RJR trying to push a tax on Ecig

[DogMomDeb]

The reason I asked is because I used to smoke for about 5-6 years. I wasn't a heavy smoker -less than a pack a day. I quit by chewing lots of sugar free gum and doing things to keep my hands occupied (cross stitch or craft work - none of which looked good) and it was hard.
So I wonder if e cigs are really a way to quit or if they are just a substitute. The way nicotine patches or gums are designed, the consumer uses them to quit. But e cigs seem to be marketed as a substitute for cigarettes, a cool way to smoke so you don't offend all of those around you.
If they are simply a substitute and still a medical risk then I say yes to taxing them.

[SunnyKayak]

It is both, substitute to get away from the tar ridden seventy chemical tobacco smelly teeth yellowing cigarettes to e-cig which has only 7.

At the smoke shop I go to they have three levels of e-liquids - 20mg, 14mg and 0mg.
Half of what is in the starting program of the patch which is 45mg.
If one desired to quit nictotine they could step down each time a new vial is needed.

This tax is only on e-liquids which equals same tax on the standard 15ml vial of e-liquid as it is on cigarettes which is 25 cents per pack. (The republicans are only telling partial truth in the bill by only disclosing its 5 cent a ml. The market doesnt sale just 5ml.

This tax is not on all e-cigs,
There is no tax on the disposables which RJR recently controls the market. They fill landfills since their is no recycle program for the one time use cartridges.

I switch last Easter and I feel great and can breaths out of bottom of my lungs and vaping doesnt irriate my Asthma either as I seem to use inhaler a lot less since I converted.

Is this fair tax no as it only targets the market RJR has not invested inr which is e-liquids that go in Cartomizers and Hookahs.

This is just beginning of RJR war.

[RVAtoCNC]

It's true that there is only limited research, and some of the studies, particularly those conducted by so-called scientists who are funded by, and support, the anti-vape crowd, have been very poorly conducted and tout conclusions totally unsupported by their findings, but make good news headlines. With that said, much more legitimate and unbiased research needs done, however, even the most ardent anti-vape researchers reluctantly concede that vaping is better than smoking. So, either wait around for emphysema, cancer or a heart attack while the research is ongoing - - or switch. That was my decision, and the monthly cost is 20% of the money I spent on buying generic cigs - - so big Tobacco, Big Pharma, politicians, the FDA and others want to regulate and tax us vapors back to smoking, I guess - so much for them giving a tiinker's dam about people's health. (I do support basic regulation of contents of eliquids, child-proofing eliquid containers, and making illegal for minors)

[girlonthewing]

Originally Posted by RVAtoCNC

It's true that there is only limited research, and some of the studies, particularly those conducted by so-called scientists who are funded by, and support, the anti-vape crowd, have been very poorly conducted and tout conclusions totally unsupported by their findings, but make good news headlines. With that said, much more legitimate and unbiased research needs done, however, even the most ardent anti-vape researchers reluctantly concede that vaping is better than smoking. So, either wait around for emphysema, cancer or a heart attack while the research is ongoing - - or switch. That was my decision, and the monthly cost is 20% of the money I spent on buying generic cigs - - so big Tobacco, Big Pharma, politicians, the FDA and others want to regulate and tax us vapors back to smoking, I guess - so much for them giving a tiinker's dam about people's health. (I do support basic regulation of contents of eliquids, child-proofing eliquid containers, and making illegal for minors)

I'm not knocking e-liquids, I just don't think people should automatically assume that they're some kind of miracle alternative to smoking. Vaping is much healthier overall.

[toot68]

Originally Posted by SunnyKayak

It is both, substitute to get away from the tar ridden seventy chemical tobacco smelly teeth yellowing cigarettes to e-cig which has only 7.

At the smoke shop I go to they have three levels of e-liquids - 20mg, 14mg and 0mg.
Half of what is in the starting program of the patch which is 45mg.
If one desired to quit nictotine they could step down each time a new vial is needed.

This tax is only on e-liquids which equals same tax on the standard 15ml vial of e-liquid as it is on cigarettes which is 25 cents per pack. (The republicans are only telling partial truth in the bill by only disclosing its 5 cent a ml. The market doesnt sale just 5ml.

This tax is not on all e-cigs,
There is no tax on the disposables which RJR recently controls the market. They fill landfills since their is no recycle program for the one time use cartridges.

I switch last Easter and I feel great and can breaths out of bottom of my lungs and vaping doesnt irriate my Asthma either as I seem to use inhaler a lot less since I converted.

Is this fair tax no as it only targets the market RJR has not invested inr which is e-liquids that go in Cartomizers and Hookahs.

This is just beginning of RJR war.

A reasonable approach to taxing e-cigs would be to tax the nicotine dose. This would actually provide an economic incentive to utilize lower doses of nicotine, leading to tapering of addiction. The RJR proposal to tax the liquid volume irrespective of the dose does the opposite, and is reprehensible.

[ClevelandMike]

You all realize that our state gets 45 cents per pack sold as tax. Some states get $4 per pack. The states do not manufacturer cigarettes, they simply get a free portion of the sale via tax. Let's not blame the company that employs thousands of people when our government has their hands out too!

So, you mean to tell me that if some other type of gasoline fuel was produced by some company (competitor A) and was not taxed, BP or akin (Competitor B) was paying 40 cents per gallon in NC for taxes and raises an issue with competitor "A" not paying taxes - you all would be pissed at BP?

You do not make any sense with beating up Reynolds for fair game in business. Follow the money and you will find your answers.

IMO - no taxes for gasoline, cigarettes, booze, food & clothes would be Utopia.

[SunnyKayak]

Originally Posted by ClevelandMike

You all realize that our state gets 45 cents per pack sold as tax. Some states get $4 per pack. The states do not manufacturer cigarettes, they simply get a free portion of the sale via tax. Let's not blame the company that employs thousands of people when our government has their hands out too!

So, you mean to tell me that if some other type of gasoline fuel was produced by some company (competitor A) and was not taxed, BP or akin (Competitor B) was paying 40 cents per gallon in NC for taxes and raises an issue with competitor "A" not paying taxes - you all would be pissed at BP?

You do not make any sense with beating up Reynolds for fair game in business. Follow the money and you will find your answers.

IMO - no taxes for gasoline, cigarettes, booze, food & clothes would be Utopia.

Those use vaping devices that require e-liquids pay more than their share of the standard state sale taxes.
From purchase of Carbonizers, Atomizers, tanks, carrying cases, chargers and other accesssories and the e-liquid.
None of these are needed for disposable e-cig which RJR has market majority in.

Originally Posted by toot68

A reasonable approach to taxing e-cigs would be to tax the nicotine dose. This would actually provide an economic incentive to utilize lower doses of nicotine, leading to tapering of addiction. The RJR proposal to tax the liquid volume irrespective of the dose does the opposite, and is reprehensible.

I think this is the solution a fair tax on all nictotine products. Then RJR would be required to reveal how much nictotine they put in a cigarette. A tax in the form you mention would apply to all e-cigs and nictotine products.