Bill seeks to close tobacco loopholes (MENTIONS E-CIGS)
- Thread starter mpetva
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This is a very interesting article and it actually gives an example of exactly what I've been ranting about today:
Not everything is a ban in sheep's clothing. This sounds like Minnesota might actually be the first state to legalize e-cigarettes.
Not everything is a ban in sheep's clothing. This sounds like Minnesota might actually be the first state to legalize e-cigarettes.
i'm with thulium on this one, it looks to me that they're only saying they don't want sales to minors, which is a good thing to me.
Yes Maureen, that's exactly what I was thinking. They will not be denied their "piece of the action", their "pound of flesh". I get a kick of how they worded it, "taxed properly", properly by who's standards, not ours, I'm sure.
It will be taxed at 70% of the wholesale price, one-half of that amount representing a "health impact fee" designed to reimburse the state for medical costs associated with tobacco use.
Not exactly a bargain . . . especially for a product where there is absolutely no indication that it has any of the negative health problems associated with traditional tobacco use.
Not exactly a bargain . . . especially for a product where there is absolutely no indication that it has any of the negative health problems associated with traditional tobacco use.
However, so long as it's a "tobacco product" we will eventually be able to move it into a new "reduced harm" catagory, which will hopefully get tax BREAKS for being a reduced harm product.
I also belive not all tobacoo products are taxed at the same level as cigarettes? I could be wrong.
I also belive not all tobacoo products are taxed at the same level as cigarettes? I could be wrong.
Quote: "Other new products include the e-cigarette which are electronic nicotine delivery systems that simulate smoking and produce steam, not smoke. (snip, sentence is below) Were trying make sure this year that youth cant purchase these.
The Freedom to Breathe Act bans smoking indoors, and that is not covered. We're....."
While attention is drawn to the bold print; I find this worrisome - not covered by the Act in which way? Because it's not necessary or is this an indication that e-cigs will be included under the smoking indoors ban?
Bears watching to see how this develops.
The Freedom to Breathe Act bans smoking indoors, and that is not covered. We're....."
While attention is drawn to the bold print; I find this worrisome - not covered by the Act in which way? Because it's not necessary or is this an indication that e-cigs will be included under the smoking indoors ban?
Bears watching to see how this develops.
Minnesota's tax on cigarettes is $1.504 per pack.
Minnesota's tax on smoke-free tobacco is 70% of the wholesale cost.
Who's idea of reasonable is this? Minnesota's. If you disagree, I think you know how to go about changing tax law.... Good luck with that.
Little cigars are just like a cigarette in size and shape. Taste like dung though. .99 cents a pack some places. Not supposed to inhale them I guess.
You're right, Kristin . . . and the 70% of wholesale cost is the tax on non-cigarette tobacco. <sigh> But it could be worse.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The MN bill simply bans e-cigarette sales to youth, which we should all support.
The MN bill does NOT propose taxing e-cigarettes.
The MN bill does NOT propose taxing e-cigarettes.
In the same bill:
So, this doesn't specifically enforce a tax on e-cigs, but it paves the way. The fact that e-cigarettes would be listed as "tobacco" means that laws that tax tobacco would tax e-cigarettes and this portion of the bill is meant to look for ways to make sure taxes are collected on all tobacco products...so although it may not be specified, it is the likely outcome.
Last edited:
I agree with JustJulie and others that "taxed properly" is ominous. The idea that they would tax at 70% of wholesale price and that one half of that amount would represent a "health impact fee" to reimburse the state for medical costs associated with tobacco use; this is ludicrous and offensive. Does everyone remember the infamous big lawsuit brought against 'Big Tobacco' by I believe eight different states. Their major claim was the tobacco-related costs/drains to their respective healthcare systems and they won the suit and were awarded multi-million dollar settlements. It was later disclosed that not one of the states put anymore than 5% of their settlement money back into their supposedly "drained" healthcare systems. Truth is hard to come by and when money is involved it is damn near impossible, when the word "taxes" is involved there is NO TRUTH
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The entire discussion about e-cigarettes and taxes (here and elsewhere) has become an unneccessary and unhelpful distraction (for me and everyone else who is working to keep e-cigarettes legal and affordable) from fighting our critically important battles in NY, IL, MD and with the FDA.
Banning e-cigarette sales to youth (or to adults), legally defining e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, and taxing e-cigarettes are all entirely different policy battles, are years apart as relevant concerns, and aren't all going to take place in the same polical arena. They are unrelated and have nothing in common (other than in conspiracy theories that some folks insist upon repeating).
E-cigarettes can only be taxed if state legislatures enact budget legislation (99% of which occurs during the state's annual budget process).
But any tax legislation must include tax revenue estimates by the Dept of Revenue, which requires state e-cigarette sales data (or reliable estimates), which don't exist, and are unlikely to for at least the next several years. But even if/when Revenue Depts have sound sales data and make sound tax revenue projections, enacting e-cigarette tax legislation is going to be a low proirity of most governors and legislatures because the amount of tax revenue is going to be less than $1 million annually in most states (and no more than $5 million in NY) even if the tax rate was 50% of price, which is far higher than most states' cigar and smokeless tax rates. Besides, any advocacy we do can defeat or minimize the proposed tax rate.
But before any of that can occur, the state has to first enact a law (throught the state's formal legislative process) to define e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.
And it is highly likely that will take place only AFTER the FDA classifies and regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, which won't occur until 2011/2012 at the earliest due to the new Appeals Court's ruling), as most/all states are unlikely to legally define e-cigarettes as tobacco products until after the FDA does so.
That said, it would be an excellent future strategy (for us) to advocate state legislation (via amendments to existing e-cigarette bills) that legally defined e-cigarettes as tobacco products. Getting several states to legally define e-cigarettes as tobacco would help encourage the FDA to do so at the federal level, and would pit states against the feds (similar to the case with medical ......... and CA's upcoming ......... legalization initiative).
But we aren't ready for that stage of battle, and we NOW need to focus on fighting the critical battles in NY, IL, MD and with the FDA.
I do think the MN legislation (to define e-cigarettes as a tobacco substitute) is an interesting first-step towards defining it as tobacco.
There was no mention in the MN legislation to tax e-cigarettes or a "tobacco subsitute" (although I'm aware that CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA have been advocating taxing OTP as high as 70% (which is far higher than most state cigarette tax rates), as I've been the leading opponent of these tax proposals during the past 5 years (and tobacco lobbyists have also worked to defeat/amend them).
Also, as a matter of law, the MN legislature would have to enact legislation to define e-cigarettes as a "tobacco subsitute" before any legislation even could be introduced proposing to tax a "tobacco substitute" at any amount (as State Legislative Reference Bureaus must approve all proposed legislation as "legally sound" before a bill can be introduced in the legislature).
For disclosure, I've been actively proposing, advocating, amending and/or defeating tobacco tobacco tax legislation in state legislatures and in Congress every budget and legislative session for the past 20 years.
Banning e-cigarette sales to youth (or to adults), legally defining e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, and taxing e-cigarettes are all entirely different policy battles, are years apart as relevant concerns, and aren't all going to take place in the same polical arena. They are unrelated and have nothing in common (other than in conspiracy theories that some folks insist upon repeating).
E-cigarettes can only be taxed if state legislatures enact budget legislation (99% of which occurs during the state's annual budget process).
But any tax legislation must include tax revenue estimates by the Dept of Revenue, which requires state e-cigarette sales data (or reliable estimates), which don't exist, and are unlikely to for at least the next several years. But even if/when Revenue Depts have sound sales data and make sound tax revenue projections, enacting e-cigarette tax legislation is going to be a low proirity of most governors and legislatures because the amount of tax revenue is going to be less than $1 million annually in most states (and no more than $5 million in NY) even if the tax rate was 50% of price, which is far higher than most states' cigar and smokeless tax rates. Besides, any advocacy we do can defeat or minimize the proposed tax rate.
But before any of that can occur, the state has to first enact a law (throught the state's formal legislative process) to define e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.
And it is highly likely that will take place only AFTER the FDA classifies and regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, which won't occur until 2011/2012 at the earliest due to the new Appeals Court's ruling), as most/all states are unlikely to legally define e-cigarettes as tobacco products until after the FDA does so.
That said, it would be an excellent future strategy (for us) to advocate state legislation (via amendments to existing e-cigarette bills) that legally defined e-cigarettes as tobacco products. Getting several states to legally define e-cigarettes as tobacco would help encourage the FDA to do so at the federal level, and would pit states against the feds (similar to the case with medical ......... and CA's upcoming ......... legalization initiative).
But we aren't ready for that stage of battle, and we NOW need to focus on fighting the critical battles in NY, IL, MD and with the FDA.
I do think the MN legislation (to define e-cigarettes as a tobacco substitute) is an interesting first-step towards defining it as tobacco.
There was no mention in the MN legislation to tax e-cigarettes or a "tobacco subsitute" (although I'm aware that CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA have been advocating taxing OTP as high as 70% (which is far higher than most state cigarette tax rates), as I've been the leading opponent of these tax proposals during the past 5 years (and tobacco lobbyists have also worked to defeat/amend them).
Also, as a matter of law, the MN legislature would have to enact legislation to define e-cigarettes as a "tobacco subsitute" before any legislation even could be introduced proposing to tax a "tobacco substitute" at any amount (as State Legislative Reference Bureaus must approve all proposed legislation as "legally sound" before a bill can be introduced in the legislature).
For disclosure, I've been actively proposing, advocating, amending and/or defeating tobacco tobacco tax legislation in state legislatures and in Congress every budget and legislative session for the past 20 years.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
For some reason, a key word was mysteriously deleted from my last posting.
The censored word has the same meaning as "medical pot".
The censored word has the same meaning as "medical pot".
- Status
Similar threads
