Colorado Senate Bill 14-018 to ban the sale, transfer or offer to sell nicotine products, including empty e-cigs, without seeing ID

[Bkag]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...48A9A22387257C300006AE57?open&file=018_01.pdf

The interpretation I have gotten from a member of the House is that this would effectively ban online sales in Colorado.

Some "highlights" for you guys

Under current law, it is illegal to furnish tobacco products to
persons under 18 years of age. Section 1 of the bill expands the
prohibition to include all nicotine products.

18-13-121. Furnishing nicotine products to minors. (1) (a) A person shall not give, sell, distribute, DISPENSE, or offer for sale A NICOTINE PRODUCT to any person who is under eighteen years of age.

Before GIVING, selling, DISTRIBUTING, DISPENSING, OR OFFERING TO SELL to any AN individual any cigarette or tobacco NICOTINE product, a person shall request from the individual and examine a government-issued photographic identification that establishes that the individual is eighteen years of age or older; except that, in face-to-face transactions, this requirement shall be IS waived if the individual appears older than thirty years of age

(5) (a) As used in this section, "tobacco "NICOTINE product" means: (I) Any A product that contains nicotine or tobacco or is derived from tobacco and is intended to be ingested or inhaled by or applied to the skin of an individual; or (II) Any AN electronic device that can be used to deliver nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including but not limited to an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, or pipe

 

[endGame]

This seems reasonable except the "OFFERING TO SELL". It seems to me that offering to and actually selling something are really very different. I can't see how OFFERING could harm a minor. That's weird wording.
I don't see any problem with carding customers the same way folks get carded for buying tobacco...

 

[Bkag]

This seems reasonable except the "OFFERING TO SELL". It seems to me that offering to and actually selling something are really very different. I can't see how OFFERING could harm a minor. That's weird wording.
I don't see any problem with carding customers the same way folks get carded for buying tobacco...

I agree with that. The interpretation I have gotten from a member of the legislature is that, effectively, all online sales of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine will not be allowed to be sold to or from Colorado due to the fact that an ID cannot be checked before "offering to sell" the product

 

[Jman8]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...48A9A22387257C300006AE57?open&file=018_01.pdf

The interpretation I have gotten from a member of the House is that this would effectively ban online sales in Colorado.

Some "highlights" for you guys

Under current law, it is illegal to furnish tobacco products to
persons under 18 years of age. Section 1 of the bill expands the
prohibition to include all nicotine products.

18-13-121. Furnishing nicotine products to minors. (1) (a) A person shall not give, sell, distribute, DISPENSE, or offer for sale A NICOTINE PRODUCT to any person who is under eighteen years of age.

Before GIVING, selling, DISTRIBUTING, DISPENSING, OR OFFERING TO SELL to any AN individual any cigarette or tobacco NICOTINE product, a person shall request from the individual and examine a government-issued photographic identification that establishes that the individual is eighteen years of age or older; except that, in face-to-face transactions, this requirement shall be IS waived if the individual appears older than thirty years of age

(5) (a) As used in this section, "tobacco "NICOTINE product" means: (I) Any A product that contains nicotine or tobacco or is derived from tobacco and is intended to be ingested or inhaled by or applied to the skin of an individual; or (II) Any AN electronic device that can be used to deliver nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including but not limited to an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, or pipe

Addressing the bolded part.

If vendor obtains this license, but it is a fake ID, and vendor sells to the person, who is at fault? I'm thinking the person who presented the fake, no?

So, if that is allowed, then why not have it that for out of state vendors choosing to sell online, this must be part of the transaction? I realize I'm presenting this as 'easy solution' when it won't necessarily always be easy, nor desired by all parties involved. But if the choice is between you do this extra step or you don't do business with anyone from states that are banning online sales, then what would be the reasonable choice that a vendor is willing to go with?

We (pro vapers) can say this bill is really about one thing (raising tax revenue) and not about the other (selling to minors), but when the bill's language is explicit with the idea of trying to overcome illegal sales to minors, then why wouldn't we do all we can to address that concern? Especially in a public way to oppose / defeat the rationale behind bill.

 

[Anybody]

An easy way around this for online sales is to simply ask for ID. I've done business with an e-tailer that I had to send them a copy of my photo ID (scanned it and emailed it).

 

[Jman8]

An easy way around this for online sales is to simply ask for ID. I've done business with an e-tailer that I had to send them a copy of my photo ID (scanned it and emailed it).

I did the same, and just blurred out information that they didn't exactly need to verify age, or present verification of my age. Worked for the vendor.

 

[Bkag]

Addressing the bolded part.

If vendor obtains this license, but it is a fake ID, and vendor sells to the person, who is at fault? I'm thinking the person who presented the fake, no?

So, if that is allowed, then why not have it that for out of state vendors choosing to sell online, this must be part of the transaction? I realize I'm presenting this as 'easy solution' when it won't necessarily always be easy, nor desired by all parties involved. But if the choice is between you do this extra step or you don't do business with anyone from states that are banning online sales, then what would be the reasonable choice that a vendor is willing to go with?

We (pro vapers) can say this bill is really about one thing (raising tax revenue) and not about the other (selling to minors), but when the bill's language is explicit with the idea of trying to overcome illegal sales to minors, then why wouldn't we do all we can to address that concern? Especially in a public way to oppose / defeat the rationale behind bill.

Very good point, I will bring that up with the Representative that I am acquainted with and see what he thinks. The issue is, with the way it is written now, you would have to send a photo ID to the retailer before even being able to log onto their site due to the bill saying that an ID must be checked before "Offering to sell" nicotine products to a person.

 

[zoiDman]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...48A9A22387257C300006AE57?open&file=018_01.pdf

The interpretation I have gotten from a member of the House is that this would effectively ban online sales in Colorado.

Some "highlights" for you guys

Under current law, it is illegal to furnish tobacco products to
persons under 18 years of age. Section 1 of the bill expands the
prohibition to include all nicotine products.

18-13-121. Furnishing nicotine products to minors. (1) (a) A person shall not give, sell, distribute, DISPENSE, or offer for sale A NICOTINE PRODUCT to any person who is under eighteen years of age.

Before GIVING, selling, DISTRIBUTING, DISPENSING, OR OFFERING TO SELL to any AN individual any cigarette or tobacco NICOTINE product, a person shall request from the individual and examine a government-issued photographic identification that establishes that the individual is eighteen years of age or older; except that, in face-to-face transactions, this requirement shall be IS waived if the individual appears older than thirty years of age

(5) (a) As used in this section, "tobacco "NICOTINE product" means: (I) Any A product that contains nicotine or tobacco or is derived from tobacco and is intended to be ingested or inhaled by or applied to the skin of an individual; or (II) Any AN electronic device that can be used to deliver nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including but not limited to an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, or pipe

Has a Petition/Petitions been started on something like change.org?

Do you Links to Where and How people can Contact their State Representatives?

Have Internet Retailers been Contacted so they can put Something on their Website to Alert their Customers?

Have Local B&M's been Contacted so they can Alert their Walk-In Customers?

Have you Contacted Groups Like AEMSA and CASSA?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

How about a skype account, cheap web cam and mike, face to face for original account sign up and id? From then on that account can order.

 

[DrMA]

I agree with that. The interpretation I have gotten from a member of the legislature is that, effectively, all online sales of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine will not be allowed to be sold to or from Colorado due to the fact that an ID cannot be checked before "offering to sell" the product

What about verifying a picture ID via Skype, Lync, video calls or any other camera device?

These legislators still think with an early 20th century view of the world. Let's beat them at their own game using all the technology and connectivity that the 21st century puts at our disposal.

 

[hoogie76]

I brought this thought up in the Florida thread about the exclusion of a provision that allows internet sales by using online age verification software and the only answer was that US congress is the only ones allowed to govern the internet. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...would-block-electronic-cigarettes-minors.html

Still leaves my question of why states would having wording (or lack of) on internet sales if they couldn't enforce it..

hoog

 

[BillyWJ]

This seems reasonable except the "OFFERING TO SELL". It seems to me that offering to and actually selling something are really very different. I can't see how OFFERING could harm a minor. That's weird wording.
I don't see any problem with carding customers the same way folks get carded for buying tobacco...

Offering to sell = advertising.

No advertising for ecigs. Anywhere.

 

[BillyWJ]

An easy way around this for online sales is to simply ask for ID. I've done business with an e-tailer that I had to send them a copy of my photo ID (scanned it and emailed it).

The last time I purchased Nicorette, for a trip, I went to Target. They used to require that you just show ID, now they swipe it. I asked why, and the teller told me it was to combat fake IDs - their card kiosks tap into the DMV records, I think she said nationwide.

 

[Bkag]

Has a Petition/Petitions been started on something like change.org?

Do you Links to Where and How people can Contact their State Representatives?

Have Internet Retailers been Contacted so they can put Something on their Website to Alert their Customers?

Have Local B&M's been Contacted so they can Alert their Walk-In Customers?

Have you Contacted Groups Like AEMSA and CASSA?

I have forwarded the bill to CASAA and will forward it to AEMSA, as far as petitions etc. I am not aware of any that have been started yet. This bill was only introduced and made publicly available on Monday so it is still in the early stages, however, according to the House Rep I am acquainted with, this bill, if passed, would be written into law around June of this year.

I will get a list of the contact information for the legislators and post it up on this thread once compiled.

How about a skype account, cheap web cam and mike, face to face for original account sign up and id? From then on that account can order.

What about verifying a picture ID via Skype, Lync, video calls or any other camera device?

These legislators still think with an early 20th century view of the world. Let's beat them at their own game using all the technology and connectivity that the 21st century puts at our disposal.

If passed, I do like the idea of online ID verification through skype or a similar system, however, with the way the bill is currently written this would have to be done before even being able to access a retail electronic cigarette website.

 

[zoiDman]

I have forwarded the bill to CASAA and will forward it to AEMSA, as far as petitions etc. I am not aware of any that have been started yet. This bill was only introduced and made publicly available on Monday so it is still in the early stages, however, according to the House Rep I am acquainted with, this bill, if passed, would be written into law around June of this year.

I will get a list of the contact information for the legislators and post it up on this thread once compiled.

...

Right On Bkag.

BTW - What would be Wrong with Adult Signature Requirements for Delivery?

Yeah... It isn't as Sexy as Some Skype ID. Or a Cyber Fingerprint. And yeah, it is Kinda Old School.

But it also has a Tried and True Record of Working. And it is something that is in place Right Now.

 

[Bkag]

Right On Bkag.

BTW - What would be Wrong with Adult Signature Requirements for Delivery?

Yeah... It isn't as Sexy as Some Skype ID. Or a Cyber Fingerprint. And yeah, it is Kinda Old School.

But it also has a Tried and True Record of Working. And it is something that is in place Right Now.

When I was speaking with the House Rep yesterday I brought up Adult Signature Required but the way we both interpreted the bill was that ID verification is needed before "offering to sell" a "nicotine product". When using USPS Adult Signature Required ID verification takes place after "offering to sell" and "selling" "nicotine products" but before "transferring" a "nicotine product". If it looks like the bill is going to get through hopefully we can at least get it amended to allow for internet sales with USPS verifying ID's after the sale but before the transfer.

 

[Myrany]

Very good point, I will bring that up with the Representative that I am acquainted with and see what he thinks. The issue is, with the way it is written now, you would have to send a photo ID to the retailer before even being able to log onto their site due to the bill saying that an ID must be checked before "Offering to sell" nicotine products to a person.

It can be done. Websites can detect the location of the IP address and present a box that says in effect "I am sorry we have detected you are attempting to access our site from x state. You are being redirected to instructions on how to verify your age and gain access to our site." Then they are sent to instructions on how to present valid photo ID be it scanning, a selfie or a live skype where both the ID and person are on screen.

 

[Chas F.]

I don't have a problem limiting sales of nicotine, but empty cartridges or mods is simply a no go for me. Anyone have info on who wrote/sponsored this bill?

 

[MTFogger]

I don't have a problem limiting sales of nicotine, but empty cartridges or mods is simply a no go for me. Anyone have info on who wrote/sponsored this bill?

Just an FYI,
This is from V2 which I use also.

Hi @MTFogger, thanks for sharing. Yes we are aware of it and are working on a response + plan of action, which will hopefully be executed by EOD today. We are working with our advocacy group (SFATA) to protest and prevent these bills from becoming law. In the mean time, we are encouraging everyone to comment on Assemblymember Roger Dickinson's (D-Sacramento) Facebook page as well as call and email him protesting that the bill not be passed in California.

You can click the "contact Roger" button to email or call him: Assemblymember Roger Dickinson Representing the 7th California Assembly District

The same goes for the CO Bill. Please contact the elected officials sponsoring the bill via email, telephone and social media:

Senator Matt Jones - Colorado Senate District 17

Senator Jeanne Nicholson

 

[zoiDman]

Just an FYI,
This is from V2 which I use also.

...

I hope you Obtained the Permission of V2 to post an Outside Correspondence between you and them.

Because if you Didn't, I believe it is a Violation of the ECF TOS posting it here.