What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states
Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 144
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states

  1. #1
    CASAA Activist Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Vocalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    7,164
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states

    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
    Last edited by Vocalek; 03-26-2010 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Updated Illinois


    ----
    Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---

  2. #2
    ECF Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,146

    Default

    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

  3. #3
    Lab
    Lab is offline
    Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,144

    Default

    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
    DoctorRiboh likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    266
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

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

  5. #5
    PV Master Team ECF (folding@home)
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    californicator
    Posts
    6,602

    Default

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

  6. #6
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    people's republic
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Letters will be sent tonight....

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    266
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

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

  8. #8
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    467

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by dreams n chains; 03-26-2010 at 12:23 AM.

  9. #9
    Moved On
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Tru Nor Cal
    Posts
    402

    Default

    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

  10. #10
    Forum Supplier ECF Veteran Sir_Lawrence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    5,755

    Default

    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.

Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks