The Elephant in the Room

[Alien Traveler]

There is currently no taxation proposed, nor does there have to be.

From "as tobacco" regulations to "as tobacco" taxation - just one tiny step.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

OK. Explain to me why it isn't acceptable. I am open to the reasoning. But, first I'd like to say the framework for tobacco is already there. It's a lot easier to obtain the regulation based on existing framework. And, I'd argue to be careful what we wish for. If we completely refuse the existing framework, the alternative framework may be a lot worse.

Vaping is no where near the same as tobacco. AND, no where near as bad.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

When meetings took place with the FDA, CASAA tried to talk sense into any regulations. This was while they were doing their "fact finding" phase in the deeming process.

I'm sorry, did you read CASAA's comments? I don't want to get into this again because I get so much hate, but they lacked any kind of substantive suggestions. I don't know if they suggested anything better at these meetings, but if they did, it was not included in their comments.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I think that it's the 10th or 11th hour...and time to get realistic about achievable goals. I'd even concede that a tax is coming, so the question is where should that $ be used? For scientific research on the health benefits of vaping? To pay for the testing that needs to be done on liquids? To improve the standards for the average vaper?

Let's face it. It's so easy to condemn taxes. But if society just took up a voluntary collection to fund our schools, our military, our roads, our court system, and the essential infrastructure we have in place....where would we be? I for one believe that taxes are a necessary evil.

Just guessing it's realistic to expect that there will be an imposed tax. But right now I think it's important to give an opinion of how that money gets used.

I also think the framework in place for tobacco is going to be the framework used for electronic cigarette regulation. We'd have to overcome some overwhelming obstacles to change the direction that is headed.

It's time to start talking about what we do agree on and what benefits might come from a little bit of regulation? I do think there are some measurable benefits. I don't want them to be too intrusive either.

Very few people will donate their $. If there's a slight tax imposed to e liquid then there is no choice.

If we can't make any concessions, then we look just as foolish as the FDA about reading the science. It's the political world we live in.

Why tax it? Until it is proven that it is harmful, why tax it? It is incumbanty upon the prosecuter to prove that it is harmful before there is a punishment to the doer.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Why tax it? Until it is proven that it is harmful, why tax it? It is incumbanty upon the prosecuter to prove that it is harmful before there is a punishment to the doer.

So, when a sales tax is imposed, sales are harmful?

Not all taxes are a form of retribution. I'd actually say that few are.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Vaping is no where near the same as tobacco. AND, no where near as bad.

Frenchfry, I don't disagree.....but the perception of much of the public is that they are the same. The FDA I think senses this. The burden of proof is on us to explain precisely how they are different, and precisely how much better it is. I think we've already lost the battle on FDA authority. Maybe everyone else knows something I don't but I think the writing is on the wall that FDA is going to be the regulatory agency for e cigs.

 

[Alien Traveler]

I think that it's the 10th or 11th hour...and time to get realistic about achievable goals. I'd even concede that a tax is coming, so the question is where should that $ be used? For scientific research on the health benefits of vaping? To pay for the testing that needs to be done on liquids? To improve the standards for the average vaper?

Are you joking?
Do you believe tobacco taxes are spent on smoking prevention and smokers health?

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0178.pdf
Estimated FY14 State [all states] Tobacco Tax Revenue $17.9 bill
Estimated FY14 State Tobacco Settlement Revenues $7.0 bill
[total] $24.9 bill

Estimated FY13 State Tobacco Prevention Spending $0.48 bill
CDC Annual Spending Target $3.7 bill.
[total] $4.2 bill

Do you see difference between $24.9 and $4.2 billions?

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I reread the very first few posts that referred to kids. It was just in the news that "thousands" of kids are poisoned by the washing machine detergent thingies (scientific term). Hmmm, why isn't the public up in arms about that? Why is there such a focus on kids?

If a child gets ahold of something and ingests it and it is harmful to the child, is that child endangerment and/or child neglect? Whether it is detergent or e-juice, charge the parent.

To have a child is to agree to responsible for that child.

 

[Robino1]

I'm sorry, did you read CASAA's comments? I don't want to get into this again because I get so much hate, but they lacked any kind of substantive suggestions. I don't know if they suggested anything better at these meetings, but if they did, it was not included in their comments.

They responded to the proposal in the way they thought would best serve the vaping community. Whether they should have gone further or not, at least they tried to put our voice out there. I commend them and the efforts they make on our behalf. They are people just like us. In fact, they were members of ECF who, when the FDA first made their blunder back in 2009, saw a need to have the consumer have a voice and stepped up to the plate and formed CASAA.

Are they perfect? No. But as you argue the merits of the FDA, are they perfect? No. The FDA has their hand in way to many pies to be affective in all areas. Too many branches and mistakes happen, people get kickbacks, corruption wiggles in.

CASAA has one interest. That of the vaping community. They do the best job that they know how. They are also learning as they go. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I think that it's the 10th or 11th hour...and time to get realistic about achievable goals. I'd even concede that a tax is coming, so the question is where should that $ be used? For scientific research on the health benefits of vaping? To pay for the testing that needs to be done on liquids? To improve the standards for the average vaper?

Let's face it. It's so easy to condemn taxes. But if society just took up a voluntary collection to fund our schools, our military, our roads, our court system, and the essential infrastructure we have in place....where would we be? I for one believe that taxes are a necessary evil.

Just guessing it's realistic to expect that there will be an imposed tax. But right now I think it's important to give an opinion of how that money gets used.

I also think the framework in place for tobacco is going to be the framework used for electronic cigarette regulation. We'd have to overcome some overwhelming obstacles to change the direction that is headed.

It's time to start talking about what we do agree on and what benefits might come from a little bit of regulation? I do think there are some measurable benefits. I don't want them to be too intrusive either.

Very few people will donate their $. If there's a slight tax imposed to e liquid then there is no choice.

If we can't make any concessions, then we look just as foolish as the FDA about reading the science. It's the political world we live in.

I'd like to say that it's not even close to the 10th or 11th hour. We still have months before these purposed rules go into effect. Then, there is a period, 2 years if I'm not mistaken for manufactures to finish the application process. Also, before anything else can be imposed, the FDA would have to gather data, so more research would be required.

Additionally, you have to remember the challenges to these rules that will come about. If someone gets an injunction against the FDA, then the process will be extended even further. It could be years before we see serious attempts to tax or ban flavors or whatever else.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Are you joking?
Do you believe tobacco taxes are spent on smoking prevention and smokers health?

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0178.pdf
Estimated FY14 State [all states] Tobacco Tax Revenue $17.9 bill
Estimated FY14 State Tobacco Settlement Revenues $7.0 bill
[total] $24.9 bill

Estimated FY13 State Tobacco Prevention Spending $0.48 bill
CDC Annual Spending Target $3.7 bill.
[total] $4.2 bill

Do you see difference between $24.9 and $4.2 billions?

Did I imply that the tobacco taxes are being used as they are supposed to be used? If I did, then it was not intended. Actually, this is a huge beef of mine. Use the taxes for their intended purposes.....nothing more.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

They responded to the proposal in the way they thought would best serve the vaping community. Whether they should have gone further or not, at least they tried to put our voice out there. I commend them and the efforts they make on our behalf. They are people just like us. In fact, they were members of ECF who, when the FDA first made their blunder back in 2009, saw a need to have the consumer have a voice and stepped up to the plate and formed CASAA.

Are they perfect? No. But as you argue the merits of the FDA, are they perfect? No. The FDA has their hand in way to many pies to be affective in all areas. Too many branches and mistakes happen, people get kickbacks, corruption wiggles in.

CASAA has one interest. That of the vaping community. They do the best job that they know how. They are also learning as they go. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And it's good they tried. My original point was that I wished that someone other than SFATA could have made proposals for viable alternatives. That's all I'm going to say because I don't want to get into this argument again.

 

[Robino1]

I'd like to say that it's not even close to the 10th or 11th hour. We still have months before these purposed rules go into effect. Then, there is a period, 2 years if I'm not mistaken for manufactures to finish the application process. Also, before anything else can be imposed, the FDA would have to gather data, so more research would be required.

Additionally, you have to remember the challenges to these rules that will come about. If someone gets an injunction against the FDA, then the process will be extended even further. It could be years before we see serious attempts to tax or ban flavors or whatever else.

They have given grants to groups to "study" vaping already.

Challenging the FDA is going to require money. Hopefully we will be able to fund, as a group, the cost that will be associated with the fight that will ensue.

 

[Alien Traveler]

I think we've already lost the battle on FDA authority

I think battle is not already lost, but it could be lost pretty easily. With comments to FDA proposal I have read I see it coming.
I have now enough supplies to go purchase free for at least 7 years in case if pessimistic scenario wins. I will not pay tobacco-like taxes.

P.S. 1 liter of 100 mg nicotine - $50-$80
Cotton, VG and PG will not be taxed. It's really cheap to stock up.

 

[Lessifer]

So, when a sales tax is imposed, sales are harmful?

Not all taxes are a form of retribution. I'd actually say that few are.

I already pay sales tax on my vape gear/liquid. What is the reasoning behind an added tax? The tobacco "sin" tax was originally meant to offset the increased healthcare costs of smokers, and to pay for anti-smoking/cessation programs. The money has been used for much more than that, in ways that have nothing to do with tobacco or public health. In fact, just recently in PA I think, there was a proposed e-cigarette tax that had nothing to do with public health. They simply realized that they needed money and there was a somewhat small group of consumers that no one else would care if they got taxed.

 

[Robino1]

I already pay sales tax on my vape gear/liquid. What is the reasoning behind an added tax? The tobacco "sin" tax was originally meant to offset the increased healthcare costs of smokers, and to pay for anti-smoking/cessation programs. The money has been used for much more than that, in ways that have nothing to do with tobacco or public health. In fact, just recently in PA I think, there was a proposed e-cigarette tax that had nothing to do with public health. They simply realized that they needed money and there was a somewhat small group of consumers that no one else would care if they got taxed.

Not to mention, wish I could remember where that article is, where the sin tax on cigs were increased so they could pay for a new stadium.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I wish more would support CASAA. I don't even notice the minor amount that goes automatically.

I spent a lot on cigarettes, I "can't" mind.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I already pay sales tax on my vape gear/liquid. What is the reasoning behind an added tax? The tobacco "sin" tax was originally meant to offset the increased healthcare costs of smokers, and to pay for anti-smoking/cessation programs. The money has been used for much more than that, in ways that have nothing to do with tobacco or public health. In fact, just recently in PA I think, there was a proposed e-cigarette tax that had nothing to do with public health. They simply realized that they needed money and there was a somewhat small group of consumers that no one else would care if they got taxed.

The added tax could also be for smoking cessation or whatever else. There is nothing that says it has to do with public health. To use my sales tax example, those taxes aren't used for sales. It goes to education, infrastructure or whatever.

 

[Lessifer]

The added tax could also be for smoking cessation or whatever else. There is nothing that says it has to do with public health. To use my sales tax example, those taxes aren't used for sales. It goes to education, infrastructure or whatever.

Yes, it could be, but what is the justification for imposing an additional tax on vape related products?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Yes, it could be, but what is the justification for imposing an additional tax on vape related products?

I'll admit that I don't know what the federal standards are for creating a new tax. I don't know what justifications they have to show. I imagine it would be some sort of rational basis, but I could be wrong.