NY state bill banning ecigs

[Thulium]

Thulium, I would totally agree with you.. but sadly this particular state has been the perfect example of "over doing" the taxation to "help" people. If what you propose could be achieved. But telling them "add one dollar to the bottle" will mean that each 5ml bottle will cost $20 in NYS and $25 in NYC.

That, IMHO, is why it is important to be proactive about the tax issue. We have an opportunity now to propose the laws that reasonably define electronic cigarettes as a reduced harm tobacco product that should be subject to a reasonable tax.

Here in Oregon the law was recently changed to tax smoke-free tobacco products at 65% of wholesale cost (rather than per 'unit' like cigarettes)--in New York, it is 35%. A bill could be introduced for the stated purpose of "protecting the children from smoking" could simply add "electronic cigarettes" (and supplies) to the definition of smoke-free tobacco products, resulting in them automatically being illegal to sell to children, and have the added bonuses of a new tax revenue stream and legitimization of the market.

 

[rothenbj]

That, IMHO, is why it is important to be proactive about the tax issue. We have an opportunity now to propose the laws that reasonably define electronic cigarettes as a reduced harm tobacco product that should be subject to a reasonable tax.

Here in Oregon the law was recently changed to tax smoke-free tobacco products at 65% of wholesale cost (rather than per 'unit' like cigarettes)--in New York, it is 35%. A bill could be introduced for the stated purpose of "protecting the children from smoking" could simply add "electronic cigarettes" (and supplies) to the definition of smoke-free tobacco products, resulting in them automatically being illegal to sell to children, and have the added bonuses of a new tax revenue stream and legitimization of the market.

What is wrong with this picture? Do you understand what you're offering? We are the sheeple that our government has been looking for. 35%, 65% 100% tax? isn't something about any of the numbers disturbing. This isn't about health or living longer, it really isn't. It may be about control or it may be about filling the government coffers, but it certainly isn't about keeping us alive longer. Where is the value added in that? More burden on the raped SS System, more burden on the soon to be raped Health system more burden overall on society as a whole.

Most people are considered overpriced human resources by the time they're in there mid fifties. There are younger, less expensive alternatives that most corporations would gladly have replace you. All living longer does is increase the potential for increased costs to the government. How many people retire with enough wealth to be self sufficient for 35-40 years? I say not nearly enough, but we shall see as health care enters the new world of government control. Millions of baby boomers becoming genarions of all sorts.
WE NEED TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE STREAMS CHILDREN.

When I am elected to this new government not of the people and not for the people........... Where can we look? What serves as health risks in this less than utopic society we live in? DARN, tobacco dried up after adding 1000% excise taxes, but there are options.

Alcohol is a good place to start, let's hit the beer real hard since it is drank by most common man and is now the leading health risk according to all the health associations formerly against smoking. A 75% manufacturerers cost tax should get you started. We'll drift over to the hard liqour one we see a market share shift.

Heck, the pennies I'm hearing about taxing sodas in Phila. And NY is a good start, but not nearly enough. OBESITY must be stopped, Michelle knows this, why don't we. Banshaft was right all along.
Fast food MUST be controlled. It's okay if you want to eat it, but you're going to have to support the health care system that you are negatively effecting. Thus the $50 pizza and the $35 hamburger washed down with your $7.50 12oz coke.

Motor vehicles? There's some really harmful products. Not only do they kill, but they can cause some serious long term health effects. Motorcycles are almost cost prohibitive, based on the new taxes imposed to control health costs. A tax of $500 per hp over 50 should keep speeds down and the government covering administrative costs, don't you think.

We'll work on sports equipment taxes tomorrow.

Rant over and out.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

True...but if you want e-cigarettes to be treated like tobacco products, you need to be ready to face the other side of that sword.

The other way to look at it is that cigarettes are (supposedly) heavily taxed for the sole purpose of getting people to quit a dangerous habit.
So, where is the justification for putting that same sin tax on a product that addresses the issue?
It's a bit like taxing LPG or hydrogen the same as you would tax petrol, as it is a fuel for the purpose of powering a motor vehicle. Forget the benefits for health and ecology!
Utter hypocrisy. Complete and utter. It is a money grab, no less.

 

[rothenbj]

The other way to look at it is that cigarettes are (supposedly) heavily taxed for the sole purpose of getting people to quit a dangerous habit.
So, where is the justification for putting that same sin tax on a product that addresses the issue?
It's a bit like taxing LPG or hydrogen the same as you would tax petrol, as it is a fuel for the purpose of powering a motor vehicle. Forget the benefits for health and ecology!
Utter hypocrisy. Complete and utter. It is a money grab, no less.

Government stance- they haven't been proven to be safer. Read last years FDA press release. I also wish there would be a differentialization between e cigs and e liquid. Banning the e cig or taxing it as anything other than any other commodity is ludicrous. If You wish to inhale non-nic liquid, tobacco and/or drug laws are not involved.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Government stance- they haven't been proven to be safer. Read last years FDA press release.

I have read it. It is absurd to even suggest that vaping is as toxic as smoking. Many things have not been scientifically proven, but we use logic to determine the obvious. I like to think that I grew a brain that was capable of determining the obvious, as did we all, so the scientific proof issue is a non-issue for me. It is nonsensical.
I simply will not entertain an argument that it hasn't been proven safer, therefore it is not safer. If the swear filter wasn't here, I would say in no uncertain terms what I think of that argument.
I am currently in consultation with the UK Minister of State for Public Health, through my MP, regarding the FDA's ridiculous ABC kindergarten approach to science. An approach which she is listening to I hasten to add, and I consider it my divine duty to put her right if she cannot determine it for herself. This is what I was told by her, via snail mail ...

"We know from work done by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States that laboratory analyses of e-cigarette samples were found to contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals"

My reply was ...

"Electronic cigarettes DO NOT "contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals" per se. By that token, it could be stated that all baby milk products contain melamine. By that token, it could be stated that all children's toys use lead based paint. Those two examples are a complete distortion of the truth obviously, just like the FDA study"

I won't play the FDA's stupid word games, as the end result will be all of us unsuccessfully trying to punch our way out of a corner like penned sheep.

 

[rothenbj]

Planet, isn't it amazing how much mileage you get out of a few authoritative sound bits when you're a large federal agency! It doesn't seem to matter that the underlying study is readily available for review and critique but no one seems to take that approach. From the mouth of God.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Planet, isn't it amazing how much mileage you get out of a few authoritative sound bits when you're a large federal agency! It doesn't seem to matter that the underlying study is readily available for review and critique but no one seems to take that approach. From the mouth of God.

Isn't it just?

I fired this off to my MP today, keeping the subject on the radar as what the FDA says seems to have a backlash over here too ...

Thank you for your continued support in my quest to save the lives of many hundreds of thousands of smokers in the UK and worldwide.
I would certainly hope that the (UK) Conservative party will take a responsible approach to harm reduction for smokers when it wins the May general election. Many people just cannot give up the habit of smoking, and the electronic cigarette represents a monumental step forward in replacing the deadly practice of burning tobacco with the vastly safer pursuit of vaporising flavoured propylene glycol (itself an inert but potent germicidal agent, as has been established in many tests since the 1940s) and safe quantities of UK manufactured liquid nicotine.
It requires government sanction and approval so the word can be spread as widely as possible and many smokers can avoid dying a slow and painful early death from smoking related disease. My mother and father died before their 65th birthdays, in 2000 and 2002 respectively, for the want of an effective and safe alternative to smoking. I have given my brother an electronic cigarette, as I do not want him to die of a smoking related disease too.
Many people do not even use nicotine in their electronic cigarette as the action of merely putting cigarette to mouth is enough to replace or subsidise their smoking habit. Patches do not provide that habitual act, and the NRT inhaler just gives the user a sore throat and produces no satisfying cloud of vapour. The vapour from an e-cig has no third party effects as it dissipates almost immediately and contains no quantifiable contaminants.
For me, it is the throat hit that is paramount in replacing my habit and nicotine provides me with that satisfaction. The e-cig simulates the act of smoking without the thousands of cancer causing chemicals and addictive alkaloids that are intentionally added to tobacco to make them as pleasurable as they are to smokers.
According to the MHRA, it is perfectly acceptable to stick 21mg nicotine patches all over yourself, but not acceptable to vaporise it. As if it is merely the act of inhaling vapour from a cigarette shaped device that they are opposed to. It is this association between a cigarette and an e-cig that makes them so effective as an alternative to smoking.
I would love to see the subject referenced in the House of Commons, in the wider public interest.

Thanks again

Like I say, it keeps it on the radar for debate
You cannot send enough e-mails, one does not suffice IMO

 

[Thulium]

The other way to look at it is that cigarettes are (supposedly) heavily taxed for the sole purpose of getting people to quit a dangerous habit.
So, where is the justification for putting that same sin tax on a product that addresses the issue?
It's a bit like taxing LPG or hydrogen the same as you would tax petrol, as it is a fuel for the purpose of powering a motor vehicle. Forget the benefits for health and ecology!
Utter hypocrisy. Complete and utter. It is a money grab, no less.

Who says its a "sin tax"? If the answer is "New York Voters", then there's nothing else I can do for you. If the answer is out of control legislators, then you should know what to do with your vote come November.

Either way, to quote Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson..."IT DOESN'T MATTER if the tobacco tax is a sin tax." The fact of the matter is your state has imposed a tax on recreational tobacco products and so if you want e-cigarettes to remain available like other recreational smoke-free tobacco products, it will have to be subject to the same tax.

If you don't like the tax rate imposed on smoke-free recreational tobacco products, then I would suggest asking your representatives to pass legislation to reduce or eliminate the tax on smoke-free tobacco products as an "incentive" to reduce smoking...and by adding electronic cigarettes to the list of smoke-free tobacco products, you are "saving the children" by imposing existing regulation prohibiting sales to minors.

 

[Thulium]

What is wrong with this picture? Do you understand what you're offering? We are the sheeple that our government has been looking for. 35%, 65% 100% tax? isn't something about any of the numbers disturbing. This isn't about health or living longer, it really isn't. It may be about control or it may be about filling the government coffers, but it certainly isn't about keeping us alive longer. Where is the value added in that? More burden on the raped SS System, more burden on the soon to be raped Health system more burden overall on society as a whole.

Do YOU understand what I'm offering? If you want electronic cigarettes to remain legal, then you have to pay the price of admission. In this case, its called tax. Tobacco products are taxed--if you don't like it, that's a subject to be debated elsewhere--if you want e-cigs to be a tobacco product, you are asking for them to be taxed. If we ask for them to be taxed, we will have the upper hand in ensuring the tax is reasonable and we would be effectively encasing the e-cigarette as a tobacco product into law.

Most people are considered overpriced human resources by the time they're in there mid fifties. There are younger, less expensive alternatives that most corporations would gladly have replace you. All living longer does is increase the potential for increased costs to the government. How many people retire with enough wealth to be self sufficient for 35-40 years? I say not nearly enough, but we shall see as health care enters the new world of government control. Millions of baby boomers becoming genarions of all sorts.
WE NEED TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE STREAMS CHILDREN.

I think that's exactly what I suggested.

When I am elected to this new government not of the people and not for the people........... Where can we look? What serves as health risks in this less than utopic society we live in? DARN, tobacco dried up after adding 1000% excise taxes, but there are options.

Cigarettes may be getting taxed up the expletive in New York, but smoke-free tobacco products are taxed only 35% of the wholesale price. That seems like a reasonable train to get on, but if you want it lower...legislation that adds electronic cigarettes to the list of taxable smoke-free tobacco products could also be worded to reduce the tax rate to reward purchasers of modified risk tobacco products like e-cigs.

Alcohol is a good place to start, let's hit the beer real hard since it is drank by most common man and is now the leading health risk according to all the health associations formerly against smoking. A 75% manufacturerers cost tax should get you started. We'll drift over to the hard liqour one we see a market share shift.

Heck, the pennies I'm hearing about taxing sodas in Phila. And NY is a good start, but not nearly enough. OBESITY must be stopped, Michelle knows this, why don't we. Banshaft was right all along.
Fast food MUST be controlled. It's okay if you want to eat it, but you're going to have to support the health care system that you are negatively effecting. Thus the $50 pizza and the $35 hamburger washed down with your $7.50 12oz coke.

Motor vehicles? There's some really harmful products. Not only do they kill, but they can cause some serious long term health effects. Motorcycles are almost cost prohibitive, based on the new taxes imposed to control health costs. A tax of $500 per hp over 50 should keep speeds down and the government covering administrative costs, don't you think.

We'll work on sports equipment taxes tomorrow.

Rant over and out.

Well, if you want MORE sin taxes, I suppose that's on you. Personally, I'd vote against them, but I'm not a New Yorker. Work for tax legislation that you think is fair, but it is only fair that e-cigarettes be taxed like other legal products if you want them to remain legal.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Over here we have something called VAT (value added tax) which is payable at 17.5% on purchased goods. I have no problems with a generic tax like this.
I expect to pay a tax, but only one that represents what one would expect to pay to cover 'his dues'. I am against a tax that could be seen as a penalty, sin-tax, or however you would want to characterise it.

 

[Thulium]

Over here we have something called VAT (value added tax) which is payable at 17.5% on purchased goods. I have no problems with a generic tax like this.
I expect to pay a tax, but only one that represents what one would expect to pay to cover 'his dues'. I am against a tax that could be seen as a penalty, sin-tax, or however you would want to characterise it.

I'm with you in opposition of "sin taxes", but really that is a debate for another time and place unless you propose a change like I suggested above. The tobacco tax is what it is. In New York, the tax on smoke-free tobacco products is 37% of the wholesale cost (if you figure retail is marked up 100% from wholesale, that would have a similar impact as the 17.5% VAT you suggest).

Judge Leon said that electronic cigarettes could be regulated as a tobacco product. Pass legislation in New York to have them taxed as such and you can enjoy the full benefits of the Judge's ruling rather than constantly looking behind every corner to find the hidden e-cig ban hidden in an education bill.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I'm with you in opposition of "sin taxes", but really that is a debate for another time and place unless you propose a change like I suggested above. The tobacco tax is what it is. In New York, the tax on smoke-free tobacco products is 37% of the wholesale cost (if you figure retail is marked up 100% from wholesale, that would have a similar impact as the 17.5% VAT you suggest).

Judge Leon said that electronic cigarettes could be regulated as a tobacco product. Pass legislation in New York to have them taxed as such and you can enjoy the full benefits of the Judge's ruling rather than constantly looking behind every corner to find the hidden e-cig ban hidden in an education bill.

I do make the mistake of trying to equate the tax regimes of the UK and US, and I understand that they are two completely different animals in that we pay more taxes upfront over here

 

[Thulium]

I do make the mistake of trying to equate the tax regimes of the UK and US, and I understand that they are two completely different animals in that we pay more taxes upfront over here

Most states have a sales tax that works more like what you are talking about. Until recently, however, tobacco was taxed "per unit" (per cigarette, per pack, etc) but when it was realized that this was not a reasonable way to tax smoke-free tobacco products, newer laws have been adopted to tax based on the wholesale cost or in some states by weight.

A tax based on the wholesale cost is compatible with the e-cig market, IMHO, and all these motions could be rolled into a single bill simply by classifying electronic cigarettes and accessories as a smoke-free tobacco product. This would simultaneously make e-cigs legal to sell in stores with verified ID, make it a criminal offense to sell them to people under 18 (+1 for the "save the children" crowd), make it legal to use them in public unless otherwise posted, and the added tax revenue will help this go down well with the money grubbing politician types. Granted, a 15ml bottle of e-liquid bought in New York might be $1 more expensive than in New Jersey...but at least it would be legal.


Add in some nice wording about how electronic cigarettes clean the air and help people who might otherwise be unable or unwilling to find a smoke-free alternative and New York could be the first state to make vaping a legitimate market rather than chasing our tails trying to keep the current gray market of e-cig sales from going completely black market.

 

[r8ross]

Is it just me, or does is it a conflict of interest for a NY State Senator to be on the Health Committee when he receives campaign contributions from big tobacco and big pharm? Senator Klein who introduced the bill to the senate received in 2008 $1000 FROM Phillip Morris and $2500 from Pfizer, also several thousand from tobacco distributors. Things that make you go hmmmmm?
www dot elections dot state dot ny dot us/ContributionSearchA.html
New York State Board of Elections Contribution Search Page

 

[r8ross]

Did a search for all contributions since 2000 from:

Philip Morris: 769,000

PFizer: 1,042,490.76

 

[r8ross]

Did a search for all contributions since 2000 from:

Philip Morris: 769,000

PFizer: 1,042,490.76

Sorry didnt point out this is all contributions for all Senators, assemblymembers etc...

 

[r8ross]

Looks like Linda Rosenthal disabled her facebook page, must not be able to handle the criticism.

 

[Brooke1975]

I cannot believe they are banning these. I haven't ordered yet and saw this post, it the craziest thing. You only breathe out water vapor from what I understand. Looks like they are wanting those tax dollars. How can I help to stop this ban? Please send me a private message on how to help!

 

[Vocalek]

Join CASAA!

CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

Click the big gold "Join Now" tab at the top right side of the page. Membership is free and open to all.

 

[cmacpduff]

Can we hear from New Yorkers re the present price of a pack of analogues?
That State (my former home) has the highest taxes on tobacco.
Follow the $$$$ trail. citizens health be d--ned.