Posted on 06/22/2016 7:27:06 AM PDT by Drango
On a cool spring day at the Capitol, Toni Atkins delivered a series of blows unlike anything the tobacco industry had ever felt in California.
Then speaker of the Assembly, the San Diego Democrat had been a lame duck for the last six months since the house elected Anthony Rendon to replace her. It was a Thursday morning in March and her final session as speaker, a tenure that lasted just shy of a year and 10 months.
In a series of quick votes, the Assembly passed six smoking bills, the most significant of which raised the age to buy tobacco products to 21 and regulated e-cigarettes like tobacco products. The Senate followed the next week. Gov. Jerry Brown signed all but one of the bills – a bid to allow local communities to determine their own tobacco taxes – into law.
The move marked the start of a new war on tobacco. Now a broad coalition of environmentalists, labor unions and health advocates who helped shepherd the bills through the Legislature is gearing for another battle with the industry in November.
A statewide measure expected to qualify for the ballot would add $2 in taxes on tobacco products, e-cigarettes and vaping sales, a change that could cost the industry millions if voters pass it in the fall. Californians now pay an 87-cent tobacco tax on a pack of 20 cigarettes, which hasn’t changed since 1998.
... Thirty years ago, a quarter of Californians identified as cigarette smokers. They were allowed to light up in bars, restaurants, airplanes, workplaces, schools and day care facilities. Cigarettes were sold in vending machines.
At last count in 2013, 11.7 percent of Golden State residents said they smoke,
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The iron law of supply and demand at work: An increase in price, results in a decrease in demand.
They have tried ammo tax also.
Liberal have this insane notion that if they tax the guts out of something people use every day they’ll stop using it
The funny and sad part is that these Tobacco Companies could stop this legislation COLD overnight.
Announce that you are ALL Pulling OUT OF CALIFORNIA ENTIRELY, NO SALES OF ANY KIND.
NO TAX MONEY, NO CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE, NO ILLEGAL ALIEN SUPPORT, Because that is where the Tobacco Tax Money Goes, Childrens Health Care.
Sin taxes used to be frowned upon by the social justice warriors due to the regressive nature of said taxes which have the biggest negative impact on the poor.
Now, these same warriors do it to punish the poor.
Sob, women and children hit hardest.
In a series of quick votes, the Assembly passed six smoking bills, the most significant of which raised the age to buy tobacco products to 21 and regulated e-cigarettes like tobacco products.The Demagogic Party rubberstamp state assembly is working overtime to hand over California's popular as well as electoral votes. They've had it their own way for so long, they've created a consequence-free environment.
Nope, they don't care if no one or everyone uses it -- they get off on lording it over everyone.
In the end, it comes down to revenue.
This will drive more people to get their tobacco from cheaper sources instead of locally.
It will be an inconvenience, but a significant percentage of demand will simply shift to different sources for supply. Government revenue will not be getting the full amount that was projected, and eventually the tax will increase again.
All about the money, IMO.
Punish the poor and then promise to spend revenue you never receive.
Win, win if you are a sociopath.
The only people making money on cigarettes is the government.
“Because that is where the Tobacco Tax Money Goes, Childrens Health Care.”
—
Yeah,right-—that’s what they want you to believe.
.
“Liberal have this insane notion that if they tax the guts out of something people use every day they’ll stop using it.”
Then they complain about the shortfalls in funding.
Yes
None of this is really a problem as California assures former tobacco smokers can easily switch to pot. The tobacco farmers can all go to Humboldt County, and rape public lands and rivers with illicit strip-mine style pot farming, where no one bothers to enforce ANY of California’s and FedGov’s strict environment, worker, and tax laws and regulations.
Such as? Mail order isn't an option. California doesn't have the Indian cigarette industry that New York has. And yes border runs to smuggle cartons in will increase but the overall effect will be a DECREASE in demand.
Plenty of Indian reservations in this state. Online services that will accommodate duty free purchases. Southern California ports of entry from Mexico, even though only 1 carton at a time if bought Duty-Free, or 4 cartons at $4 Duty.
There will be even more choices and black market expansion due to these taxes.
Demand falloff is rarely about price when you're talking about tobacco.
Willing to learn from the master! Details and links to vendors where I can purchase cigarettes online and have them delivered to my door.
If the tobacco industry really wanted to, it could take a *relatively* minor hit by doing something radical, that would send shock waves all over state governments in the US.
New York state is the worst offender for trying to squeeze money out of the tobacco companies, so it should be the primary target. Simply put, with a little advanced notice to major retailers, the tobacco companies should agree to a complete boycott of legal tobacco sales in that state for an entire month.
Granted, there would be sales. A lot of sales. All illegal and untaxed. There would also be a line of cars leaving the state and returning with dozens of cartons.
The last time New York raised its cigarette taxes (last December), they lost $400 million in revenue. A boycott would likely dwarf that.
I won't get into any more details.
You can believe what you please. I disagree with the sentiment that overall will be a significant decline in demand for tobacco due to taxes. Just the same as I don't believe there will be a significant reduction in demand for “soda” once a tax has been levied upon it like what we just saw recently. Most people, poor or not, will still pony up for what they want, and the revenue is what makes this tax attractive.
Politicians really could care less about our “well being”, or the health costs due to soda or tobacco. There angle is revenue at the front end of the sales transaction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.