CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly...

[Katya]

I don't see what the big deal is. From the proposed law, only disposable cigalikes would be affected-

This bill would define the term “smoking” for purposes of the STAKE Act. The bill would also change the STAKE Act’s definition of “tobacco products” to include electronic devices, such as electronic cigarettes, that deliver nicotine or other vaporized liquids, and make furnishing such a tobacco product to a minor a misdemeanor.

Bill Text - ABX2-6 Electronic cigarettes.


My ProVari doesn't do anything other than regulate a battery, and my tanks don't do anything other than hold liquid, so can not fall under their definition of electronic cigarette. Only a disposable cigalike would...

Please read the entire bill. It is a very big deal.

(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.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Anyone catch the name of the rep that voted no? I thought it was Steiner or something like that.

I didn't, but there were a couple of nos on at least one bill.

I don't see what the big deal is. From the proposed law, only disposable cigalikes would be affected-

This bill would define the term “smoking” for purposes of the STAKE Act. The bill would also change the STAKE Act’s definition of “tobacco products” to include electronic devices, such as electronic cigarettes, that deliver nicotine or other vaporized liquids, and make furnishing such a tobacco product to a minor a misdemeanor.

Bill Text - ABX2-6 Electronic cigarettes.


My ProVari doesn't do anything other than regulate a battery, and my tanks don't do anything other than hold liquid, so can not fall under their definition of electronic cigarette. Only a disposable cigalike would...

Steve, out standing in his field.

Couldn't resist, my bad. But really Steve, let us know how it goes in court for you. Up until that point, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.

Thanks I glanced through the bill and saw nothing about mail order?

We don't think so, but that's up for debate too (among ourselves). MHO, once they get the ball rolling with one or more bills, they'll just keep going until they've confined everyone in CA to buying heavily taxed stuff from licensed shops.

 

[stevegmu]

I didn't, but there were a couple of nos on at least one bill.

Steve, out standing in his field.

Couldn't resist, my bad. But really Steve, let us know how it goes in court for you. Up until that point, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.

We don't think so, but that's up for debate too (among ourselves). MHO, once they get the ball rolling with one or more bills, they'll just keep going until they've confined everyone in CA to buying heavily taxed stuff from licensed shops.

I think cotton and kanthal are banned, as well...I think I am the only one who has actually read the proposal...

 

[Katya]

I'll do it... But she may not understand "two birds and a brain say thank you for standing up for vaping!"

 

[Katya]

I think cotton and kanthal are banned, as well...I think I am the only one who has actually read the proposal...

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I think cotton and kanthal are banned, as well...I think I am the only one who has actually read the proposal...

Please read the entire bill. It is a very big deal.

(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.

Pretty sure you're not.

 

[stevegmu]

Please read the entire bill. It is a very big deal.

(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.

Again, I don't see any way how devices other than disposable, one-piece cigalikes will legally be defined as a tobacco product. C is nullified, as my ProVari aren't squeezed out of tobacco leaves. My ProVari doesn't do anything other than regulate a battery.
E-liquid is a given, but the FDA will deem is so one of these years anyway...

 

[Lessifer]

I think cotton and kanthal are banned, as well...I think I am the only one who has actually read the proposal...

(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.

There steve, made it easier for you to see.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Again, I don't see any way how devices other than disposable, one-piece cigalikes will legally be defined as a tobacco product. C is nullified, as my ProVari aren't squeezed out of tobacco leaves. My ProVari doesn't do anything other than regulate a battery.
E-liquid is a given, but the FDA will deem is so one of these years anyway...

Steve, as usual, reason has nothing to do with this. They're putting 0 nic as a tobacco product. Rationalize that, because I sure can't.

 

[Lessifer]

Again, I don't see any way how devices other than disposable, one-piece cigalikes will legally be defined as a tobacco product. C is nullified, as my ProVari aren't squeezed out of tobacco leaves. My ProVari doesn't do anything other than regulate a battery.
E-liquid is a given, but the FDA will deem is so one of these years anyway...

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.

 

[stevegmu]

(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.

There steve, made it easier for you to see.

So this is all about being able to vape where smoking is prohibited? That isn't going to happen. It's California...

Again, My ProVari don't deliver anything. They are a regulated power supply. Laws are very literal. One piece cigalikes are the only electronic cigarettes affected... And e-liquid, but that is a tobacco product...

 

[stevegmu]

Steve, as usual, reason has nothing to do with this. They're putting 0 nic as a tobacco product. Rationalize that, because I sure can't.

That's what the courts are for, but it never seems to get that far...

 

[Katya]

(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.

There steve, made it easier for you to see.

So did I, Les.

It's not working...

 

[stevegmu]

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.

I would never do business in that state, but if I were forced to I would sue and win...Vaporizers have been sold in California for 30 years now...

 

[FlamingoTutu]

That's what the courts are for, but it never seems to get that far...

Well yes, hopefully, if it gets that far, the lawyers will have a field day in court. (Which contradicts my previous statement. I meant there as one getting fined for, say, vaping on school grounds.)

 

[stevegmu]

Well yes, hopefully, if it gets that far, the lawyers will have a field day in court.

What lawyers? No one ever sues. That's the problem. That's why all these proposals are so poorly written. They know no one will sue...

 

[Lessifer]

I really should know better, but perhaps someone else who was confused will read it and make the connections.

Mail order is not something I've really looked into, I suppose it depends on whether or not out of state retailers need a CA license to sell here, and if they are able to get them.

 

[Katya]

What lawyers? No one ever sues. That's why all these proposals are so poorly written. They know no one will sue...

Sottera vs FDA...

 

[Katya]

I really should know better, but perhaps someone else who was confused will read it and make the connections.

Mail order is not something I've really looked into, I suppose it depends on whether or not out of state retailers need a CA license to sell here, and if they are able to get them.

I know that many vendors refuse to ship to Arkansas--already. I haven't read the details of the AK ban, though.

 

[stevegmu]

Sottera vs FDA...

That is in no way related to what is going on today...