***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***
Page 1 of 107 123451151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 1067
Like Tree2713Likes

Thread: ***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***

  1. #1
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    mackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    1,543

    Default ***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***

    Assemblyman Roger Dickinson has introduced AB 1500. AB 1500 will prohibit the shipment of cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes to anyone in California. Dickinson Introduces Legislation to Ban Internet Tobacco Sales - AD07 - Assemblymember Roger Dickinson Representing the 7th California Assembly District
    If passed it will generate $24 million in tax revenue for the State. The news story on KOVR 13 in Sacramento.

    Lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it's been

  2. #2
    Eh? Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    SloHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Posts
    763
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    How does a ban on something generate revenue?

    SilverDog V1 by Van, Orion V2.1 + V3 by NoSmoker, Provari V2 by Provape, BNJ Mod, KayFun 3.1

  3. #3
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Berylanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    south Bay Area, California
    Posts
    2,013
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SloHand View Post
    How does a ban on something generate revenue?
    For cigarettes, it prevents avoiding California cigarette taxes.

    For ecigs, it keeps people from quitting smoking, and, combined with the proposals to NOT let us buy them locally, it forces us to smoke, thus saving a lot of Medi-cal money we would have spent when we were old, and also keeping us buying stinkies.
    jpargana, Luisa, Stosh and 14 others like this.
    “When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
    Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory

  4. #4
    Eh? Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    SloHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario
    Posts
    763
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berylanna View Post
    For cigarettes, it prevents avoiding California cigarette taxes.

    For ecigs, it keeps people from quitting smoking, and, combined with the proposals to NOT let us buy them locally, it forces us to smoke, thus saving a lot of Medi-cal money we would have spent when we were old, and also keeping us buying stinkies.
    This is so wrong on sooo many levels.

    SilverDog V1 by Van, Orion V2.1 + V3 by NoSmoker, Provari V2 by Provape, BNJ Mod, KayFun 3.1

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SloHand View Post
    How does a ban on something generate revenue?
    By forcing you to buy from a local B&M the state earns tax revenue that they otherwise wouldn't see if you bought online from a vendor outside your state.

    I'm getting really sick of California and its nanny state behavior, I've had one hobby after another attacked by either the state of the feds. California has many more serious problems to deal with, especially when it comes to public safety and health and yet they busy themselves with trvial crap in an attempt to look like they're doing something. This rally cry of "save the children" ought to be met with a response about how parents should be the ones to be responsible for safegaurding their children. If an issue falls into the domain of what a parent can reasonablly control, the responsibilty lies with them and them alone.

  6. #6
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Rickajho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    8,636

    Default

    And just how does that prevent anyone from ordering from a non USA site? Pretty sure CA isn't going to get special privileges from Customs, just because they are CA.

  7. #7
    Super Member ECF Veteran pamdis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    687

    Default

    How do they enforce that even inside the US? How do they actually stop someone in CA from buying online from a store in another state? I don't get it.
    Rickajho, etchie, NickCA and 3 others like this.
    Life may have no meaning, or, even worse, it may have a meaning of which you disapprove.

  8. #8
    Senior Member ECF Veteran Kabamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    159

    Default

    What the heck kind of nonsense is this? It's absurd.

  9. #9
    Super Member mountainbikermark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    central Virginia
    Posts
    655

    Default

    {MODERATED} legal. E juice not.
    Hmm I'm thinking it's because they haven't figured a way to tax the stuff heavily yet. Put a 50%+ tax on it and I'll bet a different tune will be sung from the rafters of the assembly.

    Support Our Troops!!!
    <><
    I'm an "s pen aholic" Noteate
    Last edited by sonicdsl; 01-14-2014 at 04:11 AM. Reason: Mention/discussion of illicit drugs not permitted

  10. #10
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Berylanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    south Bay Area, California
    Posts
    2,013
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atdepth View Post
    By forcing you to buy from a local B&M the state earns tax revenue that they otherwise wouldn't see if you bought online from a vendor outside your state.

    I'm getting really sick of California and its nanny state behavior, I've had one hobby after another attacked by either the state of the feds. California has many more serious problems to deal with, especially when it comes to public safety and health and yet they busy themselves with trvial crap in an attempt to look like they're doing something. This rally cry of "save the children" ought to be met with a response about how parents should be the ones to be responsible for safegaurding their children. If an issue falls into the domain of what a parent can reasonablly control, the responsibilty lies with them and them alone.
    No, the rallying cry of "save the children" should be met with "which do you think hurts a teenager more: vaping or a drive-by shooting when vapers are forced to become customers of gangs?"
    “When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
    Lois McMaster Bujold, Memory

Page 1 of 107 123451151101 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)


Bookmarks