California SB140 to define ecigs as tobacco and treat vaping like smoking

[andls]

I was a pack-a-day smoker. For 50 years. Now I am a vaper. I have been vapingr since December 7, 2011. Thanks solely to e-cigs, I have not smoked a cigarette in over 3 years!

The State of California has declared electronic cigarettes a "health threat" and wants to regulate and ban e-cigs the same as cigarettes.

This is based solely on junk science, BOGUS research, and the lobbying of anti-smoking zealots. How can you regulate e-cigs the same as tobacco, e-cigs contain NO tobacco! And e-cigs have been proven to be much safer, and much more environmentally friendly, than cigarettes.

California declares electronic cigarettes a "health threat"? Wants to ban them like cigarettes?

I have one thing to say to the State of California:

LEAVE MY E-CIGS ALONE!

 

[zoiDman]

I think we need More people like Chris here on the ECF.

I'm watching the local news waiting for the weather, and what do I see? A report that the California Department of Public Health said e cigarettes pose a public health threat to (OMG the children) with no rebuttal or other opinion shown. I got riled. So I fired off a letter to the Department, KESQ the local TV station, as well as Gov Jerry Brown and my state assemblyman and state senator.

This is my very first post at ECF. I'm not even sure how this works. But I've had so much help here from you guys with my vaping "hobby" which I absolutely love. I just wanted to say THANKS. I use the Istick, MVP, Spinners, Vivi Nova Mini Tanks, and Kanger T2s. I started with Vuse, then Halo G6, then Halo Triton, then went to 510/ego threaded for the freedom. Anyway, here's my letter:

Dear KESQ,
I found your report on the California Department of Public Health's declaration that e cigarettes are a public health threat to be very one sided and not objective, in that the report did not include any spokesman to give any different perspective on vaping. Here is a copy of the letter I wrote to the Department and cc'd to the governor and my representatives in the state legislature.



1/28/2015

TO: California Department of Public Health

RE: E Cigarette Declaration of Threat



To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing in response to your declaration that e cigarettes are a health threat. This does not line up with the National Institutes of Health’s survey of studies of e cigarettes that I read. I am not opposed to some reasonable regulation of e cigarettes and liquids. I am opposed to the spread of misinformation.

I have been an inveterate smoker of tobacco cigarettes for 42 years. I began vaping and within a month I lost all interest in smoking. I stopped smoking by accident.

It is true that e cigarettes are not risk free, just hugely less risky than smoking, and studies of nicotine alone have shown the drug to be relatively benign although addictive (thus nicotine replacement therapy is considered very low risk).

If you excessively restrict my access to e cigarettes, I may have to return to smoking tobacco cigarettes.

I am asking you to moderate your department’s excessively negative, one-sided, uneducated, and alarmist position on the subject, as e cigarettes are providing a positive health benefit to a large group of former smokers.

Sincerely,

________________

 

[caramel]

How can you regulate e-cigs the same as tobacco,

Easy, since they have little evidence that could help them attack e-cigs directly, they're building a strawman by equating them to tobacco. Which is a much easier target for prohibitionists.

 

[zoiDman]

Easy, since they have little evidence that could help them attack e-cigs directly, they're building a strawman by equating them to tobacco. Which is a much easier target for prohibitionists.

Wouldn't it just be Easier to get a Legal Definition of e-Liquids that contain Nicotine that is Derived from Tobacco Plants to be a "Tobacco Product"? And then let the FDA do what they Like to do. Regulate Tobacco Products.

You Don't need to Invent a Strawman to Regulate e-Liquids that contain Nicotine derived from Tobacco. But you Might want to create one before you Tax the .... out of e-Liquids.

 

[Endor]

I have one thing to say to the State of California:

LEAVE MY E-CIGS ALONE!

Zoid will be disappointed that I'm continuing the ONLBP , but....

They won't leave them alone. It is not about science, it is about appearances. This is what the vaping community in California is really facing: A Lifestyle So Good, Its Mandatory

 

[Katya]

Great read! Thanks Endor...

Yup, that's California for you alright.

 

[caramel]

Wouldn't it just be Easier to get a Legal Definition of e-Liquids that contain Nicotine that is Derived from Tobacco Plants to be a "Tobacco Product"? And then let the FDA do what they Like to do. Regulate Tobacco Products.

You Don't need to Invent a Strawman to Regulate e-Liquids that contain Nicotine derived from Tobacco. But you Might want to create one before you Tax the .... out of e-Liquids.

Well usually you clasify a product based on the prevalent ingredient. Nicotine is what, 1-2% of the liquid? It's like saying bread is an yeast or a salt mining product, or that a wooden chair is a metal product based on a few screws.

They can surely define "nicotine extracted from tobacco" as a "tobacco product" and regulate / tax it accordingly. But anything from there is a big stretch and has no purposes other than expanding their reach and creating the strawman at the same time. Sounds like an abuse to me.

 

[zoiDman]

Well usually you clasify a product based on the prevalent ingredient. Nicotine is what, 1-2% of the liquid? It's like saying bread is an yeast or a salt mining product, or that a wooden chair is a metal product based on a few screws.

They can surely define "nicotine extracted from tobacco" as a "tobacco product" and regulate / tax it accordingly. But anything from there is a big stretch and has no purposes other than expanding their reach and creating the strawman at the same time. Sounds like an abuse to me.

Lots of ways one can Classify a Product. Take Wine for example.

One could Classify it as an "Alcoholic Beverage" because it has Alcohol in it. And that is the Main Reason that most people drink Wine.

Or you could Classify it as a "Grape Product". Because Wine is Made from Grapes.

Or you could Classify it as a "Water Product". Because Wine is Mostly made up from Water.

All that said, what my Post was More About was if Something is Legally Defined at the Federal Level as a _________, does it Matter what a State or an Individual Classifies it as?

And does this go alone the Lines of Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution? ie: The Supremacy Clause.

 

[plumeguy]

Greedy Scumbags! If they gave 2 monkeys about protecting children they would pass legislation
raising the legal age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21.

 

[George Ogilvie]

It's NOT the nicotine that kills, it's ALL the other chemicals

 

[George Ogilvie]

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yes they are a special kind of STUPID.

 

[plumeguy]

Let's be clear here. The legislature controls the legal age. The legislature controls and
is responsible for teen access to tobacco products.

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

how does raising the age to tobacco on adults help the children?
Dont KID yourself give'em an inch and the taking wont stop. KILL THE BILL

 

[caramel]

It's NOT the nicotine that kills, it's ALL the other chemicals

Apparently it's taxes that they're worried about.

 

[caramel]

Lots of ways one can Classify a Product. Take Wine for example.

One could Classify it as an "Alcoholic Beverage" because it has Alcohol in it. And that is the Main Reason that most people drink Wine.

Or you could Classify it as a "Grape Product". Because Wine is Made from Grapes.

Or you could Classify it as a "Water Product". Because Wine is Mostly made up from Water.

All that said, what my Post was More About was if Something is Legally Defined at the Federal Level as a _________, does it Matter what a State or an Individual Classifies it as?

And does this go alone the Lines of Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution? ie: The Supremacy Clause.

well the next step is for some entrepreneur in China to sell "synthetic" or "tomato" nicotine.

at which point your e-cig becomes a tomato product lol.

bTw alcoholic beverages are defined by a minimum content, to take Texas for an example it is 0.5%. So one nail does not a metal chair make.

a definition that would make sense would be "nicotine products" but then the law was about regulating tobacco not nicotine, my guess is that FDA is trying to extend their authority through some clever word play and meaning redefining.

 

[zoiDman]

well the next step is for some entrepreneur in China to sell "synthetic" or "tomato" nicotine.

at which point your e-cig becomes a tomato product lol.

JSYK - If Nicotine is Derived from some other Source besides Tobacco Plants, or is "Synthetic", the FDA would have No Authority to Regulate it as a Tobacco Product.

So you Wouldn't need to call it a Tomato Product.

 

[plumeguy]

As long as the legal purchase age is 18 in California that will be used to justify
any and all state regulatory legislation. From taxes to flavors to where consumption
can take place.

Would be smarter to eliminate this as an political issue. Neither Big Cig or its
government accomplices have made any effort to push this in the 17 years
since the 1998 MSA. With one exception in NYC.

Doesn't anyone else find that suspicious?

 

[zoiDman]

As long as the legal purchase age is 18 in California that will be used to justify
any and all state regulatory legislation. From taxes to flavors to where consumption
can take place.

Would be smarter to eliminate this as an political issue. Neither Big Cig or its
government accomplices have made any effort to push this in the 17 years
since the 1998 MSA. With one exception in NYC.

Doesn't anyone else find that suspicious?

I hate to be the One to Tell you this.

But Very Soon there will be a National Law that says you will have to be 18 Years or Older to buy Any e-Liquid that Contains Nicotine derived from Tobacco Plants.

 

[plumeguy]

Are there any states where those under 18 can buy e-Liquid that Contains Nicotine
derived from Tobacco Plants?

 

[zoiDman]

Are there any states where those under 18 can buy e-Liquid that Contains Nicotine
derived from Tobacco Plants?

Currently?

Yes... I believe there are Quite a Few that have No Age Limit. Perhaps a Dozen or So.