The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Alaska Bills - 100% tax on electronic smoking products

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by squee, Feb 16, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. MudVaper

    MudVaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 18, 2015
    I read this bill over and over yesterday, and what it does say is the tax is levied against in-state retailers. It does not talk about internet retail sales to individual consumers at all.

    However, more research is needed on my part as an Alaskan.

    Years ago, when the cigarette tax jumped from a few cents to a dollar, then two dollars a pack, a lot of people started buying smokes online, especially from Indian Reservations. Those people ended up getting tax bills in the mail from the state's revenue dept. months after their purchases. I forget the specifics on how the state obtained the online (or mail order at the beginning) information on Alaska buyers, but the state did indeed get names and addresses and send tax bills to people that bought online.

    What gets my goat about a sin tax being applied to vaping is that the justification is not there. Sin taxes are supposed to give the state revenue to cover the social costs associated with vice. I do not see that cost associated with vaping.

    A huge anti-vaping campaign began in Alaska recently and it is very disturbing to me. Especially because it is being financed by tobacco taxes and it is telling the usual lies about vaping.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    Big lies are needed to get away with such blatant immorality. A shakedown financing further shakedown. Disgusting.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Diego
    That's why they have to convince the public we are still sinning.
    And they'll use any justification (lies) they think the public will buy into.
    A shakedown financing further shakedown.
    I've never seen it stated so clearly.

    When one realizes that is exactly what is going on...
    It becomes so offensive that there really are no words to describe it...

    They can and probably will eventually beat me into some form of submission.
    But they will never again make me feel shame.

    And this time, I will fight until the end.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. YoursTruli

    YoursTruli Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    May 27, 2012
    Ohio
    I don't think other states will follow this particular way of taxation if the other proposed/passed bills are anything to go by. In Ohio the proposed tax on eliquids would have equated to a $45.00 tax on a 30 ml bottle, most, seem to be trying to equate ml to cigarettes and tax accordingly... such as... the ads stating one cigalike (containing 1 ml of eliquid) is equal to a pack of cigarettes...yeah. I am not familiar with any other state trying to or actually taxing equipment as of yet.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Sir Kadly

    Sir Kadly Tootle Wompin' Squonkaholic Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 18, 2015
    Indiana
    What happened as I recall is that the feds were brought in by a number of states that wanted to protect their tax revenue, and basically forced the various reservations that were selling online to turn over records. The reason they were able to do so is that selling to non-tribal members violated the Federal Treaties or something along those lines.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. MudVaper

    MudVaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 18, 2015
    I know it had something to do with ATF but can't remember the specifics enough to blather about it in a forum, lol.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. YoursTruli

    YoursTruli Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    May 27, 2012
    Ohio
    (B) does not include a
    25 (i) battery or battery charger that is sold separately;
    26 (ii) drug, device, or combination product approved for
    27 sale by the United State Food and Drug Administration, as those terms
    28 are defined in 21 U.S.C. 301-392 (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act); or
    29 (iii) product that has been approved by the United
    30 States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a smoking cessation
    31 product, tobacco dependence product, or modified risk tobacco product.


    So
    any mod/atty, device, or a self-contained cig-alike, combination product, that is approved for sale by the United State Food and Drug Administration would not be subject to this tax? (so NOT surprised if this is in reference to self contained systems mainly a tobacco company product with the exception of NJOY)
    OR
    if the FDA defines electronic cigarettes as a modified risk tobacco product none of it would be subject to this tax including eliquids?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. MudVaper

    MudVaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 18, 2015
    That's my interpretation, but a lot of interpretation is left to the dept. of revenue who set the regulations within the parameters of the laws.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. inspects

    inspects Squonkamaniac Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 15, 2014
    Arizona, Ecuador
    I think whoever wrote that had no idea what they were talking about. Unless its just cigalikes, like YT mentioned.

    The FDA hasn't made any regulations for vapor products (yet).
     
  10. MudVaper

    MudVaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 18, 2015
    It is very obvious they don't know what they are talking about - that is troubling. Like I said, leaves it very open to interpretation by Dept. of Revenue.
     
  11. LaraC

    LaraC Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 6, 2013
    Tennessee
    If it was approved by FDA for sale as a medical product, it would be exempted.
    But again, I think the lawmakers are talking about FDA's definitions of a medical "drug, device, or combination product"... not our so-called "tobacco product" e-cigs.

    I don't think the section you referenced was about any recreational "e-cig" device at all, even one that is self-contained. I think those words from the part you quoted are referring only to FDA's medical products division. Not their tobacco products division.

    As a side note, if an e-cig manufacturer decided to try to go the medical route for FDA approval, the bar would be just as high (or higher) and the expense of getting it approved would be just as high (or higher) as it will be when manufacturers contemplate trying to get FDA marketing approval as a "tobacco product."


    Yeah, it sounds like that section would exempt an FDA approved "modified risk tobacco product from being taxed. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that would include e-liquids. Probably a self-contained device would be the only type of e-cig that could have even a glimmer of hope of being approved for "modified risk."

    A faint glimmer like that of a star thousands of light-years away.

    As far as I know, and I'm sure no expert on any of this, I don't think the FDA has ever approved any "tobacco" product as a modified risk product.

    Very safe Swedish SNUS has decades of research showing it most definitely is a Modified Risk Product, but FDA hasn't shown any sign of accepting it as an MRP.

    The way the FDA keeps deliberately and systematically encouraging the worst kinds of junk science to "inform" the FDA... I don't foresee the FDA accepting e-cigs as a Modified Risk Product.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  12. squee

    squee Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Nov 12, 2013
    Central CT
    Yeah, they're talking about a nicotine inhaler, not any kind of e-cig
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    I've made progress, but still have got a way to go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Fresh kevin

    Fresh kevin Senior Member

    Feb 4, 2016
  15. CookingWithGuns

    CookingWithGuns Super Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 14, 2013
    St. Louis, MO
    So is this just an in state tax though? Considering the percentage of juice and devices ordered online, will it apply to those purchases from out of state?
     
  16. MudVaper

    MudVaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 18, 2015
    The way the state went after online tobacco purchases for the tax revenue, it would not surprise me to see a push from Alaska to be able to tax online vape purchases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. CookingWithGuns

    CookingWithGuns Super Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 14, 2013
    St. Louis, MO
    Yeah but they had an in on those because of federal regulations regarding tobacco which do not exists for nicotine. Until the Marketplace Fairness Act finally passes (which probably won't given Amazon/Google/Facebook lobbying), they won't be able to force a tax collection from the seller unless they have a physical presence in the state where the sale is taking place. Or until nicotine gets similar special recognition from from the federal government, which for similar reasons as the MFA, likely won't get passed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice