CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly...

Status
Not open for further replies.

FlamingoTutu

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 5, 2013
10,593
1
55,367
In the Mountains
I know--there's very little information on their website. I tried vaping Militia, also; couldn't find anything, Maybe I don't know where to look.
I've sort of given up looking because I can't find anything up to date. Frustrating. Glad I'm not the only flummoxed.
Yeah. This is my understanding also, but someone did complain, somewhere, that not enough vapers showed up at the hearings--most were SFATA members and business owners.
I thought it was embarrassing how few vapers were there. I get that we can't all go but last time there seemed to be a lot more average Joe's there. Be so much easier if we were the size of Vermont.


Steve, I've never disagreed with anyone that I actually like as much as you. Honestly, you sound more like an ANTZ every day. I know you like to get a rise out of people but it's getting to the point of being ridiculous. Maybe, just once in a while, you could give a little encouragement instead of the same old predictable crap.
 

stevegmu

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2013
11,630
12,348
6992 kilometers from home...
Steve, I've never disagreed with anyone that I actually like as much as you. Honestly, you sound more like an ANTZ every day. I know you like to get a rise out of people but it's getting to the point of being ridiculous. Maybe, just once in a while, you could give a little encouragement instead of the same old predictable crap.

I keep reading how its all about money. Letters don't trump money...
Funny thing I am not against smoking or smoking regulations. What are ANTZ? Is that just supposed to be a generic insult on here?
 

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,952
68
saint paul,mn,usa
Oh, I'm not saying nicotine is harmful at all. However, if I were vape shop that mixed liquids, and I was ordering bulk PG and bulk VG, paying a wholesale tobacco tax on those would not sit well with me. If this were to pass, the only portion of their ingredients I would expect to be taxed would be the nic base.
haven't they made it clear 0 nic juice will be taxable? i think that implies they will have to tax
the base ingredients some how. not just for the vendors,DIY is included. there are provisions
exempting them. true one can get PG/VG just about any where but remember Al Capone
wasn't busted for selling booze. they got him on tax evasion.

It's absolutely impossible to calculate. It depends on your device, wattage, nicotine strength, your atomizer coil (single or dual), the diameter of the coil, etc.
its not impossible.nicotine strength doesn't even factor into it.
if they pass the legislation all that's needed is what amount of juice
would be equivalent to one pack of cigarettes. it could be a puff
to puff comparison using a cigalike for a reference or an averaged
comparison or some other measure. in the end they will have to
say x amount of juice = y amount of cigarettes. if you wind up
using 1/2 pack equivalent in juice or 3 packs equivalent in juice
will be a non-factor.
:2c:
regards
mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlamingoTutu

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,985
Sacramento, California
haven't they made it clear 0 nic juice will be taxable? i think that implies they will have to tax
the base ingredients some how. not just for the vendors,DIY is included. there are provisions
exempting them. true one can get PG/VG just about any where but remember Al Capone
wasn't busted for selling booze. they got him on tax evasion.


its not impossible.nicotine strength doesn't even factor into it.
if they pass the legislation all that's needed is what amount of juice
would be equivalent to one pack of cigarettes. it could be a puff
to puff comparison using a cigalike for a reference or an averaged
comparison or some other measure. in the end they will have to
say x amount of juice = y amount of cigarettes. if you wind up
using 1/2 pack equivalent in juice or 3 packs equivalent in juice
will be a non-factor.
:2c:
regards
mike
How many packs does a provari equal?

If they want to tax the hardware, and I believe they do, it will have to be at a percent of cost, not per ml.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,830
So-Cal
If California falls only a matter of time before ny jumps on the bandwagon along with all the other states. What is there we can do for those of us that don't live in California?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Best thing that a California Non-Resident can do is what Lessifer mention. And that is to Spread the Word via Social Media.

And of course, if you haven't done so Already, join and Contribute what you can to Advocacy Groups.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,830
So-Cal

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,145
SoCal

Guzzard

Full Member
Aug 8, 2013
50
39
San Pedro Ca, USA
Here's a link from The Vaping Militia on their Fb page how to get in contact with an Assembly member to express your concerns about the new tax bills:
ABX2-6
ABX2-16
SBX2-13
Call an Official

You just put in your info and hit submit and it will give you the phone # (916)319-2033 and the site will suggest you some points on what to say.

It says the California legislative session will officially come to a close on September 11th.
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
Hi Julie.

So has CASAA been able to gather any information about How Exactly California will be implementing a Tax on "e-Cigarettes" proposed in AB-SBX2-16?

We don't have any information on the computation of the tax other than what is in the proposed legislation itself:


(b) (1) There shall be imposed upon every distributor a tax upon
the distribution of electronic cigarettes, based on the wholesale
cost of these products, at a tax rate, as determined annually by the
State Board of Equalization, that is equivalent to the total rate of
tax imposed on cigarettes by this part, on or after the first day of
the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the
effective date of this article.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,830
So-Cal
We don't have any information on the computation of the tax other than what is in the proposed legislation itself:


(b) (1) There shall be imposed upon every distributor a tax upon
the distribution of electronic cigarettes, based on the wholesale
cost of these products, at a tax rate, as determined annually by the
State Board of Equalization, that is equivalent to the total rate of
tax imposed on cigarettes by this part, on or after the first day of
the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the
effective date of this article.

A does seem a Tad Ambiguous with regards to e-Liquids.

I was Hoping that the BOE would have a Legislative Analysis done by now. But I didn't see one yet.

All Legislative Analyses 2015-16 Session - California State Board of Equalization

Although the BOE has Revised some of the Other Bills to reference AB-SBX2-16.


"...

6. This bill should define "tobacco product component, part, or accessory." This bill includes within the "tobacco product" definition any tobacco product component, part, or accessory, whether or not sold separately. However, the bill does not define that term. BOE staff suggests an amendment to add a "tobacco product component, part, or accessory" definition to eliminate any uncertainty.

7. Related legislation. ABx2 6 (Cooper) is identical. Senate Bill 140 (Leno, et all) is almost identical to this bill, but was held in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.


SBx2 10 (Beall) and ABx2 11 (Nazarian) amend BPC Section 22973 to require an annual cigarette and tobacco products retailer license fee. Since both this bill and the annual retailer license fee bills (SBx2 10 and ABx2 11) amend Section 22973, BOE staff suggests double-jointing language to prevent chaptering out issues.


ABx2 16 (Bonta) and SBx2 (Pan) impose a new $2 per pack cigarette tax, an equivalent floor stock tax, and indirectly increase the tobacco products tax. The bills also impose the tobacco products tax on electronic cigarettes.

...
"

http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/0005sbx2082615cw.pdf
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,830
So-Cal
Looks like the Amendments to ABX2-6 were...

meaning of the definition with "same meaning as"

In

"For purposes of this section, “smoking” has the meaning of the definition same meaning as in subdivision (c) of Section 22950.5 of the Business and Professions Code."

They also changed childproof with "child-resistant"

Where did you see that they are no longer seems to include non-nicotine liquids?

22950.5.
For purposes of this division, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Department” means the State Department of Public Health.

(b) “Enforcing agency” means the State Department of Public Health, another state agency, including, but not limited to, the office of the Attorney General, or a local law enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, a city attorney, district attorney, or county counsel.

(c) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoking” includes the use of an electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking.
 
Last edited:

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,985
Sacramento, California
Looks like the Amendments to ABX2-6 were...

meaning of the definition with "same meaning as"

In

"For purposes of this section, “smoking” has the meaning of the definition same meaning as in subdivision (c) of Section 22950.5 of the Business and Professions Code."

They also changed childproof with "child-resistant"

Where did you see that they are no longer seems to include non-nicotine liquids?

22950.5.
For purposes of this division, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Department” means the State Department of Public Health.

(b) “Enforcing agency” means the State Department of Public Health, another state agency, including, but not limited to, the office of the Attorney General, or a local law enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, a city attorney, district attorney, or county counsel.

(c) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoking” includes the use of an electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking.

Didn't it contain language, before, that said something to the effect of: "regardless of whether or not it contains nicotine"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlamingoTutu

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,830
So-Cal
Didn't it contain language, before, that said something to the effect of: "regardless of whether or not it contains nicotine"?

Before you go thinking you are Losing it, I do believe that one of these Bills contained language along those lines.

But I thought that was pertaining to the Definition of what and "e-Cigarette" is.

But then Again, It could be Me who is Losing there Mind.

BTW - When a Bill gets Amended, Either to Add, Remove or to Change something, the Text is Highlighted in...

Blue for Text that was Added.
Red/Strikeout for Text that was Added.

And you can Always use the "Compare Versions" on the Bills Page.

Compare Versions
 

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
It is far from clear.

First, from Zoidman's post:

(c) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoking” includes the use of an electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking.

...which seems to indicate any vapor, whether it contains nicotine or not. But, I find the last piece of this interesting: "for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking." I don't vape to circumvent smoking prohibitions, I do so not to smoke, but I digress.

The next section:

(d) (1) “Tobacco product” means any of the following:
(A) A product containing, made, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, or snuff.
(B) An electronic device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an electronic cigarette, cigar, pipe, or hookah.


Clearly, nicotine is mentioned, but then the "or other vaporized liquids", which would technical include non-nicotine. I would think this may intend to include those "other" vapor products (you know what I mean), but that seems to be specifically excluded at the end of the Digest.

Basically, blind zealousness is getting in the way of well-written and clear law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread