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.

California Prop 56 - Hidden Vape Tax

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by Haktuspit, Jul 22, 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. Haktuspit

    Haktuspit Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 13, 2013
    Tahoe, CA
    I was at first surprised no one has posted about this but it's actually been really hard to even find an article talking about Prop 56 that even mentions the vape tax. So far this is the best I can come up with and all it mentions is that "Taxes on other tobacco products, including vaping products, would also increase."

    Not Blowing Smoke has said that this is about a 70% tax on vapor products.

    Tobacco companies drop nearly $17 million into anti-tax campaign

    Time to rally the voters.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Robino1

    Robino1 ECF Moderator Senior Moderator Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
  3. Lessifer

    Lessifer Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    I've heard about it but hadn't posted anything because like you, I couldn't find anything concrete about just what was in the proposition. I assume we'll find out closer to November.
     
  4. VNeil

    VNeil Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 30, 2014
    Ocean City, MD
    Nothing more disgusting than a billionaire spending millions to ensure poor people pay exorbitant taxes
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    I'm Not Sure I would call it a Hidden Tax? In that e-Cigarettes are Clearly Referenced.

    ---

    SECTION 2. Statement of Purpose


    The purpose of this act is to increase the tax on tobacco and other tobacco
    products, including electronic cigarettes, in order to:

    .
    .
    .

    (d) Provide funds to support prevention programs aimed at discouraging


    individuals from using cigarettes and other tobacco products, including
    electronic cigarettes.

    ---

    Where the Vagueness occurs is How will an "Equivalent Tax" be calculated.


    (b) The board shall adopt regulations providing for the implementation


    of an equivalent tax on electronic cigarettes as that term is defined in

    subdivision (c) of Section 30121, and the methods for collection of the tax.

    Such regulations shall include imposition of an equivalent tax on any device

    intended to be used to deliver aerosolized or vaporized nicotine to the

    person inhaling from the device when sold separately or as a package; any

    component, part, or accessory of such a device that is used during the

    operation of the device, whether sold separately or as a package with such

    device; and any liquid or substance containing nicotine, whether sold

    separately or as a package with any device that would allow it to be



    inhaled. Such regulations may include/ but are not limited to/ defining who



    is a distributor of electronic cigarettes pursuant to Section 30011 and the


    licensing requirements of any such person.



    http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0081%20%28Tobacco%20Tax%20V3%29.pdf?

    ---

     
    • Like Like x 4
  6. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    • Like Like x 3
  7. oplholik

    oplholik ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Highlighted part should be interesting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    Just My Personal Experience.

    But when a Law say's "May Include", it Does.

    Unless it Doesn't fit in well with a Powerful ($$$) Special Interest Group. Or a Big Corporate Entity.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. oplholik

    oplholik ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    We probably won't see any list, so we can avoid that vendor. Just have to stay away from any with anything to do with ecigs.
     
  10. RabbiXX

    RabbiXX Senior Member Verified Member

    Jul 9, 2016
    California
    This is an interesting paragraph. Your device is only an e-cigarette when its combined with a nicotine purchase:

    "Electronic cigarettes" means any device or delivery system sold in combination with nicotine which can be used to deliver to a person nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form, including, but not limited to, an ecigarette; e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen ore-hookah. Electronic cigarettes include any component, part or accessory of such a device that is used during the operation of the device when sold in combination with any liquid or substance containing nicotine. Electronic cigarettes also include any liquid or substance containing nicotine, whether sold separately or sold in combination with any device that could be used to deliver to a person nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form. Electronic cigarettes do not include any device not sold in combination with any liquid or substance containing nicotine, or any battery, battery charger, carrying case or other accessory not used in the operation of the device if sold separately. Electronic cigarettes shall not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where that product is marketed and sold solely for such approved use. As used in this subdivision nicotine does not include any food products as that term is defined pursuant to section 6359.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    Hardware always seems to be where there is Ambiguities.

    Whereas CA seems to be using the FDA's approach to what is a "Tobacco Product". From Section 30121...

    (b) "Tobacco products" includes, but is not limited to, all forms


    of cigars, smoking tobacco, chmving tobacco, snuff, and any other


    articles or products made of, or containing at least 50 percent, tobacco
    a

    product containing~ made~ or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is

    intended for human consumption whether smoked~ heated~ chewed~

    absorbed~ dissolved~ inhaled~ snorted~ sniffed~ or ingested by any other

    means~ including~ but not limited to~ cigars~ little cigars~ chewing tobacco~

    pipe tobacco~ or snuff, but does not include cigarettes. Tobacco products

    shall also include electronic cigarettes. Tobacco products shall not include·


    any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug


    Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other


    therapeutic purposes where that product is marketed and sold solely for


    such approved use. Tobacco products does not include any food products as


    that term is defined pursuant to section 6359:

    http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0081%20%28Tobacco%20Tax%20V3%29.pdf?


    ---

    Just my Opinion. But the Tax battle ground in CA will be over e-Liquids that contain Nicotine. And not over Hardware.

    Because there is much Legal "Wiggle Room" for Hardware. And Not Much, if any, for e-Liquids that contain Nicotine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Haktuspit

    Haktuspit Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 13, 2013
    Tahoe, CA
    That would be nice if hardware wasn't taxed. I still don't want to pay 70% on my juice though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. trying

    trying Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 11, 2010
    usa
    Probably not taxing devices so as not to offend the Mary J market
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 2, 2009
    Since Reynolds and Altria ads opposing Prop 56 will say whatever those company's focus groups find are the most effective arguments to make against the tax proposal, I suspect that Reynolds and Altria may run television ads urging voters to reject Prop 56 specifically because it would impose an unfair and massive tax on vapor products.

    Nothing like defeating a cigarette tax hike by criticizing the vapor tax that was included along with it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    "In One Hand Bread, the Other a Stone."
     
  16. Lessifer

    Lessifer Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    So, I vape, and my wife smokes. She is fully aware of the health risks of smoking, and is fully aware of all vaping has to offer, she still smokes. She doesn't pay for cigarettes, I do, she doesn't work. She also suffers from mental health problems. I pay state income tax and sales tax and for a few years I paid property tax. I pay over $14,000 a year in insurance premiums, my employer pays $11,000 on top of that. In addition I pay copays for all medical services and prescriptions. My wife has no discernible smoking related health issues, and if I'm being honest, she will likely pass long before any appear even if she continues smoking. We are not wealthy by any account.

    How exactly does raising the cigarette tax make any sense considering my situation?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. VNeil

    VNeil Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 30, 2014
    Ocean City, MD
    Because they can. And you (collectively) won't vote them out for doing so.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Lessifer

    Lessifer Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    well, yeah, but I was thinking more of any kind of justification for raising the cigarette tax. A tax predominantly paid by lower income people, that doesn't go towards the the budget area it supposedly is meant to support.
     
  19. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    Why does it have to Make Sense?

    Just tell the Public something they want to Hear and push for Taxes in area's where there is the Least Political Blowback.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. VNeil

    VNeil Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 30, 2014
    Ocean City, MD
    Those predominantly poor people are paying over $32 billion in tobacco taxes each year and you're asking this now?
     
    • Like Like x 1
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