What would you do if e-cigs became legal, but went under a tax regime?

[Snarkyone]

I have a plan that I have put in motion that some of you won't like at all. I have been stockpiling $500 worth of juice a month for the last 6 months at an undisclosed location in CA in anticipation of a ban there. Once the good old Governator signs the ban Uncle Snark gets rich and lives a life a luxury.

In all seriousness I plan on being nicotine free within the next 6 months so a ban should not have any effect on me whatsoever. I just can't consider myself a non smoker until I am off the nicotine. That's the devil behind the curtain with smoking tobacco cigarettes or even these, it's the nicotine. We can try to delude ourselves and say no it's the throat hit, the taste, the hand and mouth interaction that I really miss, whatever, and these fill the bill, but we all know that is not entirely true. While these do fill a great part of the smoking experience that we all have in our pasts it's the nicotine that kept us coming back. A junkie probably has the same type of relationship with his needle and his "kit" that he carries around that we do and smokers do with their stuff as well.

Didn't mean to preach or rant, it's just I feel strongly about finishing the job I started with these the right way and to the end so that I will never ever go back to being addicted to nicotine and smoking tobacco cigarettes again in my life. I want it to work this time not just for myself but for all of you as well. This insanity we were doing to ourselves with the tobacco has got to stop.

 

[cluster]

Hi! new to vaping and this thread astonished me:

is the idea to create a tax, so that a tax funded organization will do its job properly? how incongruous is that?

And i'm not American so i can be mistaken, but isn't the FDA responsible a whole lot of things like baby bottles? why not a tax on baby bottles so that they analyze them properly too?

Aren't you paying enough taxes for your government to do the job you're already paying it for?

The idea seem so absurd to me, that i think it came out of some sense of "levelling the playing field" with tobacco products. But it's not a vaporizer's fault if cigarettes are so bad for people's health that they are taxed so as to diminish their appeal and finance health care or wherever the money goes. You don't put a tax on something just because it looks like another thing. As i said, that just seem absurd to me, maybe i'm wrong though?

 

[cluster]

In all seriousness I plan on being nicotine free within the next 6 months so a ban should not have any effect on me whatsoever. I just can't consider myself a non smoker until I am off the nicotine. That's the devil behind the curtain with smoking tobacco cigarettes or even these, it's the nicotine. We can try to delude ourselves and say no it's the throat hit, the taste, the hand and mouth interaction that I really miss, whatever, and these fill the bill, but we all know that is not entirely true.

Well smokers i know do like the nicotine high, just like they like the caffeine high and the alcohol high (sorry, i know alcohol isn't legal everywhere, which is preposterous) or the "insert preposterously illegal drug here" high.

Then you are using the e-cigs to stop smoking which is fine ! but i bought mine to continue smoking, because otherwise maybe i should have stopped. Not a hint of delusion, i love the nicotine high and i'm fine with it. It's the tobacco that sucks !

 

[Vapinginjapan]

What if it was a corporate surcharge by dekang to be put away until enough was accumulated for testing.

That might be more agreeable to the general vaping public.

 

[surbitonPete]

Wow people are so used to the idea of having to pay the government to allow them to do something that they are actually talking about how much they would be willing to pay. It's almost like being happy with a protection racket.

 

[Kent C]

Wow people are so used to the idea of having to pay the government to allow them to do something that they are actually talking about how much they would be willing to pay. It's almost like being happy with a protection racket.

Our gov't indoctrina...er... school system works!

 

[Vapinginjapan]

Wow people are so used to the idea of having to pay the government to allow them to do something that they are actually talking about how much they would be willing to pay. It's almost like being happy with a protection racket.

Well, how come people don't work up a fervor over alcohol taxes?

You almost never hear about people going up in a furor about Alcohol. Even though a fifth of Jack can run almost $3-4 in tax. That's just on the federal level.

I don't agree with sin taxes, but something has to be done about the FDA approval process for e-cigs. If we don't go through the proper channels to do a study on it, it will likely always be in legal limbo, bordering on ban. And I don't see another way for companies to raise funding other than slapping on a surcharge, or the government levying a tax on the liquids, in order to get them pushed through.

 

[Chetro]

I would love to add my 2 cents, unfortunately I can't afford the "sin-tax" that the government would levy on my opinion.

Once the government starts taxing for "research" they will soon start upping the tax "for the children".

Now, I would like to quote George Carlin on what I think of "for the children".

Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk
I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore,
children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children." You
know what I say? **** the children!

Listen, there are a couple of things about kids you have to remember. First
of all, they're not all cute. In fact, if you look at 'em real close, most
of them are rather unpleasant looking. And a lot of them don't smell too
good either. The little ones in particular seem to have a kind of urine and
sour-milk combination that I don't care for at all. Stay with me on this
folks, the sooner you face it the better off your going to be.

Second, premise: not all chidren are smart and clever. Got that? Kids are
like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lot of losers! This
country is filled with loser kids who simply...aren't...going anywhere! And
there's nothing you can do about it, folks. Nothing! You can't save them
all. You can't do it. You gotta let 'em go; you gotta cut 'em loose; you
gotta stop over-protecting them, because your making 'em too soft.

Today's kids are way too soft. : : : For one thing, there's too much
emphasis on safety and safety equipment: childproof medicine bottles,
fireproof pajamas, child restraints, car seats. And helmets! Bicycle,
baseball, skateboard, scooter helmets. Kids have to wear helmets now for
everything but jerking off. Grown-ups have taken all the fun out of being a
kid. : : : What's happened is, these baby boomers, these soft, fruity baby
boomers, have raised an entire generation of soft, fruity kids who aren't
even allowed hazardous toys, for Chrissakes! What ever happened to natural
selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles
doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!

 

[Eric in AK]

I must be confused here. I thought that all excise taxes were considered general revenue of the federal government and, once collected, were part of the funds available for appropriation by Congress as part of the federal budget. I don't believe they would ever pass a tax bill directed at nicotine delivery systems and liquids with the narrow, targeted purpose of researching the very things they're taxing.

I believe it's inevitable that they'll tax the e-liquids. Hopefully, though, when they do that they'll bear in mind that these are products that in all likelihood lessen the societal cost of tobacco use rather than add to it. After all, the "sin" taxes imposed on alcohol, tobacco and firearms are predicated largely on the burden placed on society to ameliorate the results of their use or their potential for misuse. There's been very little evidence that use of nicotine liquids carries with it an inevitable or even probable health risk. Creating the fear of "contaminated" glycol products or "zero nic" liquids that - gasp - actually contain trace amounts of nicotine are really the only tactic the FDA or Congress would initially have to support comprehensive regulation and taxation.

There's a substantial grassroots community already in place (this forum) and growing. If and when Congress moves toward regulation and taxation, it will be important for the vaping community to make their representatives aware of the positive aspects of what I personally consider a life-saving, beneficial product.

 

[chris2650]

Just my $0.02 here,

IMHO the first thing excessive taxation would create is a huge shift to local or overseas black market suppliers, either to just plain save $ or to "stick it to the man", doesn't matter.

And what would that do to the quality/purity/safety of the product? Oh, no offense to anyone, I'm sure there are nice and honest black market suppliers out there but rumor has it that there are people on this planet just in for a quick buck, with less than average regard for their customers.

end of sarcasm fit here

The current real and legally operating overseas suppliers would be targeted quickly and the shipments tracked and confiscated even more than now, I'm sure, when MONEY is involved. Therefore many (including this guy here) would be VERY tempted to go to .... other sources....

And, sorry another sarcasm fit boiling up, who REALLY believes that the tax revenue would go to a specific cause? C'mon.. really?

Anyway, that felt quite good Thanks for listening to rant's and raves ....

 

[angelique510]

Sorry no and not just no but a HELL NO!

I need my pv thank you very much, it keeps me from culling the stupid.
It is more taxation without representation. Frankly I am sick and fricking tired paying more taxes while every shiftless worthless sack of crap can collect welfare and food stamps off my dime when they themselves have never paid cent one into the system. Sure tax us some more and give it to those who are to lazy and worthless to contribute ANYTHING to the world.
When the ones who need help get turned away. Sure that settles really well with me. NOT!

I can see them leveling that tax for "research" and use it to fund the busted system like they did with the tabacco settlement money.

I found something the goverment has no clue about, and it scares them. It scares them that I enjoy it and have unplugged from the tax machine, the more I do it the better I feel.

I second the "HELL NO" and agree with every other point in this post. And several other posts. Not because I am against research or exposure, but on principle.

It is not the government's job (at least the United States' government) to protect us from ourselves, to spend our money for us "in our best interests" or even to oversee and regulate products. If a product is no good, we won't buy it. We'll buy from competetor who makes a better product. Do your own homework, caveat emptor, and all that. That would be economics 101. But that would also require peeople to take responsibility for themselves. 8-o I know, it is an old fashioned concept.

Out of the kindness of my heart, or a belief in a cause, I will donate money to research. That is called charity. If you force me to do it, it is called robbery, good intentions or not.

As for the justification that smokers have a higher percentage of medical care costs and should therefore be taxed to offset that.....children go to the doctor constantly. Why don't we tax diapers, barbie dolls, and legos? Oh, I have an even better idea - Only women get breat cancer. Only women menstruate. Let's tax tampons to cure breast cancer!!

(Or maybe it should go to cure PMS - I've heard I need help with that problem. LOL)

Be well,
~A

 

[surbitonPete]

Well, how come people don't work up a fervor over alcohol taxes?

You almost never hear about people going up in a furor about Alcohol. Even though a fifth of Jack can run almost $3-4 in tax. That's just on the federal level.

I don't agree with sin taxes, but something has to be done about the FDA approval process for e-cigs. If we don't go through the proper channels to do a study on it, it will likely always be in legal limbo, bordering on ban. And I don't see another way for companies to raise funding other than slapping on a surcharge, or the government levying a tax on the liquids, in order to get them pushed through.

That's my point, we have become so used to the idea of paying sin taxes that we now accept them so much that we are even suggesting them!!

I know if we want a government and all the things that government does then yes we do have to pay for it but to have to pay them 'extra' if we want to do something like have a drink or a smoke or a 'vape' seems wrong and I hate this idea of controlling our behaviour through taxation because it only controls the behaviour of the poor.....you can do whatever you want as long as you can afford to pay the government your protection money to do it.

 

[Chetro]

Only women get breast cancer.

Not quite. Men can get Breast Cancer, and those who do have a much higher likelihood of dying from it. It is just with everyone talking up women and the "pink ribbon", no one pays much attention to the men it affects.

I bet EVERYONE on this site (from the US anyways) has heard of Susan G. Koman. How many have heard of John W. Nick? Look up John W. Nick Foundation -- The Male Breast Cancer Site sometime.


Now, I know you are being facetious, and I am taking it at that face value.
I am *NOT* trying to start a flame session, not in the least. I am just sick off not one mention of John W. Nick and the fight he went thru because everything is Susan G Koman when it comes to Breast Cancer.

 

[angelique510]

Chetro -

You're right, nobody has heard of John W. Nick. Maybe because the pink ribon stuff is SO fashionable? In fact, I just read a story today about a husband and wife who both have breast cancer. That's horrible. Not only does a man have to deal with cancer, but that he has a "woman's disease" That would be a double dose of suckage.

Yes, I was being facetious, but the men deserve a mention too. Thanks for pointing it out so more people know.

Be well,
~A

 

[iStormUK]

Well I'm new to this forum and indeed to the e-cig, but if they taxed my Miny Choc Chip TW liquid, I'd kick their butts from Bristol to the Moon. Then figure out a way to distill it from tobacco, and start a private plantation in a greenhouse.

 

[SmokinScott]

I'm against any "special" kind of taxes myself (such as sin tax, meal tax, etc). If an item is deamed taxable, it sholud be taxed at the sales tax rate of the state that it is sold in.

I do not believe that tax revenue on e-cigs or niquid would go to researching their safety, nor help vapers in any way. Therefore I'm opposed to any new tax.

I'm kind of allright with the grey state of personal vaporizers as it is. No, it's not accepted, but neither is it banned or taxed.

 

[telsie]

I wouldn't be okay with anything other than paying my state's sales tax for any e-cig supplies I bought in my state. We all spent years paying outrageous taxes for analogs because smokers were an easy scapegoat. But I'm no longer smoking analogs and I see no reason why I should have to continue to carry an undue tax burden.

Also, I'd never trust the government to collect a tax for a specific reason. Even if they did that (haha), what do you suppose would happen when that specific thing (FDA research, in this example) had been fully funded? Would the tax go away? Not a chance. It would stay with e-cigs/e-liquid forever and it would go up and up and up.

 

[scrooby]

I'm sick to death of being raped by the government through taxes just because I am/was a smoker so I would not be thrilled with them taxing e-liquid. I turned to vaping because of the taxes on cigarettes and it just happened to work for me and get me off cigarettes. I know I am rambling here but if it comes to them taxing vaping to the same degree I would just have to quit and become a miserable person.

 

[MightoftheWest]

In 1913 income tax came to be with the promise that it would not go up

fancy that

My father never imagined that cigarette taxs would get to this point.

If ejuice is taxed it shall follow suit.

 

[Vocalek]

There's a substantial grassroots community already in place (this forum) and growing. If and when Congress moves toward regulation and taxation, it will be important for the vaping community to make their representatives aware of the positive aspects of what I personally consider a life-saving, beneficial product.

My only disagreement with the above is that the time is NOW.

Each and every one of us needs to make contact now with our represenative and our senator at both the state and national level (that's four people) and tell them our story. Many of them have never heard of an electronic cigarette, so we need to let them know what it is and what it has done for us. If your health has improved, it is important to mention that.

Let them know that we are concerned that this life-saving device will either be completely taken away or regulated to the extent that it no longer does the job of helping 80% of regular users to become smoke-free.

That way, when the question of banning, regulation, or taxation does come up, your legislative representatives won't be scratching their heads when they hear "electronic cigarette" and asking, "What's that? Who cares?" They'll be saying, "I heard from several of my voters about this issue and they are passionate about keeping the product available."

And I think we need to get over thinking of ourselves as "addicts", because that lets the enemy justfy actions like a sin tax. Unlike some ECF members, I am dependent on nicotine to maintain normal cognitive functioning and emotional health. I don't feel that I should be taxed or punished in any other way for doing what it takes to maintain my health and continue being a productive member of society. That does NOT make me a "sinner." (So there!)