Prediction: Which states will ban internet buying of ecigs

[Racehorse]

I feel like I already went thru much of the ecig stuff with sports betting. I have a reason for bringing this up, since there seems to be similar reasoning involved with sports betting in certain states (which involves keeping tax $$) , but they use the "protecting people from vice" and "protecting the children" crap as an excuse.


I live in the bible belt and probably 1/2 my town still thinks betting on a horse race is like some kind of high vice. You also have states like Texas and Arizona which (IMHO) clearly violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution with regard to ADWs. (any bets on horse races by Texas residents have to be placed in person......that means you can't call in a wager on the KY Derby or use an online service).


Why? according to TX judge, "Gambling has always been addictive, but before the internet, at least the addicts had to go to the trouble of driving somewhere to place his bet. Along the same lines, underage patrons looking to get in on the action ..."


(Again, "sin" and "protect the children" stuff. Despite the fact that you can buy all the lottery tickets and scratch offs you want there. )


Because it's really just about keeping the $$ inside their own state.


(Sort of like Dubai and many of those middle eastern places where sports betting is illegal.....so TX and ARIZ may as well join them for draconian laws).


So---- I fully expect certain states who think like this to start in with the "no online purchasing" of ecigs because they want to keep the tax $$ and will want people to buy in state-based B&Ms.


I'll give you a list of states that don't let you use an on-line wagering service, because I'm interested to see how they match up down the line.......and I betcha it will correspond (eventually) with ordering ecigs on-line too, because the reasoning is the same ($$$): (there are others that regulate other forms of sports betting, but I don't know enough about those):


Every state in the US allows me to log on to an AWD like twinspires and make a horse racing bet except these:


Utah, Alaska, Arizona, D.C., Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina

Edited to add: Texas

These are the states I therefore predict will ban online ecig sales first.

More people are vaping than are betting on horse races and I doubt these states will let that $$ leave their state. Lets just see if it bears out.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I live in the bible belt and probably 1/2 my town still thinks betting on a horse race is like some kind of high vice. You also have states like Texas and Arizona which (IMHO) clearly violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution with regard to ADWs. (any bets on horse races by Texas residents have to be placed in person......that means you can't call in a wager on the KY Derby or use an online service).


Why? according to TX judge, "Gambling has always been addictive, but before the internet, at least the addicts had to go to the trouble of driving somewhere to place his bet. Along the same lines, underage patrons looking to get in on the action ..."

I heard sex is addictive too. Do you have to show up in front of some official and do it in person in Texas?

Sorry.

I see Utah is first on that list and look where they're at right now. I really don't know how this will all pan out in the end but likely not well for "them" when all is said and done. Look forward to other responses here and find your observations very interesting.

 

[Myrany]

California is trying pretty hard to kill internet sales indirectly by making it illegal to ship vape gear into or out of the state UNLESS it is a business to business transaction. So Utah is not alone on those already marching down the path.

 

[Topacka]

Pretty sure Cali is trying to ban Internet sales already.

 

[ScottP]

Utah, California, New York, Hawaii will be the first to go. Here in TX I haven't heard a whisper about any anti-ecig laws.

Edit: add Rhode Island to that list.

 

[Seann.V91]

California...haha..the greatest state in America, right? Smog, traffic, horrible people with very bad personalities, hollywood, drugs, and just all in all way too politically incorrect. BUT they got good weather and bad b*tches right? sigh..there's so many things going wrong in the US - especially Cali..but they want to make banning e-cig internet sales one of many a priority? where's the REAL problems?

 

[Racehorse]

Look forward to other responses here and find your observations very interesting.

States want their tax money, so any kind of "digital shift" takes away tax revenues.

(CA had their own state-based wagering sites and used to block status to other betting sites because they gain $$ from the satellite signal, track take-out, etc.)

Parimutuel betting is legal in 43 states, some only w/in state, but also, the Feds regulate any interstate wagering. My account is tied into the IRS, so if I win over $600 the IRS gets a W2-G on me. The track also "takes out" about 20% of every winning bet, even if it's only a few dollars. Without bettors, they wouldn't have purses to pay the horsemen and owners for winning races.

So---I've never felt particularly "targetted" as an ecig user, because I've been thru all this with sports-betting---the state, the IRS, the horsemen, the tracks, the satellite signal, the ADWs, the IRS------all w/ hand in your pocket.


AR does allow online betting. Out of the woods? Nope! Bible thumpers, sometimes they even stand out on the corners by the track with signs trying to "shame us" I live in a dry county. I drove 3 hours up to Fayetteville for New Years, and got the same people with their signs, some actually SHOUT at ya, mean stuff, too, about how you are going to you-know-where.

So----I never for a minute thought that ecigs wouldn't be regulated and taxed up the wazoo. To think otherwise would feel very naive to me, based on my experiences with other "vices".

 

[Underwhelmed]

Utah, California, New York, Hawaii will be the first to go. Here in TX I haven't heard a whisper about any anti-ecig laws.

Edit: add Rhode Island to that list.

Up here in North Texas most of the affluent cities are banning their use in public and on school property.

Dallas ANTZ did this with smoking in establishments, so it doesn't surprise me that they would also get the ball rolling with vaping.

 

[zapped]

Utah, Alaska, Arizona, D.C., Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina

These are the states I therefore predict will ban online ecig sales first.

Not to politicize this but I think youre dead wrong about most of the states with the exception of D.C, NJ, HI, NV and NC.

Im willing to bet money that its the red states who vote to ban online e-cig sales first. Theyre already used to telling us what our kids should eat at school, how much soda an adult can drink and other such nonsense thats ostensibly for our own good so why should this be any different?

If you have time, ask Bill Godshall where most of our opposition comes from in regards to e-cigs. You just might be surprised.

 

[cocacola31173]

California? OH no..my favorite vendor is based in California.

 

[TheJakeBailey]

With all of the crazy laws about EVERYTHING you can think of, I'm amazed that you can vape anywhere in the state of California.

Same with NY.

 

[thatguy2]

my money would be on California and New York for all out bans on internet purchase..
California is already trying - they are like addicts, gotta have that fix - (addicted to tax $$'s)
Texas, thinking not so much.. last time I was through Amarillo, the Flying J still had ashtrays
on the tables..

 

[VaPreis]

You can probably scratch Missouri off that list. Everyone smokes here. There's 3 vapor shops in the small town I live in, and I can drive 10 minutes to get to at least 8 more....and counting. We love this stuff.

 

[FourWinds]

The 'European State'

I just received this from an MEP (member of european parliament):

"

E-cigarettes are not medicines but products that smokers enjoy using as an alternative to cigarettes. They should meet product safety standards and that there should be restrictions on their advertising and marketing, but they still have a major role to play in reducing tobacco-related deaths.

The Tobacco Products Directive will regulate several things, namely products which do not contain tobacco but are closely linked to tobacco, labelling and packaging of products, additives, internet sales and the tracking of these products.

You might find this useful guidance from the European Commission on what it has proposed: http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/fs_ecigarettes_en.pdf

"

Pretty comprehensive don't you think.

 

[bosun]

I'm thinking California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut..

 

[Racehorse]

You can probably scratch Missouri off that list. Everyone smokes here.

As my topic states, the prediction about online sales.

If everyone smokes there, MO is getting the tax $$$ in their coffers. Ditto, in-state B&Ms will keep the $$ in MO when and if the heavy taxing & regulations on ecig related stuff begins.

Conversely, allowing online sales means the money sprouts wings and leaves MO.

Not to politicize this

t's all about the money.

So, making it about partisan politics holds absolutely zero credibility with me. (Though I do understand some will opportunistically try to connect-the-dots in that manner.)

When and if ecigs become a hot highly taxable item, (and many of you won't see the big picture until that happens), it won't matter if its a red state or a blue state......certain states will not stand for that loud sucking sound that diverts tax $$ away from their state and gives it to somebody else. If they haven't done so in the past, they aren't going to change now.

Some of you are very naive if you think your "rights" are more important to them than that $$.

 

[LEDBETTER122]

Not to politicize this but I think youre dead wrong about most of the states with the exception of D.C, NJ, HI, NV and NC.

Im willing to bet money that its the red states who vote to ban online e-cig sales first. Theyre already used to telling us what our kids should eat at school, how much soda an adult can drink and other such nonsense thats ostensibly for our own good so why should this be any different?

If you have time, ask Bill Godshall where most of our opposition comes from in regards to e-cigs. You just might be surprised.

Boomberg who is Democrat tried to ban big sodas, in attempt to sway how much soda a person can drink at a time.

And Democrats want kids to eat at school; Michelle Obama is trying to get the schools to supply healthier foods with the "Lets Move" Program. Forcing kids to eat at school would make them eat healthier if they made the schools serve healthier foods.

I think you got your politics completely reversed. I’ve seen way more Republicans for "Vaping" and have seen slim-non from Democrats.

 

[Racehorse]

I think you got your politics completely reversed.

I'm afraid that's impossible. Since I already stated that I don't believe it is a partisan issue.

Maybe you missed that part of my statement.

You are welcome to make it about politics if you wish.

I prefer to look at it from an economic perspective. And what states have done historically.

I’ve seen way more Republicans for "Vaping" and have seen slim-non from Democrats.

^^^^
Edited to add: does anyone read topic headings? Because the many of the replies I'm getting have nothing whatsoever to do with banning online sales.

My prediction is about what states will ban ONLINE sales of ecigs. Not anything else.


(In other words, a state like TX or Utah might allow vaping as perfectly legal. But NOT allow online sales. (this is essentially what they have done with sports betting in horse racing....parimutuel betting on horse racing is legal in TX....you just can't do it online, you have to do it there, in TX, so their tracks get the $ for the signal and the wager.)

 

[LEDBETTER122]

I'm afraid that's impossible. Since I already stated that I don't believe it is a partisan issue.

Maybe you missed that part of my statement.

You are welcome to make it about politics if you wish.

I prefer to look at it from an economic perspective. And what states have done historically.


Edited to add: does anyone read topic headings? Because the many of the replies I'm getting have nothing whatsoever to do with banning online sales.

My prediction is about what states will ban ONLINE sales of ecigs. Not anything else.

The way the post is worded made it sound like you said Red states (Republican) tried to ban big sodas and Red states are telling parents to have thier kids eat at school. When both of those were proposed by Democrats.

 

[patkin]

Most definitely AZ. Two reasons: Greed and tobacco-sales income for Indian Reservations.