Every week or so, John Solomon heads to a Virginia Beach tobacco shop to get a case of 200 cigarettes from an automatic rolling machine. He prefers rolling his own smokes, and he pays about $24 per case. Yet if one tobacco company gets its way this year, the price could rise considerably. As roll-your-own machines take root in Virginia, they are the focus of a legislative debate over how merchants with those dispensers are classified and taxed. The devices stuff loose tobacco into cigarette tubes and spit out a case’s worth in about 10 minutes. They’re in fewer than a dozen retail locations statewide, several of them in Hampton Roads.

Pushing for a policy change is Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris USA. The nation’s largest cigarette maker wants roll-your-own retailers to pay the same taxes as cigarette manufacturers and wholesalers.

Company officials and their lobbyists argue the rolling machines exploit ambiguity in the law to avoid some taxes.

But roll-your-own representatives say the tax argument is a smokescreen for the company’s true goal: extinguishing competitors.

Included in the retail price of a pack of cigarettes are federal ($1.01) and state (30 cents) tobacco taxes, plus the state sales tax and any local cigarette levies that may apply.

Every South Hampton Roads city has one, with Norfolk’s 75-cent fee for a pack of 20 cigarettes the highest.

Rather than paying the comparable rate for loose tobacco, however, industry officials claim roll-your-own retailers label their wares as pipe tobacco that is taxed at a much lower rate.

What’s more, they say machine proprietors don’t affix health warning labels to their products, use fire-safe paper, or pay into a tobacco master settlement fund for recovery of smoking-related health care costs.

Lobbyists for roll-your-own merchants insist they pay the appropriate taxes but aren’t cigarette makers and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Those retailers are in a different category than tobacco manufacturers, said Bea Gonzalez, a lobbyist for some roll-your-own stores and a manufacturer of the machines.

This year, Altria-backed bills have been filed to classify roll-your-own operations as cigarette manufacturers.

“There needs to be equity with regards to taxation,” said Powhatan County Republican Sen. John Watkins, whose SB74 proposal is drawn to capture taxes from machines operated in retail establishments.

As written, it doesn’t appear to cover private individuals who roll their own cigarettes using in-home machines.

Eddie Siu, the proprietor of several Tobacco Direct stores in Virginia, insists shops like his aren’t cigarette manufacturers and shouldn’t be lumped in that category.

“We are not making it for the customers,” Siu said. “They are doing that for themselves.”

He said his stores rent use of the machines to customers who operate them after purchasing loose tobacco and empty cartridges.

That description is in line with legal advice Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued last year, when he concluded tobacco retailers with the machines aren’t manufacturers under current law.

Virginia is the latest front in the roll-your-own debate, which has inspired federal litigation and efforts in several other states to treat retailers with the machines as manufacturers.

Solomon sees the current legislation as an attempt to snuff out a time-honored tradition cherished by a certain breed of smokers.

“Making their own cigarettes – people take pride in that,” he said.

An effort to collect potentially millions of dollars more from the sale of cigarettes in the state has been approved by the Board of Examiners. The board recommended hiring auditors to make sure the state is collecting all the money it’s due. The $260,164 to pay for the personnel will come from a reserve account. In November 1998, the four largest tobacco companies reached agreement with 46 states, including Nevada, to settle lawsuits over the cost of treating tobacco-related diseases. It has included $360 million for Nevada.

Other tobacco companies were not part of the settlement. State taxation officials say these firms were required to pay Nevada 2 cents for each cigarette sold.

The state has been unable to verify that the companies are paying the correct amount to the state.

William Chisel, director of the state Department of Taxation, told the board that the state must track the money paid by these firms.

“We’re responsible to make sure that they (the small firms) pay into an escrow account of 2 cents per cigarette,” Chisel said.

Officials couldn’t immediately say how much is in the escrow account.

Examiner Board members Gov. Brian Sandoval and Secretary of State Ross Miller voted to support the appropriation. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Mastos did not attend the meeting.

The recommendation goes to the Legislative Interim Finance Committee for final action at its meeting Feb. 9.

The board also denied the claim of Myles Machado, who says he was attacked on the Las Vegas Strip in June. The police report was not filed with the state’s Victims of Crime Program within the required five days.

The governor said Machado appeared to have suffered a severe head injury and had a pre-existing “mental condition.” But evidence showed he was in the hospital for only four hours, received some stitches and was released. No evidence showed Machado was prevented from filing the claim by the deadline for the state to pay his medical bills and his lost wages.

The board voted to allow Machado to pursue his claim. A hearing officer had recommended denial.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has approved for circulation an initiative petition to increase the tax on cigarettes by 73 cents per pack. Organizers — including University of Missouri System Curator Warren Erdman — now will need to collect roughly 100,000 signatures from registered voters to get the language on the November ballot. If approved, the hike would increase taxes on a pack of smokes from 17 cents — the lowest cigarette tax in the nation — to 90 cents a pack. The national average is $1.46.

The tax could generate between $283 million and $423 million more a year, and the money would be allocated for tobacco prevention and for K-12 and higher education.

PHILIP MORRIS Fortune Tobacco Corp. (PMFTC) is mulling an expansion of its plantations in the Visayas, the first foray into the region for the industry. “We are looking at the possibility of expanding our growing here. We are thinking of Visayas, such as Bacolod and Bohol. It would be a first, for a tobacco company to go to Visayas,” PMFTC President Chris Nelson said in a media briefing yesterday. The company is also looking at new areas in Mindoro, beyond their existing plantations there.

Mindanao, however, is not in the immediate plans despite its “great potential for agriculture” since security, peace and order remain key considerations, he explained.

The possible expansion will likely be seen next year as PMFTC is still studying the suitability of the soil and the climate in the identified areas.

“We are also still surveying the number of farmers who want to plant tobacco, so we don’t know the exact hectarage yet. But we will need a contiguous area to make it more commercially viable,” Mr. Nelson said.

While the expansion is still in the planning stage, PMFTC enjoys “great support” from Congress and the local government units. Most of the company’s tobacco plantations are in Ilocos and Isabela in Northern Luzon.

On a related note, Mr. Nelson reiterated PMFTC’s opposition to renewed moves to reform the excise tax regime on “sin” products like tobacco and alcohol, after it was identified as a priority measure by President Benigno S.C. Aquino III.

“Roughly 2.7 million people derive employment from the tobacco industry. An increase in taxes would have a devastating impact on them and the economy,” he explained.

The current proposals in Congress aim to impose a single rate of about P30 per pack of cigarettes. This could eat into the demand for tobacco and consequently, the demand for tobacco leaves purchased from farmers, Mr. Nelson said.

The PMFTC chief also cast doubt on the plans of the Finance department to earmark part of the “sin” tax revenues to help tobacco farmers shift to other crops.

A department-backed sin tax measure is seen to yield P60 billion in revenues for the government, a portion of which is planned to shore up the health budget.

Moving to New York from a small town is a shock; everything is bigger, the people are meaner, and cigarettes cost upwards of twelve dollars a pack. Coming from a place where five dollar cigarettes seemed expensive, the high prices can be hard to swallow, and many students quit when they get to New York. That’s good and fine until exams roll around and you’ll do anything for the moment of calm relief that nicotine can provide. Inevitably, you get sucked back into smoking regularly, and pretty soon, you’re hemorrhaging money on cigarettes whether you like it or not.

We’ve got good news for you, smokers of NYU; the days of deciding between your wallet and your nicotine are over. A tiny cigarettes shop in Chinatown (on Eldridge between Broome and Grand) called Island Smokes is committed to bringing affordable organic cigarettes to Manhattan smokers. At this hole in the wall, your first pack will only cost you six dollars, and they throw in a convenient tin and a lighter. After that, if you show up with the tin, you can buy a pack for $4.50.
At this point, you’re asking yourself, “how can they possibly afford to sell cigarettes for so little when New York taxes tobacco so heavily?” The answer is that they’ve created a Build-A-Bear workshop for smokers except instead of stuffing cotton into teddy bears, you’re packing tobacco into cigarette tubes. Apparently, New York City’s cigarette tax focuses on the manufacturing, and because they’re not actually manufacturing any cigarettes, they avoid the enormous fees.
On top of the incredible price, Island Smokes boasts that its cigarettes are 100% organic tobacco; on their website, they write “Our smokes are all natural and additive free – Unlike manufactured cigarettes which are 30% tobacco, AND 70% CHEMICALS, FILLER AND OTHER HIGHLY DANGEROUS AND ADDICTIVE INGREDIENTS.” The banner in front of their store goes one step further claiming that their product is “a healthier, less expensive alternative to smoking.” Inside, an employee was straight with us; “I’m not going to tell you that these are good for you, but it’s nice to know what you’re smoking.”
While reading that you’re expected to operate machinery and build your own cigarettes can be intimidating, the process is actually very simple, and the employees were very helpful. After they showed us how to get the empty tubes onto the machine, it was only a matter of pushing a button, packing the tobacco, and then closing the ends with another machine.
In about five minutes, we had successfully rolled two packs, and we probably could have done it faster had we not been sampling the different blends while we worked. That’s right; they let you smoke for free while you complete your order. The cigarettes aren’t bad either; the tobacco is comparable to an American Spirit, but they aren’t packed as tight, so they burn faster.
Apparently New York City isn’t happy about this tax loophole, and they’re working to shut Island Smokes down, but the two employees we spoke with were confident that the city can’t do anything. “We’ll be around forever,” one boasted with a thick Staten Island accent.
To all the non-smokers out there, we apologize for tempting you with this irresistible deal.

A cigarette butt left behind by a Limerick burglar was the smoking gun that led to a Philadelphia man’s conviction for the crime. James Francis DePaul, 26, of Lawndale Avenue, was convicted Wednesday by a Montgomery County jury of charges of burglary, criminal trespass and theft by unlawful taking in connection with the Dec. 17, 2008, break-in at a home on Metka Road in Limerick.

The jury reached the verdict after hearing testimony that DePaul’s DNA was discovered on a cigarette butt that Limerick police found at the scene of the burglary, apparently left behind by DePaul.

At the time of the burglary, which netted DePaul $200 in cash, DePaul was actually residing in a halfway house in Philadelphia under pre-release status in connection with a previous state prison sentence he was serving for a 2004 Abington convenience store robbery during which he stole cigarettes.

“I think it’s safe to say that smoking has taken years off Mr. DePaul’s life, especially when he continues to commit crimes in Montgomery County,” said Assistant District Attorney John Walko, who vowed to seek prison time against DePaul for the Limerick crime.

“I’m happy with the jury’s verdict. I believe they reached the right result, no ifs, ands or buts, well maybe one but, a cigarette butt,” Walko added.

As jurors were polled individually by court clerk Kevin Frankel, several members of DePaul’s family wept with each “guilty” verdict that was announced.

Judge Steven T. O’Neill, who presided over the two-day trial, immediately revoked DePaul’s bail, while emphasizing that DePaul committed the burglary while in a state Department of Corrections’ pre-release program for his 2004 robbery conviction.

“This defendant also has a history of violent crimes. Further release would be a risk,” said O’Neill as sheriff’s deputies slapped handcuffs on DePaul’s wrists for the trip to jail.

DePaul, who was represented by defense lawyer Andres Jalon, faces a possible maximum sentence of 14 ½ to 29 years in prison on the charges.

SHOPS in Hucknall and the rest of Ashfield passed with flying colours during an undercover sting operation on the illegal sale of cigarettes to under-18s. Notts County Council’s trading standards department worked with volunteers aged between 15 and 17 on a ‘test-purchase operation’. They targeted newsagents, grocers, petrol stations and small supermarkets in the districts of Ashfield, Newark and Sherwood, Broxtowe and Bassetlaw. Of the 57 premises checked, illegal sales were made to the young volunteers in nine.

The sales took place at five shops in Bassetlaw, two in Newark and Sherwood and two in Broxtowe. No sales to under-18s were made at the premises tested in Ashfield.

Owners at the nine shops will now be interviewed by trading standards officers and a decision will be taken on what, if any, action will be taken against them.

Shops can be fined up to £2,500 if found guilty of selling cigarettes to under-18s. If a premises, person or company sells tobacco or cigarette papers to under 18s twice in two years, the county council can apply to the courts for a ‘restricted premises order’ or a ‘restricted sales order’, which can ban the outlet from selling cigarettes completely for up to a year.

Coun Mick Murphy (Con), of Hucknall, lead member for community safety at County Hall, said: “It is disappointing that so many premises in Nottinghamshire have been willing to sell tobacco products to children without challenge, despite clear guidance to the contrary.

“Trading standards work closely with local businesses who want to ensure that they do not sell tobacco to under-18s by giving advice on their legal responsibilities, as well as tips on how to avoid selling all age-restricted products to young people. But while we recognise that most retailers are responsible, we will come down hard on those who flout the law.”

The law also changed this week to make it illegal to sell tobacco products directly to the public from vending machines, regardless of age. Under the change, businesses will be allowed to have cigarette vending-machines but they cannot be accessible to the public.

The state is pulling the plug on machines that roll cigarettes while you wait. The Department of Revenue has informed the machine owners they need manufacturing and distribution permits and other approvals for selling cigarettes. But owners, including Kurt Kruchten, said they are selling loose tobacco, not cigarettes. Kruchten operates Smokes-4-Less in Slinger.

The roll-your-own stores sell loose tobacco and the consumer loads it into the machine, which rolls a carton of cigarettes in 10 to 15 minutes. The cartons cost around $32, about half of the cost of a carton of premium brand cigarettes.
The Journal Sentinel said revenue agents have been doing on-site visits, unplugging machines and posting notices. The department estimates there are 50 to 100 roll-your-own machines in the state.

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of cancer in California. One out of every four residents in California die from cancer each year. Despite continuance of medical treatments and prevention, cigarette smoking remains to be a burden on the health care system. Studies show that the tax will save over 104,000 California residents from smoking-related deaths. It will also prevent more than 200,000 kids from ever becoming addicted to cigarettes when they become adults (CCRA).

The purpose of this measure is to not only increase the tax on cigarettes but to establish the California Cancer Research and Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund. A nine-member “Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee” will oversee this organization.

The panel will consist of chancellors from the campuses of UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley, three of the directors for the National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Centers, one cardiovascular physician from an academic medical center and two tobacco-related illness advocates (UC). Within this fund, there are five sections where the tax revenues will be deposited. Sixty percent ($468 million) will be spent on cancer and tobacco-related disease research; 15 percent ($117 million) will pay for facilities and equipment to support research; 20 percent ($156 million) will fund smoking cessation and tobacco use prevention; 3 percent ($23 million) will help police stop tobacco smuggling and enforce tobacco laws and no more than 2 percent on administrative costs (CCRA).

According to the UC Newsroom, a cumulative of $855 million should result from the tax during the first year. The proposition entails that the money will be dispersed into “medical research into cancers and heart disease, smoking education programs and tobacco law enforcements” (CCRA). In addition to the $855 million given to tobacco-related research and programs, already existing programs for health, natural and research will be increased by $45 million and state and local sales taxes will be raised to $32 million annually. Another study by University of California estimates that California could save up to $28.2 billion in health care costs between 2012 and 2016.

Although Perata has accumulated enough signatures for the ballot to qualify on the next general election, he recognizes that “getting the signatures was really the easy part” and that “[he’s] going to be in a big fight” against the tobacco industry (All Business). The tobacco industry has already invested in $2 million to overturn the legislation. This fact was taken from the filed reports to the California Secretary of State. In reference to the future battle from the tobacco industry, “We know that Big Tobacco will spend gobs of cash opposing this campaign because they want to keep California cigarettes cheap in order to recruit new smokers,” Perata said. “But as this endorsement proves, Californians understand this initiative will make our state stronger, save lives, save billions of dollars in avoidable health care costs, and keep California as ‘THE’ place for groundbreaking medical research” (Business Law Daily).

Since 1998, the 87-cent excise tax on cigarette packs has remained unchanged. With the proposed $1.87 tax on cigarettes, the UC Regents anticipate that cigarette consumption be reduced. With this newly proposed tax, will cigarette smokers actually lessen how much they smoke? Will they find new ways to have their nicotine fixed? How much effort will the tobacco industry make to maintain their loyal consumers? Will they take an aggressive approach at all? All of these questions will be answered within the next year as the general election rolls in.