California Passes 56

[Bebop]

Side bar: how ironic is it that California legalizes the weed but then passes 56 "in the interest of health" which adds $2 a pack to ciggy prices and an undetermined amount to ejuice....hmmm

And, on to my question...

Has anyone been to a B&M in california and does anyone have an idea how this affects ejuice prices locally? I haven't been yet so no clue...

And, I'm really curious how this affects on line purchases, whether purchasing out-of-state products are affected. What about DIY nicotine products or other products tobbacky related?  

Has anyone from California seen any changes yet?

...you know, aside from that really strange smell coming from the neighbor's house...

[Adversarious1]

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.

[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...

Edited November 16, 2016 by Bebop

[Adversarious1]

Yep, the federal side of things poses interesting questions in state and local law enforcement agencies.  Although it sounds like a cop out (no pun intended), it really isn't our job to enforce federal laws.  

Wouldn't it really put a cramp in the sides of the states who have legalized it if the federal government started putting a freeze on state funds and started seizing the funds that can directly be attributed to the taxes collected from marijuana sales?

[FXRich]

The Feds will probably only go after the large operations. About 5 miles from me there is a fenced off 10 acre plot with about 8 - 10 large greenhouses on it. The farm it is a part of is about 160 acres, in my opinion the Feds will probably seize the entire 160 acres not just the 10 acres.

BTW the Congressman for this district is a Rep, and has a house not far from the weed plantation.

When the law passed in Oregon the State let the individual counties opt out if they wanted to, a lot of the counties east of the Cascades opted out. The county I live in didn't opt out, but made growing in rural areas illegal, which makes the plantation I mentioned illegal under State law.

[Tam]

8 hours ago, Bebop said:

I did find the significant problems Colorado faced/is facing to be noteworthy. 

Humorous now, I suppose, but I'm not looking forward to the problems and tragedy we are facing with intoxicated drivers, increased crime etc.

The problems are increasing daily, too. Driving home at night I have to be even more vigilant than ever before. The cars weaving on the roads could be from driving while intoxicated (alcohol), or the driver is distracted (ie. texting while driving), or the driver is stoned, or it could be that the driver just plain doesn't know how to drive well. Anyway, since the time change and we now drive home in the dark, I've seen a minimum of three near misses each night.

Crime rate is rising, the budget for our law enforcement officers has not. If you call the police with a non-emergency like a burglary, you could wait a minimum of six hours up to six days before you hear or see anyone. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way blaming the over-burdened and overworked/under appreciated law enforcement officers. They're faced with a losing proposition because everyone wants better service but always vote down the taxes that would go toward funding it.  /rant.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Tam

[FXRich]

We only make the trip to town once or twice a week (15 mi one way), and avoid driving at night mostly because of the increased critters on the road. We have noticed a increase in idiot drivers lately we don't know why they seem to be stupider, but Tams explanation makes sense.

I was reading the paper a few days ago, and found a article that said increased technology is making the roads more dangerous because of distracted driving. It is against the law to use a cell phone while driving here, but people ignore the law and do it anyway. Before they passed the law we didn't use our phones while driving so the law didn't make any difference to us. 

[Christopher]

Yup this is a pretty ridiculous tax. Right as we're preparing to move the warehouse to California. Though we're moving to focus mostly on interstate sales so this won't affect us as much as it'll affect the local B&M's. It's my understanding that Californians can just order outside of the state (online sales) to avoid the tax. But this really screws the local guys. (All this will do is send more people to the Chinese companies. Most resident will just order from wherever is the cheapest) 

We'll have to collect sales tax from addresses that reside in California but do not for customers outside of California. 

On Vapor Talk products (which we have more direct control of) we plan to try and attempt to cover sales tax for CA residents. (Otherwise you're looking at some huge price hikes)