Bumping just means adding a new post to a thread so it gets moved (bumped) back up to the top of the list of threads on the forum instead of being pushed down to page 6 or somewhere no one can find it.
When they quit thinking a PV is an electric cigarette, they'll quit treating us like smokers and calling vapor smoke. Best not to vape what looks like a cig. or use the word e-cigarette among the uninitiated. Vaporizers are "e-cigarettes" like electric toothbrushes are e-carrots.
Thanks sailorman,
How or why does this happen? I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
How or why does what happen?Originally Posted by 602323
How or why does a thread get bumped?
How or why does a thread need to be bumped?
How or why would New York try to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes?
I bumped this thread to keep it visible. Most people don't search through a lot of back pages and this is something that is important to all of us. Out right bans need to be stopped before they are enacted upon.
Sorry for not responding right away, went offline for awhile
How or why does bumping happen? Or, how or why do bad bills happen?
Bumping happens any time someone writes a new post in an existing thread. Like right now. If this thread wasn't already on the top of the list, it would move there because I just wrote a new post. The system does it automatically.
Bad bills happen because politicians want to show support for the financial interests of corporations and organizations who they have either prostituted themselves to, or intend to in the future. Whether the bill is legal or can hold up to the flimsiest of court challenges is of no consequence. It's called "grandstanding". A bill is proposed with full knowledge that it will get nowhere and couldn't hold up in court even if it did. The purpose of the bill is to pad the sponsoring legislators resume and show support for the financial interests of whoever has the ability to stuff the politicians war chest.
When they quit thinking a PV is an electric cigarette, they'll quit treating us like smokers and calling vapor smoke. Best not to vape what looks like a cig. or use the word e-cigarette among the uninitiated. Vaporizers are "e-cigarettes" like electric toothbrushes are e-carrots.
I think Sailorman is bringing up an interesting point...
Hopefully he will correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be saying they can NOT ban electronic cigarettes.
And I assume he is saying that if this bill passes it will have zero chance of holding up in court.
And this is all based on the assumption that electronic cigarettes are a tobacco product.
But are they? Has that been officially decided yet? Does that depend on the FDA and the "deeming" process?
And if they are not tobacco products yet, and this ban passes, would it become invalid if they officially become tobacco products?
So yeah, I'm a little curious about how that works, now that you mention it.
Last edited by DC2; 06-20-2012 at 07:09 AM.
S c a r y s t u f f
The courts have paved the way, with their ruling against the FDA, for e-cigs to be officially deemed tobacco products.
The FDA has little choice but to deem them so. That is inevitable because the only alternative is to leave them entirely unregulated. As much as that may delight us, it ain't going to happen.
Once they are officially deemed tobacco products by the FDA, they cannot be banned and any law banning them would be invalidated. The federal laws overrule any existing state laws with which they conflict. It might take a court case but, more likely, the state government will rescind it to be in compliance with the federal laws. Their biggest concern seems to be the unregulated status, not the loss of tax revenue. They could unilaterally impose a state tax right now if they so desired.
As a practical matter, this law has little to no chance of passing. The sponsor admitted as much and has said that the main reason for introducing it was to "begin a dialog" about e-cigs. Another bill that merely outlawed sales to minors couldn't even get through the process. They NY assembly is evidently backlogged and this particular bill is at the bottom of the pile. This, according to the AP report that was linked to earlier in the thread.
I'm in no way advocating that we be lackadaisical about this. They need to know we're watching lest they get any future ideas of proposing any serious legislation in this vein. But this isn't it.
When they quit thinking a PV is an electric cigarette, they'll quit treating us like smokers and calling vapor smoke. Best not to vape what looks like a cig. or use the word e-cigarette among the uninitiated. Vaporizers are "e-cigarettes" like electric toothbrushes are e-carrots.
No problem Yiddle,
Thanks for the reply, sounds very reasonable. Off subject how do I work with my local NYC vapors to get Person to person instruction?
What I find interesting is that it's riding on the back of another bill that did pass that banned the sale or offering for sale to NY State analogs through the internet. We used to be able to order cigarettes online. (And of course take our chances that we would be caught and taxed later.) This current bill does not ban me from having e-cigarettes, it bans the sale or offering for sale in NY State.
Are you saying this can not be done Sailorman? It was done with cigarettes, so how is it that it can not be legally done with e-cigarettes? Can you point me to anywhere this would be in writing? I'd like to pass that along to the senate rules committee if that's the case.
Tis mine preciousssss, you can't takes it!
Posting Permissions
74Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks