Greg Conley's excellent comments and the reporter's lead in sentences exposed the cigarette tax revenue funded health agencies' unethical greed, arrogance, and disdain for public health by even contemplating a tax on e-cigs.
Since First 5 California (comprised of 58 county health departments) hasn't made its collective mind yet, it would be wise for CA vapers to urge them to not include an e-cigs in their
tobacco tax hike proposal, which is almost certainly going to increase the cigarette tax (even though cigarettes weren't cited in the article).
CA's cig tax has been $.87/pack for many years, as the nationwide average state cigarette tax has increased to $1.50/pack.
As I recall, CA law (or maybe CA's Constitution) requires a super majority of votes (e.g. 60%) by legislators to increase taxes in CA, but a 50+% majority of voters can increased taxes via state Referendum.
Twice during the past decade, CA tobacco control groups joined forces with healthcare providers to campaign for two different cigarette tax hike Ballot Initiatives, both of which were barely defeated by the voters.
But regardless of whether First 5 California lobbies the legislature (or goes directly to voters) to increase tobacco taxes, it would be wise for CA vapers to urge First 5 California to NOT tax e-cigs in their forthcoming cigarette tax proposal.
This news article may have been a trial balloon to see if there is public support and/or opposition to taxing e-cigs.
Also, please go to the article and vote NO to taxing e-cigs (as First 5 California is likely to look at that voting poll when considering future options).
