Mayor right to snuff out vapes tax

Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss made the right call when he vetoed a recent ordinance by the Borough Assembly that would have levied a 55 percent tax on e-cigarettes and vaporizers in the Valley. Although the measure was well-intentioned, it’s clear from comments by business owners that the assembly did a poor job of following the public process on this issue.

When it decided to add vapes and e-cigs to the list of products to be taxed like tobacco, the assembly failed to communicate its intentions to those who would be most affected by the move, primarily small business owners. These business owners did not have an opportunity to fully participate in the public process, and were unaware that the assembly would be considering such sweeping action.

According to the new ordinance, a tax would be levied on all products used in vaping, including pipes that don’t contain nicotine. This seems unfair, since tobacco and marijuana pipes are not taxed in a similar fashion.

The assembly does not seem to have considered all arguments before making its decision. There are many unknowns about vaping and e-cigarette use, so it seems premature to rush to judgment.

While it’s been proven that tobacco use causes significant harm (both to users and others through secondhand smoke), the same type of harm has yet to be proven with these new forms of nicotine delivery. Such science may indeed come along, but it’s unfair to lump these new products in with traditional tobacco products without enough research at this time.

In arguing against the vape ban, assembly member Steve Colligan (the only member to vote ‘no’) noted that the proposed new tax could have unintended consequences by forcing the borough to administer the tax – which he said could cause more work for borough employees.

Colligan also noted that he doesn’t feel it’s the borough’s job to get into the business of “social engineering.” In other words, he’s uncomfortable with the idea of assembly members placing a high tax on products as a way to discourage their use.

It’s not a bad argument. After all, are assembly members elected to watch after borough affairs or to watch after the affairs of their constituents?

We believe the motives behind the proposed tax on e-cigarettes and vaporizers were true. Assembly members seem to have been swayed by the argument that these products are as dangerous and cause as many health costs as cigarettes and, thus, should be regulated in the same manner. However, they did so in absence of evidence, which seems like poor public policy.

Also poor policy is enacting a new tax without fully consulting with business owners and allowing them to state their case. In the absence of such vetting and supportive research, DeVilbiss is right to veto the ordinance and force the assembly to reconsider.

There’s no harm in taking a second-hand look at this new tax.