WI bill to increase smoke-free tax same as cigarettes? CASAA's Kristin Noll-Marsh exposes the lies on her blog.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,255
20,250
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
[h=3]Wisconsin smokers are quitting. The solution? Tax non-smokers.[/h]

In 1999, Wisconsin received $5.9 billion dollars in the national tobacco lawsuit and within 4 years it was all gone. That's because the state, facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history, had sold 25 years of tobacco payments for $1.3 billion to balance a single year's budget.

Since 2003, the percentage of adult smokers in Wisconsin has reduced from 22% to 20.6%. From 2005 to 2010, the net cigarette taxes collected more than doubled from $289 million to $595 million, while the total number of cigarette packs sold dropped from 414 million to 298 million. According to a 2011 report by the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, no other source of state revenue has increased at that rate. "Revenue from tobacco (exclusive of revenue from tobacco bonds) is the fourth largest source of state revenue after sales, income and corporate taxes."

It is clear that to maintain the tax revenue, the state must either increase the taxes on the ever-dwindling population of smokers buying taxed cigarettes or find other sources of revenue. The 2011 UW report showed that taxes on non-cigarette tobacco products have increased by over 350% since 2005. Surveys show that smoke-free tobacco use has increased to 4% in Wisconsin. Clearly, many smokers have turned not only to the cheaper, Native American cigarette stores but also to less expensive, less harmful smoke-free tobacco products. Obviously, the state would want even more from those smoke-free users to compensate for the lost cigarette taxes.

Health organizations and legislators usually justify increasing tobacco taxes by claiming the increased costs reduce smoking rates, thereby improving public health and decreasing health insurance and medical care costs. But the UW report mentioned earlier found that while "increasing taxes may effectively reduce cigaretteconsumption, it did not cause a significant decline in adult smoking prevalence. The increase in taxes may have contributed to the modest decline in youth smoking, which is consistent with other studies showing that youth are more sensitive to price changes than adults." (Translation: Nearly the same percentage of people are still smoking, they just aren't smoking as many cigarettes as they did before and the decline in youth smoking hasn't exactly been exceptional, either.)

With that in mind, consider a new bill soon to be introduced by Wisconsin Representative Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay).

The bill, titled the "Backpack Tobacco Act," claims to only be thinking of "saving the children" when proposing to increase the taxes on non-cigarette tobacco products to be as high as current cigarette taxes. The health organizations supporting this Act claim it is to combat the increased use of "little cigars" and smoke-free tobacco products that come in "candy flavors." (Note that the only people calling these "candy" flavors and bringing them to the attention of youth are the health groups themselves.) They claim that increasing the tax on these products will have a significant impact on reducing youth smoking rates.

Let me first say that I strongly support prohibiting the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to minors. However, the proponents of the bill make several claims designed to convince and/or scare people into increasing taxes .(mainly affecting the adult consumers of these products) that just don't stand up to the light.

Some of the "facts" stated in a joint press release issued by the bill's author and the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and Health First Wisconsin were...

Read full story >
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,255
20,250
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Thank you for the kind comments! <3

I called Bies' office and got a copy of the bill. The blog post has been updated with a link. We are still analyzing it, but it seems it could be twisted to include e-cigs under the new definition of "Tobacco Products" if the e-cig or liquid contains nicotine derived from tobacco. I'll know more after the other directors get a chance to look at it. We'll be issuing a CASAA Call to Action!
 

BuGlen

Divergent
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2012
1,952
3,976
Tampa, Florida
Thank you for the kind comments! <3

I called Bies' office and got a copy of the bill. The blog post has been updated with a link. We are still analyzing it, but it seems it could be twisted to include e-cigs under the new definition of "Tobacco Products" if the e-cig or liquid contains nicotine derived from tobacco. I'll know more after the other directors get a chance to look at it. We'll be issuing a CASAA Call to Action!

I swear that we need to work with Monsanto and get them to genetically alter tomatoes or eggplants to produce high levels of nicotine. Then we could tell all these ANTZ to kiss our collective shiny a....
 

NorthOfAtlanta

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 27, 2011
1,616
3,582
Canton, GA
I swear that we need to work with Monsanto and get them to genetically alter tomatoes or eggplants to produce high levels of nicotine. Then we could tell all these ANTZ to kiss our collective shiny a....

I can see it now, Doc, can I get my tomato scrip renewed.

:D
 

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,641
Central GA
And at the same time, the FDA allows Nicorette and other nicotine replacement products to be sold over the counter without prescription. I guess it's not as cool as blowing vapor and is only used as a cessation method.

Seriously, it's the tax revenue loss that's likely to make politicians re-aim their efforts at controlling us as the tobacco companies find themselves without fewer and fewer resources to pay the settlement amounts. Now that BT is into the vaping field, we can expect tobacco company type regulations. That probably means small business will find themselves strapped with taxation that must be bundled into the product selling price.

Vaping is destined to eventually become more expensive unless we all DIY. I wonder how zero nic juice will be handled? I plan to get there one day.
 

Petrodus

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2010
7,702
8,132
Midwest
And at the same time, the FDA allows Nicorette and other nicotine replacement products to be sold over the counter without prescription. I guess it's not as cool as blowing vapor and is only used as a cessation method.

Seriously, it's the tax revenue loss that's likely to make politicians re-aim their efforts at controlling us as the tobacco companies find themselves without fewer and fewer resources to pay the settlement amounts. Now that BT is into the vaping field, we can expect tobacco company type regulations. That probably means small business will find themselves strapped with taxation that must be bundled into the product selling price.

Vaping is destined to eventually become more expensive unless we all DIY.
I wonder how zero nic juice will be handled? I plan to get there one day.
I'm vaping zero nic liquid now ...
They will eventually get around to attacking vapers using zero nic liquids.
Why ??
It looks like smoke ... Save the Childreeeeen !!
 

Stubby

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
2,104
1,992
Madison, WI USA
Thank you for the kind comments! <3

I called Bies' office and got a copy of the bill. The blog post has been updated with a link. We are still analyzing it, but it seems it could be twisted to include e-cigs under the new definition of "Tobacco Products" if the e-cig or liquid contains nicotine derived from tobacco. I'll know more after the other directors get a chance to look at it. We'll be issuing a CASAA Call to Action!

I read through the bill and..... not being a lawyer I haven't much of a clue as to what it really means.

Just so you know Kristin snus is considered a moist smokeless tobacco so it was already taxed at 100% of wholesale. That is, if not the highest smokeless tobacco tax in the country, among the highest. This part is interesting

For single−unit tobacco products, on each single−use unit, an amount equal
to the amount of the tax imposed under s. 139.31 (1) (a) on one cigarette. No
single−unit tobacco products may be sold in this state in packages containing fewer
than 20 single−use units.

All US made snus and some Swedish snus comes in cans of 15 portions. That would be illegal with this bill.

Basically what the bills says from my limited legal understanding is that all tobacco products would be taxed the same high rate as cigarettes. Portion snus or other smokeless tobacco products that come in single units would be taxed at what I believe is 12.5 cents a portion. A can of Swedish snus with 24 portions would be taxed at $3.00.
Hopefully someone with a legal back-round can decipher this a bit better.

This is a basic anti-tobacco harm reduction bill that will do nothing to improve public health and promotes smoking while discouraging smokers from switching to low risk alternatives.
 
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,255
20,250
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I read through the bill and..... not being a lawyer I haven't much of a clue as to what it really means.

Just so you know Kristin snus is considered a moist smokeless tobacco so it was already taxed at 100% of wholesale. That is, if not the highest smokeless tobacco tax in the country, among the highest. This part is interesting

For single−unit tobacco products, on each single−use unit, an amount equal
to the amount of the tax imposed under s. 139.31 (1) (a) on one cigarette. No
single−unit tobacco products may be sold in this state in packages containing fewer
than 20 single−use units.

All US made snus and some Swedish snus comes in cans of 15 portions. That would be illegal with this bill.

Basically what the bills says from my limited legal understanding is that all tobacco products would be taxed the same high rate as cigarettes. Portion snus or other smokeless tobacco products that come in single units would be taxed at what I believe is 12.5 cents a portion. A can of Swedish snus with 24 portions would be taxed at $3.00.
Hopefully someone with a legal back-round can decipher this a bit better.

This is a basic anti-tobacco harm reduction bill that will do nothing to improve public health and promotes smoking while discouraging smokers from switching to low risk alternatives.

A lot of it is over my head, too, Stubby. So I'm asking the legal and tax experts on the board to look at it. My first reaction is that one paragraph defining tobacco products COULD include tobacco-derived nicotine liquid, but there is no specific per unit price mentioned for liquids, so e-cigarettes would be unaffected at this time. (But there's no guarantee there wouldn't be changes or amendments after it is officially introduced.)

So my biggest concern right now is for the cost of low-risk tobacco products - specifically Swedish snus and the tax penalties for residents who do not claim internet purchases. And, of course, all of the lies this bill spreads low risk tobacco products.
 

mezzio

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
One of my best friends is a lawyer, ill forward him the bill and ask if he can decypher it... of course last time I did that he ignored it until I forgot about it, then he sent me a message with a bunch of legal gobbledygook that I still couldn't understand, lol.




Sent from my Google powered personal data extraction device
 

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,641
Central GA
Just a thought, but vendors pride themselves in listing pharmaceutical nicotine as being used in all their juices. If pharma based nic is in our juice and it's in Nicorette gum and all the nic based stop smoking methods, then aren't we seeing an increase in pricing to all who would try to quit tobacco? Sounds to me like someone doesn't want us to quit and if we do, then we will pay dearly for the privilege of using it to wean ourselves off tobacco.

Taxing tobacco more and more to discourage use is the stated intent of increased tobacco taxation. So, we do the same to a perfectly good solution for breaking the dangerous tobacco habit by discouraging those who switch to a much safer and proven solution? Not a lot of apparent thought in the process to me. It seems to be about collecting all the money they can before we all stop using nicotine products. Then, there will be something else that "needs" to be controlled. You have to wonder what their target list contains. Is sugar next? Then fat in foods?

Once nicotine products are wiped out, I'd hate to own a string of fast food restaurants. Fast food is already on the bad list and waiting in the wings for its turn.
 
Last edited:

Stubby

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
2,104
1,992
Madison, WI USA
Just a thought, but vendors pride themselves in listing pharmaceutical nicotine as being used in all their juices. If pharma based nic is in our juice and it's in Nicorette gum and all the nic based stop smoking methods, then aren't we seeing an increase in pricing to all who would try to quit tobacco? Sounds to me like someone doesn't want us to quit and it we do, then we will pay dearly for the privilege of using it to wean ourselves off tobacco.

Taxing tobacco more and more to discourage use is the stated intent of increased tobacco taxation. So, we do the same to a perfectly good solution for breaking the dangerous tobacco habit by discouraging those who switch to a much safer and proven solution? Not a lot of apparent thought in the process to me. It seems to be about collecting all the money they can before we all stop using nicotine products. Then, there will be something else that "needs" to be controlled. You have to wonder what their target list contains. Is sugar next? Then fat in foods?

Once nicotine products are wiped out, I'd hate to own a string of fast food restaurants. Fast food is already on the bad list and waiting in the wings for its turn.

The problem with that is tobacco is not the problem, it's smoking. Western smokeless tobacco, contrary to common myth, has the same low risk as vaping. Actually there is a lot more science behind smokeless tobacco then vaping with over 40 years of studies. Increasing taxes on ST works against public health as much as imposing taxes on e-liquid.

There is really no question that e-liquid will be classified as a tobacco product, and there is no reason it shouldn't be as the main (and only active ingredient) is extracted from tobacco. That is not the problem. The problem is that recreational use of tobacco/nicotine has been so demonized that even some in the electronic cigarette community are trying to run away from tobacco by making believe it really isn't. It is not going to work. The same people who are lying about the dangers of ST are the same people lying about the dangers of vaping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread