The measure is a potential boon for state coffers but is also considered a major threat by the tobacco industry, which relies increasingly on its e-cigarette business.
Continue reading the main story
“The stakes for the tobacco companies in California are just ridiculously high,” said Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco.
Similar fights are playing out across the country. Cigarette companies have spent nearly $4 million to defeat a ballot measure in North Dakota on Tuesday that would also impose a tax on e-cigarettes. This year, at least 17 other states considered legislation to tax e-cigarettes, but only Pennsylvania and West Virginia actually did, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But nowhere has the fight been more heated than in California, where progressive legislation is often seen as a bellwether for other states. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco and Philip Morris, both of which have their own e-cigarette units, have spent more than $70 million collectively on ads, mailers and other efforts to defeat the ballot measure, making it one of the industry’s most expensive political campaigns.
“They are blanketing the state of California,” said Mike Roth, the spokesman for the Yes on 56 campaign, a group the supports the new taxes. The group has raised more than $30 million from health care organizations like hospital systems and nonprofits to support the measure.
The new taxes could add up to millions of dollars for states, making up for some of the revenue lost as cigarette sales have fallen. Last year, for example, California collected about $750 million from cigarette taxes, down from more than $1 billion in 2005, according to a report from the consulting firm Orzechowski and Walker.
But taxes will not affect just big tobacco companies. A number of small vape shops have closed since Pennsylvania’s new 40 percent tax on the wholesale price of e-cigarettes, also called vape pens, went into effect on Oct. 1.
At Vegas Vapes in Bryn Mawr, outside Philadelphia, a sign that says “Zero Vape Shops = Zero Tax Collected” hangs in the window. The owner, Raffi Farraj, said he had to pass on some of that cost to customers, but not so much that it drives business away.
“If I ate all 40 percent, I’d be closed by the end of the year,” Mr. Farraj said. “If I charged 40 percent, I’d be closed by the end of the year.”
Continue reading the main story
At the center of the public debate is the question of whether e-cigarettes should be treated like cigarettes, given that a growing body of evidence suggests e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes. Still, American regulators have stepped up their oversight. The Food and Drug Administration completed a rule in May that would give it authority over e-cigarettes.
So far, though, any potential new restrictions appear to be years away. Under the new rule, e-cigarette companies have two years to submit scientific information to the F.D.A. for approval.
And the industry is trying to use that timing to its advantage. Until the agency knows more, manufacturers say, it is unfair to tax e-cigarettes the same way as cigarettes.
“It could impede adult consumer interest in vapor products before F.D.A. has had the opportunity to develop a full regulatory approach,” said David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria. The company owns Philip Morris, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, and the e-cigarette company Nu Mark.
Still, groups like the American Lung Association have seized on the F.D.A.’s decision as evidence that more restrictions on e-cigarettes are necessary.
“So much of the product research on them has been limited,” said Erika Sward, the assistant vice president for national advocacy at the lung association. “The comparison cannot be whether they are as lethal as cigarettes. The comparison is what their impact is on the public health.”
The association has expressed particular concern about children. E-cigarettes can come in flavors like strawberry and apple. Health advocates argue that such flavors entice young people, who are then more inclined to move to cigarettes.
“E-cigarettes are a very important element of recruiting kids,” said Mr. Glantz of the center for tobacco research.
Continue reading the main story
The “standard mantra” on cigarette taxes, Ms. Sward said, is that every 10 percent increase yields a 3 to 4 percent decline in smoking among adults, and a 7 percent decline among young people.
“Kids are really price sensitive,” Mr. Glantz said. “Keeping the price of e-cigarettes low is really important to the tobacco companies.”
E-cigarette makers argue that their products can help adults quit smoking cigarettes, which contain more nicotine. The Royal College of Physicians, a prominent British health authority, recently recommended them for that purpose.
But both Mr. Glantz and Ms. Sward dispute that argument and point to an overlap of e-cigarette and cigarette users. The F.D.A. has not approved vaping as a way to quit smoking.
Most of the new tax revenue in California would be earmarked for Medi-Cal, the state’s health program for low-income residents. But the tobacco industry argues that this would benefit companies like Blue Shield of California, a nonprofit insurer that donated $1 million to support Proposition 56.
In a statement, Blue Shield said it was supporting Proposition 56 because raising taxes was a proven public health approach that would save its members from a “lifetime of addiction.”
In addition, some in the vaping industry have criticized health advocates for their ties to pharmaceutical giants. The lung association, for example, has received millions of dollars from Pfizer’s foundation. Pfizer makes Chantix, a drug to help people quit smoking.
In a follow-up statement, Ms. Sward of the lung association said that corporate foundations were an “important pillar in funding nonprofits.”
“No funder influences our position, agenda or science-based messages,” she said.
Continue reading the main story
Source link
Share
0
Share
0
Share
0
Share
0