Are you done stocking up?

[LoriP1702]

Tobacco Bond Issuers Refinance Amid Smoking Decline

"Under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco companies agreed to pay 46 states for expenses related to smoking illnesses. Many states then formed corporations to raise cash by selling bonds backed by future settlement revenue streams from the tobacco firms."

And these bonds are in danger because of declining cigarette consumption. I'm looking for a list of states that sold bonds to compare with the state taxes coming down the pike, just to see if the highest taxes are coming from those states, in an effort to discourage vaping. The West Virginia House did come out and say that their cig/e-cig tax increases were implemented solely to balance the budget.

WV House OKs tobacco tax hike to balance budget

Thanks for the post. I knew I had read that somewhere, but with all the reading I (we) have all been doing and add anxiety to that due to the 'deems' it is all started to blur together. I still don't see how they expect to really ever collect or make up for their short-sighted futures bond buying. It is an impossible endeavor to put such a burden on on small sector of people. And a real shame that they are killing the one thing that they have screamed about wanting forever-----healthier citizens.

Here's an article I found dated 2014.
It's kind of long, but even if you skim it, you'll get the ugly gist of what's really going on.
So very sad, and, as we have already have figured out, they truly do not care about our health, it's about the revenue, or should I say lost revenue.
They are BANKING that we will go back to smoking. What scumbags!!!

Drop in smoking threatens embattled tobacco bonds


Otherwise, I am stocked up on pretty much every basic thing I need. I might pick up a few more things, just to try before it all goes away, and just for a little additional piece of mind.

I too am looking at the 8/08 as the date for final availability.
If things remain after that, awesome. If not, I'll be as ready as I can be.

I finally got through all of this thread, and I think I got all the way through the Stocking up for deeming thread, so forgive me, but I don't remember who posted, or which one it was post on, but someone mentioned that they fear that we'll end up vaping our preferred devices only at home, and having to use the FDA approved devices (whatever that ends up being) out and about.
I hope I'm wrong, but I have to agree with that. At some point, they will have to try to ensure that what we're using has had taxes paid. Just my to add to the mix.

By the way, excellent threads! This one, and the Stocking Up for Deeming Regs.

 

[bnrkwest]

It seems it is always about the money. Make it sound wholesome and good intentioned by saying "for the kids" then slap the taxes on to balance the budget. Problem is they can tax things into oblivion. Cigarettes are so expensive here it drove me to vape so when vaping is too expensive it may drive people to drink! LOL

 

[LoriP1702]

The link I posted referenced Illinois Tobacco Tax bonds.
I would highly recommend you google to see what your own state is doing, if they're selling them, and how those bonds are rated.
Like was mentioned, it might give you an idea of what to expect from your own state going forward.

I personally think that now that a few states are enacting new laws and regulations, other states will follow, and I would be willing to bet, they'll follow so fast it will make our heads spin. Again, just my two cents, worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I have thought about that too, I guess you have to in this current climate but at my age/health... medical, 3 squares a day, clothing and a bed doesn't sound all that bad seriously, I pray it would never come to that but I won't bet on it.

It will not be illegal to possess legally purchased nicotine. And they can't very well put it on the controlled substance list when you can buy patches and gum OTC.

 

[mattiem]

Put together by ECF: @Tommy-Chi and @DC2
THE RESPONSE
--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
--Requesting a Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report instead of PMTA, so that all products that are essentially similar in operation to that which has already been accepted to also be accepted and allowed to be sold
--Overturn the ban on FREE SAMPLES so that vendors can send samples out to vapers

THE RESPONSE
1)--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
2)--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
Am I the only one that sees what is so wrong about the above.
If we do # 1 number 2 should be totally unnecessary. Vaping is not smoking and vaping devices and e-liquid are not tobacco products......period!

 

[mattiem]

I was reading more on my state, NM, and for this state it is all about taxing ecigs. They want to get the definition right for vape products so they can tax them. They were also working on public vape bans just like smoking is publically banned here. NM is a smoking free state. I have a feeling tho if vaping gear is taxed, NM would be happy and leave it at that, problem is proposed tax would be around $43 on a 30 ml bottle of juice on top of the juice price. Now who can afford that!?

Hubby and I were having a meal at a cafe in Albuquerque, NM the very first time we ever saw the no smoking signs. That had to have been in the very early 90's. Actually shocked us

 

[LoriP1702]

THE RESPONSE
1)--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
2)--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
Am I the only one that sees what is so wrong about the above.
If we do # 1 number 2 should be totally unnecessary. Vaping is not smoking and vaping devices and e-liquid are not tobacco products......period!

I get it.
It's pure madness.

 

[bnrkwest]

THE RESPONSE
1)--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
2)--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
Am I the only one that sees what is so wrong about the above.
If we do # 1 number 2 should be totally unnecessary. Vaping is not smoking and vaping devices and e-liquid are not tobacco products......period!

Yes it seems if #1 passes no need for #2. Really if they want taxes, the only part of ejuice that contains any Nic, they could just tax Nic level, that way zero Nic would be tax free except for sales tax.

 

[mattiem]

Yes it seems if #1 passes no need for #2. Really if they want taxes, the only part of ejuice that contains any Nic, they could just tax Nic level, that way zero Nic would be tax free except for sales tax.

I don't even agree that taxing nic over and above normal sales tax should happen. They call it a sin tax How in the world can they call what we are doing a sin. It isn't but it sounds good to the do-gooders!

 

[LoriP1702]

I don't even agree that taxing nic over and above normal sales tax should happen. They call it a sin tax How in the world can they call what we are doing a sin. It isn't but it sounds good to the do-gooders!

I think for a lot of states, it's more about the tobacco bonds...
This is from the article I linked above...no way will they jeapordize defaulting on those bonds.
Illinois is in bad shape financially, the article said they have a built in cushion that's better than most states. Could be why Il has been slower to implement taxation on e-liquids.

Other smokers have instead trended toward other tobacco products, such as battery-powered nicotine inhalers, “e-cigarettes.

That shift could also jeopardize the future of the bond repayments, Larkin said.

Since e-cigarettes were not included in the settlement, cigarettes for all major companies will continue to lose market share as the product gains popularity.

That would mean even less money from the settlement payments, which accelerates the odds that some states will default on bond obligations.

E-cigarette use could jump up to 50 percent in the next year, according to Fitch.

 

[mattiem]

I think for a lot of states, it's more about the tobacco bonds...
This is from the article I linked above...no way will they jeapordize defaulting on those bonds.
Illinois is in bad shape financially, the article said they have a built in cushion that's better than most states. Could be why Il has been slower to implement taxation on e-liquids.

Other smokers have instead trended toward other tobacco products, such as battery-powered nicotine inhalers, “e-cigarettes.

That shift could also jeopardize the future of the bond repayments, Larkin said.

Since e-cigarettes were not included in the settlement, cigarettes for all major companies will continue to lose market share as the product gains popularity.

That would mean even less money from the settlement payments, which accelerates the odds that some states will default on bond obligations.

E-cigarette use could jump up to 50 percent in the next year, according to Fitch.

There is no doubt in my mind at all that you are totally correct about the bonds. That right there is the main driving force behind most of the new taxes the states are trying to get on the books. As you all already know....It is ALL about the money!!!

 

[LoriP1702]

There is no doubt in my mind at all that you are totally correct about the bonds. That right there is the main driving force behind most of the new taxes the states are trying to get on the books. As you all already know....It is ALL about the money!!!

Sad, but true.
They're not going to care if there is scientific information to back the health benefits. It will matter not one tiny bit.

Okay, I need to go cool off. I'm positively fuming (again).

 

[LoriP1702]

Is there a list of truly vape friendly states??

 

[Eskie]

Is there a list of truly vape friendly states??

The UK. Oh wait, that's not a U.S. State. Still vape friendly compared to the US though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[57chilicat]

Sorry if this has already been answered but if a company made zero nic juice will we still be able to purchase that?
I would feel better buying premixed 0mg juice and just adding my nic!

 

[VNeil]

I don't even agree that taxing nic over and above normal sales tax should happen. They call it a sin tax How in the world can they call what we are doing a sin. It isn't but it sounds good to the do-gooders!

I think nic should be taxed and taxed heavily. But at the same rate as caffeine, per milligram, which is virtually identical in terms of any health hazards. That should fix things.

In fact, the entire $32-40 billion annual tobacco tax revenue could be equalled by a very modest tax on both of those equally dangerous consumer products.

 

[LoriP1702]

Sorry if this has already been answered but if a company made zero nic juice will we still be able to purchase that?
I would feel better buying premixed 0mg juice and just adding my nic!

My brain is kind of mush at this point, but I'm pretty sure 0mg got pulled in as a tobacco product as well with the Deeming Regs.

Maybe someone else will confirm that.

 

[WillyZee]

IMO, the choke on nicotine base is still coming

that will happen after the PMTAs ... after the application fees have been cashed

 

[bnrkwest]

My brain is kind of mush at this point, but I'm pretty sure 0mg got pulled in as a tobacco product as well with the Deeming Regs.

Maybe someone else will confirm that.

Yes it did so basically they are saying PG/VG with flavoring is a tobacco product. So what does that do to the food industry that uses VG flavorings ?

 

[classwife]

Yes it did so basically they are saying PG/VG with flavoring is a tobacco product. So what does that do to the food industry that uses VG flavorings ?

It's about the "intent" of usage