ENDS Taxes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
==Policy Analysis== <!--T:26--> | ==Policy Analysis== <!--T:26--> | ||
===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/report/harmreduction101/ Tobacco Harm Reduction 101]=== | |||
*See Section on Taxes | |||
===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/tobacco-vaping-101-50-state-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2C0JCX2z_m1nQtk06qNn7wdx8SFhlzxgv8IW5zvVHPV9Nv1UdsZ8MXNQQ Tobacco & Vaping 101: United States]=== <!--T:27--> | ===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/tobacco-vaping-101-50-state-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2C0JCX2z_m1nQtk06qNn7wdx8SFhlzxgv8IW5zvVHPV9Nv1UdsZ8MXNQQ Tobacco & Vaping 101: United States]=== <!--T:27--> | ||
| Line 128: | Line 130: | ||
<!--T:28--> | <!--T:28--> | ||
*50 state and Washington DC analysis of smoking, vaping, taxes, MSA funds, and prevention / cessesation funding. | *50 state and Washington DC analysis of smoking, vaping, taxes, MSA funds, and prevention / cessesation funding. | ||
===2021: [https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_600.pdf The Taxation of Nicotine in Canada: A Harm-Reduction Approach to the Profusion of New Products]=== <!--T:29--> | ===2021: [https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_600.pdf The Taxation of Nicotine in Canada: A Harm-Reduction Approach to the Profusion of New Products]=== <!--T:29--> | ||
| Line 136: | Line 135: | ||
<!--T:30--> | <!--T:30--> | ||
*A critical feature of tobacco use is that morbidity and mortality spring primarily from the combustion process associated with traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, a chemical found in tobacco, is addictive and may not be safe in extreme doses but it, by itself, is not the source of harm from tobacco/smoking. As a result, policymakers must take this into account when considering tax rates for nicotine/tobacco-based products. The harm-reduction approach taken in this Commentary recognizes that cigarettes kill and that if alternative nicotine systems are known with certainty to contain a small fraction of the toxins in cigarettes, this is sufficient to attempt to divert users away from the killer products toward the lower-risk ones, even with uncertainty surrounding the lifecycle health impacts of the latter. | *A critical feature of tobacco use is that morbidity and mortality spring primarily from the combustion process associated with traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, a chemical found in tobacco, is addictive and may not be safe in extreme doses but it, by itself, is not the source of harm from tobacco/smoking. As a result, policymakers must take this into account when considering tax rates for nicotine/tobacco-based products. The harm-reduction approach taken in this Commentary recognizes that cigarettes kill and that if alternative nicotine systems are known with certainty to contain a small fraction of the toxins in cigarettes, this is sufficient to attempt to divert users away from the killer products toward the lower-risk ones, even with uncertainty surrounding the lifecycle health impacts of the latter. | ||
*Several identifiable social groups experience high rates of tobacco use: individuals with poor mental health, First Nations and Indigenous Communities (FNICs), the homeless and individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. For many in these communities, tobacco is both a comfort and a burden: nicotine provides the comfort while the toxins debilitate the body and the mind. The objective of reducing smoking must become more keenly focused upon who is still smoking and why. If nicotine alone provides minimal health damage and at the same time provides satisfaction to users, then the “war on tobacco” needs to separate out combustion-related tobacco toxins from nicotine. These high nicotine-use social groups also have lower average incomes than the population at large and, therefore, should not be denied access to less-expensive nicotine by limiting access to lowerpriced ANDS (Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems). | *Several identifiable social groups experience high rates of tobacco use: individuals with poor mental health, First Nations and Indigenous Communities (FNICs), the homeless and individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. For many in these communities, tobacco is both a comfort and a burden: nicotine provides the comfort while the toxins debilitate the body and the mind. The objective of reducing smoking must become more keenly focused upon who is still smoking and why. If nicotine alone provides minimal health damage and at the same time provides satisfaction to users, then the “war on tobacco” needs to separate out combustion-related tobacco toxins from nicotine. These high nicotine-use social groups also have lower average incomes than the population at large and, therefore, should not be denied access to less-expensive nicotine by limiting access to lowerpriced ANDS (Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems). | ||
==Slide Presentation== <!--T:31--> | ==Slide Presentation== <!--T:31--> | ||