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

[zoiDman]

We is a just Crazy Zoid land of fruits and nuts

And Moon Beams.

Don't forget about Moon Beam.

LOL

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

Bullet train to nowhere is a perfect model of how fiscally corrupted and mobbed up this state is while riding on the backs of soft headed utopianites.

 

[sofarsogood]

All this dancing around with legislation is about the prospect of falling cigarette taxes. No tax on ecigs will recover even a fraction of what smokers pay. The only solution is find a way to ban ecigs and justify that by persuading the vast majority of the public that ecigs are so unsafe that they should be treated as a dangerous drug. I doubt that is going to work but they are going to try.

An excise tax on e liquid would have to be applied at the wholesale level meaning the retailer pays the tax regardless of whether the product sells. That seems to work with cigarettes but it won't work with e liquids so the specialty vape shops close. Existing tobacco retailers aren't carrying hundreds of tiny bottles of e liquid now. They aren't going to do it with the tax. May be closing the vape shops will satisfy the government but if they also ban online sales it means a new drug war and everybody who vapes in california is a criminal. It's hard to imagine the public having the stomach for that but I could be wrong.

 

[Bill Godshall]

NOCAL SFATA updates Call to Action opposing proposed vaping ban bill (SB 140), Senate Health Committee hearing scheduled for April 8
Immediate Call To Action : SB140, March 25th or April 8th in the Senate Health Committee - Northern California

 

[Bill Godshall]

CA NORML opposes CA bill (SB 140) that would ban use Rx ... vaporizers
http://www.canorml.org/news/E-CIG_BILL_WOULD_BAN_MEDICAL_........_VAPORIZING_IN_NON-SMOKING_AREAS

CA NORML letter to Sen. Leno opposing his SB 140
http://www.canorml.org/E-CigSB140_Leno_rev2.pdf

 

[Bill Godshall]

On 4/8/15, the CA Senate Health Cmte approved the vaping ban bill (HB 140) on a party line vote.
All 6 Democrats on Cmte voted yes Hernandez, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Roth & Wolk.
HB 140 has now been referred to the Senate Appropriations Cmte.

4/8/15 CA Senate Health Cmte hearing on the vaping ban bill (SB 140) is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBwbBOTyXMc&feature=em-share_video_user
Sen Leno, Big Pharma, FDA & CA DPH funded e-cig prohibitionists (including Glantz) protect cigarettes, threaten lives of vapers and smokers, repeat dozens of fear mongering lies about e-cigs, absurdly claim e-cig vapor as harmful as cigarette smoke; vaping advocates tell truth about vaping. The Cmte voted at the end of the hearing, and it appears the fix was in before the hearing ever began.

AVA’s Greg Conley testifies against vaping ban bill (SB 140) to CA Senate Health Cmte
http://vaping.info/wp-content/uploa...y-on-SB-140-to-CA-Senate-Health-Committee.pdf

AVA: California’s senseless war on vaping continues with SB 140
California's Senseless War on Vaping Continues With SB 140 - The American Vaping Association

Alameda County (CA) Supervisor Nate Miley sends letter to CA Senate Health Cmte opposing the vaping ban bill (SB 140)
SKMBT_C35315040711340.pdf


Not sure who nobody else has been updating this thread, but it would be appreciated.

 

[DC2]

It appears the motion was as follows...
Bill Text - SB-140 Electronic cigarettes.

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Anybody know anything about the bill being amended?

And as is usually the case, the votes were right straight down the party line.
Gee, didn't see that coming.

 

[JimScotty0]

At least we had a very strong showing! We are not going down without a fight! https://youtu.be/0GJp_b-oc6o

If you want to watch the whole hearing for SB - 140 Leno - To Classify Vaporizers/E-Cigarettes as a Tobacco Product then this is the link: https://youtu.be/PBwbBOTyXMc

It may be painful to watch the presentation, but we all need to know what and how they are trying to shut us down!

 

[Moonbogg]

They referred to mark10's warning label. Ridiculous. The owners of Mark10 wouldn't mind if their own Mark10 was outlawed for the benefit of their other products.

 

[rothenbj]

I hate to say it but as long as these people get elected, you're going to get these results. A many State is a nanny State.

 

[intervention]

California Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators
Re: SB 140 (Leno) Electronic Cigarettes

At its April, 2015 Board Meeting CAADE took an OPPOSE position.

Bill would define electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product, severely limiting its use and subjecting them to high taxation. Ecigs contain no tobacco, have been proven to be 60% more effective than patches and gums for smoking cessation, and are an evidence-based tool for smoking cessation. CAADE is on record as supporting ecigs a harm reduction approach to smoking cessation, and has opposed a similar legislation (e.g. SB 648) in the past.

CAADE accredits addiction studies programs in over 40 colleges and universities in California, Arizona and Nevada. It also issues the highest level of addiction counselor certification in California, and currently represents more than 14,000 counselors, college faculty members and students.


For more information please contact: CAADE Legislative Chair

Fr. Jack Kearney, M.Div., CATC IV, CATE frintervention@gmail.com

 

[DEA7H INC]

California Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators
Re: SB 140 (Leno) Electronic Cigarettes

At its April, 2015 Board Meeting CAADE took an OPPOSE position.

Bill would define electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product, severely limiting its use and subjecting them to high taxation. Ecigs contain no tobacco, have been proven to be 60% more effective than patches and gums for smoking cessation, and are an evidence-based tool for smoking cessation. CAADE is on record as supporting ecigs a harm reduction approach to smoking cessation, and has opposed a similar legislation (e.g. SB 648) in the past.

CAADE accredits addiction studies programs in over 40 colleges and universities in California, Arizona and Nevada. It also issues the highest level of addiction counselor certification in California, and currently represents more than 14,000 counselors, college faculty members and students.


For more information please contact: CAADE Legislative Chair

Fr. Jack Kearney, M.Div., CATC IV, CATE frintervention@gmail.com

Good for them. If anyone can understand how potentially dangerous this type of legislation is, it would be an organization that specializes in addiction.

 

[Bill Godshall]

CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill (SB 140) to ban vaping in workplaces
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_140&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_140_bill_20150413_amended_sen_v97.html


CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill (SB 151) to increase minimum age for tobacco and e-cig sales to 21 years
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_151&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_151_bill_20150129_introduced.html


CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill as amended (SB 24) to ban vaping in all workplaces, require licensure of all e-cig retailers, ban sales of all tobacco and e-cig products to anyone under age 21
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_24&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_bill_20150421_amended_sen_v97.html

 

[Lessifer]

CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill (SB 140) to ban vaping in workplaces
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_140&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_140_bill_20150413_amended_sen_v97.html


CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill (SB 151) to increase minimum age for tobacco and e-cig sales to 21 years
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_151&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_151_bill_20150129_introduced.html


CA Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill as amended (SB 24) to ban vaping in all workplaces, require licensure of all e-cig retailers, ban sales of all tobacco and e-cig products to anyone under age 21
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_24&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_bill_20150421_amended_sen_v97.html

So where does it go from here, and do we still have a chance to kill it?

 

[Bill Godshall]

All three bills now go to the Senate floor, and the Senate leadership will likely schedule votes on the bills after a bill sponsor tells leadership they have enough votes to pass the bills.

So all vapers in CA should be contacting their State Senator(s) urging he/she/them to oppose all three bills.

If any of the bills pass the full Senate, they are then sent to the Assembly.

 

[oplholik]

It passed the Senate today.

California Senate votes to restrict e-cigarettes as tobacco products - LA Times

 

[Katya]

It passed the Senate today.

California Senate votes to restrict e-cigarettes as tobacco products - LA Times

If I hear the tutti-frutti argument one more time I'll start screaming.

Now what? Do we need a CTA? Has one been issued?

 

[navigator2011]

I had to read it twice--clearly Sen. Jeff Stone has no idea what he voted about.

“Now we are exposing a whole new generation of millenials to this fashionable way of smoking tobacco in a way that is going to jeopardize their lives,” Stone said.

 

[Bill Godshall]

CA Senate also approved (on a 26-8 vote) SB 151, which would increase the minimum age for tobacco and e-cig sales to 21 years
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_151&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_151_bill_20150129_introduced.html

The bill to ban vaping in workplaces (SB 140) was passed by a 24-12 vote, and is at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_140&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_140_bill_20150413_amended_sen_v97.html

Am confused about what happened on the third bill to require licensure of e-cig retailer (SB 24), as the bill status and history
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_bill_20150602_status.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_bill_20150602_history.html
both say that 20 Senators voted Yes and 12 voted No, that the bill was "Refused passage." and that a motion was approved to reconsider the bill.

While a 20-12 vote typically means a bill is approved, perhaps the CA Senate requires more than 20 votes to approve a bill.

I also suspect that the motion to reconsider SB 24 allows the sponsor to bring it back up for another Senate vote in the future.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_vote_20150602_0416PM_sen_floor.html

More info on SB 24 is at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_24&sess=1516&house=S
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_24_bill_20150421_amended_sen_v97.html

 

[Lessifer]

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit... I love CA, but sometimes...