Illinois Bill to prohibit sale of PV's

[Slighter]

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB3174
This bill is before the House after already being passed in the Senate.The House is out today but returns tomorrow. I have called and left my contact info with my state Rep and was told I'd be called back tomorrow when he returns. I urge all other Illinois vapers to do the same. If you do not know who your House rep is use this link - District/Official Search Results.

[Sun Vaporer]

Looks like we really need that Appeals Court ruling now. State by State they are coming after the e-cig.


Sun

[bobbysox10]

I am creating a petition and I will call my state rep

[HighHeeledGoddess]

I live in IL, and if this passes I will simply have my stuff shipped over the border. What are they going to do, bust into my house Stazi style and take it from me? %&#@ them!

The good news is that the bill says NOTHING about possession - of course I have enough juice to have a small store, but that is besides the point. I will call if there is still time. I see now what happens when I don't check in here often enough.

They do not care about anything but their lost tax revenue. Well guess what? I'm not going back to paying it. They haven't gotten my cig tax money in years when I was smoking anyway, but that again is beside the point.

And as if the FDA should be trusted to deny or approve anything. Their say so means nothing to me. They're the same ones that allow water fluoridation and Viox.

[bobbysox10]

I live in IL, and if this passes I will simply have my stuff shipped over the border. What are they going to do, bust into my house Stazi style and take it from me? %&#@ them!

The good news is that the bill says NOTHING about possession - of course I have enough juice to have a small store, but that is besides the point. I will call if there is still time. I see now what happens when I don't check in here often enough.

They do not care about anything but their lost tax revenue. Well guess what? I'm not going back to paying it. They haven't gotten my cig tax money in years when I was smoking anyway, but that again is beside the point.

And as if the FDA should be trusted to deny or approve anything. Their say so means nothing to me. They're the same ones that allow water fluoridation and Viox.

This is for IL residents. Changing your shipping address does nothing(i thought of this already) your billing address still proves your an IL resident and it won't be sold to you. The only thing we can do is fight it by contacting our State Rep.

[HighHeeledGoddess]

I wrote Link. E-mail here:

I cannot believe you initiated this piece of legislation. I know the state is hurting for revenue, and you have all been enjoying raping the smokers for every red cent you can whilst making their lives Hell, but this is going too far. I smoked for 11 years, but last year I was able to quit using an electronic cigarette. While that is not the expressed purpose of the device, thousands of users across the country are doing the same. I am gradually reducing my nicotine levels, and will eventually enjoy inhilating nicotine free vapor.

Please keep in mind that the ultimate passage or failure of this bill will not result in my cessation of using this device. You didn't get my cigarette tax money in the last few years I was a smoker, and I am not going back to smoking, so you still will not get it. I will continue using my electronic cigarette in the state of Illinois whether you ban them being sold here or not; I will simply venture into Wisconsin to purchase them. I noted the bill does not ban possession, merely distribution. I thank you for this oversight.

Unfortunately, it is not so simple for some others here in Illinois. In this recession you will have cost several online vendors here in the state to have lost their businesses. I know you could care less, because you have a golden parachute I am all too certain. I hope you feel good about yourself. Perhaps you could vote yourself another raise?

I wonder how many people who may have tried an electronic cigarette, and subsequently extended their lives because of doing so, will now never have the chance?

Your Very Angry Constituent,
<My Real Name>

Bobbysox - There are plenty of ways around the billing address issue. Do you think vendors in 49 other states will comply overnight anyway?

[bobbysox10]

wow great email and your right.

[AmyB66]

Just saw this. I'll be calling mine this morning.

[davidb]

I do not usually keep up on these, I happened to stumble on this thread today. I called and am awaiting a call back.

[curiousJan]

SB3174 - Amendment to the Tobacco Accessories and Smoking Herbs Control Act

Dear Governor Quinn,

I am writing to strongly urge you to veto this amendment if/when it comes to your desk. I have zero (0) opposition to requiring proof-of-age for the sale of nicotine containing products but am seriously disturbed by the rush to ban e-cigarettes/personal vaporizers/electronic nicotine inhalation equipment and supplies.

Allow me to provide a bit of background:
I began smoking when I was 17. I am now fast approaching 41. Over the 20+ years that I smoked combustible cigarettes, I tried multiple times using multiple FDA approved cessation products -- patches, gum, Wellbutrin, cold-turkey -- and _failed_ each and every time. The longest I was able to remain quit was a 2.5 year period that was motivated by my desire to provide a healthier role model for my child. The fact of the matter is, though, that I am one of the many people who utilize nicotine to address anxiety/depression and cognition issues. When I have an appropriate level of nicotine intake, I am more calm, have more patience, and am more able to think and communicate clearly ... without it I struggle.

Nicotine is a toxin, in sufficient concentration a dangerous one, but the same can be said for caffeine and alcohol. There are many, many things in this world that are dangerous to us as human beings. There is inherent danger in my getting in my car and driving to work every morning, but I still do it every day. There are necessary risks in the lives we lead, and it is our responsibility as adults to assess those risks and make necessary day-to-day decisions.

Please don't take my decision to embrace a potentially healthier alternative to combustion cigarettes away from me. I've followed the SE/NJOY vs. FDA case for a while now, and I want to take the time to ask that the 2009 FDA study's details be reviewed closely before blindly falling in line behind them. The FDA, in my honest opinion, is derelict in their stated mission in this particular case. They do not appear to be making decisions based upon concern for my health and that of other's using these devices. Apparently they are more concerned about control, the protection of Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical interests, and the free flow of the sin-tax monies that have been placed upon the backs of smokers for years.

I realize that these devices have yet to be proven 'safe', but is the FDA definition of safe the appropriate one to use in this case? The more appropriate comparison to determine safety for the devices is one made to combustible cigarettes. This device provides an alternative to inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, and thousands of other hazardous chemicals. Yes, more testing needs to be done in both the short and long-term. Short terms tests regarding the composition of the vapor should be performed. Long term tests regarding the health effects should be performed. Is it necessary to force me back to smoking combustibles while these things occur? I say no; there is ample anecdotal evidence regarding the 'safety' of these devices, yet no one making these decisions seems to be exploring it. I understand that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for hard scientific study results. The fact is it doesn't have to be as there are studies out there that support this as a reasonable alternative to smoking combustibles (links can be found at CASAA.org)

Again, I support age restrictions on the sale of nicotine, and I fully support the application of a reasonable level of tax on the purchase of nicotine containing products. I do not support them being taxed to the level of combustibles specifically due to the supporting reasoning used when those taxes were implemented, which were related to the severely detrimental health effects of smoking combustibles. Tax, yes; sin tax, certainly not.

I realize that this has been quite long, and I thank you for hearing me out. The proposed ban contained in SB3174 seems a knee-jerk reaction that hasn't been fully investigated and should not be passed. I'm very disappointed that my senate representative voted in favor of this bill and that has cost him my vote in the next election; I will be in contact with my house representative as he happens to be on the committee reviewing this bill currently and will be making that point to him as well. I voted for both of them in the last election and will be making my determination regarding my votes for each of you in the next election based heavily on how this matter is handled. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
<Real Name here>

Jan