FDA seizing new shipments
- Thread starter Brewlady
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
As far as the taxation goes for pv products ... the only part that I can see them being able to tax under tobacco taxation laws will be the liquid if it contains nicotine. The battery, atomizer and 0 nic liquids would only be able to have local, state or federal sales taxes applied to them just like any other battery, heating element or food flavoring has. That being said they will be looking for ways to tax the crapola out of nic liquids.
It's like anti-smokers claiming that secondhand smoke kills 70,000 people a year but not being able to produce even three names of anyone who ever died solely because of secondhand smoke.
Sorry, it was early and I didn't feel like typing what I thought was obvious. The "only part that I can see them being able to tax" is the largest expense for most of us after the initial set=up in the e-cig world.
It's important to understand the difference between "tobacco" and "smoking". A lot of the confusion comes from the nicotine prohibitionists who have systematically begun substituting the word "tobacco" where "smoking" is the more precise word. Why is this important? Because the government and the so-called health organizations have been lying to us for decades.
"This product is not a safe alternative to smoking." Misleading.
About 80% interpret this to mean that "This product is not one bit safer than smoking -- so you might as well smoke."
http://www.casaa.org/files/you might as well smoke(2).pdf
The truth is that any smokeless form of tobacco is 90 to 99% less hazardous than smoking. Truth! In Sweden, 66% of snus (a type of moist snuff) users are former smokers. So snus is much more effective for smoking abstinence than NRTs. Because the Swedish product has been developed to reduce the amount of nitrosamines (a potential carcinogen), smokers who switched to snus live just as long as smokers who gave up all forms of tobacco. This has been known for decades!
Many of us e-cigarette users were outraged when we discovered that we could have achieved smoking abstinence years and years ago, had we only known the facts.
So could we phrase our argument as "Senator, if are against e-cigarettes, you are in favor of smoking."
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
gatorfan wrote
Tobacco taxation has NOTHING to do with FDA's attempt to ban or its ongoing seizures of e-cigarettes, and has NOTHING to do with state or local legislative attempts to ban e-cigarettes.
These folks want to ban e-cigarettes because they are tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists.
The outrageous irony is that CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA aggressively lobbied (along with Philip Morris) to enact the FSPTCA, which explicitly prohibits the FDA from banning cigarettes, and yet these same groups are urging FDA and states to ban e-cigarettes.
Tobacco taxation has NOTHING to do with FDA's attempt to ban or its ongoing seizures of e-cigarettes, and has NOTHING to do with state or local legislative attempts to ban e-cigarettes.
These folks want to ban e-cigarettes because they are tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists.
The outrageous irony is that CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA aggressively lobbied (along with Philip Morris) to enact the FSPTCA, which explicitly prohibits the FDA from banning cigarettes, and yet these same groups are urging FDA and states to ban e-cigarettes.
Don't be so sure.
Tobacco products are basically supposed to be taxed in relation to the harm they are believed to cause.
And because of that, electronic cigarettes should be taxed at rates comparable to snuff and snus.
I assume these are the current Federal Excise Taxes...
TTB Tax and Fee Rate
Code:
[B]Tobacco Products [/B][B]1000 units [/B][B]Pack of 20[/B]
Small Cigarettes $50.33 $1.01
Large Cigarettes $105.69 $2.11
Small Cigars $50.33 $1.01
[B]Tobacco Products [/B][B]1 lb. [/B][B]Tin or Pouch[/B]
Pipe Tobacco $2.8311 $0.1769
Chewing Tobacco $0.5033 $0.0315
Snuff $1.51 $0.0944
Roll-your-own Tobacco $24.78 $1.5488That doesn't mean they won't do something outrageous and without justification.
But it will be up to all of us to fight to make sure everyone is, at the very least, properly educated.
I disagree, Bill....at least in terms of extent. I don't feel all ban attempts are tax motivated when they are proposed, but I am certain that votes are being cast based on tax revenue shortfalls.
Something to consider...
Of the states listed as being in the worst financial trouble are New York, Illinois and California. In fact, those three (according to Forbes) are in the top 5 states virtually bankrupt. They also happen to be states with higher than average cigarette sin taxes. Now recently, which states tried hardest to ban e-cigs? Amongst them....New York, Illinois and California. That can't be a coincidence. Millions of dollars that were once going into state coffers from cigs....is now going into e-cig companies. States are addicted to tobacco dollars and will do anything to keep it flowing as the only politically safe taxation they can support.
Bill, with all due respect, it's always about the $$--especially with gov't. The states are dependent on these revenues from tobacco taxation. New York expected to bring in $440 million in 2010 alone (New York Times June 18, 2010).
New York Times June 21,2010 article speaks about the newly enacted legislation on raising the cigarette taxes as a way of bridging the budget gap. "The new law, part of an emergency budget measure to keep the government running..."
I don't care what the FDA is doing or what ruse it is using...the states and fed's are dependent on this $$ and will do and use whatever gov't agency (including the FDA) they have at their disposal in order to protect this revenue from tobacco.
It's all about the $$. The FDA receives its funding from the gov't and it will do what the politicians tell them to do
Update...I can now say that my shipment isn't one that was taken, it was just lost, but after 8 weeks, it finally arrived. It was just weird that while tracking it, the tracking just stopped when it reached the United States Coast. Lastly, everyone needs to stick together on keeping track of what states are doing what and keeping those letters going. Once one state passes something, it'll start the ball rolling in all the other states.
Everyone lies to everyone about everything and what appears to be the truth
is just a lie that no one yet has figured out where the money trail leads.
Everyone Lies EXCEPT us... We know the truth and have the references to prove
what we say, however, few want to even hear the truth or see the references.
Frustrating Ain't it?
is just a lie that no one yet has figured out where the money trail leads.
Everyone Lies EXCEPT us... We know the truth and have the references to prove
what we say, however, few want to even hear the truth or see the references.
Frustrating Ain't it?
I just placed an order (with China based CN shop) in an attempt to "run the blockade." I wish we could get more reports like yours of success or failure. My order was very small, but I'd sure like to hear about as many large or small orders as possible.
FDA does not stand to gain (or stop loss of) any tax dollars by banning e-cigarettes. It does seem that the motivation has to boil down to either a prohibitionist mentality as Bill mentioned or guarding the revenue of their clients the pharmaceutical companies--or a combination of both.
On the other hand, I think the biggest initial motivator of bringing these bans to the floor at the State/Local level of government is a prohibitionist mentality -- Look at Linda Rosenthal bragging about how she quit 20 years ago (Nanny, nanny, boo, boo!) and we should not be looking to another source of nicotine to be addicted to. But in terms of how the members vote, it could be that the thought of losing Big Bucks in tobacco tax revenue tips the balance.
On the other hand, I think the biggest initial motivator of bringing these bans to the floor at the State/Local level of government is a prohibitionist mentality -- Look at Linda Rosenthal bragging about how she quit 20 years ago (Nanny, nanny, boo, boo!) and we should not be looking to another source of nicotine to be addicted to. But in terms of how the members vote, it could be that the thought of losing Big Bucks in tobacco tax revenue tips the balance.
Afterthought, we could be arguing that the immediate monetary benefit to State government for getting smokers to switch is a reduction in medical costs for such things as treatment for asthma.
I have to say that both you and Bill are correct. It's somewhat to do with money and mostly to do with tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists. I don't think the tax consequences have even occurred to most of these people.
Consider these facts:
1. The FDA first started it's campaign against e-cigs when alerted by health organizations who hate anything that looks like smoking or contains nicotine not intended to treat addiction. (Prohibitionist)
2. Those groups are funded by Big Pharma. (Money)
3. When the FDA started the campaign, it was headed by a known anti-tobacco person. (Prohibitionist)
4. Some of these groups and legislators are so against tobacco, they can't accept that e-cigs look like cigarettes and keep people "addicted" to nicotine (Prohibitionist)
5. Most legislators who have opposed e-cigs did so because they were also approached by the health groups who pushed their lies on them (prohibitionist, but not their fault, they were lied to)
6. The health groups lobbied the legislators to ban e-cigs because they believe that anything that looks like smoking and contains nicotine is evil and the groups are funded by Big Pharma (prohibitionist AND money)
It's really a mix of the two. There really are groups out there that cannot STAND anything tobacco or smoking related. Witness the fact that it is no longer the fight against smoking, they now call it the fight against tobacco. And when it's pointed out that some tobacco has very little health risks, they are suddenly against any addiction at all. These people truly don't care if smokers die - they just want all tobacco GONE. The former head of the FDA was one such person. They only support Big Pharma nicotine because it's meant to treat nicotine addiction and people are assumed to be free from addiction.
On the other hand, many of these groups are funded by Big Pharma. It's hard not to imagine that they aren't influenced by the fact that they receive huge amounts of money they receive from the industry.
Finally, just about every legislator who is not a rabid anti/prohibitionist (like Rosenthal) who proposed legislation was found to have been heavily influenced by the lies that the health groups were telling. They really don't seem to have even considered the tax ramifications at this point. Most proposed legislation has been indoor use bans, not outright sales bans. This was made evident in Illinois when we went and testified and the panel was pretty shocked to hear the difference in our testimony and that of the lobbyist for the health groups. If it was really about the money for legislators, they would have passed it regardless, but they didn't. And California and Minnesota also passed on banning them.
So, it's both about prohibitionism and money, but the evidence suggests that the tax ramification haven't yet come into play for the most part or more legislators would be attempting to ban sales outright rather than just include them in indoor use bans.
Consider these facts:
1. The FDA first started it's campaign against e-cigs when alerted by health organizations who hate anything that looks like smoking or contains nicotine not intended to treat addiction. (Prohibitionist)
2. Those groups are funded by Big Pharma. (Money)
3. When the FDA started the campaign, it was headed by a known anti-tobacco person. (Prohibitionist)
4. Some of these groups and legislators are so against tobacco, they can't accept that e-cigs look like cigarettes and keep people "addicted" to nicotine (Prohibitionist)
5. Most legislators who have opposed e-cigs did so because they were also approached by the health groups who pushed their lies on them (prohibitionist, but not their fault, they were lied to)
6. The health groups lobbied the legislators to ban e-cigs because they believe that anything that looks like smoking and contains nicotine is evil and the groups are funded by Big Pharma (prohibitionist AND money)
It's really a mix of the two. There really are groups out there that cannot STAND anything tobacco or smoking related. Witness the fact that it is no longer the fight against smoking, they now call it the fight against tobacco. And when it's pointed out that some tobacco has very little health risks, they are suddenly against any addiction at all. These people truly don't care if smokers die - they just want all tobacco GONE. The former head of the FDA was one such person. They only support Big Pharma nicotine because it's meant to treat nicotine addiction and people are assumed to be free from addiction.
On the other hand, many of these groups are funded by Big Pharma. It's hard not to imagine that they aren't influenced by the fact that they receive huge amounts of money they receive from the industry.
Finally, just about every legislator who is not a rabid anti/prohibitionist (like Rosenthal) who proposed legislation was found to have been heavily influenced by the lies that the health groups were telling. They really don't seem to have even considered the tax ramifications at this point. Most proposed legislation has been indoor use bans, not outright sales bans. This was made evident in Illinois when we went and testified and the panel was pretty shocked to hear the difference in our testimony and that of the lobbyist for the health groups. If it was really about the money for legislators, they would have passed it regardless, but they didn't. And California and Minnesota also passed on banning them.
So, it's both about prohibitionism and money, but the evidence suggests that the tax ramification haven't yet come into play for the most part or more legislators would be attempting to ban sales outright rather than just include them in indoor use bans.
Last edited:
Occam's razor applied:
Legal e-cigs equals less government money.
Illegal e-cigs equals more government money.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Oh sure...there are plenty of fascists out there that have warped Utopian ideas to go along with their feelings of inadequacy and wake up each morning measuring their body parts. But ultimately....cash is king.
Legal e-cigs equals less government money.
Illegal e-cigs equals more government money.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Oh sure...there are plenty of fascists out there that have warped Utopian ideas to go along with their feelings of inadequacy and wake up each morning measuring their body parts. But ultimately....cash is king.
- Status
Similar threads
