Florida HB 1143 ?

[MacTechVpr]

The State of Florida has an excellent sunshine public access law. Subject to Sec. 286.011 anyone and everyone is entitled to access and documentation of the proceedings of any public official meeting and most are.

A Guide for Operating in an Open Government State (.pdf)
Statutes & Constitution : View Statutes : Online Sunshine : Sec. 286.011

For those of you interested in getting involved.

Florida House of Representatives - Health Quality Subcommittee
Florida House of Representatives - Meeting Notices
Florida House of Representatives - Health Quality Subcommittee - Documents and Video Archives

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Contacted the record custodians for the Committee and very timely received the following advice on availability…

"The meeting packet will be posted online tomorrow morning with any amendments available for the meeting, and after the meeting is over, an action packet will be posted reflecting any action taken at the meeting. Audio and video should be available either tomorrow evening or Wednesday morning on www.myforidahouse.gov."

Please if anyone has anything to add regarding processing and procedure regarding this or any parallel bill that may ensue in the Senate kindly kick in. Then hopefully more will stay tuned directly to source on these matters.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Lifted from the thread Older Folks and Vaping Front Porch - Part Four | Page 272 | #5423...

Yes C but I am neighbor and happy new one to ya. And I suspect a great many of you are natives as well on this thread. Same to you all.

Just poppin' in here for a bit to point everyone to this current FL legislation thread...Florida HB 1143 ?…a submission which literally could outlaw vaping in many private and public spaces in the state. It's in committee right now, today. And just like the developments regarding Sales to Minors that resulted in the first vaping regulations in FL last year it relies on the states preemption of authority to make all law for the state regarding "smoking". In a duplicitously marvelous sleight of hand that authority is used to mangle the English language by decree to pronounce that any nicotine dispensing device IS smoking. This semantic and logical misconstruction is what opened the door to regulation in FL. It's being used now to impose the extreme, effectively prohibition.

Without public exposition there can be no sales, there can be no vaping community. There can be no persuasive demonstration to the public or prospective vapers as to the efficacy and safety of our activity. We are back in the closet marginalized and stigmatized…again! Out of sight, out of mind.

I urge every Floridian and every vaper to get involved in these developments. A great deal of legislative language has been tested in S FL waters and ultimately been used as model legislation in other states. Now is the time to see exactly how these legislators brew this black magic and shackle us with the consequences.

I've referenced FL House links as well as call to action notices by FASA and VISTA (CASAA has issued as well). I'm hoping someone will relay to these representatives that we will not allow this corruption of legal misconstruction to stand.

Thank you all and good luck.

 

[Windsage]

I have not been on here lately as I gave up vaping at the end of 2010, but I still keep up with what is happening as best as I can. To that end I was chasing down this HB 1143 bill after seeing the email from CASAA. Here is the interesting circular argument they have made. Follow the underlines.

From the bill:
"or inhaling, exhaling, carrying, or possessing a nicotine dispensing device as defined in s. 877.112."

From the definition of Dispensing device:
877.112 (a) “Nicotine dispensing device” means any product that employs an electronic, chemical, or mechanical means to produce vapor from a nicotine product, including, but not limited to,

Definition of Nicotine Product:
877.112 (b) “Nicotine product” means any product that contains nicotine, including liquid nicotine, that is intended for human consumption, whether inhaled, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, or ingested by any means, but does not include a:
1. Tobacco product, as defined in s. 569.002;

Definition of Tobacco product:
569.002(6) “Tobacco products” includes loose tobacco leaves, and products made from tobacco leaves, in whole or in part, and cigarette wrappers, which can be used for smoking, sniffing, or chewing.

Therefore, so long as your vaping device is designed for vaping stuff made at least partly from tobacco leaves, it would not be a Nicotine dispensing device as you would be vaping a tobacco product and not a nicotine product.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I have not been on here lately as I gave up vaping at the end of 2010, but I still keep up with what is happening as best as I can. To that end I was chasing down this HB 1143 bill after seeing the email from CASAA. Here is the interesting circular argument they have made. Follow the underlines.

From the bill:
"or inhaling, exhaling, carrying, or possessing a nicotine dispensing device as defined in s. 877.112."

From the definition of Dispensing device:
877.112 (a) “Nicotine dispensing device” means any product that employs an electronic, chemical, or mechanical means to produce vapor from a nicotine product, including, but not limited to,

Definition of Nicotine Product:
877.112 (b) “Nicotine product” means any product that contains nicotine, including liquid nicotine, that is intended for human consumption, whether inhaled, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, or ingested by any means, but does not include a:
1. Tobacco product, as defined in s. 569.002;

Definition of Tobacco product:
569.002(6) “Tobacco products” includes loose tobacco leaves, and products made from tobacco leaves, in whole or in part, and cigarette wrappers, which can be used for smoking, sniffing, or chewing.

Therefore, so long as your vaping device is designed for vaping stuff made at least partly from tobacco leaves, it would not be a Nicotine dispensing device as you would be vaping a tobacco product and not a nicotine product.

Piece-o-work ain't it, when you dissolve and blur the rational boundaries between tobacco, nicotine, cigarettes, vapor, smoke and combustion? Maybe they should just call it watermelon, spit out the seeds and stop mumbling 'bout messin' with our cabbage.

Thx wind. Bookmarkin' yours. Good luck.

 

[puffon]

I guess the way it's written, it's OK to vape 0nic juice, in my VG dispensing device.

 

[edyle]

"or inhaling, exhaling, carrying, or possessing a nicotine dispensing device"

So, is this how it would be ?...you are a user of one of the <cough> marvelous <cough> "FDA Approved" nicotine patches (it dispenses nicotine transdermally right ?) and wear one to work, or to the grocery - you would then be a criminal ?

What the hell is the matter with people ?

(10) "Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning,

13carrying, or possessing any lighted tobacco product, including

14cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, and any other lighted tobacco

15product, or inhaling, exhaling, carrying, or possessing a

16nicotine dispensing device as defined in s. 877.112.

"as defined in s.877.112"

I guess s.877.112 is used to define a monopoly on legal "nicotine dispensing device"s.

 

[plumeguy]

I find the presumption of guilt embedded in HB 1143 deeply unfair, unconstitutional, and dangerous. Mere possession of a something legal as proof of guilt of a crime. What's next? Possession of matches is legal proof someone committed arson? Possession of a glass of wine is legal proof of drunk driving?

The legislators in Florida should really think this one though. Would they really think it was
fair or sane if mere possession of a savings account by an elected official was legal proof of public corruption?

These types of abusive laws are a malignant danger to all Americans.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I find the presumption of guilt embedded in HB 1143 deeply unfair, unconstitutional, and dangerous. Mere possession of a something legal as proof of guilt of a crime. What's next? Possession of matches is legal proof someone committed arson? Possession of a glass of wine is legal proof of drunk driving?

The legislators in Florida should really think this one though. Would they really think it was
fair or sane if mere possession of a savings account by an elected official was legal proof of public corruption?

These types of abusive laws are a malignant danger to all Americans.

Great analogy plume.

It is outrageous and a gross provocation to the public. So blatant as to infer the electorate's stupidity. It challenges our deference to government directly. Why I suggested such an attack is an assault on every vaper by FL and of all of the public as well.

Compounding the insult is that Floridians may recall that the ban on workplace smoking and the very definition was constitutionally adopted by the direct referendum vote of our citizens. There is no misconstruing what the definition of "smoking" is here or its exclusive character; nor, in my opinion, any delegation of authority to the state's Congress to redefine it, merely to implement that qualification. And by that word I mean limited expression of definition. You'll find the precise terms of the law here…

"...the Florida Legislature shall adopt legislation to implement this amendment in a manner consistent with its broad purpose and stated terms [my emphasis]."

Florida Prohibit Workplace Smoking, Amendment 6 (2002) - Ballotpedia

So you're right. This is an end run on integrity and an insult to all Americans.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Proceedings of the Florida House of Representatives - Health Quality Subcommittee yesterday Jan 19, 2016, regarding HB 1143. Pictured is John McCleod, owner of Wizard Labs who was powerfully on point in his brief to the committee. His remarks begin at 46:15 on this video stream (click image or link below to launch)…


House Video Player: Health Quality Subcommittee - January 19, 2016

Please post analysis and remarks here those of you who may take the time to view this. Hope you do.

Good luck.

 

[Racehorse]

I guess the way it's written, it's OK to vape 0nic juice, in my VG dispensing device.

Yes, I can imagine if I carried a bottle of food flavoring, some VG from Walmart, and a PV, they would be hard pressed to bring an accusation of nictotine delivery.

And I really do vape 0% most of the time nowadays.....but this doesn't help other vapers, who mostly do use, and require, nicotine. At least, in order to initially make the switch over from combustible cigarettes, etc. even if it was temporary.

There would be no point in vaping for most people under FL's suggested wording.

Big Pharma doesn't sell 0% NICOTINE PATCHES either, for obvious reasons. (can you imagine that? ) patches you just lick with spit, and stick on your arm like a Curad.

I mean, how great would it be if you could just use your kid's Hello Kitty or Despicable Me bandaids to quit smoking? If you had the perfectly correct mind-set, you probably "could" do it......placebos CAN BE rather powerful in some people.

 

[Racehorse]

Proceedings of the Florida House of Representatives - Health Quality Subcommittee yesterday Jan 19, 2016, regarding HB 1143. Pictured is John McCleod, owner of Wizard Labs who was powerfully on point in his brief to the committee. His remarks begin at 46:15 on this video stream (click image or link below to launch)…

View attachment 523960
House Video Player: Health Quality Subcommittee - January 19, 2016

Please post analysis and remarks here those of you who may take the time to view this. Hope you do.

Good luck.

John was very good. Short, simple, and non emotionalized. That is how it needs to be done.

I often worried about people who shriek and wring hands, always see them as a liability, ditto people with "anger problems"....it's not just about vaping, if it were something else they'd be angry about that, too.

I thought the video was pretty good overall, respect for other's opinions was palpable in the room.

The idea to pass it on to another committee, and thus another round of opinions and examination, also good. Rubber stamping never good, the more conversation, the more discussion, the better.

That is why I say no shriekers. They always manage to bring everything to a standstill.

THANKS FOR POSTING THE VIDEO, will watch it again over the weekend.


PS the woman who had 3 kids and had to keep quittting smoking in between each baby, she obviously had a TOUGH TIME quitting smoking, unfortunately, somewhere in the process she lost her humility and compassion for others in teh same predicament. She is one of those smug types who thinks "since I did it, everyone can do it." Yet, it took her 4 or 5 or maybe even 10 times to finally quit. She needs to cut others a break. She is probably not somebody who is "open" to further discussion. That happens.

Of course, I see people who vape "being like that" to people who vape 1/2 time and can't seem to get off the cigs for good YET...it's a journey for some and not instantaneous.

 

[oplholik]

I liked Dr. Gonzales comments at about 53:00. He stated he is not sure this should be governments role without positive concrete proof that it is harmful to your health.

 

[MacTechVpr]

John was very good. Short, simple, and non emotionalized. That is how it needs to be done.

I often worried about people who shriek and wring hands, always see them as a liability, ditto people with "anger problems"....it's not just about vaping, if it were something else they'd be angry about that, too.

I thought the video was pretty good overall, respect for other's opinions was palpable in the room.

The idea to pass it on to another committee, and thus another round of opinions and examination, also good. Rubber stamping never good, the more conversation, the more discussion, the better.

That is why I say no shriekers. They always manage to bring everything to a standstill.

THANKS FOR POSTING THE VIDEO, will watch it again over the weekend.


PS the woman who had 3 kids and had to keep quittting smoking in between each baby, she obviously had a TOUGH TIME quitting smoking, unfortunately, somewhere in the process she lost her humility and compassion for others in teh same predicament. She is one of those smug types who thinks "since I did it, everyone can do it." Yet, it took her 4 or 5 or maybe even 10 times to finally quit. She needs to cut others a break. She is probably not somebody who is "open" to further discussion. That happens.

Of course, I see people who vape "being like that" to people who vape 1/2 time and can't seem to get off the cigs for good YET...it's a journey for some and not instantaneous.

Thanks for the nod Race.

I'm not so sure about the respect part, decorum perhaps. But my take would be better described as dismissal. Particularly of what I would expect the role and conduct for such a panel might be. Not sure where it broke down exactly. A first committee meeting perhaps even perfunctory in context, geared to administrative process, t's crossed and i's dotted…Do we have the essentials here to go forward? I did not get that or the evolution of a plan towards it. Like you, I'll have to see it again when I've more time to focus on the details.

Since so much national model law has seen gestation in our state I think we owe it to ourselves and others in the community to keep a weather eye on this process (or lack of it).

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I liked Dr. Gonzales comments at about 53:00. He stated he is not sure this should be governments role without positive concrete proof that it is harmful to your health.

Saw that, and I wanted to review his remarks in more detail. I focused on vendors and advocates comments struggling with the video player. And miffed that I couldn't download it for QT/HTML5 edits. They don't make it easy. Don't get me started. I wrote up a scathing assessment based on what I saw. Not gonna do it. But don't tempt me. I published my observation on the mandate earlier in this thread and I'll have something to say about that. I'm gonna try to contact participants, thank them. Have some already. Encourage them and certainly more to participate. Offer my help if I can.

Do believe a study of the process that forced the state to referendum on the FCAA, its history and legal basis might be revealing. I think our community even if still a small part has been very active. Really respect the responsible independence so broadly reflected in our community. Reality is setting in for more vendors now and that frankly is what's been needed.

There was a lot of apology coupled with assent. To me that spells CYA (the cameras are rollin'). The tenor will have to change or it's going to be a swift ride. More preemptive effort will be needed because getting rights back whether commercial or individual is far costlier than stepping up to protect them. And right now we're witnessing government assuming authority yet again. It happens quietly and respectfully. But they still….

Good luck.

 

[pennysmalls]

Education has to come before legislation and that isn't happening. You don't educate during the legislative process, it has to come before. A clear picture of what's being legislated has to be present *first*. This is what's wrong with each and every one of these bills in each and every state. I know stating this does nothing and won't stop anything but this is what I see happening, in this vid and all the others I've seen, and it's frustrating.

 

[J MacLeod]

Thanks for the nod Race.

Thank you both for the nod, the support, and the waaaay too kind critique.
I know I'm not a public speaker, and I cringe watching myself stumble on my words.

Short, simple, and non emotionalized. That is how it needs to be done.

Agreed.
We all need to be on point, and to the point.

Like everyone else, I too want to tell everyone about how vaping changed/saved my life.
It's an unbelievably powerful, emotional topic to all of us who've quit smoking.
We all want to communicate that and have others understand why this affects us so deeply and passionately.
Unfortunately it's not always the right tactic, and can end up falling on deaf ears.

Everyone in the room watched several members of the committee "tune out" and play on their phones, or even worse (as with the mother of three), talking and joking while some shop owners were giving testimony.

MHO is we need to "cut to the chase" in these meetings and hit them with the relevant points and facts in those first couple of seconds/minutes while they're all still engaged, before they have a chance to judge and dismiss you.

I liked Dr. Gonzales comments at about 53:00. He stated he is not sure this should be governments role without positive concrete proof that it is harmful to your health.

Agree 110%.
I felt his debate points were better than 99% of the testimony given.
He basically laid out the roadmap for how we should shape this debate in the future.

There is indisputable, concrete scientific/medical evidence that smoking harms not only the user, but innocent bystanders as well.
This is the basis for the indoor clean air act.

To criminalize vaping by including it in that legislation without undeniable proof that it's harmful to public health is both outside the scope/purpose of that law, and is a severe overreach of the government's role.
It is the job of the science/medical community to determine if vaping is hazardous, not government's.

It is not the role of the government to declare an otherwise legal product as a public health hazard without any scientific/medical proof, and in complete contradiction to the mounting scientific evidence that it is not, solely out of public ignorance and fear of the unknown.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I liked Dr. Gonzales comments at about 53:00. He stated he is not sure this should be governments role without positive concrete proof that it is harmful to your health.

Agree 110%.
I felt his debate points were better than 99% of the testimony given.
He basically laid out the roadmap for how we should shape this debate in the future.

@oplholik was right on point here. There were two panel members as I recall that expressed a doubt as to the basis. Did not rev the stream this weekend as I'd hoped. A roster of the members and positions would be useful to those falling on this thread, and summary of positions for direct requests to those members to clarify and substantiate their stand if in error. Looking at CASAA's site I noted their thanks to the thousand plus that sent multiple emails to the committee. Certain that was unexpected to them. It didn't change the fact that they were obviously determined to pass the submission.

There is indisputable, concrete scientific/medical evidence that smoking harms not only the user, but innocent bystanders as well.
This is the basis for the indoor clean air act.

Here I'll have to differ with you somewhat even as there exists some formidable indications that smoking is hazardous. I've never been convinced it's exceptionally so. There's just too great a confluence of factors implicating smoking for a definitive conclusion. Too many environmental influences, vectors of toxicity or for other concurrent pathologies, sensitivities or predispositions to arise (causal overlap) to be able to say here, eureka!. They have, but it stretches science beyond its boundaries. Even for cigarettes. They rely too much on isolation strategies that are certain to provide expected empirical results, the experimental hypothesis or postulate. All too often it merely yields what they want to see ignoring alternative and contradictory explanations. It's a well practiced agenda and perverted methodology now being applied scientifically to vaping. And such distortions of science and reason need to be challenged as much as the corruption of law and rights being proposed to discredit vaping.

MHO is we need to "cut to the chase" in these meetings and hit them with the relevant points and facts in those first couple of seconds/minutes while they're all still engaged, before they have a chance to judge and dismiss you.

Good opinion. Where's the uthority, purpose, proof! Let's get to it.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Deleted. Duplicate somehow. <shrug>

 

[EBates]

Unless I missed something only one No was voiced and the majority were silent. So the majority of OUR REPRESENTATIVES don't even have a clue what was being discussed. And the discussion Never Touched on the Prohibition that it supposedly contains. All I got from those with doubts on the bill was the Typical We Don't Know. So these folks Still Believe The Earth Is Flat and they are representing Us? Really? Granted I am not in or from Fla but If this was in anyway representative of how govment is supposed to work, OMG! We are Offically in the World Of Shi*.
Just Sayin'