Leaderboard

From what I understand, (word of mouth only, not confirmation), the tax on liquids is supposed to be in the neighborhood of 67%. While the tax on analogs is very clearly laid out, there is no mention in the proposition regarding how they will calculate the amount. It merely states: (b) The board shall adopt regulations providing for the implementation of an equivalent tax on electronic cigarettes as that term is defined in subdivision (c) of Section 30121, and the methods for collection of the tax. Such regulations shall include imposition of an equivalent tax on any device intended to be used to deliver aerosolized or vaporized nicotine to the person inhaling from the device when sold separately or as a package; any component, part, or accessory of such a device that is used during the operation of the device, whether sold separately or as a package with such device; and any liquid or substance containing nicotine, whether sold separately or as a package with any device that would allow it to be 7 inhaled. Such regulations may include/ but are not limited to/ defining who is a distributor of electronic cigarettes pursuant to Section 30011 and the licensing requirements of any such person. So...how they came up with that number I don't know, but I'll check my sources. Reading that tax also seems to infer the tax will be on devices as well, however the same text also specifies 'any liquid or substance containing nicotine', so I'm assuming they won't be taxing 0 nic, (as they shouldn't), and a different part of the proposition seems to state that certain items will be exempt from the tax. In other words, it's a muddy as hell document most likely written by an attorney and it contradicts itself in multiple places. As far as the price adjustments, the taxes don't go into effect until April 1, 2017. That date is both stated implicitly and explicitly within the full text of Prop 56. Implicitly - There are multiple areas within the full text of the proposition that refer to collection of the taxes being effective at 12:01 am on the first day of the first calendar quarter more than 90 days after the effective date of the act. (Since the effective date of the act is November 9, 2016 and the next calendar quarter begins on January 1, 2017, that would make April 1, 2017 the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the effective date of the act.) Explicitly - The very last section of the proposition reads: SECTION 10. Effective Date This act shall become effective as provided in Section 10(a) of Article II of the California Constitution; provided, however, the amendment to section 30121 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall become effective April 1, 2017. As far as purchasing from outside the state there is no mention, but I think that is controlled by a different article of the California constitution. For instance, while we can cross state lines and purchase tobacco products for personal use, for a vendor to send those same products into the state they may be subject to rules for importing tobacco products as cigarette manufacturers...i.e. the products will need the "California Tobacco Tax Stamp" on the bottom of the container. That is only speculation on my part, though. I really don't know how that will be handled at this point. My own side note/rant: Yes, this state also just legalized marijuana. 100% for tax reasons and nothing more. I don't care what anybody says of the "medicinal benefits" it brings. My agency has sent groups to both Colorado and Washington state to study the impacts of legalized marijuana in those states. Colorado has reported a rise in unemployment, homelessness and crime since legalizing marijuana. Washington state has reported a dramatic rise in vehicle collisions where there is serious injury or death and marijuana is suspected to be a major contributor to said collision. This is also the same state that just voted to reclassify several felonies as "non-violent" in order to grant parole and release prisoners from prison early. Believe it or not, that proposition actually received more votes in favor of than the marijuana proposition. Just goes to show where the heads of the idiots are in this state. End rant. I'll get off my soapbox now. But I hope I've answered a couple of your questions (at least somewhat) @Bebop.

I was cracking up doing my research before the elections on prop 64. It was by far, the largest portion of the booklet released on Cal propositions. I guess the funny part was trying to imagine a bunch of stoners trying to read thru it. Who am I kidding, they probably didnt read past the title of the proposition. I did find the significant problems Colorado faced/is facing to be noteworthy. It's interesting that medical approval leads to legalization. Something like 6% of medical use accounted for cancer patients and glaucoma patients. The other 94% were prescribed for "pain" with the profile of the average medical user being a 31yr old male with "pain", lol. Humorous now, I suppose, but I'm not looking forward to the problems and tragedy we are facing with intoxicated drivers, increased crime etc. I thought one of the fsscinating aspects isthat it is entirely a cash business and because it is still illegal federally, these businesses cannot use regular banking channels from what will be a multi-billion dollar business! These guys in Colorado are actually burying their cash in the ground, lol. They have to ferry thousands of dollars cash a day to undisclosed locations. I hope I never get caught up in that mess. Yikes. If Northern Cal bay area is anything like Denver Metropolitan area we'll have 3 times the business here. Anyway...I forgot about the April start date on Tobacco taxes. I guess we'll have to wait til then to see what kind of monkey business we are in store for there...

@Edna you are my vape hero!