UPDATED New York State Call to Action

[yvilla]

I think he was referring to your "garbage" link too, Tom, not to your post. :-)

[Valsacar]

A little delayed, but I got a response back from Joel M. Miller today. Short and sweet, A1468 has issues that he disagrees with (but didn't specify) and therefore would not vote for it in its current form. A bit moot now, since the bill would no longer apply to electronic cigarettes but nice that they did respond.

[yvilla]

A bit moot now, since the bill would no longer apply to electronic cigarettes but nice that they did respond.

Not true.

The bill as written refers to the New York State definition of "tobacco product" (as found in the Public Health Law). I've written about that before. See, eg, this post: New york sales ban next steps

So although the developments in federal court and with the FDA render the bill's tortured wording even more weird and stupid than it was originally (while the FDA still deemed ecigs to be "drug" products), they would not necessarily prevent the intended ban should the bill still pass.

Fortunately, however, as I noted above it is really looking like time is running out on it this year so it won't pass, although I won't celebrate until 6/20!

[Thulium]

Not true.

The bill as written refers to the New York State definition of "tobacco product" (as found in the Public Health Law). I've written about that before. See, eg, this post: New york sales ban next steps

So although the developments in federal court and with the FDA render the bill's tortured wording even more weird and stupid than it was originally (while the FDA still deemed ecigs to be "drug" products), they would not necessarily prevent the intended ban should the bill still pass.

Fortunately, however, as I noted above it is really looking like time is running out on it this year so it won't pass, although I won't celebrate until 6/20!

It took some digging, but I found the New York State definition of "Tobacco Product" you referenced:

5. "Tobacco products" means one or more cigarettes or cigars, bidis,
chewing tobacco, powdered tobacco, nicotine water or any other tobacco
products

Obviously, the "any other tobacco products" is vague, but IMO the mention of nicotine water that is obviously only "derived" from tobacco combined with the "any other" would very reasonably include other liquid nicotine/tobacco products that could be used in a low power vaporizer.

You're the lawyer, but it seems to me that any remaining doubt about whether e-cigarettes would or wouldn't be considered tobacco products was answered by Judge Leon, the entire Appellate court, and the FDA's reluctant acceptance of Congress' intent that non-therapeutic products containing or derived from tobacco be regulated under the Tobacco Act.

I suspect that the prohibitionists haven't figured out a backup plan to destroy the upstart e-cig industry so they're leaving the outright bans on the back-burner and instead trying to sneak usage restrictions into smoking bans.

[yvilla]

Of course Thad, that very broad and vague New York defintion of "tobacco product" has itself always been our "ace in the hole" so to speak, since Rosenthal first introduced her bill in the 2009-2010 session. Had her bill passed (or if it yet passes), she would have instantly regretted how stupidly and poorly she worded it, because the legal argument that ecigs should be deemed to fit within the meaning of PHL section 1399-aa in any event is indeed a very strong one.

But that still would have required litigation, as the legislative intent to accomplish an outright sales ban - the (dumb) legislative belief that ecigs are not within the meaning of that definition - is crystal clear.

And, that litigation would have to be in a New York court. New York's determination would control, not that of any federal court. New York courts are the only ones that are entitled to interpret and construe New York law and New York statutes (with some very limited exceptions not relevant in this context, such as diversity jurisdiction in federal court).

[Bustastew]

Fix this problem at the source, call Linda Rosenthal and ask her to drop her adult nanny bill in favor of Senator Kliens bill.

[Placebo Effect]

What Linda Rosenthal has been up to lately instead of pushing for a vote on her e-cigarette ban:

Little, Rosenthal introduce bill to target sexual harassment of hotel staff - Election Inbox by Nathan Brown's political blog - AdirondackDailyEnterprise.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Saranac Lake region

Animal Rights Activists, Lawmakers Call For Ban Of Horse-Drawn Carriages In NYC « CBS New York

Ornamental Urns Sawed Off Historic UWS Building - DNAinfo.com

The residents' cause has won the attention of Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who represents the Upper West Side. Rosenthal told DNAinfo she's asked the Department of Buildings to investigate whether Atria has the proper permits to remove the urns.

[yvilla]

Fix this problem at the source, call Linda Rosenthal and ask her to drop her adult nanny bill in favor of Senator Kliens bill.

Although we're close to safe for this year, just to be clear: Klein's bill in the Senate is identical to Rosenthal's bill in the Assembly. We have been opposing both since last year's session.

The two new bills (listed in the OP here) are the ones we would support, that only ban sales to minors.

[jimbalny]

To hell with NY state legislators! I don't think Long Island and the boroughs get fair representation - secession is the only answer! The state of Long Island!

[ACM]

To hell with NY state legislators! I don't think Long Island and the boroughs get fair representation - secession is the only answer! The state of Long Island!

But don't forget, Suffolk County banned e-cigs in public places under the umbrella of their ban on cigarettes in bars, restaurants, hotels, and the workplace a long time before this NYS proposed ban even surfaced.