California: bill to define e-cigs a drug (= sales prohibition?)

[Tom09]

Just came across this post by Janetda. It might warrant much more exposure:

I don't think most people have caught on yet, but California Senator Corbett's SB 882 will take e-cigs away from California too. The Gov. vetoed a similar bill last year but she introduced this new bill. The bill it includes this:
This bill would deem any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution a drug under these provisions.
SB 882 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

This bill does not read good, indeed:

This bill would authorize action to halt the sale, distribution, or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes that have not been approved or cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration. [...]
This bill would deem any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution a drug under these provisions. [...]

It reads to me as if, once again, a bill to ban - period - had been disguised as a measure “to protect the health of minors”.

Please check out SB 882 tracking site here.

[Janetda]

Thanks Tom!

[BuzzKill]

Somebody doesnt like the judges decision in the SE Vs. FDA case , would a Bill over ride the court decision ?

[Janetda]

I have no idea. I don't understand why they would put this up again while it's still in court. Other than just plain grandstanding, I don't get it.

[devnull71]

Thank you both for calling attention to this. I was still a smoker and unaware of e-cigarettes when SB400 was proposed. Now that I've been analog-free for over a month, I have no desire to see the use of these devices by adults criminalized.

I've read both bills, read Senator Corbett's press release regarding 882, and am interested in hearing from anyone who's fought similar legislation in their own states.

[Vocalek]

Here is the wording of BILL NUMBER: SB 882:

This bill would deem any article that can provide inhaled doses of
nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution a drug under these
provisions. By expanding the definition of an existing crime, this
bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

SEC. 5. Section 111247 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
111247. Any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine by
delivering a vaporized solution, including, but not limited to, an
electronic cigarette, shall be deemed to be a drug as defined in
Section 109925. This section shall not be construed as bearing on or
being relevant to the question of whether any other product is a drug
as defined in Section 109925 or a device as defined in Section
109920.


And here is her contact information.

Corbett, Ellen (Dem)

1057 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 206
Sacramento, CA 94248-0001
(510) 577-2310

State Capitol
Room 5108
San Leandro, CA 94577
(916) 651-4010

39155 Liberty Street
Suite F610
Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 794-3900

[Janetda]

We fought a similar bill by Corbett last year. It passed with flying colors in both the Assembly and the Senate. It was ultimately vetoed by the Governor in October. All they gotta do is wait for a new Governor.

[devnull71]

Grim. I've drafted a snail-mail letter to the Senator for my home district (Leland Yee).

Thank you for the mailing addresses, Vocalek. As I'm not one of Corbett's constituents, I doubt my word would carry much. I had prepared a 3-paragraph message to Corbett with the intention of using her Web site form, but will now send it in print as well.

For those who've called their Senator's offices before, what's the normal protocol? Does a staffer only listen to your "oppose or approve" on a certain bill, or are they interested in the "why" as well?

[fast12345]

just spoke with anthony valdez in ellen Corbett's office in sacramento ca.
and he said she is amending the bill that the new bill would only apply to sales to minors.
and to check back next week for the changed bill.
tel# 916-651-4010 Ellen Corbett office #

[Janetda]

That would be the smart thing to do. Let's hope he's right.