|
Simplepowa
In Pursuit of Knowledge


Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 4,310
|
States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays
#19249515 - 12/09/13 10:52 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Money grab, health concerns, or both? Absent guidance from Washington, states are pressing ahead with their own agendas on electronic cigarettes.
Heading into legislative sessions next year, policymakers, industry representatives, health advocates and tax wonks expect electronic cigarettes — or e-cigarettes for short — to be among the top issues at state capitols. Legislatures are expected to tackle how to classify, regulate and, perhaps most importantly, tax the relatively new products.
The debates in states come as the federal government considers its own answers to similar questions. The Food and Drug Administration is considering classifying e-cigarettes as “tobacco products,” which would extend its reach and potentially subject e-cigarettes to a host of rules and regulations that apply to tobacco cigarettes.
“States are scrambling to figure out how to deal with this,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said in an interview. “It’s going to be fought out in 50 states; it’s going to be fought out in one jurisdiction after another.”
DeWine was a lead author of an Oct. 23 letter sent by 40 attorneys general to the FDA pushing for federal rules and for e-cigarettes to be treated as “tobacco products” for regulatory purposes.
So far, Washington hasn’t decided how to proceed with e-cigarettes. A proposed rule, expected to be released for public comment in November, was delayed by the government shutdown and is still pending.
That has left a patchwork of rules, regulations and product definitions across the nation, often at the urging of anti-tobacco advocates. “We think it’s really important that states act,” said Danny McGoldrick, vice president of research at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
More than half the states, for example, have banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, but others have no restrictions. Currently four states — Utah, North Dakota, Arkansas and New Jersey — have lumped the products in with tobacco under indoor smoking bans, even as research about possible ill-effects from second-hand vapor smoke, if there even are any, remains limited.
Some local governments have taken similar steps on their own, enacting rules for e-cigarettes that sometimes go beyond those in place at the state level.
The intensity of the debate illustrates both the lack of good research on e-cigarettes as well as the money at stake. Often, those considering limits don’t even agree on whether applying tobacco regulations is appropriate, given how different the products are. Like tobacco cigarettes, nicotine levels in the “cartridges” that are loaded into the e-cigarette device can vary widely, complicating efforts to agree on a standard approach to regulation and taxation.
E-cigarettes first appeared about a decade ago, and sales have grown exponentially in recent years. The number of American adults who said they have tried them doubled to one in five in just one year (from 2010 to 2011), according to a Centers for Disease Control survey. Use among middle and high school students also doubled from 2011 to 2012, according to the CDC, with nearly 1.8 million students saying they’ve used them.
E-Cig Revenue In an era of revenue-hungry state governments — some still dealing with declining revenue from traditional tobacco taxes and recovering from the Great Recession — taxing e-cigarettes seems likely to get the most attention from state lawmakers in 2014. Questions of advertising limits, health claims and ingredient disclosure will likely remain federal issues.
So far, only Minnesota has put in place a specific state tax policy for e-cigarettes, a decision reached in 2012. The products are subject to a 95 percent tax that functions like a sales tax, tacked onto the wholesale cost of the product. That generally means they are taxed at a higher rate than traditional cigarettes, which are subject to a $1.29-per-pack levy. The state expects to collect $1.16 billion from all tobacco taxes in the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
For now, most other states apply only a sales tax – if they have one – to e-cigarettes. But at least 30 others are considering e-cigarette taxes of some kind next year.
“I will be watching to see if more proposals like Minnesota are replicated in the states,” said Scott Drenkard of the Tax Foundation, an anti-tax research group, “But I hope they are not.”
As tax experts see it, there’s little rationale aside from simply raising revenue for taxing e-cigarettes as traditional cigarettes. Tobacco, they say, is taxed because it produces negative health consequences that cost the public. For now, there’s little research that shows similar effects from e-cigarettes.
“There is zero, emphasis on zero, justification for taxing e-cigarettes right now,” said David Brunori of the group Tax Analysts , a nonprofit tax analysis group that provides insight to private firms and government agencies. “What this is is a money grab. It’s a way of trying to find revenue to replace lost tobacco taxes.”
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , state and local tax revenues have somewhat leveled off in recent years as smoking has declined. Collections grew from $7.7 billion in 1997 to $15.8 billion in 2007, but reached just $17.6 billion in 2011, the most recent year available.
Tobacco companies that don’t produce e-cigarettes have often pushed tax parity so their own products are not at a disadvantage. In Minnesota’s case, the state simply said that under its laws, the tax must apply.
But the most popular argument is deterrence—higher taxes might make the product less attractive and less affordable to young people looking for nicotine.
“It has nothing to do with revenue,” Ohio’s DeWine said. “It has everything to do with discouraging use.”
An Alternative to Tobacco Discouraging use, however, is exactly the opposite goal lawmakers should have, said Ray Story of the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association. It’s an opinion shared by some outside of the industry as well, especially with regard to those already smoking.
“Cigarettes are sold everywhere in the world, and we want to make sure that the e-cigarette is sold as a less-harmful alternative right there next to it,” Story said.
“We should expand the use, not restrict it,” he added, saying that if e-cigarettes can greatly reduce cigarette use the industry “will have made the greatest impact on humanity ever.”
The contrasting approach reflects two key differences in thinking about e-cigarettes: as a new recreational product similar to tobacco cigarettes, or as a potentially less-unhealthy alternative that could even help smokers quit entirely.
E-cigarette producers themselves are divided. Some welcome traditional cigarette-style regulations to a degree, content to play by similar rules as tobacco producers, especially if it saves them from more onerous limits applied to drug manufacturers, for example. Others argue that even thinking about e-cigarettes through the same frame of reference as tobacco is a flawed approach.
Federal officials in Washington will likely be the ones to eventually settle the dispute, and that decision could still be months away. Meanwhile, debates in the states over two key issues within their control – taxes and sales to minors – are likely to rage in 2014.
But the eventual decision from the FDA is sure to affect those debates. “If the FDA says these are essentially tobacco products,” said Brunori of Tax Analysts, “that will give all kinds of cover to state politicians.”
Author: Jake Grovum, Stateline: The Daily News Service of the Pew Charitable Trusts Date: December 9th, 2013 http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-move-on-e-cigarettes-as-washington-delays-85899525111
--------------------
Carl Sagan - "Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." --- Robert Pirsig - "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." --- Brian Cox - "[One] problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense."
|
bryguy27007
Cosmonaut



Registered: 01/26/08
Posts: 10,525
Loc:
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: Simplepowa]
#19249753 - 12/09/13 11:50 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That's interesting that we're the only ones with a state tax in place, I didn't know that.
|
DebuteMachine

Registered: 09/29/06
Posts: 6,457
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: bryguy27007]
#19250890 - 12/09/13 04:00 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
They aren't fucking tobacco products for fucks sake!!! The masses aren't asses, it's fucking congress. Show me the tobacco, and I will shut up. Until then, it's not a fucking tobacco product.
Make a new fucking classification called "electronic cigarettes." Maybe it's just too much work for these lazy fucking muck fucks.
|
Camwritesgonzo
The Unflushable Stool



Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 2,333
Loc: On Uranus
Last seen: 5 months, 24 days
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: DebuteMachine]
#19251220 - 12/09/13 05:02 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Seems to me it would be just as easy to call them "nicotine vaporizers". Yes, the term "vaporizer" is most often associated with cannabis, but it's an even more harmless way of using cannabis. Nicotine is a naturally occurring insecticide, so there's always going to be at least a very slight degree of risk when using it. But there's a certain degree of risk in walking outside without a helmet and pads too. With a vaporizer being used for the intake of nicotine, the risk and harm is reduced substantially. The sooner everyone, mostly the politicians and corporate fat cats realize this, the sooner this bullshit propaganda will start to go by the wayside...or at least a person can hope.
-------------------- "I've always maintained that reality is for those who can't face drugs."-Tom Waits "I feel the same way about disco as I feel about herpes."-Hunter S. Thompson A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
 
|
DebuteMachine

Registered: 09/29/06
Posts: 6,457
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: Camwritesgonzo]
#19251658 - 12/09/13 06:17 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hey I'm definitely not against creating some new jobs to be like, E-cig factory over=seer's or something. Of course after writing that I realize it's just a terrible idea all in all.
My friend makes his own liquid, I should ask him what he puts in it. The kicker is that he is so close to having 0mg of nicotine in his mix, so this law would effectively be retarded if it tried to classify vaporizers as tobacco products if the juice is missing the nicotine.
I just went off on a huge tangent, lol. These guys just disgust me and amuse me all at the same time.
|
CidneyIndole
www.shroomery.OG



Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 4,761
Loc: Love's Secret Domain
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: DebuteMachine] 1
#19254301 - 12/10/13 08:21 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DebuteMachine said: They aren't fucking tobacco products for fucks sake!!! The masses aren't asses, it's fucking congress. Show me the tobacco, and I will shut up. Until then, it's not a fucking tobacco product.
Make a new fucking classification called "electronic cigarettes." Maybe it's just too much work for these lazy fucking muck fucks.
I think you give them a little too much credit. This is not laziness or ineptitude. This is blatant corruption. It's a cash-grab, plain and simple. They can not justify a 300% sales tax on a normal product. But they've justified insane sales tax on tobacco for ages. So it's basically a case of them just really wanting to call it a "tobacco product" so they can tax it just the same. Sickening.
This stuff is helping many transition away from cigarettes to an extent that has not been seen before with other replacement products, like patches or gum. And this is yet one more piece of proof that the government truly does not have our best interests in mind. If they did, they would keep the much less harmful e-cigarettes cheap, so more people could quit smoking tobacco.
But they clearly don't give a shit about that. "Oh, tons of people are buying this stuff instead of tobacco. We need to make up that revenue somewhere..."
But did they consider, part of the reason many people may turn to e-cigarettes is exactly for the reason that this is not only a safer way, but also a less expensive way to deal with their addiction? And if e-cigs start to become as expensive, or more, that e-cig sales may drop?
Leave it to the government to ruin... well... pretty much fucking anything, apparently.
-------------------- ------------------------ I am me. We are You.
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: DebuteMachine]
#19256050 - 12/10/13 03:54 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DebuteMachine said: Make a new fucking classification called "electronic cigarettes." Maybe it's just too much work for these lazy fucking muck fucks.
It's not that simple. Have you ever taken a peak at the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act? Dietary Supplements Act? etc. These are enormously large laws involving exceptionally complex regulatory mechanisms. Even if you DID decide to regulate them as something (e.g. food, drug, supplement, etc.) they are dissimilar to anything on the market in that category, there are few (if any) inhalable foods or drugs, for example.
Anyone in congress would probably tell you e-cigs don't resemble conventional tobacco products, but they're unique.
The other, more important factor is that there are absolutely no data on the safety of these. They're often imported from overseas, where quality control is questionable at best. Then there's the bigger issue of how inhaling all the uncharacterized ingredients affect people in the long run. There's the prevailing attitude that e-cigs are perfectly safe, when they very well may not be. We thought something similar when tobacco cigarettes first emerged.
Meanwhile, they're flying off the shelves.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
taterdb



Registered: 07/07/10
Posts: 157
Loc: rocky mountain high
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: CidneyIndole]
#19258218 - 12/10/13 11:34 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CidneyIndole said:
Quote:
DebuteMachine said: They aren't fucking tobacco products for fucks sake!!! The masses aren't asses, it's fucking congress. Show me the tobacco, and I will shut up. Until then, it's not a fucking tobacco product.
Make a new fucking classification called "electronic cigarettes." Maybe it's just too much work for these lazy fucking muck fucks.
I think you give them a little too much credit. This is not laziness or ineptitude. This is blatant corruption. It's a cash-grab, plain and simple. They can not justify a 300% sales tax on a normal product. But they've justified insane sales tax on tobacco for ages. So it's basically a case of them just really wanting to call it a "tobacco product" so they can tax it just the same. Sickening.
The gov't is going to tax stuff, it's their income, it's how they operate, don't like it go live in a shack in the woods or something. Once this realization is made, consider what would you rather them tax. Your food? your property? your income? or something like cigarettes, booze or other non-essentials. E cigs might not be very bad for people, but they probably aren't good either. As the article says, nicotine products are probably best classed as a recreational product, and we tax that sort of thing quite a bit. 300% is probably excessive but I don't really know, it could be that there is a huge markup and profit gain by people that make e-cigs, that 300% tax could be in part targeted at that. A tax like this can be just as costly or more so to the producers as it is to the consumers, although in this case it's probably the consumers that would take the bigger hit, it's hard to say what all the effects would be, this is a tricky market to analyze for a number of reasons. fyi economic policy is my major, i live breath and eat this sort of stuff. I have little to no opinion on the matter, just thought I'd shed some light on the situation.
|
CidneyIndole
www.shroomery.OG



Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 4,761
Loc: Love's Secret Domain
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: taterdb]
#19259437 - 12/11/13 10:17 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
taterdb said: The gov't is going to tax stuff, it's their income, it's how they operate, don't like it go live in a shack in the woods or something. Once this realization is made, consider what would you rather them tax. Your food? your property? your income? or something like cigarettes, booze or other non-essentials. E cigs might not be very bad for people, but they probably aren't good either. As the article says, nicotine products are probably best classed as a recreational product
1- Some may use it as a "recreational" product, but IMO it can also be classed as a "smoking cessation" product, and a "supplement," and/or "over the counter medication."
What are ephedrine tablets classified as?
2- I'm aware of the concept of taxation. Thanks for your condescension, though.
They're already taxing tobacco at insane rates. One of the many ways they try to justify this is to say that smokers put an extra burden on the system and therefore should have to pay more. Using that very same logic, this stuff gets people off tobacco products, thus lightening the burden on the system. People should be rewarded, rather than penalized for doing that.
Furthermore, e-cigarettes are already taxed. It is called a "sales tax." Have you heard of this before ?
There are a number of new businesses in the United States, solely due to the existence of the blooming e-cigarette market. This generates revenue. This means not only does the government already get sales tax from e-cigarettes and related products, they're presumably getting more income tax from e-cigarettes as well. Exactly how much double-dipping do you think the government should be able to get away with? How about we start a "post sales tax"... call it a "special disposal tax." Maybe then introduce a "product usage tax." Eventually we'll get an air tax, and finally, one very insane and stupid day, a tax on taxes. I mean, they need the money... might as well give it to them, right? How about we just cut the charade and institute a "poor tax" for anyone making under 100k a year?

Where do I want all that tax money to come from? Well, for one, how about we cut down spending on unnecesary bullshit. Say, for example, housing millions of non-violent drug offenders in prison. That would help a little. And that's just one example. But ignoring other positive changes that might actually fix this country, rather than trying to patch it with more money that working class people just don't fucking have...?
How about we take those taxes from megacorps and the paychecks of the wealthy? Let them take on more of their fair share, rather than making working class people, who want to be healthier, pay a "sin tax" on a reduced-harm item. That's what I want.
-------------------- ------------------------ I am me. We are You.
|
taterdb



Registered: 07/07/10
Posts: 157
Loc: rocky mountain high
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: CidneyIndole]
#19266833 - 12/12/13 05:11 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
First of all I wasn't trying to be condescending, simply trying to lay out an explanation step by step without skipping anything. But I will be now, you just don't know what your talking about. There are a number of situations in which this high of a tax can be justified, and believe it or not, it's not always motivated by government greed, especially the very large taxes.
In the case of e cigs if I had to guess they had a target demand in mind and this is the tax that got them to that level. And now that I think about it I'm pretty sure that rather than previous smokers switching to a safer alternative, more often people will start smoking ecigs because they are safer, but eventually move onto real cigs, especially if they are sold to people under 18.
Now I admittedly don't know the finer details on the ecig market, but here is a real life example of a huge tax that is absolutely necessary that I know all too well, Ive spent months examining the salmon industry in the pacific northwest. It requires something on the order of a 350% tax on profits. Here's why, this level of tax maximizes the profits of the fishermen themselves, without some sort of limiting factor it essentially creates a gold rush situation, the fishermen bring back so much fish they create excessive supply and drive the price down to the point that they make nothing or close to it when the cost of catching the fish is factored in, they then cause each other to go out of business. Furthermore they drive the fish population down to an unsustainable level. So by adding this extra cost the states drive supply down, demand up and make it possible for the fishermen to make a profit, it just so happens that the fishing industry maxs their profits when the tax is right around 350%, trust me I've crunched all the numbers. This also has the benefit of creating a large payment to the state, and keeping the fish population at a much healthier level. it's a bit counter intuitive that being taxed a shit load would actually increase your profits but it does.
Economics is full of these seemingly assbackwords things that make people like yourself mad as hell, don't pretend that it's as simple as the government trying to make as much as possible from it's citizens because it's not. As far as the sin tax thing goes, I'll restate this in another way, no one benefits from someone taking another dose of nicotine regardless of the method of administration. It is an entirely non productive act, whereas something like ephedra has a few known medical uses. That is the idea behind the sin tax, we tax you because your not contributing your being the opposite, that and the whole trying to modify behavior thing which even I'm a bit skeptical of. And I maintain, it's better than a higher sales tax or income tax.
As far as taxing the wealthy more, that is what we try to do, it doesn't always work out because the wealthy have means of sheltering their money.Plus it is somewhat contradictory to the idea of the free market, let the big fish get bigger because he's earned it. Not saying that its a bad thing it's just the alternative is a more socialist approach, and if you've already gotten big and fat why should you have to share what you got with those that are less successful. We love the free market in this country because its largely gotten us where we are today, it's just not very equitable. In fact most of this comes down to tradeoffs between equity and efficiency, which is better has no real answer.
When it comes to reducing spending that is tricky too, what you see as non essential is not what others see as non essential, not that i disagree with your specific example, it's just widely open to interpretation. And the real problem comes when you realize that cutting spending often means cutting jobs, which is generally thought of as bad all around. The size of the government and the income it requires is considered sticky, it goes up easily and then gets stuck there and has trouble going down, it's easy to talk a hard line but not so easy when it comes to laying off a bunch of people.
If you like this sort of stuff I suggest you take some classes in it, until then don't presume you can just sorta pick it up your day to day life.
|
DebuteMachine

Registered: 09/29/06
Posts: 6,457
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: CidneyIndole] 1
#19273074 - 12/14/13 12:07 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CidneyIndole said:
1- Some may use it as a "recreational" product, but IMO it can also be classed as a "smoking cessation" product, and a "supplement," and/or "over the counter medication."
This is what I'm talking about. You can debunk all of those.
Video games are recreational, I don't pay taxes on them. E-cigs do not have smoke, it's vapor. E-juice does not always contain nicotine.
I'll have to ask my friend how he mixes his own e-juice, because he does that practice and I do not yet. Until then I can't tell you all the ingredients, but I don't know what you mean by "supplement."
|
Magicman69
All About the Benjamins



Registered: 05/29/13
Posts: 6,876
|
Re: States Move on E-Cigarettes as Washington Delays [Re: DebuteMachine]
#19274560 - 12/14/13 12:24 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
LOL I stopped reading after they said second hand vapor smoke. If its vapor, its not smoke you DONKEY!
|
|