Thirty U.S. states plus the District of Columbia began the new year on Jan. 1 with taxes on vaping products and e-cigarettes in place. In 2015, only three states and the District of Columbia imposed taxes on vaping products.
Credit: Splitov27
According to the Federation of Tax Administrators, the states without vape taxes as of February 2022 are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
Bubba Lange, writing for Avalara, states Indiana doesn’t have a state vape excise tax as of this writing, but one will take effect on July 1 of this year. Alaska doesn’t have a statewide vape excise tax, but certain municipalities within the state collect a local tax, including Anchorage and Juneau.
“More states are likely to start collecting excise tax on vape products soon. Our last count had 12 additional states considering adding specific vape taxes,” Lange writes. “In addition, two states currently have local jurisdictions collecting additional excise taxes on vape products: Cook County and the city of Chicago in Illinois, and Montgomery County in Maryland.”
There are a lot of challenges in keeping up with excise taxes, states Lange. Most importantly, “you have to invoice your customer correctly to ensure you collect the right tax money.”
Switzerland’s Federal Council has put forward a plan to tax e-liquids, reports Le News, citing Radio Television Suisse.
The proposal calls for taxing e-liquids at a rate that is 77 percent lower than that levied on combustible cigarettes.
The government wants to discourage young people from taking up vaping without discouraging smokers from transitioning to less unhealthy products.
One idea is to tax the nicotine content in e-cigarette liquids for open systems. This would mean taxes rising with rising nicotine content. For single use e-cigarettes or devices using cartridges, the tax would be levied based on the quantity of liquid contained in them regardless of the nicotine contained in them.
According to the government, such a tax would be easy to put in place and would generate around CHF 15.5 million a year, money which would be used to help fund old age pensions and disability benefits.
The Federal Council’s proposal, which will be discussed until March 31, 2022, responds to a motion approved by the parliament and the Council of States in March 2021.
U.S. Lawmakers have reintroduced a tax on vapor products into the Biden administration’s Build Back Better Act, reports the Winston-Salem Journal. Earlier a series of controversial tobacco hikes had been removed from the legislation.
The latest version of the bill calls of $50.33 per 1,810 milligrams of nicotine for “any nicotine product that has been extracted, concentrated or synthesized.” The previously proposed vapor tax was $100.66 per 1,810 mg.
Vapor industry representatives were unimpressed. “American voters are already livid with paying high prices at the pump and the grocery store,” Amanda Wheeler, president of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, was quoted as saying by the Winston-Salem Journal.
“It’s a certainty they will be outraged with a gigantic tax on a product that millions use to quit cigarettes.”
British American Tobacco has surprised some observers by calling for higher cigarette taxes in Japan, reports the Japan Times.
The company has submitted the request in writing to a group of lawmakers ahead of a tax system reform scheduled for 2022.
The unusual move by a tobacco-maker comes as Japan is slated to raise its tobacco tax only for heat-not-burn (HnB) tobacco products in October 2022, which is expected to make some of such products more expensive than cigarettes.
BAT is concerned that this will discourage smokers from switching to HnB products, which the company believes are less harmful to health than combustible cigarettes.
The company is also requesting that the tax on heat-not-burn tobacco be increased at a slower pace than that for cigarettes in the medium to long run.
In 2018, the government decided to increase the cigarette tax by ¥1 per cigarette each in 2018, 2020 and 2021 and the tax on heat-not-burn products in five stages from 2018 to 2022.
According to the Tobacco Institute of Japan (TIOJ), sales of cigarettes in fiscal 2020, which ended last March, dropped 11.8 percent from the previous year to ¥2.47 trillion, due in part to a fall in opportunities to smoke outside home as people stayed at home amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Tobacco harm reduction activists attribute the sharp drop in smoking to the rising popularity of HnB products.
The TIOJ’s first survey of HnB products showed sales of ¥1.06 trillion, or more than 40 percent of the country’s cigarette sales.
Previously proposed tobacco tax increases have been removed from the U.S. Build Back Better Act, a massive piece of legislation conceived to fund Covid-19 relief, boost economic recovery and invest in new infrastructure. The most recent version of the proposed bill, H.R. 5376, makes no mention of the measures.
The dropped proposal would have effectively doubled the federal excise tax on small cigars and cigarettes, and it would have increased the tax on chewing tobacco from a little over $0.50 to $10.70—more than 21 times its current level. It also called for a new tax on vapor products.
The proposed tobacco tax hikes attracted fierce criticism from retailers and tobacco harm reduction advocates, among others.
On Sept. 24., the National Association of Convenience Stores sent a letter warning lawmakers against unintended consequences, such as illegal trade and underage sales.
“When the price of a product rises too much too fast, illicit purveyors will seize the opportunity to exploit and take advantage of current users and entice new users without discriminating based on age,” the letter read. “This undermines the responsible measures our retailers have taken and creates a problem for society as a whole.”
Earlier, the Tax Foundation cautioned that the proposal would make cigarettes—the most harmful tool to consume nicotine—cheaper than other, less-risky tobacco products in many states.
While every U.S. state taxes cigarettes by quantity, a majority tax other tobacco products by price. When states tax tobacco products by price, the tax on the product will “pyramid” since the federal tax is levied at the manufacturer level and the state tax is levied at the distribution level, according to the Tax Foundation.
“In effect, the state tax base includes the federal tax and becomes a tax on a tax,” wrote Ulrik Boesen, senior policy analyst in excise taxes of the Tax Foundation.
While the most recent version of the H.R. 5376 omits tobacco tax hikes, there is no guarantee the measure will not reappear in future renderings of the proposed legislation.
Higher taxes and graphic warnings are not the best ways to encourage smokers to switch to ENDS.
By George Gay
Towards the end of August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it had issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) in respect of about 55,000 flavored electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products. At about the same time, the FDA announced also that the deadline for combustible-cigarette manufacturers to print new health warnings on their products and product advertising had been delayed until October 11, 2022.
I think these two developments will strike you as odd if you subscribe to two almost universally-held ideas: that the consumption of combustible cigarettes kills and that graphic health warnings help to discourage people from such consumption; and if you subscribe to the idea that is less widely held: that ENDS are the most effective products for helping people quit smoking.
Indeed, to say that these two developments seem odd is something of an understatement. They represent a world turned upside down; a world in which the consumption of combustible cigarettes, which are regarded as deadly, is not discouraged, while the consumption of less-risky, cigarette-substitute products is discouraged.
Credit: Timothy S. Donahue
It is important to say, however, that what has happened is not entirely down to the FDA, which, in line with its obligations under the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, initially tried to bring in graphic health warnings on combustible cigarettes about 10 years ago, only to have them challenged in the courts and declared unconstitutional. The latest attempt at bringing in such warnings, the details of which became known in 2020, was similarly subjected to challenges, and to court-imposed delays.
However, it is reasonable, I think, to quarrel with the types of warnings proposed, which seem in large part to follow the same tired pattern of those used in other countries and regions. For instance, the proposed U.S. graphic warning pictures and captions, in line with those introduced elsewhere, do not tell the full story – that is, they don’t tell the whole truth.
Just to take one example; the caption on one picture reads, Warning: Smoking causes cataracts, which can lead to blindness. I don’t smoke, but I have cataracts forming; so obviously there are other causes of cataracts, the biggest of which I would say is probably, as in my case, getting old.
If there is to be an honest attempt at informing smokers, the cataracts warning needs to answer a lot of questions specifically aimed at people living in the U.S., questions that could be answered easily on a pack insert. Are there other causes of cataracts and what are they? At what age do smokers and non-smokers generally start to suffer from cataracts? Are cataracts more common in smokers than in non-smokers? Given that removing cataracts is one of the more common and more successful operations performed, how often do cataracts lead to blindness? Is the incidence of cataract-induced blindness more common among smokers than in the general population?
That the caption doesn’t answer these questions and the others that might rightly be raised by smokers, in my view is down to the paternalistic attitude of the FDA – and agencies in other countries that are in charge of determining the form of such warnings. Largely, I think, because smokers tend to be found in what are termed lower socio-economic groups, it is assumed they have to be told what is good for them without bothering their heads with details; whereas, in fact, some of them are rather smart.
Meanwhile, the FDA, while not being directly responsible for the delay in requiring health warnings on cigarette packs and advertising, is, in my view, more culpable in respect of the muddle over ENDS products. Basically, it has become hoist on its own petard – entrapped by its own propaganda about youth vaping.
In issuing its MDOs in August, the FDA said it had determined that the “applications for about 55,000 flavored ENDS products from three applicants lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products. The products from JD Nova Group LLC, Great American Vapes, and Vapor Salon subject to this action are non-tobacco-flavored ENDS and they include flavors such as Apple Crumble, Dr. Cola and Cinnamon Toast Cereal.”
This whole idea of considering public health, or population-wide health, rather than individual health, has its merits, but it is also flawed; as is the idea of utilitarianism on which it seems to be loosely based. If the idea is to bring about the maximum good for the maximum number of people, the calculations necessary become overwhelming and, in part, require the foretelling of the future.
As the FDA says, the applicant must demonstrate that the product is appropriate for the protection of public health. “This public or population health standard is quite high and requires considering the product’s risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products, and the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products,” it says.
If a doctor you have consulted wants to prescribe for you an inhaler, is it incumbent upon her to take into account the fact that the production of that inhaler, and all the inhalers you will need for the rest of your life, will produce CO2 emissions that will exacerbate the existential climate crisis we have created and, therefore, the health of Joe Blow, who will then need an inhaler so that there are now two such devices being produced on a regular basis along with more CO2…?
To my way of thinking, it makes sense to consider population-wide health effects where there is a population-wide health threat, such as that caused by pollution, which is a far bigger killer than is tobacco smoking but which is largely consigned by those who should be tackling it to the too-hard drawer. But it seems to make little sense where what is in question comprises health threats to individuals and possible solutions for those threats.
Of course, what those who like to consider population-wide health benefits or threats will tell you is that there is no point in allowing the sale of vaping devices so that middle-aged Joe Blow can use such devices to quit smoking if young man John Doe takes up vaping and goes on to become a smoker, at least when this example is extrapolated across the population. I really don’t accept this argument because, to me, Joe and John are individuals, as are all the other people who make up the population and who make their own choices about what they do with their lives.
What has happened here is that, as mentioned above, the FDA has found itself hemmed in by its own propaganda. Take another look at that part of the FDA’s statement above where it tries to justify dumping 55,000 vaping products and where it talks of: ‘the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products’.
To me, the use of the word “alarming” is an example of where the FDA’s claim to scientific rigor runs out of road. Compare what the FDA had to say with what was stated recently in a report entitled, Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes, which, I understand, was penned by 15 past presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
Although the authors argue that the overwhelming focus of US policies and media attention on decreasing youth vaping has distracted from the goal of reducing smoking, they concede that: “Still, concerns emanating from substantial increases in youth vaping in 2018 and 2019 are readily understandable and important to address.”
It is also important to take note of something else that I think is significant. A contributor to the Global Forum on Nicotine held in the UK earlier this year explained how U.S. government policies were driven by the fears and wishes of the majority population, made up of the suburban, white, middle-classes. This was why tobacco smoking, a habit mainly of the financially less-well-off, had been largely tolerated [health warnings delayed again], while vaping, the subject of scare stories about an epidemic among the children of the middle class, had launched a moral panic [55,000 products dumped].
The Balancing Consideration report is indeed a model of balance; as can be glimpsed from this passage: ‘Smokers unable to quit smoking with evidence-based cessation methods should be well informed about the relative risks of vaping and smoking and vaping’s potential to help them quit smoking. They should understand that, while the long-term health consequences are unknown, completely substituting vaping for smoking likely reduces health risks, possibly substantially.
Dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes will not have a comparable beneficial effect. However, a period of dual use may be necessary for some smokers to transition from smoking. Because vaping itself poses some risk, the best advice is to eventually stop vaping as well.’
I find it impossible to argue with almost anything in this passage or in the objective of the authors, which is to encourage more balanced consideration of vaping within public health and in the media and policy circles. There is certainly a need for such balance. As the authors say in the introduction to the report: “Opponents focus on e-cigarettes’ risks for young people, while supporters emphasize the potential for e-cigarettes to assist smokers in quitting smoking.
Most U.S. health organizations, media coverage, and policymakers have focused primarily on risks to youths. Because of their messaging, much of the public – including most smokers – now consider e-cigarette use as dangerous as or more dangerous than smoking.”
The authors are correct; this is a situation that needs to be rectified.
And yet, I cannot go along with everything in the report, though it talks with empathy about smokers. “Today’s smokers come disproportionately from lower education and income groups, the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) community, and populations suffering from mental health conditions and from other drug addictions,’ it says. ‘Smoking accounts for a significant proportion of the large life expectancy difference between affluent and poorer Americans.”
And the report is right in making the point that a lot of people hardly realise that smokers still exist. “To the more privileged members of society, today’s smokers may be nearly invisible,” it says. “Indeed, many affluent, educated US persons may believe the problem of smoking has been largely ‘solved.” They do not smoke. Their friends and colleagues do not smoke. There is no smoking in their workplaces, nor in the restaurants and bars they frequent. Yet one of every seven U.S. adults remains a smoker today.”
There are several problems with this, I would suggest, partly perhaps because, I suspect, the authors don’t smoke and don’t generally rub shoulders with those in the lower socio-economic groups. The authors want to tax smokers heavily having already declared that these people generally come from groups less well-off financially. They say that this is to encourage smokers to stop smoking, but it is nothing of the sort. It is an attempt at bludgeoning them into giving up.
To my way of thinking, if a smoker is given the facts about her habit, partly through the medium of comprehensive, fact-based health warnings, and she chooses to keep smoking, that is her business. Hitting her with levels of taxes that would not be tolerated but for the fact that smokers comprise an unrepresented minority is grossly unfair.
And what will happen to the money raised? Will it be spent on helping these people? The record shows that this will not be the case. The money will be spent on politicians’ vanity projects, while nine million children will still go hungry.
And finally, what about the seemingly worthwhile aim of increasing the life expectancy of these smokers by bludgeoning them into quitting? Given that the last years of these people’s lives are hardly likely to be halcyon; it might be a good idea to ask them if they really want another 10 years of struggling to make ends meet as they become increasingly infirm. Walk – or perhaps hobble – a mile in my shoes.
Vaping products don’t create costs; they make some of the costs of tobacco use disappear.
By George Gay
According to a Vapor Voice news story quoting a CStoreDecisions piece by Isabelle Gustafson, lawmakers have introduced into the U.S. Senate a bill that would establish a federal tax on vaping products and increase the traditional tobacco tax rate for the first time in a decade.
I quote below three of the five-paragraph news story in full because I believe that some of the points made by those supporting the bill need to be challenged, though I acknowledge that such challenge will not affect the final outcome:
The Tobacco Tax Equity Act of 2021 aims to “close tax code loopholes for tobacco products by increasing the federal tax rate on cigarettes, pegging it to inflation to ensure it remains an effective public health tool and setting the federal tax rate for all other tobacco products at this same level.”
“Tobacco-related disease accounts for one out of every five deaths in America, and I know that story firsthand,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin was quoted as saying. “Data shows that the most effective strategy to prevent children from starting this deadly habit is to price it out of their range. This bill would help reduce tobacco and e-cigarette use by ending loopholes that the industry has exploited to target our children. If America can kick its nicotine addiction, it would go a long way to improving our public health for generations to come.”
“Loopholes in our tax code continue to favor big tobacco while the American public, especially our youth, pays the price,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi. “The Tobacco Tax Equity Act increases taxes on cigarettes and finally imposes taxes on the e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine, which would generate billions of dollars in federal revenue. As a father of a high schooler and middle schooler, I’m determined to make sure we end the youth nicotine and vaping epidemic.”
I would like firstly to question the term “loopholes,” which is used three times, once in the introduction and once each by the two politicians quoted. The word loophole is used normally to convey the idea that some scam is in operation that allows a disreputable individual, corporation or organization to gain an advantage over others by obeying the letter of a law or rule but not the spirit of that law or rule. And that implied criticism is aimed at one of the usual suspects—big tobacco.
But is this what has been going on here? Has big tobacco been using loopholes in the tax system to target young people? Not from the evidence presented. The politicians quoted seem to be complaining that big tobacco hasn’t been falling in line with tax rules not yet in place, which seems a tad unfair. In other words, the complaints, if any, should be aimed at the politicians for not having brought in these new rules earlier, given that they seem to believe they are so important.
But it is not the way of politicians to blame themselves or even to admit that they have been neglectful of their duties, so the politicians try to clamber onto the word loopholes as if it somehow represents the moral high ground.
And on that somewhat unstable ground, they teeter. Durbin is quoted as implying that one or more people from within his circle of family and/or friends died from a tobacco-related disease. I’m sure that most people would sympathize with Durbin at this point, but the problem here is that he is trying to convince people of the correctness of his position by arguing from the particular to the general.
And the concern must be that despite the fragility of such arguments, other politicians will be won over. It makes you wonder what would happen if a politician called for extra taxes on automobiles because somebody from within her circle had been killed in an automobile wreck.
What I don’t like, also, about Durbin’s position is that it smacks of collective punishment. Tobacco consumption led to the death of somebody from within his circle, so all tobacco users should be punished through the taxation system, even though what they are doing is legal and even though they had no interaction or involvement with the dead person. Such actions are banned even in war.
Then, from the dizzying moral heights of language loopholes and particularities, the announcement moves on to the favorite ploy of all: emotional blackmail. We are told that the new taxes will protect “our children”—or, rather, children (three mentions), youth (two mentions) and schoolers (two mentions).
I wonder how? Perhaps, in the light of not enough attention being paid by politicians to some of the other needs of children, the additional money raised through the new taxes could be used to feed the 18 million children who are projected to face hunger in the U.S. this year. But don’t hold your breath.
Credit: Auremar
Krishnamoorthi is quoted as saying that the Tobacco Tax Equity Act “increases taxes on cigarettes and finally imposes taxes on the e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine.” Note the use of “finally” here, which I guess is meant to imply that it has taken a long time to bring the bill forward because of the heroic efforts that politicians have had to put in to overcome the huge barriers standing in the way of tax reform, when, presumably, the reason is that they have not been bothered up to this point.
I would also like to take issue with the idea that Krishnamoorthi trots out about “e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine.” Does he know this to be the case, I wonder? Has he proof? It is true that if you look on the website of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, you will see a piece that says, “Consuming nicotine—through regular cigarettes or vaping—leads to the release of the chemical dopamine in the human brain. As with many drugs, dopamine prompts or ‘teaches’ the brain to repeat the same behavior (such as using tobacco) over and over.”
But according to a review by Rivka Galchen (London Review of Books, April 22) of The idea of the Brain, the author, Matthew Cobb, casts doubt on such an idea. “The connection of dopamine to addictive behavior—Cobb cites a Facebook founder saying the site was meant to be addictive, to ‘give you a little dopamine hit’—is ‘nonsense’ and ‘neurobollocks,’” Galchen quotes Cobb as saying. I am not saying that Cobb is correct. I am not in a position to be able to judge such things, but what he has to say must surely give people, even politicians, pause for thought, for he is not alone in thinking this way.
One problem in assessing the rights and wrongs of taxing vaping products in the U.S. arises from the fact that politicians have fallen for the Food and Drug Administration’s descent from science to alchemy in “deeming” these products to be tobacco products. Imagine a U.S. in which bread has not been invented and a significant proportion of the population lives on cake as a staple, with the consequence that these people are wobbly fat.
In trying to improve the situation, the authorities have turned to imposing high taxes on cake, but the sugar content proves to be too appealing, and the people keep buying cake, whether tax-paid or illicit. The authorities then declare war on the cake manufacturers who, after a while, admit that too many wobblies are dying, and come up with bread, with which they claim they can wean at least some of the people off cake.
What do the authorities do? Do they welcome this development? Not if we are talking about the FDA. They say that bread, like cake, contains flour, and, since there are still small amounts of sugar in bread to make it palatable, bread must be deemed to be cake. At which point, the politicians, desperate for funds, realize that bread can be taxed. Alice has gone headfirst through the looking glass.
Credit: Highway Starz
A couple of other points come out of the announcement of the bill. It is clear that part of the aim of the bill is to force the U.S. “to kick its nicotine habit.” But nicotine and tobacco use are both legal in the U.S., so people have the right to consume tobacco and nicotine products. There is a danger here that politicians are going to muddle up issues of ethics with those of rights.
Just because you object to something on ethical grounds doesn’t bestow on you the right to make it unobtainable for those who don’t go along with your ethical views. In the U.K., we seem to get stuck in the same morass when discussing the issue of assisted dying, and all too few politicians are willing to make the stand that though they might be ethically opposed to assisted dying, they recognize the rights of others to avail themselves of it. As I believe Michel de Montaigne pointed out in the 16th century, “Life is slavery if freedom to die is wanting.”
At the same time, it seems to me that we enter the tobacco and nicotine tax debate too far along the line. We enter it on the assumption that tobacco and nicotine products should be taxed. But why is this so? Well, one idea has it that products should be taxed according to the harm that they cause. This point was made by a couple of speakers who addressed the Western Economic Association International (WEAI) virtual conference during March.
According to a news report, one of them, Woo-Hyung Hong, professor in the Hansung University Department of Economics (South Korea), said that tobacco taxes should be based on a product’s external economic costs. Such a system should consider medical costs, loss-of-labor capital costs, costs from cigarette-related fires and avoidance costs, among others.
There is a certain logic associated with this idea, but if you accept that logic, then surely you have to apply it to everything. Automobiles, for instance. Look at the medical costs that arise from people driving automobiles. There are, of course, the deaths and injuries caused by car wrecks, the deaths and injuries caused by the pollution most automobiles contribute to, pollution that has now been acknowledged to be a bigger killer worldwide than tobacco consumption. And then there is the issue of people becoming wobbly fat because they use their cars rather than walk.
This, in part, is what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say on this subject: “Obesity is serious because it is associated with poorer mental health outcomes and reduced quality of life. Obesity is also associated with the leading causes of death in the United States and worldwide, including diabetes, heart disease, stroke and some types of cancer.”
And what about the loss-of-labor costs? Well, for a start, all of the medical problems outlined above are likely to lead to such loss of labor, and just imagine the loss caused by people snarled up in highly polluting traffic jams.
And while most automobiles still run on fossil fuels, there is the billion-dollar cost of subsidizing the oil companies for pumping these fuels out of the ground—fuels, the use of which is causing eye-watering costs associated with climate change and environmental breakdown, costs from which we might never recover.
None of this is to say that tobacco should not be taxed. We are too far down the road to go back now. But all of the revenue from such taxes should be used to relieve some of the causes that encourage people to take up smoking; one of which is clearly poverty since poverty is a good predictor of the likelihood of a person being a smoker. I believe in the idea of redistributive taxes, but the way that tobacco taxation works at the moment is that it is redistributive “upward,” which is obscene.
And finally, there is no reason to tax vaping devices. They don’t create costs; they make some of the costs of tobacco use disappear. They are a solution, not a problem.
A lawmaker in Israel wants to tax vaping products the same as traditional tobacco cigarettes. Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz is set to propose legislation to combat smoking addiction in Israel, including disposable electronic cigarettes that he says have become popular among Israeli teenagers.
According to the Isreal Hayom, quoting anonymous sources sources states: “There is concern that in the past the decision-making of the political echelon with regards to e-cigarettes was motivated by unprofessional considerations,” the source states. “Horowitz intends to investigate the matter of disposable electronic cigarettes and government policies and restrictions on smoking products … with the consideration of public health alone.”
Credit: Christoph
As part of his initiative, the health minister is looking to raise the tax on vapors to equal regular cigarettes and tobacco; withdraw the special permit that had been granted to newspapers and other written advertising to print cigarette ads; and adopt graphic warnings on cigarette packages – a measure not yet applied in Israel but used in 120 countries worldwide, according to the story.
“The idea to make electronic cigarettes disposable is a sophisticated and dangerous marketing manipulation,” CEO of nonprofit Smoke Free Israel Shira Kislev said. “Because teenagers then think they are not risking getting addicted to cigarettes because their vapor will only last them one time. But the nicotine content makes these e-cigarettes addictive, and in a cruel way, repeated use makes teenagers smoke them more and more.”
Germany’s upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, on June 25 approved tobacco tax reform legislation, which includes tax hikes on both traditional cigarettes and next-generation products, reports the Berliner Zeitung.
In 2022 and 2023, the tobacco tax on a pack of 20 combustible cigarettes will increase by an average of €0.10 ($0.12) each year; in 2025 and 2026, it will go up by another €0.15 in each year. A pack of branded cigarettes currently costs around €7 in Germany, which last raised its tobacco taxes in 2015.
Manufacturers are likely to pass the higher taxes on to consumers.
Around one in four German adults regularly smokes cigarettes. Health activists had called for significantly higher tobacco tax hikes. The German Cancer Research Center, for example, said the rate would have to increase by a least 10 percent to make a significant dent in smoking. The increases approved by the Bundesrat amount to 3 and 4 percent, respectively.
Tobacco taxes earned Germany €14.7 billion in 2020. Without a tax increase, the tax authorities had forecast tobacco tax revenues of €14.1 billion for 2022; with the rules that have now been adopted, they anticipate almost €16 billion.
The tax increase disproportionally targets e-cigarettes and the consumables for tobacco heating devices—a feature that has attracted considerable criticism from the vapor industry and tobacco harm reduction advocates, who believe such products should be taxed comparatively lightly because they are believed to be less harmful than combustible cigarettes.
SPD politician Michael Schrodi rejected such criticism by pointing out that novel tobacco products have been taxed at low rates to date. “Now they are being taxed appropriately because they too are a health hazard and are potentially addictive,” he said.
