Pipe Tobacco Tax NOT Reintroduced - Please Cite Primary Sources

[Verdant]

Contrary to a previous post, the pipe tobacco tax hike has not been reintroduced at any point in the last week. A nicotine provision that would affect vapor, etc. has been reintroduced. Note that the previous post cited a source that gave almost no information and the headline itself reads "Nicotine Tax Thrown Back in..."

Here is the text of the most recent draft itself. Do a control + F for "tobacco" and you'll find the exemption to the tax for traditional tobacco products. If you ctrl + F for "tobacco" in the previous draft --- THAT is the Tobacco Equity Act. What exists in the current bill is a nicotine tax for hitting vapor and other distillates (see screenshot of the text itself).



To answer your question about whether any nicotine-containing product is caught in this provision, the text specifically exempts pipe tobacco (and cigars, etc.) even though they contain nicotine:


If you need a summary, here's an article by Seek Alpha, which is a reputable company for business information. This article is behind a paywall so here's a screenshot.


I would suggest to anyone wanting to post regarding legislation to cite to primary sources or at least reputable sources that include citations to primary sources.

 

[Jimmy_Jack]

Great work @Verdant . Still growing my own though. I figure if my kin folk in Kentucky and the Carolinas could do it, so can I.

 

[didimauw]

Great work @Verdant . Still growing my own though. I figure if my kin folk in Kentucky and the Carolinas could do it, so can I.

If you grow one plant, you get many seeds. Then each seed creates one plant...etc etc etc....

 

[mingc]

Contrary to a previous post, the pipe tobacco tax hike has not been reintroduced at any point in the last week. A nicotine provision that would affect vapor, etc. has been reintroduced. Note that the previous post cited a source that gave almost no information and the headline itself reads "Nicotine Tax Thrown Back in..."

Here is the text of the most recent draft itself. Do a control + F for "tobacco" and you'll find the exemption to the tax for traditional tobacco products. If you ctrl + F for "tobacco" in the previous draft --- THAT is the Tobacco Equity Act. What exists in the current bill is a nicotine tax for hitting vapor and other distillates (see screenshot of the text itself).

View attachment 107215

To answer your question about whether any nicotine-containing product is caught in this provision, the text specifically exempts pipe tobacco (and cigars, etc.) even though they contain nicotine:
View attachment 107216

If you need a summary, here's an article by Seek Alpha, which is a reputable company for business information. This article is behind a paywall so here's a screenshot.
View attachment 107214

I would suggest to anyone wanting to post regarding legislation to cite to primary sources or at least reputable sources that include citations to primary sources.

Nice work. Accuracy counts.

 

[Effortlessdepths]

Contrary to a previous post, the pipe tobacco tax hike has not been reintroduced at any point in the last week. A nicotine provision that would affect vapor, etc. has been reintroduced. Note that the previous post cited a source that gave almost no information and the headline itself reads "Nicotine Tax Thrown Back in..."

Here is the text of the most recent draft itself. Do a control + F for "tobacco" and you'll find the exemption to the tax for traditional tobacco products. If you ctrl + F for "tobacco" in the previous draft --- THAT is the Tobacco Equity Act. What exists in the current bill is a nicotine tax for hitting vapor and other distillates (see screenshot of the text itself).

View attachment 107215

To answer your question about whether any nicotine-containing product is caught in this provision, the text specifically exempts pipe tobacco (and cigars, etc.) even though they contain nicotine:
View attachment 107216

If you need a summary, here's an article by Seek Alpha, which is a reputable company for business information. This article is behind a paywall so here's a screenshot.
View attachment 107214

I would suggest to anyone wanting to post regarding legislation to cite to primary sources or at least reputable sources that include citations to primary sources.

Thanks for clearing this up, glad to finally have a source for keeping up to date

 

[Chasing Embers]

With th W.H.O. wanting tobacco use abolished by 2030, it'll swing back around sooner or later.

 

[Jimmy_Jack]

With th W.H.O. wanting tobacco use abolished by 2030, it'll swing back around sooner or later.

It’s amazing to me that some of the same people you’re talking about want to legalize hard narcotics but make tobacco illegal. Craziness

 

[anotherbob]

With th W.H.O. wanting tobacco use abolished by 2030, it'll swing back around sooner or later.

You do know they don't have any power to make any laws. And if all of their suggestions where followed we'd live in a really different world right now, at least it would probably be healthier.

 

[Chasing Embers]

You do know they don't have any power to make any laws. And if all of their suggestions where followed we'd live in a really different world right now, at least it would probably be healthier.

Give it time, the EU is quickly giving them what they want. The world at large hates tobacco and its users.

 

[kcghost]

It would be nice if the bill reminds as described. Possibly it will but I have little hope for the future.

 

[lawdawg]

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know that pipe tobacco is off the tax chopping block for now.

The original article we all posted is from a reputable source, a think tank that’s been around for decades. The article actually is correct. We (myself included) all just failed to distinguish between the tobacco tax provisions in the original draft, and the nicotine tax only (vaping) version in the current draft. The article also wasn’t as clear about that distinction as the article you posted above.

Even so, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect forum members to abstain from discussion about new legislation unless we cite the primary source, i.e. the text of the proposed legislation itself. That’s a higher standard than senators and congressmen are held to, who regularly vote on new legislation without personally reading every word of the text. Forums are inherently casual. These posts aren’t PhD dissertations.

 

[Verdant]

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know that pipe tobacco is off the tax chopping block for now.

The original article we all posted is from a reputable source, a think tank that’s been around for decades. The article actually is correct. We (myself included) all just failed to distinguish between the tobacco tax provisions in the original draft, and the nicotine tax only (vaping) version in the current draft. The article also wasn’t as clear about that distinction as the article you posted above.

Even so, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect forum members to abstain from discussion about new legislation unless we cite the primary source, i.e. the text of the proposed legislation itself. That’s a higher standard than senators and congressmen are held to, who regularly vote on new legislation without personally reading every word of the text. Forums are inherently casual. These posts aren’t PhD dissertations.

"primary sources or at least reputable sources that include citations to primary sources."is a

I respect CEI's work and regularly read FEE's publications (they run in the same circle), but the particular article cited included 0 citations and many generalizations. You've gotta admit that's shoddy and unhelpful journalism. Contrast with Seek Alpha's article, for example.

You're righ that the article is right, but the previous post is still erroneous. Hence wanting to see it closed so that further replies don't surface that conclusion.

 

[Verdant]

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know that pipe tobacco is off the tax chopping block for now.

The original article we all posted is from a reputable source, a think tank that’s been around for decades. The article actually is correct. We (myself included) all just failed to distinguish between the tobacco tax provisions in the original draft, and the nicotine tax only (vaping) version in the current draft. The article also wasn’t as clear about that distinction as the article you posted above.

Even so, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect forum members to abstain from discussion about new legislation unless we cite the primary source, i.e. the text of the proposed legislation itself. That’s a higher standard than senators and congressmen are held to, who regularly vote on new legislation without personally reading every word of the text. Forums are inherently casual. These posts aren’t PhD dissertations.

And I understand forums are a laid-back form of communication but doing a little digging to find a good article is helpful to the community.

 

[Briar Lee]

It wasn’t a total loss, as I stockpiled another ten pounds of tobacco before I learned the pipe tobacco tax was still out of the bill.

That should keep me busy awhile, I suppose.

 

[JOHN72]

They want to substitute tobacco for cockroach milk. A new era of supermen suck lollipops..................

 

[captpat]

Even so, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect forum members to abstain from discussion about new legislation unless we cite the primary source, i.e. the text of the proposed legislation itself. That’s a higher standard than senators and congressmen are held to, who regularly vote on new legislation without personally reading every word of the text. Forums are inherently casual. These posts aren’t PhD dissertations.

I would hope we could do better than our elected representatives on these issues in this forum.

 

[anotherbob]

Give it time, the EU is quickly giving them what they want. The world at large hates tobacco and its users.

only when they already agree.

 

[mingc]

I respect CEI's work and regularly read FEE's publications (they run in the same circle), but the particular article cited included 0 citations and many generalizations. You've gotta admit that's shoddy and unhelpful journalism. Contrast with Seek Alpha's article, for example.

I think both the headline and article are misleading. I doubt it was unintentional. An accurate article would have pointed out that the new proposed legislation targets vaping and expressly exempts other tobacco products. The article does not mention vaping at all and clearly does not have accuracy in mind. Very bad. I would not buy a used car from the authors.

 

[Jaylotw]

I appreciate this. Primary sources, or at least sources with citations are critical for us to truly understand what's going on around us. It's all to easy to be pulled in one direction or another by not checking sources, I'm guilty.

Sooner or later, the tax will come.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Contrary to a previous post, the pipe tobacco tax hike has not been reintroduced at any point in the last week. A nicotine provision that would affect vapor, etc. has been reintroduced. Note that the previous post cited a source that gave almost no information and the headline itself reads "Nicotine Tax Thrown Back in..."

Here is the text of the most recent draft itself. Do a control + F for "tobacco" and you'll find the exemption to the tax for traditional tobacco products. If you ctrl + F for "tobacco" in the previous draft --- THAT is the Tobacco Equity Act. What exists in the current bill is a nicotine tax for hitting vapor and other distillates (see screenshot of the text itself).

View attachment 107215

To answer your question about whether any nicotine-containing product is caught in this provision, the text specifically exempts pipe tobacco (and cigars, etc.) even though they contain nicotine:
View attachment 107216

If you need a summary, here's an article by Seek Alpha, which is a reputable company for business information. This article is behind a paywall so here's a screenshot.
View attachment 107214

I would suggest to anyone wanting to post regarding legislation to cite to primary sources or at least reputable sources that include citations to primary sources.

Great work - facts matter!