state from taxing a worldview.
The absence of a figmentary-imagination tax cannot be used as an excuse not to tax other secular unhealthy behaviors.
How about, enough with corporations manipulating the poor into addictive behavior that traps them in dependence and poverty?
The new book American Overdose outlines how the pharmaceutical industry does just that with opioids, but who is the government to decide what’s healthy for you? That’s your job and no reason to trust them they’re in bed with big pharma – drug dealers in Armani suits same thing with preachers who create delusional addiction give me your money I’ll send you to heaven with everlasting papa. That said people seem to need an anchor in life, absolutes, or maybe it’s because we don’t teach children to accept and embrace the vast unknowns early in life but fool them into thinking something that doesn’t exist is their ultimate answer. That should be child abuse. If everyone understood how little we know from the get go without false religious crutches and embraced the joy of curiosity, maybe we wouldn’t be in such a big mess.
Good luck prying people loose from their church, especially churches that focus on absolutes. After all these decades and centuries of Roman Catholic clergy preying on children and women, at this time only 37% of members are “thinking about” leaving the RCC.
Un. Bee. Leeeeevabull!!
What would it take? I have no idea. So how will you get people to give up their church?
Why did Europe let go of it faster than the U.S.? One would guess it was more embedded there, with The Pope and the state Church of England compared to our being founded on separation, so change will probably take place here too given a little more time.
But Hap, does France’s pretty strict laïcité arose during their revolution and was enshrined in law in 1905. Does that complicate your comparison?