Prediction: Which states will ban internet buying of ecigs

[Racehorse]

. last time I was through Amarillo, the Flying J still had ashtrays
on the tables..

Which again, has nothing whatsoever to do with online sales. Do they allow online sales of cigarettes that go into those ashtrays? No.
Why? Because they want the tax $$ they get from people buying cigarettes in TX locally.

I really feel like I'm speaking to an issue that, due to some kind of brainwashing, isn't being differentiated from the banning of vaping.

Banning of internet sales is entirely different from banning of vaping. You may very well live in a state that will allow B&Ms but will not allow internet sales, once the taxing begins.

 

[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.


(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.)

Also the post I quoted was not posted by you. My post had nothing to do with your post, but a reply to Zapped's post

 

[Racehorse]

Also the post I quoted was not posted by you. My post had nothing to do with your post, but a reply to Zapped's post

Okay, I got ya, Ledbetter.

By the way, I'm not making a statement. Just a prediction. I just want to see if the states that typically and historically protect their state tax coffers go in that same direction when it comes to ecig purchases.

However, we really won't even know that, until (and notice i didn't say if) the taxing and regulating begins.

So, any prediction may require years to even come to fruition.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

 

[03FXDWG]

I don't think the internet sales has much to do with taxing because as things currently stand with taxes, no state is getting taxes for internet purchases unless the store & purchaser are in the same state. The states that specifically ban the internet sale of e-cigs are going to be the nanny states--Utah, California, Oklahoma & New York and they aren't going to do it because of tax money being lost--they are going to do it to save the rest of us poor, stupid, sinner, slobs from harming ourselves or our children because we're too dumb to take care of ourselves. When did missionaries quit taking care of starving African & South American kids to run for political office in the U.S.?

Internet tax has been a hot topic in Missouri & probably a lot of other states for a long time but just sorting out fuel tax reciprocity is more than enough of a headache. I can only see the Feds instituting and collecting an internet sales tax but they would have to agree to cut personal &/or corporate taxes to get that passed. A Federal internet sales tax would be ok with me if they drastically cut personal taxes to do it but I am a supporter of the flat tax for income & a use tax for all purchases so that method only makes sense in my version of a perfect world where everyone shares the same responsibility & privileges.

 

[LEDBETTER122]

Okay, I got ya, Ledbetter.

By the way, I'm not making a statement. Just a prediction. I just want to see if the states that typically and historically protect their state tax coffers go in that same direction when it comes to ecig purchases.

However, we really won't even know that, until (and notice i didn't say if) the taxing and regulating begins.

So, any prediction may require years to even come to fruition.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

There is no doubt that there will be taxes and regulation on e-cigs in the future. I mean look at Pot, so many people smoke it so they are thinking "They are going to do it any ways, why not make money on it". Right now I think Vaping has such a small community, that It does not look like a significant income for the government if they put a tax on it.

When vaping becomes more widespread and lots of people switch, that’s when they will regulate it for the sole purpose to make money

 

[Papajohns]

I don't think the internet sales has much to do with taxing because as things currently stand with taxes, no state is getting taxes for internet purchases unless the store & purchaser are in the same state.

Um..what? They don't get taxes from internet sales, so they are trying to ban internet sales. Sounds like its about taxes to me.

 

[CommaHolly]

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.




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 $$.

I could not agree more,,,,,,,,,which is why all of us, whether we proclaim to be "red or blue" needs to stop blaming the reds and blues and stick together on this one,,,,,,,

very well said, btw.

 

[CommaHolly]

Which again, has nothing whatsoever to do with online sales. Do they allow online sales of cigarettes that go into those ashtrays? No.
Why? Because they want the tax $$ they get from people buying cigarettes in TX locally.

I really feel like I'm speaking to an issue that, due to some kind of brainwashing, isn't being differentiated from the banning of vaping.

Banning of internet sales is entirely different from banning of vaping. You may very well live in a state that will allow B&Ms but will not allow internet sales, once the taxing begins.

and honestly,,,,,,I'm glad someone gets it,,,,,,,,because banning ONLINE SALES is how they're going to make it difficult to vape,,,,,,,

 

[patkin]

+1... and why I've been trying so hard to clone my out-of-state ADV. We recently got a taste of what life will be like when the Bank of Oklahoma (think it was) and several others stopped transactions via credit or debit for ecig products (all of them including wire.) The statement was ... paraphrasing.... "no transactions by any means including the phone and mail.... must be in-person to swipe the card." That's when I started trying to clone my juice.

 

[zahzoo]

I don't see many states banning internet sales... even if they do how exactly can they go about enforcing it?

Why would an internet business in another state care if customers in a state weren't allowed to purchase their goods. For example... if California were to ban internet sales... they don't have the jurisdiction to enforce their laws on someone in Texas or the other 49 states.

Take it a step further... most of the equipment and a portion of juice comes from China. China doesn't care about US State laws. They package it up... put electronic parts on the customs manifest... off it goes.

To the original poster... I don't see Arkansas getting on any e-cigarette bandwagon and regulating this stuff. They've banned usage on school properties a couple of years ago. But the state isn't all that anti-tobacco... clearly not as "progressive" as California or other states that like to control everything. If it ain't that sinful alcohol or gambling... not a lot for the state to concern itself with here.

 

[Caffeine7]

California will lead the way with any taxes or regulations that pass. Anymore it's a race between us and New York to see which state can exert more control and suck more taxes out of its residents.

 

[patkin]

I don't see many states banning internet sales... even if they do how exactly can they go about enforcing it?

Why would an internet business in another state care if customers in a state weren't allowed to purchase their goods. For example... if California were to ban internet sales... they don't have the jurisdiction to enforce their laws on someone in Texas or the other 49 states.

Take it a step further... most of the equipment and a portion of juice comes from China. China doesn't care about US State laws. They package it up... put electronic parts on the customs manifest... off it goes.

To the original poster... I don't see Arkansas getting on any e-cigarette bandwagon and regulating this stuff. They've banned usage on school properties a couple of years ago. But the state isn't all that anti-tobacco... clearly not as "progressive" as California or other states that like to control everything. If it ain't that sinful alcohol or gambling... not a lot for the state to concern itself with here.

They do it with the bank and credit card companies. I suppose you could get an out-of-state bank account to pay from though... don't know how difficult that would be. Also, if you can find a vendor that will deal with you via money order I guess. When the Bank of Oklahoma, trying to uphold what they thought was state law, stopped transactions they included wire, phone, mail as prohibited transactions... meaning they wouldn't pay any vendor using a certain code to identify their business.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I'm pretty sure Alaska is going to secede from the U.S soon so don't put us on the list.

 

[patkin]

Good idea! Just saw on the News yesterday that the Feds are now trying to have the FCC present in News rooms to watch how they decide what stories to run and if they determine its for ideological reasons it would be an automatic violation of federal law. Reminds me of a country I won't name. Maybe in the future we Americans down south will have to get the real news via Radio-Free Alaska.

 

[cyndezu]

Oklahoma, check out the state shipping laws for wineries and remember "its for the children"

 

[klynnn]

Once you look at which states spend the most money for votes it should be easy. The ones that are broke will tax anything in sight. Keep voting them in. Hopefully the sheep will wake up before it's too late.

 

[Wow1420]

It would not surprise me if we ended up with a federal, nation-wide ban on internet sales.

 

[zapped]

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.

You are correct.I got red and blue confused.I have no other excuse other than Im dyslexic and post way too late at night.

When I mentioned the soda bans and Michelle Obama's so called healthy initiatives for school lunchs (a chicken sandwich with just one bun? no wonder kids arent eating it) I was referring to the Democratic party.

Most of our opposition in vaping comes from that direction.My apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

 

[Racehorse]

Most of our opposition in vaping comes from that direction.

And again, you are muddling the issue since there is no relationship between being for or against vaping and NOT wanting tax $$ leaving your state.

In my example, which might serve as a cautionary tale, TX has 3 racetracks of their own, so they are clearnly not anti horse racing.

But they don't allow their citizens to place wagers online anywhere except inside their own state. They simply do not want $$$ leaving TX.

My premise for predicting states that will ban online sales outside of their own state is based on historical behaviors with other taxable commodities.

 

[Racehorse]

It would not surprise me if we ended up with a federal, nation-wide ban on internet sales.

Doubt that will happen. There is absolutely no financial incentive for them to do so.

Conversely, there is a huge financial incentive for states to tax vape related items, and add that $$ to their coffers.