Ordinance on Vapes Tax Not Amended

At a recent meeting, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly did not move any amendments to an ordinance that taxes vaporized cigarettes. The original sponsor in August of the adopted tax on vapes, Assembly Member Jim Sykes, said he made a sincere effort before the Sept. 15 meeting to better understand the emerging industry's tax concerns but that a link between kids vaping and using tobacco made him stick with the recently adopted tax. 

Sykes said the standing ordinance is not "there" yet, but he wanted to leave it in place for now. Assembly Member Jim Sykes audio is posted here.

"I do want to explain the non moving of an amendment tonight. I wanted to give an opportunity last time because I think I'm the one who said, there's no point in taxing someone if you're going to run them out of business. An enormous amount of extra research has gone into this. I didn't sleep a lot this week. ... I took this very seriously. I met with the representative of the vaping merchants. I met with healthcare representatives and I told each of them that I met with the others. I was looking for new information and I didn't really come up with any real changes. What we did when we first passed this was simply made an addition to the tobacco tax, which was 55 percent. This motion only allowed work on the amendment that we made and the changes that we considered...we could either repeal the section we had already approved, which would take the non combustible device aspect out of the ordinance and just tax the nicotine or the amendment that i passed out and considered, it was from the attorneys for the vapes organization, which did the same thing. it was a policy call. I fully understand some of the testimony made here about helping people get off tobacco. There is still a connection to something i did not hear tonight. There is a real growing body of evidence that young people are starting to vape because they have easy access to it and an unregulated industry and are actually moving from vaping to tobacco. The point behind this is to try and break the cycle. The solution, if 55% really is too much. I wanted to leave this in place the only way we can address it either way is to come up with a new ordinance. Trying to change it within this ordinance is an all or nothing proposition. For me the link that exists that we can't ignore..you really can't use the vaping without the device. It is a connection that can't be separated. I do want to make it clear, it doesn't apply to everything in the store. It applies to a full vaping pen. It doesn't apply to a part of a vaping pen. It does not include batteries, cotton balls, wire or any of those things that they may sell at the store. We modeled this after the Juneau law and they're collecting the tax there and people are getting by. If there needs to be an adjustment, there needs to be another ordinance. I truly did not know. Both sides asked me before I came into this meeting. I told each I didn't know. ... It was not a decision taken lightly. I watched a lot of vape videos. I looked at a lot of merchandising. I think we got close. We're not there, we just simply have to do it with another ordinance. I thought it was better to leave something in place and bring something back. ... I really do thank and respect everyone from the health care community from the vaping community. I think we started a valuable conversation and it's probably not over. I think we are trying to do something right for public health in an industry that is not regulated. If you look across the United States in counties, boroughs, states..they're all trying to grapple with this and nobody seems to have the answer ..."