Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Rossum]

I guess this is where I depart with you. Will there be new taxes? Highly likely. 40% like PA? Doubtful. You got hosed.

34 states currently have cigarette taxes of over $1.00 a pack. 44 states are over $0.50 a pack.

Do you really think these states won't look to replace the lost revenues if cigarette sales fall dramatically, while vapor-products sales rise?

 

[oplholik]

Hopefully this will be reported on all the news medias.
Maybe debunk all the false info, they have been spewing out the last few years.

I'd bet that I'll see no mention of this on my news channel tonight.

 

[Bronze]

34 states currently have cigarette taxes of over $1.00 a pack. 44 states are over $0.50 a pack.

Do you really think these states won't look to replace the lost revenues if cigarette sales fall dramatically, while vapor-products sales rise?

Of course they will. I might have been born at night but it wasn't last night. But a dollar (or 50 cents) is not 40% plus 7.5 cents a ml..

 

[stols001]

They will. But it's interesting that the Feds aren't pushing the continued use of tobacco over letting e-cigs be taxed instead. In all *fairness* I was willing to pay a tax on tobacco, though of course I would go to the reservation if I could.... As do many folks around here... I wonder if the states will create an import tax, heh, it technically IS a sovereign nation. But, after the amount I've spent on BT, I wouldn't mind a REASONABLE tax as long as half of it was spent on ACTUAL harm reduction to include e-cigs. If it was reasonable, I'd be fine with it, and I am sure even though I can mix my own juice to infinity? I'll be still making other purchases. So as long as it's not 40%, I'd be okay with it. But, I'm still going to do it Myself when I can, because why not? I believe in self-sufficiency.

Anna

 

[Eskie]

This was also an interesting comment, and a nod to recognizing there is a fine line that must be walked,

On the one hand, there’s the ongoing divisive debate around the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. Precious little progress has been made as competing camps dig in on the benefits and risks of a harm reductionist approach to this new technology. Both sides are convinced that they’re right, but we’ve seen little progress, and virtually no common ground. On the other hand, there’s a pathway forward that reframes the debate around nicotine.

That's really accurate, and shows some recognition of the political as well as merely scientific aspects to this process. I find that important because if you pander exclusively to one constituency or another, you're not going to get much accomplished. Nod to everyone, keep repeating we'll save the children, and do the let's find a way for those poor vapers to go forward without having them relapse on cigarettes, to make it clear he wants to save us from the horrors of tobacco.

All in all, it's a really well crafted speech, and only took a week to throw together after the Jackson decision was passed down. I'm sorta impressed.

 

[stols001]

It is well done, it makes me think that maybe the new administration had some thoughts on this? Possibly? That was my hope. I am not a huge DJT fan, overall, but I do think that he has a crafty way about him and he's not the biggest fan of smoking or other stuff (didn't his brother die of alcoholism?) and may understand some of the ideas around harm reduction. I was hoping for this, but not really expecting it, and certainly I don't know that DJT was behind it, but I do think it's somewhat *possible*. Or.... who knows. I'm not going to complain at this point....

Anna

 

[Rossum]

Of course they will. I might have been born at night but it wasn't last night. But a dollar (or 50 cents) is not 40% plus 7.5 cents a ml..

$1.00 a pack (which is on the low end of state taxes) is at least $1.00 a day or $7.00 a week for the average smoker. I was at 2 PAD, so double that for me.

30ml of juice lasts me a week. At 7.5 cents/ml, my weekly cost in taxes would only be $2.25 instead of $14.

So in order to replace lost cigarette revenues, vape taxes would have to me MUCH higher than they are anywhere right now.

 

[zoiDman]

34 states currently have cigarette taxes of over $1.00 a pack. 44 states are over $0.50 a pack.

Do you really think these states won't look to replace the lost revenues if cigarette sales fall dramatically, while vapor-products sales rise?

Of course they will. Don't need an advanced degree to see that Writing on that Wall.

The Question seems more to be at what Amount per day will a e-Cigarette user have to pay in taxes?

That PAD Smoker in that $1/pack state is paying $2/day (1 for the State and 1 for the Feds) to Smoke. If e-Cigarette use got to $2/day in Taxes, would that State start to embrace THR via e-Cigarettes?

The Books would be Balanced at that point. But a Lot of People would be living Healthier Lives.

 

[Opinionated]

This was also an interesting comment, and a nod to recognizing there is a fine line that must be walked,


That's really accurate, and shows some recognition of the political as well as merely scientific aspects to this process. I find that important because if you pander exclusively to one constituency or another, you're not going to get much accomplished. Nod to everyone, keep repeating we'll save the children, and do the let's find a way for those poor vapers to go forward without having them relapse on cigarettes, to make it clear he wants to save us from the horrors of tobacco.

All in all, it's a really well crafted speech, and only took a week to throw together after the Jackson decision was passed down. I'm sorta impressed.

Here is my thing. I'm what most would consider weird politically. I'm Christian, Conservative , and libertarian (basically). This gives me very weird stances most wouldn't find compatible. For instance, I have no problem with things like same sex marriage, but I'm VERY far right on the role of government - more of a constitutional traditionalist (hence conservative) and feel the government is overreaching it's original intent to a VERY dangerous degree.

The more we meet in the middle on topics like vaping and more, the farther left (meaning a trend toward socialist policies) we seem to go, to the point we are not the free country we SHOULD be, that we were intended to be.

I would rather convince others freedom is a good thing, than meet in the middle anymore. We've gone WAY too far left as a nation and at some point we have to say no more.

That's just my opinion, but in areas like vaping, where there are people on both sides of the isle who do vape and whom this will negatively affect, I find our time more well used in using this as an example to the left of WHY we should be free from government interference, and dig our heels in on the matter, together.

 

[zoiDman]

...

All in all, it's a really well crafted speech, and only took a week to throw together after the Jackson decision was passed down. I'm sorta impressed.

JMO.

But I believe that the FDA had 2 Statements ready for Release. 2 Statements about the same Change in Policy. But differing depending of How Judge Jackson Ruled.

By Judge Jackson ruling that the FDA has the Authority under the TCA to Regulate e-Cigarettes, and by Deferring to their "Expert and Reasonable Judgment", this Allowed the FDA to Implement a revised Tobacco Strategy.

If Judge Jackson had ruled in Our Favor on the Major Points, the FDA would have done the Same Thing, only by Judicial order. Which would have incurred Less possible Fallout.

 

[listopencil]

If you're talking about batteries + or batteries+ bulbs, they carry 18650's but nothing we'd want to use. I've checked.

No, this is a local business.

 

[Rossum]

Of course they will. Don't need an advanced degree to see that Writing on that Wall.

The Question seems more to be at what Amount per day will a e-Cigarette user have to pay in taxes?

That PAD Smoker in that $1/pack state is paying $2/day (1 for the State and 1 for the Feds) to Smoke. If e-Cigarette use got to $2/day in Taxes, would that State start to embrace THR via e-Cigarettes?

The Books would be Balanced at that point. But a Lot of People would be living Healthier Lives.

Except that the "justification" for those taxes was to discourage smokers from their unhealthy habit, and to help pay for the additional costs of health care that they ostensibly required.

Since there's no evidence that vaping is in any way unhealthy or leads to increased health care costs, there's precisely zero moral justification for taxing it differently than any other consumer product.

Then there's the fact that quite a few smokers have become vapers due to economic incentives -- it can cost much less than smoking. Tax it at the same rate as smoking and the economic incentive to switch goes away.

 

[Bronze]

It is well done, it makes me think that maybe the new administration had some thoughts on this? Possibly? That was my hope. I am not a huge DJT fan, overall, but I do think that he has a crafty way about him and he's not the biggest fan of smoking or other stuff (didn't his brother die of alcoholism?) and may understand some of the ideas around harm reduction. I was hoping for this, but not really expecting it, and certainly I don't know that DJT was behind it, but I do think it's somewhat *possible*. Or.... who knows. I'm not going to complain at this point....

Anna

I honestly do not think DJT has a clue about what is going on with e-cigs. In fact my guess is he would be personally turned off by e-cigs given his stance on drinking and smoking. At the same time, Trump is not a micro manager. You can't accumulate his wealth worrying about how the bathrooms get cleaned. So he hires who he thinks reflect his values and turns them loose. I think he is also persuadable. If he were to ask Price about this FDA decision (which he likely didn't) I'm convinced Price would convince him it was the right thing to do without much effort. All he has to do is tell Trump that he is getting rid of regulations and increasing jobs. Trump would say that is all he wants to hear. "Bye".

 

[Bronze]

Except that the "justification" for those taxes was to discourage smokers from their unhealthy habit, and to help pay for the additional costs of health care that they ostensibly required.

Since there's no evidence that vaping is in any way unhealthy or leads to increased health care costs, there's precisely zero moral justification for taxing it differently than any other consumer good.

Then there's the fact that quite a few smokers have become vapers due to economic incentives -- it can cost much less than smoking. Tax it at the same rate as smoking and the economic incentive to switch goes away.

Well, all I can say is if I had my way I'd tell all the pols and regulators to kiss my and get the hell out of my vape life. You don't have to convince me your argument is correct. But that aint gonna happen. We're going to pay taxes on this stuff.

 

[Robino1]

This was also an interesting comment, and a nod to recognizing there is a fine line that must be walked,


That's really accurate, and shows some recognition of the political as well as merely scientific aspects to this process. I find that important because if you pander exclusively to one constituency or another, you're not going to get much accomplished. Nod to everyone, keep repeating we'll save the children, and do the let's find a way for those poor vapers to go forward without having them relapse on cigarettes, to make it clear he wants to save us from the horrors of tobacco.

All in all, it's a really well crafted speech, and only took a week to throw together after the Jackson decision was passed down. I'm sorta impressed.

JMO.

But I believe that the FDA had 2 Statements ready for Release. 2 Statements about the same Change in Policy. But differing depending of How Judge Jackson Ruled.

By Judge Jackson ruling that the FDA has the Authority under the TCA to Regulate e-Cigarettes, and by Deferring to their "Expert and Reasonable Judgment", this Allowed the FDA to Implement a revised Tobacco Strategy.

If Judge Jackson had ruled in Our Favor on the Major Points, the FDA would have done the Same Thing, only by Judicial order. Which would have incurred Less possible Fallout.

I agree that this was already written and only a few things would have needed to be changed, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.

 

[zoiDman]

Except that the "justification" for those taxes was to discourage smokers from their unhealthy habit, and to help pay for the additional costs of health care that they ostensibly required.

Since there's no evidence that vaping is in any way unhealthy or leads to increased health care costs, there's precisely zero moral justification for taxing it differently than any other consumer product.

Then there's the fact that quite a few smokers have become vapers due to economic incentives -- it can cost much less than smoking. Tax it at the same rate as smoking and the economic incentive to switch goes away.

Not gunna go down the Justification Road. Because in this case, as in Many, the Justification arguments put forth by Legislators regarding New Taxes are Weak Soup at best.

But as you Acknowledged, Right/Wrong - Good/Bad - Fair/Unfair, Taxes are going to happen.

So if Taxes are going to happen, my question seems Valid.

 

[mikepetro]

Of course they will. Don't need an advanced degree to see that Writing on that Wall.

The Question seems more to be at what Amount per day will a e-Cigarette user have to pay in taxes?

That PAD Smoker in that $1/pack state is paying $2/day (1 for the State and 1 for the Feds) to Smoke. If e-Cigarette use got to $2/day in Taxes, would that State start to embrace THR via e-Cigarettes?

The Books would be Balanced at that point. But a Lot of People would be living Healthier Lives.

No, the states would still not be balanced, as they are also counting on the tobacco settlement money from BT, of which many states have already borrowed against 20 years out. If tobacco sales drop, so do their settlement dividends.

 

[classwife]

omgomgomgomgomgomgomg !!!!

Sitting here at work whooping and yelling !




Sure...we aren't "in the clear"...but holy cow !!!
I have hope again !!!

 

[zoiDman]

I agree that this was already written and only a few things would have needed to be changed, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.

I do believe that this HHS/FDA wanted/wants to go down a Different Path than the previous HHS/FDA when it comes to e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids.

And I think that there is thinking that if e-Cigarettes are Less Harmful (which they ARE!) than Combustible Tobacco, can't Goals be achieved (Reduced Smoking Rates without Undue loss in Tax Revenues) while keeping a Less Harmful Product on the Market?

 

[zoiDman]

No, the states would still not be balanced, as they are also counting on the tobacco settlement money from BT, of which many states have already borrowed against 20 years out. If tobacco sales drop, so do their settlement dividends.

Which Brings up the Next Point. How Long do the MSA Payment last?

And How Much will e-Liquids need to be Taxed to Balance the Books?