CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
Your provari is a component(C) of an electronic device(B) that in conjunction with another component(C) such as an atomizer, delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device.

If you think there is a legal loophole in that language, you go right ahead and try selling vaporizers in CA without a tobacco license after the package of bills passes.

There is. See Section 29 of the bill. Vaporizers that are used for "other" purposes are just fine and dandy. And yes, atomizers that are prefilled with those substances have 510 connections (and are often re-purposed e-cig clearomizers anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicnik

Uma

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 4, 2010
5,991
9,998
Calif
Oh man, this is becoming wack a mole time. When will it ever stop.
Anyone know if I (or all of us) sent the 1rst thread of this legislation news to our state congressman would some legislators read thru?

Re: CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly... | E-Cigarette Forum
Any reason why not? Will hold off.
Need comments.
It will stop when people stop turning their backs on issues that they're not interested in or hold a bias against. The TAC I posted above, is helpful. Just search your state, sign up to help fight the tyranny, or start one yourself where needed. Easy. The more people learn, the faster it will get done. Many miracles have already happened, thanks to this united front.

In the meantime, just remember this. They cannot govern us if WE do not give them permission. Those who compromise are comprising our liberty. No, FDA, we do not want you to govern us, we can do it ourselves, thank you very much.
Like Mike above stated, this part of the fight is EASY, compared to the future fights after we're labeled a BT product.
 

Katdarling

I'm still here on ECF... sort of. ;)
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 25, 2011
32,572
167,591
Utopia
A bit on yesterday's adventures....

Stefan said:

UPDATE ON THE AB6 ASSEMBLY HEALTH HEARING 25 AUG 2015

"First of all, allow me to thank everyone who was there for the hearing yesterday. If Facebook would allow me to tag you all I would but I’m afraid it might break the internet. You were all amazing as a group! Sitting in the back of the hearing chambers and having wave after wave of people walk in to join the long line to oppose Cooper’s bill was nothing short of amazing. I think we may have seen a record turn-out for any bill hearing ever, anywhere.

I know that there’s some confusion out there (again) about what happened. Some folks asking when it’ll go into effect. Some asking how much time they have. Some folks asking how come our voices weren’t heard. Too many questions to respond to individually. And at the same time I have to be careful not to disclose our lobbying strategy in public since there’s always many more eyes reading these things than you could imagine.

The bill *only* passed a committee (Assembly Health) and will be moving on to one or two more before it heads to the House Floor. At this point I am not worried sick over it and neither should you. That does not mean we can just sit back and relax, though. We now have a lot of work to do in order to keep up the pressure in this session and that’s where your continued effort and involvement will be CRUCIAL.

Look at what happened in Senate Appropriations on Monday. Senator Bates, when polled prior to all the calls starting had made a clear statement that she would be voting FOR the bills. We know her office was one of the offices hammered with calls and as a result she voted NO on all the bills and objected to the committee chair pushing the bills straight from the committee to the floor instead of putting (some of) them in the suspense files because of the cost associated with the bills. We need more of that and we CAN HAVE more of that. But not WITHOUT YOUR HELP.

Lucy Stansfield Noble, Camille Winans, Joey Mariano, and others will be coordinating a massive coordinated set of actions to assist in this and I hope we have more information to share on that in the next few days while we work out the logistics of all that.

The other thing I hear and see is that people felt like they were not being heard and that the committee ignored their opposition. Keep in mind that while it may look like that, the reality in the political arena is always different from what it looks. As some have said before, the outcome of the votes in any committee is always predetermined and known before the hearing actually takes place. That is (usually) true. And that’s as much as I am willing to say about it in public other than; if you want to influence people before a hearing by having a massive show of force then perhaps it wasn’t THIS committee we are influencing with the strong voter-vaper turn-out. smile emoticon

I also hear a lot of folks question why there weren’t more consumers at the hearing because the vast majority were business owners. I agree with the sentiment and would have loved to see many more consumers there. I was not surprised about the size of the turn-out but I was a little surprised there weren’t MORE consumers there. Alas, taking an entire day off, making 8 or 10 hour (16 to 20 hour round trip) drives, taking that much time off work, etc. is difficult for a lot of people working regular jobs and hours, etc.

The fight is not over. The war is not lost. We’re still in the game and yesterday’s hearing will be instrumental in how it carries through the remainder of the process."

(from FB)

 

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,145
SoCal
There is. See Section 29 of the bill. Vaporizers that are used for "other" purposes are just fine and dandy. And yes, atomizers that are prefilled with those substances have 510 connections (and are often re-purposed e-cig clearomizers anyway).

I'm not sure what those "other" purposes might be, but if they are what I suspect they are, how can anyone distinguish them from nicotine e-liquid vaporizers? Can I use my ProVari or my iSticks for those "other" purposes?

And how on earth can all those committee members look us in the eye and say that a clearomizer filled with no-nicotine liquid can be classified as a tobacco product???? If I want to buy a vaporizer of any kind (or for any purpose) and fill the tank with PG/VG and a drop of menthol flavoring, can they legally prohibit it (tax it, demand age verification, whatever) under tobacco control laws? Do they have a leg to stand on? Can any court in this state allow it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessifer

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA
I'm not sure what those "other" purposes might be, but if they are what I suspect they are, how can anyone distinguish them from nicotine e-liquid vaporizers? Can I use my ProVari or my iSticks for those "other" purposes?

And how on earth can all those committee members look us in the eye and say that a clearomizer filled with no-nicotine liquid can be classified as a tobacco product???? If I want to buy a vaporizer of any kind (or for any purpose) and fill the tank with PG/VG and a drop of menthol flavoring, can they legally prohibit it (tax it, demand age verification, whatever) under tobacco control laws? Do they have a leg to stand on? Can any court in this state allow it?

Three recent posts from Taxiguydave (Edit: Taxguydave) reveal opportunities being missed:

Who is reading the Electronic Cigarette News and Campaigning subforum? | Page 3 | E-Cigarette Forum

Who is reading the Electronic Cigarette News and Campaigning subforum? | Page 3 | E-Cigarette Forum

Who is reading the Electronic Cigarette News and Campaigning subforum? | Page 3 | E-Cigarette Forum
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Uma and Katya

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,145
SoCal
Three recent posts from Taxiguydave reveal opportunities being missed:

I don't think we can go there in our advocacy (after Sottera). Making any kind of medical claims is still a no-no, if I understand it correctly, and would just open another can of worms.

But I may be wrong. Health benefits of nicotine (and other substances) is a different subject altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motordude

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA
I don't think we can go there in our advocacy (after Sottera). Making any kind of medical claims is still a no-no, if I understand it correctly, and would just open another can of worms.

But I may be wrong. Health benefits of nicotine (and other substances) is a different subject altogether.
I meant more along the lines of the clearomizer, etc. issue you were talking about, but yeah, there's contradiction in the medical aspects, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Katya

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,145
SoCal
I meant more along the lines of the clearomizer, etc. issue you were talking about, but yeah, there's contradiction in the medical aspects, too.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm hopelessly uninformed on the subject--for the time being, at least...
wink.gif


I've been told that "oils" do not behave the same and require different temperatures to vaporize properly than PG and VG.

But maybe we shouldn't be discussing this here--not yet. There's still hope.
 

Uma

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 4, 2010
5,991
9,998
Calif
There is. See Section 29 of the bill. Vaporizers that are used for "other" purposes are just fine and dandy. And yes, atomizers that are prefilled with those substances have 510 connections (and are often re-purposed e-cig clearomizers anyway).
I caught this on FB last night, (thanks Kath!), which says that all inhaling/exhaling, chewing, sniffing, however the enjoyment, no matter the product, is in the bill. This includes the "other" products. This means, no safer delivery system Meds for youth, no using Meds around youth even though they help take care of you, etc.
Bill Text - ABX2-6 Electronic cigarettes.
 

Uma

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 4, 2010
5,991
9,998
Calif
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm hopelessly uninformed on the subject--for the time being, at least...
wink.gif


I've been told that "oils" do not behave the same and require different temperatures to vaporize properly than PG and VG.

But maybe we shouldn't be discussing this here--not yet. There's still hope.
It used to be that way, yes, but mods, coils, etc have improved dramatically over the years.

This quote says it all. "When government regulates private industry people do not and cannot own their businesses. People merely possess their business as long as the government wants them too. All it takes is one regulation that you can’t or won’t comply with and !zap! no business. - See more at: Government Regulation of Private Business - KrisAnne Hall
 

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,952
68
saint paul,mn,usa
There is. See Section 29 of the bill. Vaporizers that are used for "other" purposes are just fine and dandy. And yes, atomizers that are prefilled with those substances have 510 connections (and are often re-purposed e-cig clearomizers anyway).
here's the catch 22. as soon as you re-purpose those devices for other
things for e-juice they are covered under the act.
regards
mike
 

Uma

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 4, 2010
5,991
9,998
Calif
here's the catch 22. as soon as you re-purpose those devices for other
things for e-juice they are covered under the act.
regards
mike
Good catch! However, I have a feeling they will be "rostered". Which is extremely bad news for new improved models.

(c) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoking” includes the use of an electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking.
(d) (1) “Tobacco product” means any of the following:
(A) A product containing, made, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, or snuff.
(B) An electronic device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an electronic cigarette, cigar, pipe, or hookah.
(C) Any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product, whether or not sold separately.
(2) “Tobacco product” does not include a product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where the product is marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
(2) “Tobacco product” does not include a product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where the product is marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
And of course, we'll allow flavors in those, because they're not intended for children.

But we WILL allow them to be sold out in the open, and to children...
Smoking Cessation Treatment for Adolescents
Several guidelines, position statements, and resources are available for guiding smoking cessation programs for the adolescent population (Table 1). The American Cancer Society recom-mends that youth be included in smoking cessation initiatives, recognizing that support and encouragement are important for this age group in particular.10 The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)/Department of Defense (DoD), the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI), and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) have published recommendations for smoking cessation among adolescents.12–15 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Substance Abuse published a technical report describing tobacco as a substance of abuse in pediatric and adolescent patients; in the report, the committee encouraged education, prevention, screening, and treatment.5While the AAP's recommendations for treatment guidance differ from those of the DHHS guidelines, AAP strongly encourages behavioral interventions and recommends that pediatricians familiarize themselves with pharmacotherapies such as nicotine replacement, bupropion, and varenicline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread