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

[mackman]

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
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If passed it will generate $24 million in tax revenue for the State. The news story on KOVR 13 in Sacramento. [/FONT]

 

[SloHand]

How does a ban on something generate revenue?

 

[Berylanna]

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.

 

[SloHand]

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.

 

[atdepth]

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.

 

[Rickajho]

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.

 

[pamdis]

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.

 

[Kabamm]

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

 

[mountainbikermark]

{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

 

[Berylanna]

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?"

 

[Berylanna]

while Hayward, Union City, and South San Francisco look at banning in-person vape stores, now California wants to ban shipping ecigs

I've been a passionate Democrat for 41 years but if the ecig part of this passes I will NEVER vote for another Democrat again, not even nationally.

PLEASE PLEASE everybody go to this URL in a day or two when AB1500 shows up and SIGN UP to get email updates. Then you can contact your reps, ESPECIALLY if they are on a committee hearing the bill, and LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL! The main legislature typically passes things if the committees say "Aye."
California State Legislature—Bill Information

 

[MD_Boater]

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.

You might want to think twice about that. Especially in California.

My fellow conservatives and I have tried that very thing thousands of times over the years. We were told that we were unrealistic, cold hearted, idotic a-holes. Then told to go fornicate ourselves. People just are not capable of living in a reponsiible manner like that, so don't try to tell them how to live.

 

[Berylanna]

You might want to think twice about that. Especially in California.

My fellow conservatives and I have tried that very thing thousands of times over the years. We were told that we were unrealistic, cold hearted, idotic a-holes. Then told to go fornicate ourselves. People just are not capable of living in a reponsiible manner like that, so don't try to tell them how to live.

The problem is, any program designed to work only for kids with responsible parents (who don't have to work 2 jobs each, which is what responsible POOR parents do!) is a program designed to fail, horribly, for a lot of kids and prevent the next generation from getting out of the mire.

Is that an excuse for nanny-state-ism? No. Not even 1 iota. But it is a good argument for education vouchers instead of "parental involvement with their kids' schooling."

Left and right both mess this up big-time.

Personally, I think it is appalling that these legislators would rather see kids smoke than vape. And would rather see them growing up seeing their parents and grandparents smoke rather than vape. All for tax revenues.

 

[Rossum]

Dear California: If you no longer wish to be part of the free-trade zone known as the USA, please secede.

 

[TS12000]

Dear California: If you no longer wish to be part of the free-trade zone known as the USA, please secede.

Like a Saturn 5 out of the atmosphere if possible please

 

[MD_Boater]

No, I'm getting a little tired of the both sides are responsible argument. Detroit went bankrupt, and it was a one sided city. Look how many towns and municipalities are going broke, and then count which ones are run by the left and which ones are run by the right. there is a mountain of evidence out there, I am not going to sit here and try to explain it. The evidence shows what the evidence shows.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[house mouse]

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.

Maybe the same way they do it with online wine sales? I live in Kentucky and can't purchase wine online to be shipped to my home. But I can ship it to a friend's home in Tennessee or to my sister in California.

 

[retired1]

Let's keep the us vs them politics out of this. Keep it on topic.

 

[2coils]

Berry Wrote:Personally, I think it is appalling that these legislators would rather see kids smoke than vape. And would rather see them growing up seeing their parents and grandparents smoke rather than vape. All for tax revenues.
Well said! Where are everyone's priorities?? This whole e-cig debate, its like the twilight zone! How can something so good, be turned into something so bad??

 

[Technohydra]

Thanks for the voice of reason, retired. Always appreciate having the tug of war diffused, it keeps us off topic, fight them not ourselves after all.

The method of enforcing this is pretty easy, actually. If you can't legally mail an ecig to a state, and your business continues to do so, the records will eventually be looked at, and you will be fined pretty heavily. This already happens with other items. You may get away with 100's of shipments, but when you finally do get pinched, they will look over your shipping records and determine how many offenses you have committed, now that they have probable cause to investigate your business practices.

The saving grace of this may be that the law has no hard definition of what an ecig is. Mailing a mod may not be covered by this law, as it is not capable of vaporizing anything. Mailing an atty may not be covered because it also is not capable of vaporizing anything without a battery. E-liquids are questionable, since arguably they are the 'tobacco' product (i.e., they contain nicotine, and we need a label for it to control it), but technically, there is no law against mailing nicotine, just smokables and ecigs. I think that mailing cigalikes would be doomed under that law, but everything else is questionable. The question remains if any suppliers would be willing to risk getting heavily fined or shutdown if the law was interperated against their position, rather than for, which would make it just as damaging as if it was all-inclusive.

This is a big deal, and need a ton of support to get it shut down, if possible. Being as there is already a dollar sign attached to the bill, I think the battle is determinedly uphill, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be one. Time to get out of the armchairs and be activists. If you ignore this, all you are doing is helping set a legal precedent that will devour the vaping nation one state at a time.