California Ballot Measure would tax all vapor products at 70%, raise cig tax by $2/pack

[Bill Godshall]

CA Ballot Initiative would increase cigarette tax (from $.87 to $2.87/pack), impose 70%-75% tax on all vapor products (including no-nicotine vapor products) and all OTP, measure falsely conflates harm of very low risk vapor and smokeless tobacco products with those of highly addictive and deadly cigarettes. CA Secretary of State Alex Padilla approves measure for gathering signatures of voters (to put it on the 2016 November ballet).
AirTalk | California ballot measure seeks signatures for cigarette tax | 89.3 KPCC

The exact tax on vapor products and OTP would be determined by the CA Equalization Board (to be equivalent to a $2.87/pack cig tax), but would be between 70%-75% of the wholesale price of vapor products.

The ballot measure is likely to get enough signatures to be placed on the November election ballot.
But please note that CA voters rejected a $2/pack cig tax ballot measure (which didn't tax e-cigs).

Seems like the ANTZ never learn from their screw ups, as including a huge tax on e-cigs in this year's cigarette tax hike ballot measure is going to decrease (not increase) the number of Yes votes cast.

 

[oplholik]

This is ridiculous, and we know that they are never going to give up trying.

 

[DC2]

Sigh...

 

[rothenbj]

Well, it should insure that each and every vaper and smoker shows up to vote.

 

[azb8496]

I can't help but notice that the e-cig taxation is but a rider. I just love it when people are forced to vote against something for believing in something else. Perhaps next they'll have an initiative to allow the public use of water and ban the trading of cotton. Nothing spells democracy quite like Col-ee-phorn-ee-ya.

Good luck CA! Remember, you stand only to lose liberty from government action.

 

[Endor]

Proposition 29 (the $2/pack tax from 2012) was narrowly defeated (50.3% against, 49.7% for). That was in June 2012, which was a primary election.

This one would be on the November 2016 ballot, which is a presidential election. Large voter turnout, which would make it harder to "swing the vote" by calling all vapers to vote. Most of them are probably going to be voting anyway, especially since the presidential campaign is shaping up to be pretty divisive (but I guess they all are ultimately).

It looks like it has some deep pockets behind it too, the ALA and the AMA, but especially the SEIU (a union). This could mean funding for paid signature gatherers, and if it makes the signature requirements (which it probably would if paid gatherers are used), money to run "Yes on Prop xxx" commercials every 10 minutes.... and whoever has the most money to run the most commercials usually wins.

 

[EBates]

Money Always Wins! That's what 'Our Country' has come to.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Sigh...

I have a few choice words about it if you want to borrow some.

 

[Ca Ike]

Ugh back to sending letters. Btw Bill did you check out the petition Lessifer wrote and posted on change.org?

I wish there was a way to challenge these taxes in court. They are, after all an illegal tax even though voted in. All" sin taxes" are fudamentally illegal but I can't remember the exact law. Something about only one fed and one state tax on any product is allowed.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This one would be on the November 2016 ballot, which is a presidential election.

Yes, this is correct. I tried to edit my original posting to say that, but I can no longer edit it.

 

[Seigun]

And I thought the 30- odd cent a ml tax in LA was rough.... -_-;;;

 

[Endor]

Ugh back to sending letters.

Actually, it looks like you're in California like me. About the only thing to do at this point is to not sign the petition, and try to get the word out to other vapers to avoid it as well. Since it's being approached as a proposition, it's simply a popular vote.... and that can be scary, especially since I think passing a cigarette tax is easy, and most people may not know (or know and don't care, or know and believe the CDPH/CDC claptrap) that vapor products are lumped in too.

I wish there was a way to challenge these taxes in court. They are, after all an illegal tax even though voted in. All" sin taxes" are fudamentally illegal but I can't remember the exact law. Something about only one fed and one state tax on any product is allowed.

Sin taxes are as old as sin itself. And yes, anybody can challenge anything in court, but grounds for the lawsuit may be difficult.

In actuality, we pay shockingly low taxes on tobacco in California (*especially* since it's California, the tax and spend capital of the world). According to Wikipedia, we pay only $0.87 per pack. This is why I'm particularly concerned over this proposition... it is possible that there is an appetite to increase cigarette taxes to be more in line with other states, such as NJ @ $2.07/pack and NY at a whopping $4.35/pack, and vapor products get caught in the cross hairs.

 

[Ca Ike]

Actually, it looks like you're in California like me. About the only thing to do at this point is to not sign the petition, and try to get the word out to other vapers to avoid it as well. Since it's being approached as a proposition, it's simply a popular vote.... and that can be scary, especially since I think passing a cigarette tax is easy, and most people may not know (or know and don't care, or know and believe the CDPH/CDC claptrap) that vapor products are lumped in too.



Sin taxes are as old as sin itself. And yes, anybody can challenge anything in court, but grounds for the lawsuit may be difficult.

In actuality, we pay shockingly low taxes on tobacco in California (*especially* since it's California, the tax and spend capital of the world). According to Wikipedia, we pay only $0.87 per pack. This is why I'm particularly concerned over this proposition... it is possible that there is an appetite to increase cigarette taxes to be more in line with other states, such as NJ @ $2.07/pack and NY at a whopping $4.35/pack, and vapor products get caught in the cross hairs.

Yea I'm in SJ county. I've fought so much bs in this state it's been like a third job. I was in the fight that stopped the last tobacco tax hike and all this prop is , is that bill rewritten as a ballot measure pretty much. I haven't seen any petitions circulating yet but I plan to educate those trying to collect sigs, AGAIN. Those people don't even know what they are collecting sigs for half the time anyway. They just see a paycheck.

 

[spacekitty]

I just heard about THESE from a post on the CASAA FB page!!!

Here are the (6) New Bills introduced in California after the SB140 (Leno) hearing outcome.
SB-5 Bill Text - SBX2-5 Electronic cigarettes.
SB-6 Smoking in the workplace Bill Text - SBX2-6 Smoking in the workplace.
SB-7 Tobacco products: minimum legal age Bill Text - SBX2-7 Tobacco products: minimum legal age.
SB-8 Tobacco use programs Bill Text - SBX2-8 Tobacco use programs.
SB-9 Local taxes: authorization: cigarettes and tobacco products Bill Text - SBX2-9 Local taxes: authorization: cigarettes and tobacco products.
SB-10 Cigarette and tobacco product licensing: fees and funding. Bill Text - SBX2-10 Cigarette and tobacco product licensing: fees and funding.

Bill Text - SBX2-5 Electronic cigarettes.
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
118925. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any person to smoke a tobacco product in any vehicle of a passeng...

 

[Uma]

Want to be a fly on the wall?
The website "digital democracy" records all meetings by officials.
It is a fairly new site, they're still improving the search ques. Be specific in the search field. The search for electronic cigarettes, revealed 36 recordings of late.
Search | Digital Democracy

Tobacco cigarettes =31. Search | Digital Democracy

Tobacco tax= 43. Search | Digital Democracy

Tobacco taxes?
Electronic cigarette taxes?
SB-7=?
Vapor?

 

[Endor]

Yea I'm in SJ county. I've fought so much bs in this state it's been like a third job. I was in the fight that stopped the last tobacco tax hike and all this prop is , is that bill rewritten as a ballot measure pretty much.

Indeed, and based on the rash of bills that spacekitty just listed above, the fight is far from over (unfortunately).

I haven't seen any petitions circulating yet but I plan to educate those trying to collect sigs, AGAIN. Those people don't even know what they are collecting sigs for half the time anyway. They just see a paycheck.

Indeed, exactly what is scary about paid signature gatherers. Their job is to get as many people leaving the local supermarket to sign the petition as possible, as they get $1 to $3 a signature: Paid petition gatherers hunt for signatures

And,they are not beneath lying: Signature gatherers accused of lying to voters - CBS News 8 - San Diego, CA News Station - KFMB Channel 8

Of course at this point it is conjecture, as nothing indicates today that this bill will use this tactic. However, like I said earlier, it does have some deep pockets behind it, and $2/pack is an awful lot of money to a state government addicted to taxes to fund their pet social experiments (think: high speed rail). It wouldn't surprise me to see them out in force as the deadline comes closer, with all the suburban soccer moms signing away to "protect their children"....

 

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, SB 7 would NOT increase the minimum age for selling/buying e-cigs to 21 (although if SB 5 passes, SB 7 might apply to e-cigs because they would be redefined as tobacco products)
Bill Text - SBX2-7 Tobacco products: minimum legal age.

Just noticed my posting is off topic (as was the reply I was responding to). Sorry