Federal legislation to tax e-cigs if FDA determines it is a "tobacco product"

[patkin]

The problems with these articles is the author never differentiates between hardware and juice. They just say ecigs. If the Bill encompasses hardware, what will they do about the herbal vaporizers? Kanger makes the HV for instance and other manufacturers that are not in the ecig business make them also. I figure the industry will find ways around these "tobacco use" definitions of hardware anyway.

 

[Fiamma]

There is no alcohol in bread, it's baked out. Alcohol requires yeast, fermentable sugar and oxygen, so it's the end product they are taxing. There was a big thing about the Feds and kombucha a while ago too, for the same reasons- kombucha contains trace amounts of alcohol and the Feds drove the manufacturers nuts.

My argument is that the Feds don't tax nicotine patches and gum, so why e-juice?

The FDA considers the patch and gum nicotine delivery devices in a medical sense. Medicine is not taxed. Course the FDA is owned by pharma so that was a logical outcome.

 

[Uncle Willie]

My argument is that the Feds don't tax nicotine patches and gum, so why e-juice?

A PV is not a nicotine cessation device .. nor do we want it to be ..

Sitting on 6000ml of nic solution is somewhat comforting ..

 

[Bill Godshall]

The good news is that there is very little chance that either SB 39 or SB 194 will be enacted.

I'd be surprised if either bill gets approved by the Senate Finance Cmte (which is where both bills were referred), and I'd be shocked if the full Senate approved either bill (as moderate/conservative Democrats from red and purple states who are facing reelection aren't likely to support either bill). And I don't think any Republican Senators would vote for either bill.

SB 39 has just one sponsor (Harkin D-Iowa), who announced that he won't run for reelection next year.

SB 194 has just three sponsors (Durbin D-IL, Lautenberg D-NJ, Blumenthal D-CT), and Lautenberg announced that he won't run for reelection next year.

These four Democrats are among the left/liberal Democrats in the US Senate.

The only chance of either bill's passage is if it's amended to another bill (that might get passed) or if its included in some type of big fiscal deal in which Republicans agree to more tax increases in exchange for Democrats supporting government spending cuts.

 

[skoot]

They've backed themselves into an interesting conundrum. I don't imagine the resolution will be quick.

I have zero fear that they will ever tax hardware. They don't tax pipes. It would be a regulatory nightmare to try to do so. I could make a serviceable mod from scratch if I had to, they can't take on taxing batteries, wire and wick.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If either SB 39 or SB 194 are enacted into law, its possible (but I don't think likely) that the tax could be imposed on e-cigarette "components and accessories" because the definition of "tobacco product" in the FSPTCA includes "components and accessories" of tobacco products.

But once again, there's little chance that either of these bills will be approved by the US Senate, and House Republicans wouldn't consider allowing either bill out of commmittee.

Its state legislation to tax e-cigarettes that poses threats, including bills in Vermont (92% tax) and New Mexico (53% tax), and a bill in Minnesota that would increase that state's e-cigarette tax from 70% (of wholesale price) to 110%.

 

[budynbuick]

When companies create e-cig juice, do they always have to use actual tobacco? And if not, how can the FDA find that e-juice is a tobacco product if it doesn't contain tobacco?

It doesn't need to contain tobacco. Even if one proves that nicotine is not by definition tobacco, The FDA have 'deemed' it a drug,giving themselves authority over it. Well,by definition nicotine (just like its NOT tobac)is not a drug but since they have changed the meaning of what a drug is they shall have no prob putting this through. The original definition of what constitutes a drug is ' a substance that has been chemicalized'. The meaning has been changed to this; 'A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body' (A TicTac HeHe). I recall decades ago when they first started calling nicotine a drug. Then the people picked up on it & started to parrot/promote this 'newspeak' by erroneously calling nicotine a drug as well. Now 50 YR later 'EVERYTHING' is, or can be called a drug. Two examples are coffee & alcohol. Neither one has been chemicalized. Coffee has been processed & alcohol is by distillation. Neither has met the criteria of being a drug through chemicalization. I have touched on this before here but it got little attention so I reiterate. Look in most dictionarys pre 1970 & you will see the original/true def. Now this won't matter to many (most?) as they feel the experts (so called)even have a right to change the definition of a word. One does not have to get scientific verification to know of this change in definition cause it is in the 1962 unabridged College dictionary (among many others). By changing the word 'drug' someone has put their self in a posistion to control virtually EVERY substance that goes into the human body by erroneously labeling it a drug. Some are sticklers over punctuation but while we are fretting over whether we get every jot & tittle right,someone has crept in & changed some very key words on us. If you think about the implications of changing the meaning of just the word drug, it is staggering. The American people (& the world) have let someone change the definition (& all it implies)of this crucial word without a wimper. Guess we didn't 'proof read'. LOL. Oh, BTW, just because one can get addicted to something, does not necessarily mean its a drug. People get addicted to things besides drugs. 'We won't get fooled again'. The Who.....

 

[mostlyclassics]

Crazy. Sort of like "deeming" an apple to be a hot fudge sundae. Will the wonders of government NewSpeak never cease?

 

[skoot]

I work in the herbal supplements industry. Because something like turmeric is not a drug, we can't make any claims regarding disease- we can't even post a link to a recent study showing that it literally destroys triple negative breast cancer. Nor can we petition it to become a drug, because it's an herb. Even turmeric extract in highly concentrated doses is STILL considered a dietary supplement, rather than a drug. Following that logic, I don't see how tobacco can be called a drug, nor can I see how nicotine can.

Yet the government does what it's paid to do- make corporations rich.

 

[Petrodus]

I work in the herbal supplements industry. Because something like turmeric is not a drug, we can't make any claims regarding disease- we can't even post a link to a recent study showing that it literally destroys triple negative breast cancer. Nor can we petition it to become a drug, because it's an herb. Even turmeric extract in highly concentrated doses is STILL considered a dietary supplement, rather than a drug. Following that logic, I don't see how tobacco can be called a drug, nor can I see how nicotine can.

Yet the government does what it's paid to do- make corporations rich.

Sad ... but true.
The FDA claims total censorship on all health claim benefits.

Bottled water marketers can't even claim drinking water quenches thirst
and Vitamin C marketers can't claim Vitamin C cures Scurvy ...
even though all is true and common knowledge.

 

[patkin]

I work in the herbal supplements industry. Because something like turmeric is not a drug, we can't make any claims regarding disease- we can't even post a link to a recent study showing that it literally destroys triple negative breast cancer. Nor can we petition it to become a drug, because it's an herb. Even turmeric extract in highly concentrated doses is STILL considered a dietary supplement, rather than a drug. Following that logic, I don't see how tobacco can be called a drug, nor can I see how nicotine can.

Yet the government does what it's paid to do- make corporations rich.

Yeh, and just try telling me something like scullcap doesn't fit this:

"A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body"

It just gets crazier and crazier.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Federal Judge Richard Leon ruled back in January 2010 (and since 12 other federal judges confirmed Leon's ruling) that e-cigarettes fit the FSPTCA's definition of a "tobacco product".

Folks can criticize Judge Leon's court ruling all they want (even though that's what kept e-cigarettes legal and prohibited FDA from banning e-cigs), but the law is the law.

 

[Koman]

Yeh, and just try telling me something like scullcap doesn't fit this:

"A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body"

It just gets crazier and crazier.

Damn, they are mad!

 

[FloridaNoob]

Bill, two things. First, the PV side can be gotten around as you don't sell it with the intent of being used with nic. Users can use it how they choose, though. Second, I thought his ruling didn't spell out that they were, but that they could attempt to classify them as a tobacco product. Wouldn't that still be subject to legal dispute?

 

[Paulette]

Almost everything can be a subject of legal dispute. It's the cost of the legal dispute that would be outrageous!

 

[Petrodus]

Federal Judge Richard Leon ruled back in January 2010 (and since 12 other federal judges confirmed Leon's ruling) that e-cigarettes fit the FSPTCA's definition of a "tobacco product".

Folks can criticize Judge Leon's court ruling all they want (even though that's what kept e-cigarettes legal and prohibited FDA from banning e-cigs), but the law is the law.

Bill speaks the truth ...
IF it wasn't for Judge Leon's ruling ... Ecigs would have been banned (PERIOD)

 

[Rebel]

So what are we looking at? Is it that ecigs will now be taxed? Or is there something much bigger coming with the FDA in April? If so what realistically should we be concerned about. How bad is it going to be is what im asking i guess.

 

[2coils]

So what are we looking at? Is it that ecigs will now be taxed? Or is there something much bigger coming with the FDA in April? If so what realistically should we be concerned about. How bad is it going to be is what im asking i guess.

Nobody knows how bad its going to be. If we go by the FDA's history on e-cigs, we figure the worst. The FDA doesnt have to ban e-cigs to crush the industry. There are really GOOD threads about possible scenarios that people anticipate. A good start would be to read some of the thread in the sticky section at the top of the legislation page. You can also use the search option within ECF and query some keywords ie..FDA Regulation, Bans, etc.. Plenty of good info will come up! No specific answer to your question, but plenty to be concerned about.

 

[rothenbj]

So what are we looking at? Is it that ecigs will now be taxed? Or is there something much bigger coming with the FDA in April? If so what realistically should we be concerned about. How bad is it going to be is what im asking i guess.

My plan was to learn to love snus. It worked.