Rhode Islanders Who Oppose legilative bills SB2284, SB2293, HB7664, SB2107, SB2323, HB7737 and Legilature that bans, taxes or restricts the sale of Vapor Product in the State of Rhode Island.

We oppose S-0113 which imposes a massive Sin-tax of 80% of the wholesale price on the vapor products. Vape stores are paying local and state taxes, creating jobs, and occupying what may otherwise be empty over storefronts in a growing Industry. Plus imposing such Tax on Vapor Products will have a negative impact on public health by making far less harmful alternative to smoking so expensive and costly that is will force ex-smokers back to smoking. 
According to the Royal College of Physicians report that was published April 2016, found vaping to be 95% less harmful than smoking. It shows that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society. 

Also, another Vape study published by Penn State University, Dec. 17, 2014, found that vapor products are far less addictive than cigarettes. The chief author of the study, published in the respected journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research, was Jonathan Foulds, professor of public health sciences and psychiatry at Penn State's College of Medicine. He stated that former smokers who now use electronic cigarettes indicated that e-cigarettes were far less addicting.  

So why impose a Sin-tax? When Sin taxes are levied by governments to discourage individuals from partaking in such activities without making the use of the products illegal. So why would the State want to discourage vapor products that have helped millions of people stop smoking? Especially after so many studies have shown these products to be far less harmful. In the past, Rhode Island was infamous, for its unfriendly business climate and over-regulating businesses to non-existence. During each new election, we hear how Legislators say they want to bring back jobs and help small businesses and lower taxes. The past few years Legislators have worked hard to change that stigma especially after RI was rated with the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the Country in 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic.

In the past 3 years, the unemployment rate has lowered and many new businesses have opened in the state. Could it be coincidence, that in these same 3 years over 25 vape businesses have opened, expanded and created new jobs? This proposed Bill is more of that same old Rhode Island Politics that will cripple small businesses by sending consumers, revenue and tax dollars out of State where there is no such law. 
---

We OPPOSE S-0446 – This bill would prohibit the use of smoke-free vapor products in all places of employment within Rhode Island. There is no sound scientific evidence supporting such a ban. Smoking bans were based on the harm caused by burning smoke. Employers throughout Rhode Island are setting their own policies. We oppose the entire bill but are especially concerned that no exemption would be provided for specialty vapor retail stores. Vapor businesses need to show their consumers how to use the product are purchasing.

We OPPOSE S-0232 this bill would require RI retailers, importers, and distributors of vapor products to get “cigarette” licenses. Since 2014, RI retailers, importers, and distributors of electronic nicotine delivery systems ('vapor products') have been required to receive a special license from the Department of Health. There is absolutely no need for a second license. 
---

We OPPOSE- H 5820 This bill introduces a law that will change the age to 21 for sales of vapor products along with tobacco related products. The legal age to vape is 18 and we which we support. According to Health Rhode Island, Rhode Island has the lowest rate of youth cigarette use in the country and that the smoking rate in Children a dropped more than half from 2009-2015. 
There are many concerns about this bill, particularly the inclusion of electronic cigarettes. If we followed the logic that is proposed in this Bill, which is the perception that people between the ages of 18 to 21 do not have the mental awareness or ability to make sound decisions regarding their health or be held responsible for those decisions.

If this is the case. Individuals within these ages should not be allowed to, due to their inability to make sound adult decisions: Vote, Enlist or be drafted into the Military, Be on a jury, Apply for a Driver License, Change their name, Work Full-time, Get married or Divorced, Adopt a child, Legally sign contracts, Own business, Start a Lawsuit or be Sued, Make Medical decisions, Register as an Organ Donor or Donate Blood, Buy a home or rent an Apartment, Book a Hotel Room, Buy a Plane ticket and Travel the world. Open a Bank account, Apply for a Credit card or Loan, Buy a gun, be tried as an Adult for a Crime, Gamble at a Casino or Play the Lottery, Work as a Bar Tender, Get into Adult movies Buy Adult video games, X-rated movies and other Adult items of this type, Work or go to a Strip club Get Tattoos or piercings, Go Tanning, Buy fireworks, Get into Extreme Sports like skydiving and bungee jumping, Buy spray paint, Choose fast food over healthy food. Choose Monster and Red Bull over water or juice, Purchase Nicotine Lozenges, Patch or Gum over the counter. 

Also, with the addition of adding electronic cigarettes to this bill, it doesn’t allow them to choose a less harmful alternative to smoking (according to the Royal College of Physicians study released in April 2016, found vaping to be 95% less harmful than smoking) 

Also, know that these individuals will still be able to purchase these products in commissaries in the military, online and 47 other states unless this becomes a federal law, this will only push individuals within the state to seek out the products on the internet or over state line
---

We oppose S0402 as introduced: Liquid nicotine products should be sold in child-resistant packaging. For the sake of consistency for those who sell within multiple states, we support federal intervention on this issue. If the State is to proscribe child-resistant packaging requirements, the bill should reference federal standards to promote uniformity. We support prohibiting the use of vapor products in K-12 schools.