I just cannot see this actually coming to pass. I could be wrong. If it does happen, I would hope that there would be some lawsuits filed.
***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***
- Thread starter mackman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'd be very surprised if V2 and Green Smoke take this lying down - admittedly, GS sells retail too (not as widely as Blu though) but V2 is largely online sales I'd guess?
Let me put it this way; the people trying to push this legislation through have zero idea what the ecig community is trying to accomplish, or what we have already done. They don't know anything about the benefits of switching, they don't know anything about how lives have changed, they don't know anything about why we would be up in arms about it. Right now, all they know is that 'smokers' are mad because we are limiting their 'smoking' and they need to get over it.
This law can and will pass, unless the vaping community gets up and hits the relevant persons with so much information and testimonials that they can't ignore it. We have to convince them that vaping is not smoking, that e-juice is not tobacco, and that they can't prevent people from getting or using ecigs. And even then, they may still vote for the money.
Important things to get in this are comments from the CA vendors that generate sales tax locally, speaking as to how without mail-order business, they may have to shut down, which could potentially outweigh the gains proposed by the bill. Also important are the users relating how they will simply go out of state to purchase instead of suffering under a ban. The enforceability needs to be questioned, as well as the likelihood of people doing stawman buys and a black market effect of people willing to break the law and ship anyways for a small fee. Reinforce that there is no way to ban the shipment of all components and that the legal definition of an ecig currently refers to an assembled device or kit that as a whole is an 'ecig'. Parts and arguably liquids are not in and of themselves subject to this definition, much like a gun stock is not a gun until it has all the other parts assembled onto it.
Call into question the ability of the bill to survive intact in the Supreme Court. State why we are doing what we are doing. Quote studies (with references) and give (verified) numerical data, where possible. Reinforce that there has never been one confirmed death or serious illness associated with vaping in almost a decade. Reinforce that minor illnesses reported from e-juice, such as nicotine overdose, have all been due to carelessness or improper use of the products, much like curling irons causing burns. Contrast keeping kids safe by limiting ecigs with kids being endangered by blackmarketeers, gang members, and 'e-juice moonshiners' doing anything they have to to make a buck, no matter who gets hurt.
And most of all, remind them that they are beholden to we the people, and that when they choose an action, they are also selecting the consequences of it. So they had better love those consequences before they act, or they will reap them later, to their dismay.
If anyone has the list of people to contact on this matter (the politicians in question), please post this information so we can begin fighting one of the opening skirmishes in what promises to be a war.
This law can and will pass, unless the vaping community gets up and hits the relevant persons with so much information and testimonials that they can't ignore it. We have to convince them that vaping is not smoking, that e-juice is not tobacco, and that they can't prevent people from getting or using ecigs. And even then, they may still vote for the money.
Important things to get in this are comments from the CA vendors that generate sales tax locally, speaking as to how without mail-order business, they may have to shut down, which could potentially outweigh the gains proposed by the bill. Also important are the users relating how they will simply go out of state to purchase instead of suffering under a ban. The enforceability needs to be questioned, as well as the likelihood of people doing stawman buys and a black market effect of people willing to break the law and ship anyways for a small fee. Reinforce that there is no way to ban the shipment of all components and that the legal definition of an ecig currently refers to an assembled device or kit that as a whole is an 'ecig'. Parts and arguably liquids are not in and of themselves subject to this definition, much like a gun stock is not a gun until it has all the other parts assembled onto it.
Call into question the ability of the bill to survive intact in the Supreme Court. State why we are doing what we are doing. Quote studies (with references) and give (verified) numerical data, where possible. Reinforce that there has never been one confirmed death or serious illness associated with vaping in almost a decade. Reinforce that minor illnesses reported from e-juice, such as nicotine overdose, have all been due to carelessness or improper use of the products, much like curling irons causing burns. Contrast keeping kids safe by limiting ecigs with kids being endangered by blackmarketeers, gang members, and 'e-juice moonshiners' doing anything they have to to make a buck, no matter who gets hurt.
And most of all, remind them that they are beholden to we the people, and that when they choose an action, they are also selecting the consequences of it. So they had better love those consequences before they act, or they will reap them later, to their dismay.
If anyone has the list of people to contact on this matter (the politicians in question), please post this information so we can begin fighting one of the opening skirmishes in what promises to be a war.
That's what happens with snus. There are states that the retailers can't sell to and PACT made all shipments illegal via USPS. It also required adult signature. UPS is the only option now and it's expensive unless doing large orders. Just one of the many tools available to crush this movement.
Well, on a GOOD driving day (a weekday midday) I can get to the closest out-of-state store in 4+ hours at freeway speeds. On a weekend it's more like 7. And if it's winter, the road might be closed anyway.
So then I could go north. 8+ hours not counting pit stops. Or south. 6 hours. Again, all of this on a GOOD driving day.
"AB 1500 will prohibit the shipment of cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes to anyone in California. This will safeguard against minors having access to cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes. AB 1500 will also generate approximately $24 million in tax revenue for California"
I guess this is One Way to prevent Minors from buying e-Cigarettes. Just Don't let Anyone buy e-Cigarettes.
Is Roger Dickinson coming up for Re-Election any time Soon?
Because if he is, we need to Start some Serious Plans to make sure he Doesn't get Re-Elected.
I guess this is One Way to prevent Minors from buying e-Cigarettes. Just Don't let Anyone buy e-Cigarettes.
Is Roger Dickinson coming up for Re-Election any time Soon?
Because if he is, we need to Start some Serious Plans to make sure he Doesn't get Re-Elected.
doesn't this interfere with inter-state commerce?
can not we just ban the internet sales of any thing coming out of california?
i could see this on the federal level but,i don't quite see how this could
work on the state level.
regards
mike
can not we just ban the internet sales of any thing coming out of california?
i could see this on the federal level but,i don't quite see how this could
work on the state level.
regards
mike
Here's the Bill in full: AB 1500 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED
It's quite clear from the text that e-cigarettes are viewed as being as dangerous (whether in and of themselves or as a gateway) as tobacco. This is the most poisonous conflation and needs to be tackled robustly.
It's quite clear from the text that e-cigarettes are viewed as being as dangerous (whether in and of themselves or as a gateway) as tobacco. This is the most poisonous conflation and needs to be tackled robustly.
Last edited:
Makes me appreciate living in a small state. I can hit Delaware or Pennsylvania in less than a half hour, Virginia and West Virginia in about and hour and 15 minutes, and 4 hours, I could hit at least 3 more states...
Sorry... I got carried away...
The 'revised' information we have about the LD50 of Nicotine needs to be pushed out there-and pronto
Guess I'll be making more runs to Vegas now. I can't imagine that Nevada would ever entertain the thought of banning any goods perceived as a vice or luxury item ...
Misguided and uninformed politicians and zealots are far more dangerous than any substance or device ever discovered or invented ...
Misguided and uninformed politicians and zealots are far more dangerous than any substance or device ever discovered or invented ...
Nowhere near as toxic as publicized is not the same thing as non-toxic. If a child gets ahold of a bottle of iron supplements and eats them, they'll die. That means 2 things.
1. Things can be poisonous without people reacting to them as though it's plutonium. Look at the cleaning products aisle in the grocerty store!
2. Just because something has been horribly misrepresented in the past does not mean it turned into water overnight.
1. Things can be poisonous without people reacting to them as though it's plutonium. Look at the cleaning products aisle in the grocerty store!
2. Just because something has been horribly misrepresented in the past does not mean it turned into water overnight.
This is ridiculous. Most B&M shops have their inventory shipped to them. Would this bill prohibit that also?
Regardless, the problem is that once again, vaping hardware and juice is being lumped into the tobacco category.
Thanks for the link to the legislature website, I signed up for the subscribe feature so I can become an informed and vigilant participant in our future.
EVERYONE here should.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Regardless, the problem is that once again, vaping hardware and juice is being lumped into the tobacco category.
Thanks for the link to the legislature website, I signed up for the subscribe feature so I can become an informed and vigilant participant in our future.
EVERYONE here should.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The same way they do tobacco products in Arizona right now. No vendor outside Arizona will ship to Arizona because of Arizona law. We've dealt with this because the American Indian Reservations sell tobacco products and didn't want outside competition. However, ecigs have not been deemed tobacco products by the FDA yet so we can still buy those out of State.
This is why it was so important when banks in four States put the brakes on ecig net sales on 1/1/14 using the PACT Act to do it. (which was wrong but they did it none-the-less) They said because of the PACT Act which controls interstate tobacco sales. Right or wrong, we got a dose of the future. Now California wants to do the same thing. If they pass it, credit card companies along with vendors will have to comply with the law and not sell to California.
Well, I submit that the ecig issue is merely indicative of the way these people think--no matter what state they occupy, they are dictators legislating against the will of the people to create their own version of utopia. I have lived in California all my life, never once voted for any of these boneheads, and yet must suffer under their ridiculous bans, propositions, and nanny-state laws. I guess what these people are really saying is: You can break federal immigration laws, sell & smoke
openly, drive without a driver's license (only if you're from Mexico), pactice law without passing the California Bar exam (only if you're from Mexico), just so long as you don't smoke or vape in a park or at the beach, or generally within view of anyone else that thinks vapor is smoke. And yes, I am stretching the use of the word "thinks" in reference to a large number of people that probably don't think on any level that I could comprehend.
Last edited by a moderator:
The bill exempts retailers from this condition. They can receive, but not send. I am assuming they may also have to register as a tobacco shop, see below.
22963. (a) It is unlawful for any person engaged in the business
of selling or distributing cigarettes or tobacco products to ship or
cause to be shipped any cigarettes or tobacco products to any person
in this state who is not any of the following:
(1) A retailer licensed pursuant to Division 8.6 (commencing with
Section 22970).
(2) An export warehouse proprietor as defined in Section 5702 of
Title 26 of the United States Code.
(3) An operator of a customs bonded warehouse as described in
Section 1311 or 1555 of Title 19 of the United States Code.
(4) A person who is an officer, employee, or agent of the federal
government, or of this state or of a department, agency,
instrumentality, or political subdivision of the federal government
or this state, when the person is acting in accordance with his or
her official duties.
Also, in contradicting my earlier statement, it looks like all ecig items are included in this bill, see below.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "electronic cigarette" or
"e-cigarette" means a device designed to look like a cigarette,
cigar, pipe, or other smoking device, or any other nicotine delivery
device that is used for the purpose of creating a vapor inhaled by
the user, including cartridges, accessories, or liquids used with the
device.
UPS is also included in the bill, as per below.
It is unlawful for any common or contract carrier to knowingly
transport e-cigarettes to any person in this state reasonably
believed by the carrier to be other than a person described in
subdivision (a).
This piece of .... is pretty all-inclusive and ironclad. There is no doubt after reviewing the text of the law that this needs to be fought and fought hard. The first offense penalties for the shipper start at $1,000 and go up to $25,000 on the third offense.
If any of you were ever worried about the the vapocolypse, it would look a lot like this. We really have no choice, we have to pull together and kill this thing before it hits the books. I could give a .... about the tobacco portion of the bill, but this would be a huge loss if it passed. I do not want to see this start a legal precedent for the rest of the nation to feed off of.
Last edited:
I would be Very Interested to see what Lorillard/Blu position is on this piece of Pending Legislation?
I know there are Many here on the ECF who have No Love for BT, but in something like this, they may be the California Vaper's Best Friend and Strongest Ally.
Or Perhaps they are For the Bill because it Strengthens their Position in the Face to Face Sales Market by Eliminating Internet Sales?
Last edited:
We need a list of legislators to start the process of texting/emailing/and calling. I think it is time to take the action to the streets.... This is getting ridiculous. I am all for banning sales to minors. but this is not designed to save the children.... Why don't they stop the online pharmacies the kids are buying hydrocodone, or the ads for marshmallow flavored vodka.
If this goes through I may seriously consider moving to a state that believes in the principle "for the people"
I just sent this to the guy who came up with this bill:
Hello-
Your blanket ban on electronic cigarette sales is short cited and is not in line with most scientific studies on the subject matter (Drexel University http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf just to name one). I, as do all adult vapors, believe that these products do not belong in the hands of children. However we would like to see legislation to that does that without taking adults rights away to a product that easily can be shown to be a tobacco harm reduction device.
I can tell you that if it had not been for my switch to electronic cigarettes I would possibly be in the critical respiratory care right now as I had been a smoker for over 30 years I have tried all the "approved" pharmaceutical solutions and others to quit smoking to no avail. Moving to vaping (which is not smoking) has allowed me to return to my activities like fishing at 8000 feet as well as other exercise to lose weight. If you take this away, I may go back to cigarettes... Which will get you back your tax money I suppose, but my health costs and death will be on your hands.
I contributed to the Obama campaign and will take all the money I contributed and double it just to make your defeat in any upcoming election you participate in a reality. But I may just decide to take all my assets and tax revenues with me to a state which believes in public health over tax revenues.
Please rewrite this law so that it makes sense and I'll back your initiative.
Thanks for taking the time to read this response.
If this goes through I may seriously consider moving to a state that believes in the principle "for the people"
I just sent this to the guy who came up with this bill:
Hello-
Your blanket ban on electronic cigarette sales is short cited and is not in line with most scientific studies on the subject matter (Drexel University http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf just to name one). I, as do all adult vapors, believe that these products do not belong in the hands of children. However we would like to see legislation to that does that without taking adults rights away to a product that easily can be shown to be a tobacco harm reduction device.
I can tell you that if it had not been for my switch to electronic cigarettes I would possibly be in the critical respiratory care right now as I had been a smoker for over 30 years I have tried all the "approved" pharmaceutical solutions and others to quit smoking to no avail. Moving to vaping (which is not smoking) has allowed me to return to my activities like fishing at 8000 feet as well as other exercise to lose weight. If you take this away, I may go back to cigarettes... Which will get you back your tax money I suppose, but my health costs and death will be on your hands.
I contributed to the Obama campaign and will take all the money I contributed and double it just to make your defeat in any upcoming election you participate in a reality. But I may just decide to take all my assets and tax revenues with me to a state which believes in public health over tax revenues.
Please rewrite this law so that it makes sense and I'll back your initiative.
Thanks for taking the time to read this response.
Last edited:
Except Lorillard/Blu do most of their business in B&M stores. I was Democrat for yrs. until they became so controlling and this is just another one of their STUPID moves. If they had their way we would become the U.S.S.A.
Guess I'll be making more runs to Vegas now. I can't imagine that Nevada would ever entertain the thought of banning any goods perceived as a vice or luxury item ...
Misguided and uninformed politicians and zealots are far more dangerous than any substance or device ever discovered or invented ...
Yeah I guess I will too. I'm tired
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
