You can't foresee how an elected official is going to represent your interests.
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***
- Thread starter mackman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You can't foresee how an elected official is going to represent your interests.
Okay, so in poking around in CA law (specifically CA Revenue and Tax Code), I found this:
and this:
Hence, if registered with the state as a "distributor" and registered to pay taxes due to CA state government, you ought to be good to go. That is, of course, unless laws/codes change via bills like the one in this thread. But would be a plausible solution to the bill.
I recognize the reality though, that individual consumers are unlikely to pay taxes on purchases they make especially if no one else they know is actually doing this. But in interest of vaping party advocate, this would be possible solution to the bill's stated problem, and one that is already on the books. Thus responsible vapers ought to be engage in this, via registration with the state (as distributor) and making it therefore abundantly clear that CA is not (entirely) losing tax revenue via out of state sales.
and this:
Hence, if registered with the state as a "distributor" and registered to pay taxes due to CA state government, you ought to be good to go. That is, of course, unless laws/codes change via bills like the one in this thread. But would be a plausible solution to the bill.
I recognize the reality though, that individual consumers are unlikely to pay taxes on purchases they make especially if no one else they know is actually doing this. But in interest of vaping party advocate, this would be possible solution to the bill's stated problem, and one that is already on the books. Thus responsible vapers ought to be engage in this, via registration with the state (as distributor) and making it therefore abundantly clear that CA is not (entirely) losing tax revenue via out of state sales.
It's so wrong that e cigarettes are considered "tobacco" products. They're - sometimes - nicotine products. If I want, I can use my Amazon account to buy nicotine patches and my Ebay account to get Nicorette gum.
They're not cigarettes. They're nicotine things. Nicotine. NIIIICOOOTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!.
There. I feel much better now.
They're not cigarettes. They're nicotine things. Nicotine. NIIIICOOOTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!.
There. I feel much better now.
This bill is rather broad, as all new bills are. I suggested that the e-cig portion be removed. I'm fine with paying taxes on e-cig stuff. I shop locally first but the closest B&M is 35 minutes away. Access is so important, especially considering that cigs are sold on every block.
That's exactly what the state want. Sales TAX - 6.50% AND excise (other tobacco products) TAX - 29.82%. That is a TAX net of 36.32%, and do not include you local (municipal) and county tax... And for what? Things that have noting to do with tobacco... It's just wrong.
We can bemaon the unfairness of it all; but they left the solution.
They just want their dollars, they realize where the trend is going.
I'm not saying not to do the foot work by writing calling etc.
But especially those of us who have been around the block;
remember the expression. Money talks and BS walks
Like I said in Another Thread, I am Not and Attorney. Or an Expert in California Tobacco Laws/Regulations.
But I do know an Individual who Tried to Sell Cigarettes/Cigars in a Store he Owned. It was a Long and Arduous task that he Eventually gave up on.
Actually, that is exactly the game plan, as laid out by changelabsolutions aka RWJ foundation aka J&J aka Pfizer aka Chantix.
Another thing I was just wondering about is whether CA had deemed eCigs to be tobacco products. So, I googled that. Cause it seems from OP and press release by bill's sponsor that we are already living in a nation where it has been deemed a tobacco product. Otherwise, it makes as much sense saying "books and other tobacco products must be sold in face-to-face transactions." From common sense perspective, maybe not equal sense, but from technical legal perspective, I would say it is equal sense. If eCigs aren't currently deemed tobacco products, then the bill is presuming to include a whole bunch of things that are likely outside of its scope (i.e. you must now be in person to buy food flavorings).
Anyway, that google search came up with a bunch of things, but most interesting one I found is at this link. Which I see as the playbook for creating a bill such as this one, and a playbook for all such bills going forward that deal with eCigs. Perhaps this is well known document among persons more in tune with eCig political stuff than myself, but one that perhaps deserves its own thread, or maybe even own sub-forum.
Anyway, that google search came up with a bunch of things, but most interesting one I found is at this link. Which I see as the playbook for creating a bill such as this one, and a playbook for all such bills going forward that deal with eCigs. Perhaps this is well known document among persons more in tune with eCig political stuff than myself, but one that perhaps deserves its own thread, or maybe even own sub-forum.
Distributor is a different thing, but yeah it could be a pain in the rear. Its no harm in investigating.
Very interesting info on that link. Like ID requirement not require for anyone over 26. Also states mail orders are allowed. Bunch of info.
Dated 2011 tho
Dated 2011 tho
Last edited:
Like them or not it may be time to call the ACLU
http://www.aclusocal.org/about/contact-us/
http://www.aclusocal.org/about/contact-us/
No. As written the law is talking about Nicotine delivery, and the things associated with that, like replacement carts. Items sold which are part of the loaded with nicotine item. No Nicotine, its not an item. Because the language specifically uses the definition of a Tobacco product, the one they cite, is next to the definitions of Tobacco paraphernalia.
By the writing of this law currently, it does not cover Tobacco Paraphernalia, which makes sense, because they can not, and/or at least have not banned, an empty tobacco pipe. As written, and it makes sense, all empty APV hardware is exempted. Not saying this attempt is not a nasty bill being attempted, just saying what it cannot do.
I cited the exact language used in the definition.
No you know what ya mom used to say "you lay down with dogs ya gonna get fleas"
Sometimes fleas might be worth it
It's my personal opinion that the fight is at the definition. By their definition they group blu's, ego's, nemesis, provari and juice all as E-Cigarettes. If we would have our still say OK a cig a Lite, blu, anything that looks like a cigarette is OK to group into whatever bs, legislation you want. But my PV is a vaporizer, not an E-Cigarette.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
