Texas law proposed

[Luisa]

HB3536 sponsored by John Otto District 18 has passed the House and is now in the Senate. It concerns taxing tobacco products not covered by the Master Settlement. It defines cigarettes on page 2 and 3 as "cigarette means any product that contains NICOTINE and is intended to be burned or HEATED under ordinary conditions of use.

With that definition,ecigs could be taxed as combustibles. Should be lobby the Texas Senate. Time is running out as the Legislature ends the session soon unless a special session is called

 

[sonicdsl]

This was posted here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-55-pack-fee-cigs-sold-npms.html#post9458228

But Bill didn't mention an issue w/the definition, just that the smokeless tobacco tax would be lowered, and cigarette tax raised on those companies who did not participate in the master settlement.

 

[Luisa]

This was posted here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-55-pack-fee-cigs-sold-npms.html#post9458228

But Bill didn't mention an issue w/the definition, just that the smokeless tobacco tax would be lowered, and cigarette tax raised on those companies who did not participate in the master settlement.

I quoted the exact wording from the bill. It has now gone to the Senate for a vote. Go to the Texas legislative website and plug in the bill number and the text. You can read the bill.

 

[kristin]

Luisa, you have to read the definition of "cigarette" in its entirety:

"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains:
(A)a roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or another substance that does not contain tobacco;
(B)tobacco, in any form, that is functional in a product that, because of the product ’s appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or the product ’s packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to or purchased by a consumer as a cigarette; or
(C)a roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco that, because of the product ’s appearance, the
type of tobacco used in the filler, or the product ’s packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to or purchased by a consumer as a cigarette.

The second "and" that I bolded is key. It has to contain nicotine and be heated AND contain tobacco. E-cigarettes are heated and contain nicotine but do not contain tobacco. Subsection "A" says "or another substance that does not contain tobacco" but it means the wrapper not the filling.

This definition would not include e-cigarettes because they do not contain actual tobacco.

Good eye watching out for these things and bringing them to our attention!!

 

[Luisa]

Luisa, you have to read the definition of "cigarette" in its entirety:



The second "and" that I bolded is key. It has to contain nicotine and be heated AND contain tobacco. E-cigarettes are heated and contain nicotine but do not contain tobacco. Subsection "A" says "or another substance that does not contain tobacco" but it means the wrapper not the filling.

This definition would not include e-cigarettes because they do not contain actual tobacco.

Good eye watching out for these things and bringing them to our attention!!

Yes, Kristen, I did read the definition in its entirety,but the definition of"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use" sends chills up my spine. Should the Senate pass this bill as written,I have no idea how the agency enforcing it will view the definition for enforcement.

 

[sonicdsl]

Yes, Kristen, I did read the definition in its entirety,but the definition of"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use" sends chills up my spine. Should the Senate pass this bill as written,I have no idea how the agency enforcing it will view the definition for enforcement.

The key word is "and"... definition is clear that it must meet the condition you specified above AND either A, B, or C from what Kristin copied from the bill above. It seems pretty plain there, hence why there's no CTA on this one.

 

[kristin]

Yes, Kristen, I did read the definition in its entirety,but the definition of"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use" sends chills up my spine. Should the Senate pass this bill as written,I have no idea how the agency enforcing it will view the definition for enforcement.

The agency has to enforce it as written, so a "cigarette" must actually contain tobacco. They cannot ignore that. If it said "or" contains tobacco, then it would be a serious concern because then a "cigarette" wouldn't have to have actual tobacco just nicotine and heating, but it says "and" contains tobacco. The agency can't just choose to ignore that the definition requires a "cigarette" to actually contain tobacco. It's very clear that in order to be a cigarette it MUST actually contain tobacco, especially since subsections A, B and C all cover that.

Think of it this way: if the legal definition of a "gun" is that it has a trigger and a barrel and shoots bullets, would they be able to include a squirt gun in that definition just because it meets two out of three parts of the definition? No. The same thing applies with this legal definition of a "cigarette." All three conditions must be met for it to be legally considered a cigarette.

You cannot stop reading the definition at "Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use," because that is only PART of the definition. For the agency enforcing it to ignore that e-cigarettes don't contain tobacco would be like prosecuting someone for carrying a "gun" when it is a squirt gun. They'd never get away with it. That second "and" in the definition makes it impossible to treat an e-cigarette as a "cigarette" because it clearly says a cigarette MUST contain tobacco.

 

[Luisa]

The agency has to enforce it as written, so a "cigarette" must actually contain tobacco. They cannot ignore that. If it said "or" contains tobacco, then it would be a serious concern because then a "cigarette" wouldn't have to have actual tobacco just nicotine and heating, but it says "and" contains tobacco. The agency can't just choose to ignore that the definition requires a "cigarette" to actually contain tobacco. It's very clear that in order to be a cigarette it MUST actually contain tobacco, especially since subsections A, B and C all cover that.

Think of it this way: if the legal definition of a "gun" is that it has a trigger and a barrel and shoots bullets, would they be able to include a squirt gun in that definition just because it meets two out of three parts of the definition? No. The same thing applies with this legal definition of a "cigarette." All three conditions must be met for it to be legally considered a cigarette.

You cannot stop reading the definition at "Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use," because that is only PART of the definition. For the agency enforcing it to ignore that e-cigarettes don't contain tobacco would be like prosecuting someone for carrying a "gun" when it is a squirt gun. They'd never get away with it. That second "and" in the definition makes it impossible to treat an e-cigarette as a "cigarette" because it clearly says a cigarette MUST contain tobacco.

O.K. The bill has no action at the moment so maybe it will die at this point.