URGENT! Utah bill to tax e-cigarettes at 86% and ban online sales -- HB 372

[Placebo Effect]

http://blog.casaa.org/2013/03/urgent-utah-bill-to-tax-e-cigarettes.html

URGENT! Utah: 86% tax on e-cigarettes & online sales ban (HB372)

​

​

[link to HB372]

[legislative tracking]

If enacted, this bill would:

• Redefine "tobacco product" in Utah's tobacco tax code to include e-cigarettes and e-cigarette cartridges. As a result, e-cigarettes would be taxed at 86% manufacturer's price. (Section 1)
• Ban sales through the mail and Internet by requiring face-to-face transactions. (Section 7)
• Disallow sampling in e-cigarette stores by prohibiting vendors from giving away products to customers. (Section 8)

The Utah House Health and Human Services Committee will meet Wednesday, March 6th at 4:10 p.m. at 25 House Building in the Utah State Capitol Complex in Salt Lake City. CASAA is aware that at least a few vapers will be in attendance to testify against this bill. Utah residents interested in testifying at the hearing must sign up to speak by 3:00 p.m. Please attend if you can.

---

Please call or write the members of the House Health and Human Services Committee below:

What to say:
1. You oppose HB372 because Section 1 would tax e-cigarettes at 86% manufacturer's price and Section 7 would make the sale of e-cigarettes online or through the mail a criminal offense punishable by a $5,000 fine.


2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette or smokeless tobacco has changed your life and how the elimination of online access to electronic cigarette supplies would negatively affect you. Tell them that by switching to a smokefree product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.

3. Explain that the purpose of increasing cigarette taxes has been to cover governmental healthcare expenditure caused by smoking and to discourage smoking. But since electronic cigarettes are 98-99% less hazardous than cigarettes, there is no fiscal or public health justification for such a hefty tax.


4. E-cigarettes are typically sold at prices equivalent to or far, far above the cost of a taxed pack of cigarettes. Some e-cigarette products cost upwards of $200.


5. Sections 1 and 7 also would decimate e-cigarette vendors in Utah who sell via the Internet or prompt them to move out-of-state. The sections could also empower the Utah Attorney General to prosecute out-of-state e-cigarette vendors for selling online to consumers in Utah, prompting many e-cigarette consumers in Utah to travel out-of-state to purchase the products. As such, Sections 1 and 7 would harm Utah businesses and reduce state tax revenue.


6. Section 7 may lead to thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of Utah e-cigarette users being unable to purchase anything more than convenience store brand e-cigarettes. Utah covers over 80,000 square miles and contains less than 15 e-cigarette specialty stores, making storefronts inaccessible or inconvenient to many in the State.


7. Many smokers who switch to less hazardous electronic cigarettes do so because e-cigarettes are less expensive than cigarettes. Increasing the costs of e-cigarettes to that of cigarettes would discourage many smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. It could also encourage some e-cigarette consumers to go back to cigarette smoking.

---

House Health & Human Services Committee

Rep. Paul Ray, Chair
H: 801-774-0624 / M: 801-725-2719
pray@le.utah.gov

Rep. LaVar Christensen, Vice Chair
C: 801-808-5105
lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov

Rep. Stewart Barlow
H: 801-544-4708 / C: 801-289-6699
sbarlow@le.utah.gov


Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck
M: 801-891-9292
rchouck@le.utah.gov


Rep. Tim Cosgrove
H: 801-685-0673
tcosgrove@le.utah.gov


Rep. Brian M. Greene
C: 801-889-5693
bgreene@le.utah.gov

Rep. Michael S. Kennedy
H: 801-763-1376 / C: 801-358-2362
mikekennedy@le.utah.gov


Rep. Ronda Rudd Menlove
H: 435-458-9115
rmenlove@le.utah.gov


Rep. Edward H. Redd
H: 435-752-3364 / C: 435-760-3177
eredd@le.utah.gov


Comma delimited list: pray@le.utah.gov, lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov, rchouck@le.utah.gov, sbarlow@le.utah.gov, tcosgrove@le.utah.gov, bgreene@le.utah.gov, rmenlove@le.utah.gov, mikekennedy@le.utah.gov, eredd@le.utah.gov

 

[Plumes.91]

I have contacted as many of the e-mail addresses as I could. 2-3 came back from mailerdemon.

I sent the following:

I am writing this to you to express my absolute opposition to HB372, the ecig tax & ban.
This bill is absolutely ludicrous. Whomever has introduced the points contained should be ashamed of themselves.
Electronic cigarettes are an alternative to smoking tobacco leaves.

Electronic cigarettes contain Propylene Glycol, which is used in asthima defibulators.
PG is in everything we use. Deodorant, Soda, Medication, foods, drinks. Its been widely studied.
These e-cigarettes are saving lives. They are saving lives in the long run and we truly believe this.
In the short term, they are improving our health dramatically.

Asthima goes away, pain, fatigue, congestion, shortness of breath, allergies, reduced immune function.
Every negative symptom directly caused by smoking organic plant matter is gone when one switches to e-cigarettes.
We know this because hundreds of people come to the many e-cigarette forums and meeting places and state these benefits!
We are not crazy. We are not in the dark about these benefits. E-cigarettes improve our health and we talk about it daily!
Hundreds of thousands of people within the united states, millions of people world wide.

TAXING e-cigarettes 86% OVER the manufacturers/vendor's price? That would make them impossible to get.
That would make them impossible to get for many of the less wealthy people that have switched to them.
The people that are switching to e-cigarettes are the educated people that read the testimonials. REAL LIFE testimonials.

Legislators in many states seem to believe the e-cig industry is in the grasp of the big tobacco companies.
This simply is not true. most vendors are small businesses. Most american made e-cigarettes are small businesses.
There are only two big tobacco corporations in e-cigs and they just recently got into e-cigarettes.
We are fighting against that stigma. We are fighting against the belief that big tobacco is behind this.
We are fighting against the belief that big tobacco is trying to get more customers. That is not true.
We are strong in numbers. We are millions strong and we KNOW that ecigs REDUCE the harm from tobacco smoke.

This is NOT carcinogenic smoke, created from burning organic material.
This is the vaporizing of water and propylene glycol, neither of which are carcinogenic in nature.
Nicotine, PG, water, NONE of these are cancerous. NONE.

I only ask that you educate yourselves in the interest of the people that this bill would effect.
And this bill would directly effect we the people, we the people that are choosing to save our lives + improve our health.
This bill would also effect and completely eradicate many businesses in the state of Utah.
an 86% tax would completely wipe all e-cigarette sales out of the state completely.
PLEASE do your duty as a legislator, educate yourself, and stand with those of us that want to save our lives.

Thank you.

 

[sonicdsl]

Yep, Paul Ray and Ronda Rudd Menlove both came back as non-deliverable (no such email address). The rest appear to have gone through though.

 

[jlew]

I am having an issue with one of the "What to say" listed above:

4. E-cigarettes are typically sold at prices equivalent to or far, far above the cost of a taxed pack of
cigarettes.

Some e-cigarette products cost upwards of $200.

This is not correct in a sense as most e-cigarettes (in the long run) cost far less than traditional
cigarettes... And
The cartridges and Liquids also cost far less than cigarettes (when compared to amount of cigarettes
for the same cost).

I will agree that there are some pretty expensive types of e-cigs on the market but --

The average cost of a carton of Cigarettes is roughly $30 to $45 where the estimated cost of an e-cig
starter kit is around $40 to $45 (this includes both name brand and cheaper "knock-offs").
Therefore, in the long run, the hardware pays for itself and becomes much more Cost Efficient.

One of the major Benefits to e-cigarettes is their Low Cost and Cost Efficiency over time compared with
traditional cigarettes.


Telling a legislator that they cost Far More could put a legislator who is concerned about the economy
or individual finances, into a position to say: "No Sale because they would cost a person more than what
is worth so they should be banned to help save people money"...

Just sayin

 

[Fiamma]

I am having an issue with one of the "What to say" listed above:




This is not correct in a sense as most e-cigarettes (in the long run) cost far less than traditional
cigarettes... And
The cartridges and Liquids also cost far less than cigarettes (when compared to amount of cigarettes
for the same cost).

I will agree that there are some pretty expensive types of e-cigs on the market but --

The average cost of a carton of Cigarettes is roughly $30 to $45 where the estimated cost of an e-cig
starter kit is around $40 to $45 (this includes both name brand and cheaper "knock-offs").
Therefore, in the long run, the hardware pays for itself and becomes much more Cost Efficient.

One of the major Benefits to e-cigarettes is their Low Cost and Cost Efficiency over time compared with
traditional cigarettes.


Telling a legislator that they cost Far More could put a legislator who is concerned about the economy
or individual finances, into a position to say: "No Sale because they would cost a person more than what
is worth so they should be banned to help save people money"...

Just sayin

If you look at the cost of startup with Blu, knowing the length of battery life means buying x more batteries, knowing how little juice is in the carts means buying x more carts you will see how it can easily equal or exceed the cost of an ego and juice.

The people writing this legislation don't know from Provari, Lava Tube, ZMax, and bottled juice. They know cigalikes, like Blu.

I was looking at the Blu page online. Starter kit is 89.95 and you know two of those batteries and 5 carts are going to last what, part of a day on the batts and maybe a day on the carts?

 

[AgentSmith]

e-mails sent

 

[sonicdsl]

I am having an issue with one of the "What to say" listed above:




This is not correct in a sense as most e-cigarettes (in the long run) cost far less than traditional
cigarettes... And
The cartridges and Liquids also cost far less than cigarettes (when compared to amount of cigarettes
for the same cost).

I will agree that there are some pretty expensive types of e-cigs on the market but --

The average cost of a carton of Cigarettes is roughly $30 to $45 where the estimated cost of an e-cig
starter kit is around $40 to $45 (this includes both name brand and cheaper "knock-offs").
Therefore, in the long run, the hardware pays for itself and becomes much more Cost Efficient.

One of the major Benefits to e-cigarettes is their Low Cost and Cost Efficiency over time compared with
traditional cigarettes.


Telling a legislator that they cost Far More could put a legislator who is concerned about the economy
or individual finances, into a position to say: "No Sale because they would cost a person more than what
is worth so they should be banned to help save people money"...

Just sayin

If you look at the cost of startup with Blu, knowing the length of battery life means buying x more batteries, knowing how little juice is in the carts means buying x more carts you will see how it can easily equal or exceed the cost of an ego and juice.

The people writing this legislation don't know from Provari, Lava Tube, ZMax, and bottled juice. They know cigalikes, like Blu.

I was looking at the Blu page online. Starter kit is 89.95 and you know two of those batteries and 5 carts are going to last what, part of a day on the batts and maybe a day on the carts?

Good points. I just worded it if they want a premium quality American-made device, they would pay upward of $200, but with this proposed tax, it would be $372, which effectively puts premium American-made devices out of reach of most vapers. Even the standard imports and lower quality or smaller battery devices would nearly double, making the cost effective part of the switch nearly worthless.

Or something to that effect.

 

[Plumes.91]

I cannot believe some of the bills I've been reading lately. This particular batch e-mail that I sent played to the part of e-cigarettes being a reduced harm substitute to burning tobacco leaves. This may not be the best angle to use and I apologize if this does not help, but that is what resonates in my heart. My dad died of cancer before I could even form memories around his presence in my life. Then I started smoking when I grew up to know why he did it, to follow him.. And when i educate myself and switch to a huge movement that is going to save millions of lives and improve health on such a global and immense scale, governments try to shut us down for lack of funding for research? Really? Is this what a democratic republic society was supposed to turn into? A society where our elected officials can cast away virtually anything the human populace picks up and enjoys, if it does not sync up with the many spider webs that have weaved their ways into the pockets of our politicians? Like opium before it, is NICOTINE the scourge of the human race? Is it a drug that stops us from our pursuit of happiness, or is that what the government is stopping by policing our use of it?? If enough people do not stand up to the CT Ban, many thousands of vapers who have successfully gotten away from filling themselves with acidic and carcinogenic tobacco smoke, and instead filling themselves with a harmless substance with temperatures far lower than those that would trigger its flash point. No soot, no tar, no nothing. PG is naturally dispelled from our bodies. Not retained like the chemicals in cigarettes, that produce free radical cancer causing agents. This isn't just e-cigarettes. Its everything in our lives. We aren't individuals, we're a single organism which is governed by a nanny state nucleus and we don't care if we die as useless to the big scheme of things, do we? Lay down GI, lay down. I'm not a male nipple. I'm not an appendix. I am not a wisdom tooth. Together we are not apathetic nothings. Our desire for freedom is not and should not be outweighed by our desire to be left to pittle out our days by the TV.

 

[Nanooks]

(Removed).

 

[Placebo Effect]

Nanooks, I did my research.

First, look at the headline of the bill. It explicitly says it imposes taxes.

Second, and most importantly, if you look at the bill, Section 1 amends the definition of 'tobacco product' to include a 'nicotine product' (also newly created), and a 'nicotine product' includes an 'e-cigarette' (also newly defined). And then go look at the part of the statute that it amends, and than go to (as I recall) Chapter 302, which imposes a tax on all tobacco products other than cigarettes of 86% manufacturer's price.

You're also wrong about the mail order part of the proposed law. Licensed retailers can only ship to other licensed retailers.

You're in Utah, which means that in the time it took you to write that post you could've called the cell phones of members of the Health & Human Services Committee and expressed your opposition.

 

[kristin]

I would suggest before anyone responds to this to read the entire bill and not just the posts here. I would like someone that has read the full bill to tell me where the so called 86% tax increase is.

It is not an 86% "increase" it is an increase from regular sales tax to 86% of the manufacturer's price.

Lines 11 - 14 of the bill states "This bill:...amends the definition of tobacco product to include certain nicotine products and provides for the taxation of those products"

This: http://tax.utah.gov/commission/bulletin/tb-06-10.pdf shows that "all other tobacco products," which would now include e-cigarettes if this bill passes, are taxed at 86% of manufacturer's price.

Therefore, if the definition of "tobacco product" is amended by this bill to include e-cigarettes and tobacco products are currently taxed at 86% of the manufacturer's price, then clearly that means that e-cigarettes will be taxed at 86% of the manufacturer's price instead of the regular sales tax rate.

 

[Fiamma]

Yes, read before you react.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Hearing starting now -- Utah Legislature View Page

Click 'Listen' next to Health and Human Services

 

[aka.robo]

Live audio stream: HERE!

edit: PE beat me to it. Sorry for the repost.

 

[Fiamma]

I'm listening to this and I may have a stroke listening to the lies spilling from these mouths.

 

[taylormadesuperfast]

I'm listening to this and I may have a stroke listening to the lies spilling from these mouths.

It is amazing what this clown is saying about "whether getting hit by a mac truck (analog) or a car (e cig).....in the end it's the same difference"
.

 

[Fiamma]

It always comes down to punish the poor guy/gal who needs some nicotine in their body. Make it so expensive they have to quit. Wonder what would happen if a bunch of strung out former smokers needing thei nic fix showed up to rumble.

 

[taylormadesuperfast]

Well I listened to the whole thing and I think what I heard was that there was an amendment to the bill that would only tax liquid that contained nicotine and not any devices.....only tax on nicotine liquids and cartridges and unfortunately it sounds as though it passed.

 

[taylormadesuperfast]

It always comes down to punish the poor guy/gal who needs some nicotine in their body. Make it so expensive they have to quit. Wonder what would happen if a bunch of strung out former smokers needing thei nic fix showed up to rumble.

Funny you should say this because they did mention that people showed up yesterday with guns. LOL!

 

[kristin]

Well I listened to the whole thing and I think what I heard was that there was an amendment to the bill that would only tax liquid that contained nicotine and not any devices.....only tax on nicotine liquids and cartridges and unfortunately it sounds as though it passed.

That is correct but it never did tax the devices - that amendment was just making that clear. It also banned e-cig internet sales in Utah.