Attention all vapors! N.Y. Vapers need your help!!! Casaa call to action!! Now!!!

**kellie** · 06-19-2012, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by DC2

If you are from New York, and you left a comment that is not showing up, you might want to consider sending an email to the NY Senate website, while also copying your email to any various news outlets in the New York area that you may feel should be copied. It might take a bit of research to find the contact email for the New York Senate website, and to find the contact emails for various news outlets, but you never know what might come of it.

If I was writing such an email I would indicate the position I took regarding the bill, the fact that I am part of a very large forum who is watching this bill, and the fact that almost all of the people from this forum that have posted comments in opposition to the bill have yet to see their comments appear. If enough people do that, again, who knows what might happen.

That is a great idea!!!! I have emailed all the state sens and have not got a reply from any one. Since I work for the state of new york I am gonna ask my union rep tomorrow who he thinks I should contact

**JENerationX** · 06-20-2012, 01:24 AM

openlegislation@nysenate.gov
Is the email for the website.

**JENerationX** · 06-20-2012, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by kellie

That is a great idea!!!! I have emailed all the state sens and have not got a reply from any one. Since I work for the state of new york I am gonna ask my union rep tomorrow who he thinks I should contact

Great idea Kellie! If you can get to anyone that'll listen, please pass it along. I have a few versions of my letters and I'm willing and able to send another out.

**sailorman** · 06-20-2012, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by JENerationX

The whole thing is just asinine. There is no legitimate reason to ban e-cigs that are no more "harmful" than the patch and the gum, yet continue to sell cigarettes. It's about the money. If we're paying the cigarette tax or paying the tax on the gum or the patch that's fine, but God forbid we use something they're not making money on. They would rather we don't have effective alternatives and continue to pay their ridiculous cigarette taxes.

It's about the money, but not the way you're saying. It's not about taxes. They can, and will, tax e-cigs or juice or both. It's about money as in profits for BP and the campaign cash that BP forks over to any candidate willing to do their bidding. They don't impose tobacco taxes on the patch or gum, because the patch and gum are not considered tobacco products under federal law. They are cessation products and started out as prescription drugs. That's what BP wanted for e-cigs until the court short-circuited their plans. Now, e-cigs are a direct competitor to their potions and poisons. That's what is behind this, not taxes. Don't fool yourself.

**sailorman** · 06-20-2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by bhamilton_930

i find this argument kinda weak only for one big reason. they can ban or at very last as you stated "severely limit" the use of such said products. when i think of ban, i think of the south and their "dry counties"

essentially the same thing. that's about all i got to say. i think lets not distract ourselves with frivolous comments of they can't they wont how could they ban blah blah. lets stay focused as this could lead to bigger and worse legislation. they could ban the production of or the sale of anything related to ecigs. i say push forward and write to respective government leaders and let your voice be heard. until then

tootles

No government entity can impose a ban on any product designated by the Federal government and the FDA and the courts as a "tobacco product". They can ban alcohol in dry counties or even entire states because alcohol doesn't enjoy the status that the tobacco companies spent millions of dollars to secure for cigarettes.

There are no other products besides guns and tobacco products that are entirely immune from any ban on their sale, possession and use. That is a legal reality and the fact that you choose not to be aware of it doesn't make my argument weak, it only demonstrates your unwillingness to believe what you don't care to believe.

So, the status of alcohol and tobacco products are not "essentially the same thing". Not at all. It's a serious legal distinction and as far as you can get from frivolous. They cannot ban the production or sale of anything related to e-cigs and if there's anything frivolous, it's any statement that makes such a false assertion, based on nothing but paranoia and fear. It's not only frivolous, it's downright ignorant. If you think the truth is frivolous and distracting, then I would hope that is, in fact, all you got to say.

Yeah, let your voice be heard. But don't for one second think that any state or municipal government can impose a ban on e-cigs. They can't and they won't. If they could, it would have been done in at least several cities and possibly a state or two already. If they can't do it to cigarettes, they can't do it to e-cigs. It's as simple as that.

States or other governments can treat e-cigs exactly the way they treat analogs. Lord knows that's bad enough, but all this talk about this or that state or city "banning" e-cigs is needlessly hysterical.

**Infinitejest** · 06-20-2012, 05:18 AM

I'll definitely be support this. Thanks for the heads up.

**Infinitejest** · 06-20-2012, 06:15 AM

HEy,
I'm relatively new to Vaping and have a lot of Newbie questions. I have watched too many damn how to videos, but I'm a person who learns hands on. IS there anybody around NYC that would be interested in meeting up and giving this guy a Vaping 101 course in the basics. I'm working with a Provari Mini and REO mini. Any Instrucion and advice is really needed. I'll gladly provide drinks and few juices for your time.

Thanks,
DCT

**yiddleboge6** · 06-20-2012, 06:15 AM

Bumping this thread

**elfstone** · 06-20-2012, 06:25 AM

This is not an attempt to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products or other some such. It is an outright ban. It says "to prohibit the sale or offering for sale any electronic cigarette."

This needs to be attacked differently than the usual - they can benefit smokers, nicotine is not proven to be harmful etc.

This is a ridiculous proposition. There is no reason whatsoever to ban nicotine vaporizers / "e-cigarettes". First of all, this is an attempt to ban a class of devices, it neither a ban on a specific product, nor is it an attempt to regulate quality control and standards. It is not an attempt to tax or to limit. It is an unprecedented, I think, attempt to just ban a whole category of consumer products. This is fundamental here - this is aimed at the entire class of devices, based on their purpose. Their purpose - recreational inhalation of a nicotine containing vapor - is not immoral, not a a threat to public order or security, does not promote or involve other criminal activities and is in no other way subject to any typical reason for such a blanket ban.

The question is, what else is banned out there, in such a generic, indiscriminate way?

Even the debate regarding the absolute safety of their use is irrelevant here. The government, traditionally, does not mandate what is legally permissible based on absolute safety, but rather is extraordinarily called upon to restrict a product or activity when its societal risks far outweigh any potential benefits. Driving, use of open flames in kitchens, use of electric devices in households, ability to carry money and execute transactions unsupervised, even the ability to leave one's home or even to live in one's home unsupervised - these are all unsafe in absolute terms. Yet we would never dream of allowing the government to regulate them based on their potential hazards.

There is no evidence, or reasonable inference that any potential risks associated with the use of electronic vaporizers / "e-cigarettes" would exceed the normally acceptable risks for other consumer products. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to ever propose a blanket ban such as this one!

The mild mood altering effects of nicotine and even its mild-moderate addiction potential are seriously below the threshold for a ban! Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, fat, seasonings of any kind meant to stimulate eating beyond strictly physiologic needs, TV, Internet forums, Facebook, YouTube, sports and outdoor activities, sex, collector items, horseback riding, sailing, arts and crafts, churches and religious practices of any form - these are all either risky or addictive or both! They should be either banned or strictly regulated!