Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[bigdancehawk]

If all it is is Tax Monies, or more precisely, the Shortfall in those Tax Monies that e-Cigarettes have created, then Maybe in the Long Run it would have been Better, for Public Health, to have just Given the those Tax Monies from Day One?

Damn... Is it Allowed to use 5 commas in 1 Sentence? LOL

If you're trying to set some kind of record, Faulkner has you beat all to hell:

“There was a wisteria vine blooming for the second time that summer on a wooden trellis before one window, into which sparrows came now and then in random gusts, making a dry vivid dusty sound before going away: and opposite Quentin, Miss Coldfield in the eternal black which she had worn for forty-three years now, whether for sister, father, or nothusband none knew, sitting so bolt upright in the straight hard chair that was so tall for her that her legs hung straight and rigid as if she had iron shinbones and ankles, clear of the floor with that air of impotent and static rage like children’s feet, and talking in that grim haggard amazed voice until at last listening would renege and hearing-sense self-confound and the long-dead object of her impotent yet indomitable frustration would appear, as though by outraged recapitulation evoked, quiet inattentive and harmless, out of the biding and dreamy and victorious dust.” —Absalom, Absalom!, by William Faulkner

 

[VNeil]

It's not as if we had a choice about the taxes, and that still wouldn't have stopped the FDA. I'm convinced one of the main motivations for the FDA is to condense vaping into something that is manageable. It's much easier to track, control, tax a few companies selling maybe a dozen products than it would be to control thousands of "manufacturers" selling tens of thousands of products.

I believe you are correct. It's easy to tax a pack of cigslikes just like a pack of smokes through the existing tobacco tax distribution channel.

But when you get to open system vaping the true intent comes out- basically taxing pg and VG and food flavoring at exorbitant rates. They know they can't maintain a 32-40 billion $ annual tax stream that way.

 

[YoursTruli]

It's not as if we had a choice about the taxes, and that still wouldn't have stopped the FDA. I'm convinced one of the main motivations for the FDA is to condense vaping into something that is manageable. It's much easier to track, control, tax a few companies selling maybe a dozen products than it would be to control thousands of "manufacturers" selling tens of thousands of products.

so basically break it down to be able to control, regulate and tax it in the exact same way as cigarette are now...

 

[choochoogranny]

Well, that did it, hawk. I'm exhausted and going to bed.

 

[snork]

IF they were alive today they would burn all these government ABC agencies to the ground.

I think if they were alive today Franklin would have a late night talk show having worked his way back into good graces from getting busted for a pandering operation he ran on the side and Jefferson would be a hip hop record producer in L.A.

If you're trying to set some kind of record, Faulkner has you beat all to hell:

“There was a wisteria vine blooming for the second time that summer on a wooden trellis before one window, into which sparrows came now and then in random gusts, making a dry vivid dusty sound before going away: and opposite Quentin, Miss Coldfield in the eternal black which she had worn for forty-three years now, whether for sister, father, or nothusband none knew, sitting so bolt upright in the straight hard chair that was so tall for her that her legs hung straight and rigid as if she had iron shinbones and ankles, clear of the floor with that air of impotent and static rage like children’s feet, and talking in that grim haggard amazed voice until at last listening would renege and hearing-sense self-confound and the long-dead object of her impotent yet indomitable frustration would appear, as though by outraged recapitulation evoked, quiet inattentive and harmless, out of the biding and dreamy and victorious dust.” —Absalom, Absalom!, by William Faulkner

I've always hated how my overuse of commas wrecks my writing style, but this makes me feel so much better.

 

[zoiDman]

It's not as if we had a choice about the taxes, and that still wouldn't have stopped the FDA. I'm convinced one of the main motivations for the FDA is to condense vaping into something that is manageable. It's much easier to track, control, tax a few companies selling maybe a dozen products than it would be to control thousands of "manufacturers" selling tens of thousands of products.

Could be.

One just has to wonder if e-Cigarettes were bringing in the Same amount of Money as Combustible Tobaccos to Sates and the Fed per Daily use, if the Science and Reduced Risk of e-Cigarettes would have been shown?

I mean, does the Fed really Care if an Adult smokes or if you use an e-Cigarette if the Fed's still got a Buck-a-Day from you?

Same with the States. What if the amount lost in MSA/Taxes was the Same as the amount received from e-Cigarettes? Would there be the Need to go Ape Snit with State Legislation?

I've said for a Long Time that once the Taxes are in place that the CDC and NIH and FDA will do a 180 on e-Cigarettes. And will start saying that e-Cigarettes are Better to use if you Smoke.

It just would have be Interesting to see how things Played Out if there was No Monetary reason to Demonize e-Cigarettes.

 

[VNeil]

This was the plan...
Govt pretends to rail against smoking while taking control of 2/3 of the retail cigarette revenue.

The plan is to reduce the smoking rate by 2-3% per year but at least somewhat negated by population growth.

Pharma gets to sell smokers ineffective NRTs, guaranteeing dual users for life. The big prize is the end game- 10-20 years of COPD drugs and if they score big, a $100,000 grand prize for useless chemo drugs.

Tobacco Control gets a nice cut of the taxes and MSA money. Their involuntary customers are the smokers, from whom I'm quite sure they know precisely their cut from each pack of cigs sold. What a scam, their customers hate them but don't know they are their customers.
The states sell 10s of billions in MSA bonds based on the perpetual motion machine of a 2-3% smoking rate decline largely negated by population growth.

But vaping comes along and screws the pooch. Instead of 2-3%/yr it's more like the 7% decline estimated by Wall Street analysts to be the tipping point of MSA bond defaults.
And worse, an historic and unprecedented 32% decline in youth smoking in just two years. These youth are the lifeblood of the tobacco tax revenue stream, replacing the 480,000 smokers that supposedly die of smoking related disease each year, plus other unwanted attrition.

Is there any wonder the govt is hysterical about banning vaping?

 

[Vandal]

It's not as if we had a choice about the taxes, and that still wouldn't have stopped the FDA. I'm convinced one of the main motivations for the FDA is to condense vaping into something that is manageable. It's much easier to track, control, tax a few companies selling maybe a dozen products than it would be to control thousands of "manufacturers" selling tens of thousands of products.

As I saw it put somewhere, rather than shaping policy to fit the industry, they are shaping the industry to fit policy. I agree, I think this is at least in part an attempt to make it easy on themselves. Really, think about what it would take to regulate (as heavily as they seem to want) the vaping industry in its current form. I think it would be crazy-making. The only other option I see is just to enact some vary basic regulations regarding things like sanitation and e-liquid safety maybe. This, in my mind, is the only regulation they should be doing.

 

[zoiDman]

If you're trying to set some kind of record, Faulkner has you beat all to hell:

“There was a wisteria vine blooming for the second time that summer on a wooden trellis before one window, into which sparrows came now and then in random gusts, making a dry vivid dusty sound before going away: and opposite Quentin, Miss Coldfield in the eternal black which she had worn for forty-three years now, whether for sister, father, or nothusband none knew, sitting so bolt upright in the straight hard chair that was so tall for her that her legs hung straight and rigid as if she had iron shinbones and ankles, clear of the floor with that air of impotent and static rage like children’s feet, and talking in that grim haggard amazed voice until at last listening would renege and hearing-sense self-confound and the long-dead object of her impotent yet indomitable frustration would appear, as though by outraged recapitulation evoked, quiet inattentive and harmless, out of the biding and dreamy and victorious dust.” —Absalom, Absalom!, by William Faulkner

I Don't feel so bad now.

BTW... Interesting Tie-In,

In the October, 1991 Rush Backstage Club newsletter, Neil Peart explained that the 'Absalom' reference comes from William Faulkners' 1936 book Absalom, Absalom! 1936. "Absalom" was the son of King David. He killed his half-brother for raping their half-sister. Then, he tried to overthrow David and get the throne. A battle resulted during which his hair was caught in a tree suspending him above the ground. Against David's wishes, Absalom was killed by King David's Mighty Men. David grieved for his son by lamenting, "Absalom, Absalom, my son." Said Peart, "After reading the novel, I was curious... and looked up the name in the encyclopedia. Then, while writing that song, I had 'obsolete, absolute' in there, and I thought how similar the word-shape was to 'Absalom.' Since one of the main themes of the song was compassion, it occurred to me that the Biblical story was applicable-David's lament for his son: 'Would God I had died for thee,' seemed to be the ultimate expression of compassion. And that's how it happened."

Distant Early Warning by Rush Songfacts


"An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There's no swimming in the heavy water
No singing in the acid rain
Red Alert
Red Alert"

 

[Lessifer]

Could be.

One just has to wonder if e-Cigarettes were bringing in the Same amount of Money as Combustible Tobaccos to Sates and the Fed per Daily use, if the Science and Reduced Risk of e-Cigarettes would have been shown?

I mean, does the Fed really Care if an Adult smokes or if you use an e-Cigarette if the Fed's still got a Buck-a-Day from you?

Same with the States. What if the amount lost in MSA/Taxes was the Same as the amount received from e-Cigarettes? Would there be the Need to go Ape Snit with State Legislation?

I've said for a Long Time that once the Taxes are in place that the CDC and NIH and FDA will do a 180 on e-Cigarettes. And will start saying that e-Cigarettes are Better to use if you Smoke.

It just would have be Interesting to see how things Played Out if there was No Monetary reason to Demonize e-Cigarettes.

I don't know that vaping, in its current form, could ever replace the cigarette revenue stream. Once all the smokers have switched or converted, I don't see the perpetual crop of new customers that smoking had. Sure, you'd get new people trying it, but I don't believe you'd have the same "captive audience" that you have with smoking. Also, there's a general progression, though not universal, to more sustainable and affordable vaping. So, unless you increase the price, the money just isn't there, not at the level cigarettes at least.

 

[DC2]

I mean, does the Fed really Care if an Adult smokes or if you use an e-Cigarette if the Fed's still got a Buck-a-Day from you?

You know I have always disagreed with you on this.
I just don't see how the taxes on vaping can reasonably approach taxes on smoking.

Let's completely ignore the elephant in the room that sin taxes should not apply.
And that most vapers would not willingly accept them on principle.

SCENARIO ONE
If people have quality vape options that are effective at keeping them off cigarettes...
But the taxes start going WAY up...

Then DIY will also go WAY up...
And tax revenue will go WAY down...

Vapers in the current market are not confined to taxed products like smokers are.
This is why "effective" vaping options must be eliminated.

SCENARIO TWO
The market is restricted to closed-system products only.
(aka mostly ineffective options)

People keep on smoking, and vaping lingers on as somewhat of a novelty act.
Real vaping will only be kept alive on the fringes of society by those of us that know better.

 

[JAL]

If all it is is Tax Monies, or more precisely, the Shortfall in those Tax Monies that e-Cigarettes have created, then Maybe in the Long Run it would have been Better, for Public Health, to have just Given the those Tax Monies from Day One?

Damn... Is it Allowed to use 5 commas in 1 Sentence? LOL

That's fine but 5 eclamation points is a sure sign of insanity!!!!!

 

[VNeil]

You know I have always disagreed with you on this.
I just don't see how the taxes on vaping can reasonably approach taxes on smoking.

Let's completely ignore the elephant in the room that sin taxes should not apply.
And that most vapers would not willingly accept them on principle.

SCENARIO ONE
If people have quality vape options that are effective at keeping them off cigarettes...
But the taxes start going WAY up...

Then DIY will also go WAY up...
And tax revenue will go WAY down...

Vapers in the current market are not confined to taxed products like smokers are.
This is why "effective" vaping options must be eliminated.

SCENARIO TWO
The market is restricted to closed-system products only.
(aka mostly ineffective options)

People keep on smoking, and vaping lingers on as somewhat of a novelty act.
Real vaping will only be kept alive on the fringes of society by those of us that know better.

^^^^ exactly

 

[zoiDman]

That's fine but 5 eclamation points is a sure sign of insanity!!!!!

 

[rosesense]

For those in Cali...a rally ( I made a rhyme)

In this meeting the collaborative efforts of NBS, SFATA-CA, and ATR will be presented. This is a meeting you do not want to miss.

#notblowingsmoke #sfata-california and #americansfortaxreform will be presenting the plan to take on the dreaded tax ballot initiative that seeks to tax vapor products by 62 to 69%.

A true collaboration and a force in California to be reckoned with, both the industry and consumer side will need to do what is needed to defeat this tax the only way it can be defeated, by votes.

Your help and your efforts will be critical and this is not a time to rely on a small group doing all the heavy lifting. This time, it’s all hands on deck and we welcome your hands to make this the loudest fight the vapor industry and community has ever put on in California.

Together, we can do this. Get your seat at the meeting and learn all about our plan of attack and your role in it. And remember, one of us is never as strong as all of us! We hope to see you there on July 10th, at 6PM.

 

[zoiDman]

You know I have always disagreed with you on this.
I just don't see how the taxes on vaping can reasonably approach taxes on smoking.

Let's completely ignore the elephant in the room that sin taxes should not apply.
And that most vapers would not willingly accept them on principle.

SCENARIO ONE
If people have quality vape options that are effective at keeping them off cigarettes...
But the taxes start going WAY up...

Then DIY will also go WAY up...
And tax revenue will go WAY down...

Vapers in the current market are not confined to taxed products like smokers are.
This is why "effective" vaping options must be eliminated.

SCENARIO TWO
The market is restricted to closed-system products only.
(aka mostly ineffective options)

People keep on smoking, and vaping lingers on as somewhat of a novelty act.
Real vaping will only be kept alive on the fringes of society by those of us that know better.

I Dunno.

Those seem like the Outliers on the Scale of Possibilities. Maybe there can be a Scenario 1.5?

All I know is Everyone seems to go around saying "It's all about the Money". So it was bound to happen that someone would ask what if Money Wasn't a Factor from the beginning?

 

[zoiDman]

I don't know that vaping, in its current form, could ever replace the cigarette revenue stream. Once all the smokers have switched or converted, I don't see the perpetual crop of new customers that smoking had. Sure, you'd get new people trying it, but I don't believe you'd have the same "captive audience" that you have with smoking. Also, there's a general progression, though not universal, to more sustainable and affordable vaping. So, unless you increase the price, the money just isn't there, not at the level cigarettes at least.

e-Cigarettes are Never going to Replace cigarette Tax Revenues. Because e-Cigarettes will Never Fully Replace cigarettes.

But what the Question asked was if e-Cigarettes take 20 or 25% of the Cigarettes Tax revenues away, if that 20 or 25% was replaced in the beginning, would e-Cigarettes have been Presented in a More Favorable light?

If all it is is Money, then Balance the Books. And let's get it back to Harm Reduction where it should be?

 

[Vandal]

I don't know that vaping, in its current form, could ever replace the cigarette revenue stream. Once all the smokers have switched or converted, I don't see the perpetual crop of new customers that smoking had. Sure, you'd get new people trying it, but I don't believe you'd have the same "captive audience" that you have with smoking. Also, there's a general progression, though not universal, to more sustainable and affordable vaping. So, unless you increase the price, the money just isn't there, not at the level cigarettes at least.

When I was reading through some pages about vaping tax laws that have been proposed and shot down, I recall one politician noting that any taxes they could enact on e-cigarettes would be insignificant so far as budget revenue. So at least some of them are aware of this. Also, they have to be keenly aware there will be a decline in smoking/vaping over time. But it's clear (from the sale by some states of tobacco futures bonds, WV increasing taxes, not for public health but specifically to balance the budget, etc.) that many politicians are in it for quick fixes.

The elephant in the room is, this will all come crashing down on their heads at some point. Or maybe not. Look at soda taxes. Sugar taxes. And who knows what after. They'll suck one market dry and move on to the next, lol. I don't drink soda and I think it's unhealthy, so I'll be laughing about that one. Let someone else carry the tax burden for a while. Sweets on the other hand...

 

[Kent C]

But the taxes start going WAY up...

Black market about the size of one with a ban.....

 

[Lessifer]

e-Cigarettes are Never going to Replace cigarette Tax Revenues. Because e-Cigarettes will Never Fully Replace cigarettes.

But what the Question asked was if e-Cigarettes take 20 or 25% of the Cigarettes Tax revenues away, if that 20 or 25% was replaced in the beginning, would e-Cigarettes have been Presented in a More Favorable light?

If all it is is Money, then Balance the Books. And let's get it back to Harm Reduction where it should be?

The thing is, it will never be a one to one, at least not without a complete revision of the vapor industry, which is what they seem to be trying to do.

Also, when you acknowledge the harm reduction, part of that is acknowledging that the less harmful product either shouldn't be taxed, or should be taxed at a much lower rate in order to encourage the switch to the less harmful option, like we're starting to see in the UK. After all, the tobacco taxes are, on the surface, intended to discourage use. You can't acknowledge that it's a less harmful option, but want to tax it at the same or higher rate, without acknowledging that you're a hypocrite.