Arkansas ACT 1235 (SB978) Shuts Down Online Sales
- Thread starter Painter_
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The governor of your state appoints the Board of Regents. As far as I can tell, the gov of georgia isn't a liberal
Have you looked at the Board of Regents in your state? They aren't liberals either, of that I can assure you.
Larry Walker, Kessel Stelling, Donald M. Leebern, etc.So, I guess I"m not sure what you are talking about when you put the word "liberal" in your post.
Doesn't Georgia have a law against minors buying ecigs? That law has no enforcement capability if teens can buy online.
Isn't vaping banned in Clatham and DeKalb and also in cities of Savannah and Pooler, i.e., treated just like smoking? It seems that vaping is defined similarly to smoking where you live.
The governor of your state appoints the Board of Regents. As far as I can tell, the gov of georgia isn't a liberal
Have you looked at the Board of Regents in your state? They aren't liberals either, of that I can assure you.
So, I guess I"m not sure what you are talking about when you put the word "liberal" in your post.
The gov has that ability, to appoint them, but it's only exercised if one of them dies or steps down or just quits for whatever reason. They're liberal in the sense of knowing what's best for *everyone* and intending to carry that out, so they're heavily ANTZ influenced, who feel the same way.
No idea, since I'm not a minor myself; and no idea, no idea, no idea, since I don't live in any of those places. I live in Gwinnett county, where there's a vape shop about every 3-5 miles, and I haven't seen a single "no vaping" sign anywhere.
Andria
Have you looked at the Board of Regents in your state? They aren't liberals either, of that I can assure you.
Larry Walker served 33 years in the Georgia General Assembly as a Democrat. 1986 was voted Democrat House Majority Leader and served in that capacity for 16 years.
Leebern was appointed first by Zell Miller - Democrat Gov. who gives good speeches :- ) And later by Sonny Perdue - a Republican now but a former Dem for years before.
Last edited:
I think its funny, every time something happens in one state, we have people saying where THEY live it won't happen, can't happen, THEY are all too sensible. Just heard somebody from FL say it.
All I know is I'm living in a state where 2 republicans wrote and implemented an online ban on eliquids. And AR is pretty "libertarian". Of course, it has nothing to do with politics ......states will be wanting the money.
All I know is I'm living in a state where 2 republicans wrote and implemented an online ban on eliquids. And AR is pretty "libertarian". Of course, it has nothing to do with politics ......states will be wanting the money.
I'm always just surprised when it doesn't happen in my state first. Although, the activists have been a lot more active in CA the last couple years.
I was out there a number of years ago and I don't think I saw anyone smoke a cigarette the entire time i was in CA. So yeah I thought vaping would not be very well received.......in AR, people smoke like chimneys. Can students vape on the campuses of CA state universities and colleges, and in restaurants and bars in CA? Or is it treated like tobacco product?
It depends on the city/county that you're in for bars and restaurants. I haven't seen anyone vape in a restaurant, but I don't go out to eat all that often, and i haven't been in a bar in years. We don't have a statewide policy though. Same for the college campuses. Currently most campuses are not tobacco free, and I don't know that any have vaping specific policies yet. The CSU regents are putting together a tobacco policy for the entire CSU system, but it will be awhile before that's in place. As of today, vapor products have not been defined as tobacco products in CA, though they do already have an age restriction.
Short answer is yes, and personally I think it is up to the parents as far as paying attention to what their kids are buying online, it really is not the states problem. The state feels the same way as parents can purchase any of the three classes for use of their children at home without any penalty.
"(B) Purchase any cigarettes, tobacco products, or tobacco related objects, alternative nicotine products, or vapor products for any minor unless the minor for whom the purchase is made is the child of the purchaser;"
If you would check you find that these four were all done before Georgia passed its law on sales and definitions for nicotine containing products, they are highlighted in blue for good reason.
Georgia has three different classes, tobacco products, alternative nicotine products and vapor products.
From the law http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/144960.pdf
(1) 'Alternative nicotine product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether chewed, absorbed, dissolved, or ingested by any other means. The term 'alternative nicotine product' shall not include any tobacco product, vapor product, or any product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
(8) 'Tobacco product' means any cigars, little cigars, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff or snuff powder; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both for chewing and smoking. The term 'tobacco product' shall not include any alternative nicotine product, vapor product, or product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
(10) 'Vapor product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine that employs a heating element, power source, electronic circuit, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from nicotine in a solution or other form. The term 'vapor product' shall include any electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device and any vapor cartridge or other container of nicotine in a solution or other form that is intended to be used with or in an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device. The term 'vapor product' shall not include any product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
To the best of knowledge no local government has brought up banning vaping since this law went into effect on July 1, 2014, I would have to go back and check on the one that was voted down in Kennesaw to get a date and confirm that.
Red highlight is mine.
My only question was Snus, I could see a fun to watch court case on whether it belonged in alternative or tobacco, I know which one I'd vote for.
I graduated from UCSD about 25 years ago.
There was no smoking on campus all the way back then.
Well, except for the "extension" area of the college.
That was where they had all the classes that were generally taken by students from other countries.
And also the "International House" had a downstairs gathering area where you could smoke.
That was where foreign exchange students were housed.
There's been no smoking in bars and restaurants since before I started smoking.
I've never seen smoking allowed indoors around here in my lifetime.
But in the years since I started smoking, they have certainly expanded their reach.
Their outdoors targets continue to grow and expand.
Last edited:
In the US - these guys (The ANTZ)- AKA: Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights the leading national lobbying organization (501 (c) 4), dedicated to nonsmokers' rights) are keeping close track of the ecig laws at the state and local levels. This is their current list by state/city/county :
As of July 1, 2015
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/ecigslaws.pdf
State Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in 100% Smokefree Venues: 3
State Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in Other Venues: 18
Local Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in 100% Smokefree Venues: 394
In addition, 219 local laws restrict E-cigarette Use in Other Venues
Around the world- the John Hopkins Institute for tobacco control is now recording data specifically on ecig regulations
As of May 2015
http://globaltobaccocontrol.org/sites/default/files/E_cigarette_scan_May2015FINAL.pdf
As of July 1, 2015
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/ecigslaws.pdf
State Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in 100% Smokefree Venues: 3
State Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in Other Venues: 18
Local Laws Restricting E-cigarette Use in 100% Smokefree Venues: 394
In addition, 219 local laws restrict E-cigarette Use in Other Venues
Around the world- the John Hopkins Institute for tobacco control is now recording data specifically on ecig regulations
As of May 2015
http://globaltobaccocontrol.org/sites/default/files/E_cigarette_scan_May2015FINAL.pdf
The face of the enemy.
Okay, well, one of many of their faces.
It seems that ANR wants to take the title...
"leading national lobbying organization (501 (c) 4), dedicated to nonsmokers' rights"
But let's not forget Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) created entirely by Big Pharma...
FORCES International - News Portal
Or the American Lung Association for that matter.
And now Big Government is jumping into the fray with full force.
Gotta keep that tax money flowing now that electronic cigarettes are making a sizable dent.
And Big Tobacco, who stood on the sidelines for so long...
Now they are sponsoring legislation across the country to keep them on top of the game...
The entire scenario lends itself very well to understanding how the world works.
And the world doesn't work in the way it should.
Okay, well, one of many of their faces.
It seems that ANR wants to take the title...
"leading national lobbying organization (501 (c) 4), dedicated to nonsmokers' rights"
But let's not forget Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) created entirely by Big Pharma...
FORCES International - News Portal
Or the American Lung Association for that matter.
And now Big Government is jumping into the fray with full force.
Gotta keep that tax money flowing now that electronic cigarettes are making a sizable dent.
And Big Tobacco, who stood on the sidelines for so long...
Now they are sponsoring legislation across the country to keep them on top of the game...
The entire scenario lends itself very well to understanding how the world works.
And the world doesn't work in the way it should.
Last edited:
Conservatives do that, too, with their own issues. Both liberals and conservatives have many among them who attempt, and sometimes succeed, in taking freedoms away form us. I dislike the intolerance in both camps.
That's absolutely true, but just lately, it's mostly been the "health nazis" trying to dictate everyone's choices.
If I wanna eat doritos and bacon all day... I WILL!!!!!!!! And I will NEVER eat kale, hummus, or any of that other vegan crap, I LIKE meat. But I also like brown rice and broccoli. And VAPING!!!!!!!
Andria
Name a few.
Liberals use tax money for their causes - Planned Parenthood - which I'm not necessarily against - only those who wish to use it should use their own money not mine. I would never force anyone to say, buy a gun or have them buy my guns with tax money. Low flow toilets - IF you want that, buy one but don't force everyone in the country to. 'Safety' rigged gas cans. Again, if you can't figure out how to pour gas safely - get one. But don't force me to pay the extra cash for one or don't prohibit me from using something that is more handy. Why does NPR get gov't funds but not Rush Limbaugh (he wouldn't take them but Moyers and Charlie Rose would and do). I could go on forever, but if you know of some issues that the Conservatives force down the throats of people OR even better where they make everyone pay for issues that only conservatives would use, let me know of a few. I'm sure there are some but none are coming to mind.
I agree that liberals making me pay for their "save the idiots from themselves" stuff is wrong and it's driving me crazy.
Conservatives? The only thing that comes to mind is that they make me pay for wars that we shouldn't be in. I'm sure there's more but this is a pretty big one.
I'm not a fan of either one.
And it does seem like it's mostly libs/dems pushing strict vape regs, but too many conservatives/repubs are going along with it (probably because of palm grease)
While Congress hasn't taken on it's Constitutional role in 'declaring war' since Korea, there were resolutions in Congress that were supported by both parties that allowed or didn't stop actions taken in Korea - under Truman, Vietnam- under Kennedy.
The First Gulf War - under Bush with later actions taken by Clinton into the second Gulf War and Afghanistan under Bush via a bi-partisan resolutions in the House Hastert (R) and Gephardt (D) and Lieberman (D) in the Senate with yes votes from notables Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller some of whom saw the same intelligence as Bush. With Afghanistan the House and Senate votes were near unanimous - even Ron Paul voted to go to Afghanistan :- ) the House passed House Joint Resolution 64. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.
I was going to add in my last post that military action doesn't count because we all benefit from it - (or suffer from it) unlike the subsidies for NPR, Planned Parenthood, Rainbow Coalition/Operation Push, Acorn and many other tax supported liberal issues. But thanks for your answer - it helps clarify :- )
Not that this has anything to do with the Arkansas law but, the point of planned parenthood is that it provides services to those who can't afford it, so they can't "use their own money." I would also argue that it benefits society as a whole by helping to control population growth. If those who are unable/unwilling to support a child are forced to, all that does is create more of a burden on society.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
