What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states

[Vocalek]

1. If you live in one of the states that currently has a bill pending that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes,
a) Find out who your Senator is and who your "House" representative is. (Titles vary from state to state. Examples include Representative, Assemblymember, Delegate).
b) Phone their offices and/or send a letter by snail mail.
c) Tell your story about how e-cigarettes have helped you and tell them that you oppose ### (where ### equals the official bill designation) because it would make the sale of the products illegal.
d) Point out that thousands of citizens would be forced to relapse to smoking.

2. If you don't live in the state, it would not be economical for you to phone or snail mail all the government officials, but you can send a brief email to all of the legislators in those states. See items c & d above for what to say.

Currently, we know of proposed bills that would ban e-cigarette sales in CA, IL, MD, and NY. If you find out about another state, please post the information in the Campaigning section of ECF.

Contact information for the four states mentioned above can be found within the following threads:

New York: A9529
Senate Version: S7234 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S7234
NY state bill banning ecigs
Look up your legislator - Response #34
Email Addresses - Response #56

Illinois: SB3174
Illinois Bill to prohibit sale of PV's
**Contact Info for House Human Services Committee Members - Response #62
To find your state representative, go to www.ilga.gov and click on Legislator Lookup in the lower, right-hand portion of the page.

** Updated. bill moved from House Rules Committee to Human Services Committee

Maryland: HB720
Email addresses for both Illinois and Maryland:
Email addresses for Il & MD
Maryland email addresses grouped - See Response #3
Look up MD elected official: http://mdelect.net/electedofficials/

California: SB 882 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

California: bill to define e-cigs a drug (= sales prohibition?)
Contact Information for Sponsor Ellen Corbett - See Response #6
List of CA Senators' email addresses: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senemail.htp
List of CA Assembly members: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEM...emberdir_1.asp
Look up your legislator: California State Legislature
Sign up to receive email updates on the bill status: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bi...&nro=882&act=1

[Sun Vaporer]

Vocalek--nice post!! People might also add to their letters some of the relevent parts of Judge Leon's ruling. I have found in many cases that legislators like nothing better then to pass the buck to the Courts when ever they can.

Some of the relevent part of Judge Leon's ruling is quite clear about the stance of E-cigs as a tobacco product and the scope of the FDA. The Court stated:

"Because neither act encompasses electronic cigarettes, FDA contends that those products, at least as they are marketed by plaintiffs, are beyond the scope of Brown & Williamson Tobacco and are therefore regulable as a drug or device under the FDCA. This argument is too clever by half.... FDA's interpretation of "tobacco product" is not reasonable when considered in the context of the entire Tobacco Act. For instance, one provision of the Act specifically prohibits FDA from "banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products." 21 U.S.C. § 387g(d)(3)(A). Yet another provision prohibits FDA from "requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero." 21 U.S.c. § 387g(d)(3)(B). That Congress would single-out "traditional" products for specific protection but use the broader term "tobacco product" when denying FDA the power to eliminate nicotine yields suggests that Congress understood the term to encompass more than traditional tobacco products and that Congress intended to permit nicotine use, whether from unforeseen, non-traditional sources (like electronic cigarettes) or from well established, traditional sources (like regular cigarettes). More importantly, it is apparent from Congress's broad definition of "tobacco product" that it intended the Tobacco Act's regulatory scheme to cover far more than the fixed array of traditional tobacco products at issue in Brown & Williamson Tobacco. Both the FLCAA and the CSTHEA only apply to "cigarettes," "little cigars," and "smokeless tobacco," which Congress defined with considerable specificity, yet the
Tobacco Act applies to "tobacco products," which Congress defined expansively as "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption." 21 U.S.C. § 321(rr)(l). Furthermore, Congress made clear that FDA's new jurisdiction over tobacco products applies, not only "to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco," but "to any other tobacco products" as well. Id. § 387a(b). Simply put, the Court cannot accept that Congress defined "tobacco product" in this manner when it knew all along that the only tobacco products beyond FDA's drug device jurisdiction were the traditional products governed by the FLCAA and CSTHEA". Id. at 17-18 (U.S. Federal District Court, DC circuit).

Quoting this to these people would be of benefit as we should not assume that they know about the case let alone have read it so enlighten them.


Sun

[Lab]

everyone that quit in those states should send the governor the rest of their cigs and a letter saying how you no longer need them because e-cigs where the only thing that has helped you quit

[Tanner S Hyde]

and tell them to smoke for a couple years, THEN decide if they wanna ban E-cigs

[ejoker]

letters sent to all, except maryland cause i don't like those people (j/k). thanks for the central post vocalek.

[ZERO]

Letters will be sent tonight....

[Tanner S Hyde]

Emails sent... And no I didn't tell them I hope they start smoking!

[dreams n chains]

I think it would be wise to say (and do) that if these bans are enacted that you will be a consumer of nothing..... nada... no money for the government.... no item to tax.

You will not go back to cigarettes nor will you be purchasing false "help you quit" pharmaceutical alternatives. You will wean yourself off the nicotine and be what the government fears most in these hard times..... A Non Consumer/buyer/money-maker.

They do not care about our health..... they just want sin-taxes bringing in the money they so carelessly spend.

That's my plan. Then I'll vape flavored PG, since the act itself is at least 5o percent of my addiction.

[Kuya Dave]

Im not the greatest writer but how would I add in the judge leon info?

I reside in California so I must take act on this.
Even if they ban them I will get them. Use them ETC
Personal Opinions of course

[Sir_Lawrence]

I can't believe people can be so ignorant as to the benefits that e-cigs have for people. I quit my 30+ year smoking habit the day I got my first e-cig. I live in Maryland and just emailed everyone on that list a heart felt email. I think this whole thing is insane. My doctor was the one who "prescribed" e-cigs to me so I could kick my nasty habit. Now, I'm trying to set up a company making mods to help people as much as I can. Something needs to be done.
Thanks Everyone.