Critics continually moan about e-cigarettes but some can’t wait to see them adding importanttax revenues as soon as possible.That’s definitely the case in Philadelphia who is looking forward to enjoying making moneyout of people’s addiction to tobacco cigarettes. They recently enacted a $2-per-pack tobaccocigarette tax and now City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown wants that aimed at e-cigarettes too. She wants a $2 tax on e-cigarettes and a $0.50 tax per millimeter of e-liquids(not exceeding $5 a transaction) with the levy going to the underfunded Philadelphia schooldistrict. “Every penny counts” says Brown, who adds: “We have to think outside the box andcome up with new reoccurring revenue streams.”Worryingly an e-cigarette tax would not need state approval because the city is allowed totax items that the state doesn’t already regulate and tax. Just how much additional revenuewould be raised hasn’t been confirmed. Brown’s office said they didn’t have that information;they were probably still counting up the amount they can make out of the rapidly increasinge-cigarette industry.Brown knows what she’s talking about though because she says that the taxation of e-cigarettes is an untapped resource. “Sales [of e-cigarettes] are exponentially growing. Weneed to capitalize on that, especially knowing our school district is not being funded atappropriate levels."So are e-cigarettes going to be the fall guy here simply because politicians can’t adequatefund school districts?The taxation of e-cigarettes looks to be a sad inevitability. No politician is going to miss outon the fact that sales of the product have grown from $20m in 2008 to $1.5b this year. Theymay complain till the cows come home about e-cigarettes but the chance of using them toincrease tax revenues is going to be too good to miss.Another important fact is of course the fact that e-cigarettes are such a great product. Theyare safer to use than tobacco cigarettes and can help smokers give up the habit of inhalingpoisons galore. If the e-cigarette continues to grow and less people smoke then that meanspotentially less tax revenue from tobacco cigarettes, so the gap in revenues has to comefrom somewhere and no prizes for guessing where. Already Minnesota and North Carolinatax e-cigarettes so the floodgates may well be open already.So the school district gets some extra cash but how would the planned taxation affect thee-cigarette industry and its users? Considering the fact the e-cigarettes can provide theservice of helping people to live healthier lives should it be penalised? Surely the fact isthat if e-cigarettes are taxed then people will be less willing to purchase them and more thanlikely carry on smoking.Ray Ros is general manager of Love Vape on South Street, Philadelphia. He says of theplanned changes: “This would really hurt our business. We make most of our money in the[nicotine] juices." He adds that the recent increase in taxation on tobacco cigarettes hasseen a slight increase in smokers moving to e-cigarettes. Tax on e-cigarettes “might drivepeople back to smoking cigarettes.”The School Reform Commission would have to approve any decision and so far they are infavour of accepting the massive cash injection. “Any revenue opportunity that is supportedby City Council, we will pursue” said SRC Chairman Bill Green.Also supporting the move is the beautifully named Mayor Nutter (not sure about his politicsso I can’t confirm if he’s a Right Nutter). That’s no surprise as Nutter has already signedbills outlawing the sale of e-cigarettes to minors within the city and the banning of vaping inworkplaces, bars, restaurants and other public areas. With this Nutter in charge the futurefor e-cigarettes looks difficult in Philadelphia.So let’s try and work this one out. All the time we hear deserved criticism of tobaccocigarettes (apart from the tax revenue they provide) and along comes a product that iscutting the numbers smoking. What do the politicians do? They reach out their tax hungryhands and try to get some money out of e-cigarettes and as a result stop people switching toa safer product. Not very logical is it?