FT 15.09 - Frémont Nicotine Tax (LAW)

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Frémont Nicotine Tax

Section 1 (Title)

i. The title of this Act shall be, the "Frémont Nicotine Tax."

Section 2 (What classifies as an item with Nicotine)

i. Vapes, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Roll Your Owns

Section 3  (Taxes)

i. There will be a 90% tax on all of the products covered in Section 2.


Section 4 (When will the Tax be Applied)

i. This bill will take effect on August 1st, 2020 if passed.

Sponsor: Ishan, MFP (Unaffiliated—Labor, Guam)

The gentleman of Guam may now advocate.

[Continential]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products. The profits will go to a future expense, currently undetermined.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products.

I don't think that's how addiction generally works, though? More likely this will bankrupt families for whom a nicotine addict is the primary breadwinner.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products.

I don't think that's how addiction generally works, though? More likely this will bankrupt families for whom a nicotine addict is the primary breadwinner.

Such a policy has worked very effectively in Australia though. A pack of Cigarettes in Australia currently cost around $40, and combined with strong investment in helping smokers quit and our strong plain packaging laws have succeeded in continuing to drive down our smoking rate.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products.

I don't think that's how addiction generally works, though? More likely this will bankrupt families for whom a nicotine addict is the primary breadwinner.

Such a policy has worked very effectively in Australia though. A pack of Cigarettes in Australia currently cost around $40, and combined with strong investment in helping smokers quit and our strong plain packaging laws have succeeded in continuing to drive down our smoking rate.

Interesting. I would certainly welcome an amendment in this line.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products.

I don't think that's how addiction generally works, though? More likely this will bankrupt families for whom a nicotine addict is the primary breadwinner.

Such a policy has worked very effectively in Australia though. A pack of Cigarettes in Australia currently cost around $40, and combined with strong investment in helping smokers quit and our strong plain packaging laws have succeeded in continuing to drive down our smoking rate.

Interesting. I would certainly welcome an amendment in this line.

The argument that we need to keep cigarettes cheap so poor people can stay hooked, keep propping up Tobacco companies and die young is incredibly disingenuous. We need to push people to quit smoking, and that can't be done just with supporting the process, we need both the carrot of helping people quit and the stick of high tobacco excises.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Fremont Nicotine tax aims to prevent smoking by making it expensive so the consumer is less likely to indulge in the products.

I don't think that's how addiction generally works, though? More likely this will bankrupt families for whom a nicotine addict is the primary breadwinner.

Such a policy has worked very effectively in Australia though. A pack of Cigarettes in Australia currently cost around $40, and combined with strong investment in helping smokers quit and our strong plain packaging laws have succeeded in continuing to drive down our smoking rate.

Interesting. I would certainly welcome an amendment in this line.

The argument that we need to keep cigarettes cheap so poor people can stay hooked, keep propping up Tobacco companies and die young is incredibly disingenuous. We need to push people to quit smoking, and that can't be done just with supporting the process, we need both the carrot of helping people quit and the stick of high tobacco excises.

I can buy that. You certainly need both the carrot and the stick, is what I will say: a stick alone is hardly more effective than a carrot alone, and that is what this bill is currently.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

If I may interject, implementing or raising a sin tax too high is little better than banning something completely, because tobacco is a common black market commodity in cities where the tax is very high.  Selling "loose" cigarettes is illegal and it was exactly that law which led to the death of Eric Garner in a police chokehold.  A 90% tax is totally excessive.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I would also suggest giving people a tax incentive to switch over to vapes from cigarettes, but considering the luck I've had before on this issue, I don't expect to have much sway here.

[Former President tack50]

Wouldn't this just mean a large black market for tobacco? Atlasia is quite lenient regarding drug use, I don't think tobacco taxes should be any higher than whatever Fremont has as a marijuana tax.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Wouldn't this just mean a large black market for tobacco? Atlasia is quite lenient regarding drug use, I don't think tobacco taxes should be any higher than whatever Fremont has as a marijuana tax.

In fairness, though, marijuana smoke doesn't cause lung cancer, and therefore the risk to second-hand inhalers is much reduced compared to tobacco.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I would also suggest giving people a tax incentive to switch over to vapes from cigarettes, but considering the luck I've had before on this issue, I don't expect to have much sway here.

The health risks of electronic cigarettes have still yet to be properly assessed, and unlike quitting products like nicotine gum, patches and inhalers e-cigarettes have actively marketed their products to non-smokers.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I would also suggest giving people a tax incentive to switch over to vapes from cigarettes, but considering the luck I've had before on this issue, I don't expect to have much sway here.

The health risks of electronic cigarettes have still yet to be properly assessed, and unlike quitting products like nicotine gum, patches and inhalers e-cigarettes have actively marketed their products to non-smokers.

We might not have all the data currently, but the information we do have suggests that people are far better off vaping than using real cigarettes.

[OBD]

I can't support this bill unless measures are taken to combat the black market this bill will inevitably create.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I'd probably vote to shoot down the current bill as written if it came down to a final vote, however, I could possibly support this if the tax was much lower than 90%.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I'd probably vote to shoot down the current bill as written if it came down to a final vote, however, I could possibly support this if the tax was much lower than 90%.

I'd support somewhere between 25-50% because 90% is definitely too much. Combined with plain packaging if we don't already have that. Also the tax applies to e-cigarettes unless the user is a smoker trying to quit (likewise nicotine gum and patches should also be reduced for smokers attempting to quit), and e-cigarettes should also have plain packaging.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I would also suggest giving people a tax incentive to switch over to vapes from cigarettes, but considering the luck I've had before on this issue, I don't expect to have much sway here.

The health risks of electronic cigarettes have still yet to be properly assessed, and unlike quitting products like nicotine gum, patches and inhalers e-cigarettes have actively marketed their products to non-smokers.

We might not have all the data currently, but the information we do have suggests that people are far better off vaping than using real cigarettes.

In which case then let's have e-cigarettes covered just like nicotine gum and patches should be, and for non-smokers e-cigarettes should still be taxed at a high rate and be sold with plain packaging. I'm perfectly okay with e-cigarettes aimed to help people quit or move to a less harmful form of nicotine. I'm not okay with e-cigarettes trying to market to non-smokers.

[OBD]

Frémont Nicotine Tax

Section 1 (Title)

i. The title of this Act shall be, the "Frémont Nicotine Tax."

Section 2 (What classifies as an item with Nicotine)

i. Vapes, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Roll Your Owns

Section 3  (Taxes)

i. There will be a 90% 40% tax on all of the products covered in Section 2.
ii. In addition, electronic cigarettes, nicotine gum, patches, and other cigarette alternatives will be taxed at a 40% rate unless the buyer is a current smoker trying to quit. The relevant Frémont health bureaus will create necessary legal identification for such buyers.

Section 4 (When will the Tax be Applied)

i. This bill will take effect on August 1st, 2020 if passed.

Offering the following draft amendment.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

You merely need to determine whether someone is a smoker or not, which isn't exactly hard to do. After that the government should give them all reasonable assistance to help them overcome their addiction, both by helping them quit or by helping them transition to less harmful e-cigarettes. But e-cigarettes should be treated just like regular tobacco when it comes to making sure producers cannot promote their harmful products to non-users.

[lfromnj]

Sin taxes should either be a rebate for all taxpayers or go directly back into solving the sin, anything else causes a future revenue shortfall.

[OBD]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

You merely need to determine whether someone is a smoker or not, which isn't exactly hard to do. After that the government should give them all reasonable assistance to help them overcome their addiction, both by helping them quit or by helping them transition to less harmful e-cigarettes. But e-cigarettes should be treated just like regular tobacco when it comes to making sure producers cannot promote their harmful products to non-users.

I think a good format for this would be to issue IDs for people recieving treatment for nicotine addition, which they can use to obtain tax waivers for e-cigarette products.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

You merely need to determine whether someone is a smoker or not, which isn't exactly hard to do. After that the government should give them all reasonable assistance to help them overcome their addiction, both by helping them quit or by helping them transition to less harmful e-cigarettes. But e-cigarettes should be treated just like regular tobacco when it comes to making sure producers cannot promote their harmful products to non-users.

I think a good format for this would be to issue IDs for people recieving treatment for nicotine addition, which they can use to obtain tax waivers for e-cigarette products.

The Australian system is that Nicotine gum and patches and the like are provided as prescription medication. I don't see why e-cigarettes could also be provided on prescription for smokers. (Not to imply that the products can only be bought with a prescription, I'd make clear.)

[OBD]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

You merely need to determine whether someone is a smoker or not, which isn't exactly hard to do. After that the government should give them all reasonable assistance to help them overcome their addiction, both by helping them quit or by helping them transition to less harmful e-cigarettes. But e-cigarettes should be treated just like regular tobacco when it comes to making sure producers cannot promote their harmful products to non-users.

I think a good format for this would be to issue IDs for people recieving treatment for nicotine addition, which they can use to obtain tax waivers for e-cigarette products.

The Australian system is that Nicotine gum and patches and the like are provided as prescription medication. I don't see why e-cigarettes could also be provided on prescription for smokers. (Not to imply that the products can only be bought with a prescription, I'd make clear.)

It's definitely odd that y'all are prescribing these products from an AmericanAtlasian perspective. That said, that system could work, except the prescriptions would be tax waivers.

Any idea how to incorporate this in the bill?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

How does the government identify who is a smoker trying to quit and who's not?

You merely need to determine whether someone is a smoker or not, which isn't exactly hard to do. After that the government should give them all reasonable assistance to help them overcome their addiction, both by helping them quit or by helping them transition to less harmful e-cigarettes. But e-cigarettes should be treated just like regular tobacco when it comes to making sure producers cannot promote their harmful products to non-users.

I think a good format for this would be to issue IDs for people recieving treatment for nicotine addition, which they can use to obtain tax waivers for e-cigarette products.

The Australian system is that Nicotine gum and patches and the like are provided as prescription medication. I don't see why e-cigarettes could also be provided on prescription for smokers. (Not to imply that the products can only be bought with a prescription, I'd make clear.)

It's definitely odd that y'all are prescribing these products from an AmericanAtlasian perspective. That said, that system could work, except the prescriptions would be tax waivers.

Any idea how to incorporate this in the bill?

Well they're prescriptions here because prescription medicine is subsidised by the government. Thus any medicine that a Doctor would recommend to a patient will be a prescription so that people don't have to pay full price for proper, necessary medications, they only pay full price for non-essentials.