Oh, no, it's alive! CA no-shipping bill AB1500 assigned to committee
- Thread starter Berylanna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It Doesn't have to make Sense.
It's all about Money, Political Pull and Government.
Age verification at time of purchase only, normal delivery.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
Sounds Great.
Have you contacted Your Rep and let He/She that this is what you think is Best?
No, my life has been a bit hectic for the last few months, which is why I haven't kept up with this. I will look into the contact methods tonight and hopefully get to it tomorrow. I'm hoping I can show up on the 30th even if just to lend a body for support.
I was more hoping to keep the discussion going for those who can be more involved as this amendment is NOT a win for us.
Ideally, to me, we would have age verification at time of purchase, when the purchase involves the sale of nicotine liquid(including pre-filled carts). That's it. I don't think delivery verification is necessary, nor is any verification necessary for hardware that could be argued as multipurpose. Unless they want to include everything that could be used in a mod/atomizer including cotton balls.
Last time I checked(which was ~15 years ago) you didn't need an ID to buy rolling papers.
I completely agree with that. The amendment has been "weighed and found wanting". Age verification at the vendor's end at the time of purchase, yes. Upon delivery... why. It would be inconsistent compared to other laws regarding similar age restrictions. Not that having inconsistent laws has ever stopped CA from passing more of them. But still... I think we may need to go at it another round.
I have EXACTLY the opposite opinion. Not because it is better, but for 4 other reasons:
1. THAT is what is required for alcohol sent from CA to CA, and the vintners in California are respected. (I just got off the phone with one.)
2. It would be horribly difficult to make the argument that alcohol is less dangerous than ecigs.
3. The way they worded the requirement for age verification upon ordering appears to REQUIRE the use of mostly web sites well known for going down a lot, and forbids the vendor from remembering you are already verified. THAT is a recipe for screwing up the sales process in such a way as to tend to injure sales a lot.
4. I suspect if you asked the legislators to choose one or the other, they'd be criticized more for delivering to minors. (Maybe I'm wrong)
There are other complications. To ship to OTHER states, vintners must buy a multi-thousand-$$ license for that state. And they have to collect the wine taxes in advance. The result: the big winemakers use distribution channels that have the licenses. The boutique winemakers usually sell only in-state or to one other favored state. The one I talked to had a bunch of wine club members in Texas, for some reason, so that's the only license they bought. Since they are in CA, they said they don't need a CA license, they just have to collect the tax and pay UPS Ground an additional $3.25. UPS ground will try to call 3 times and show up once to get an adult signature, and if that fails, they send the wine back to the vintner.
Last edited:
They are trying to make up for the losses they incurred when PACT went into effect.
PACT prohibits USPS to deliver any tobacco products (except cigars). So does this mean that e-cigarettes are not a tobacco product now????
That's a can worms, if you ask me.
Last edited:
Vendors are going to have to tighten up their websites. Age verification if necessary on a website
is no problem for a good webmaster.
is no problem for a good webmaster.
That is not a problem. The problem is what happens when I order a non-nicotine product from an e-cig vendor, like Lessifer pointed out. What if I order some Kanthal wire or a couple of AW IMR batteries or a plastic bottle with a needle tip or a bottle of vegetable glycerin? Why should I go through the verification process and pay extra shipping/signing charges for that?
As I read it, all the References to Tobacco Products have been Strike Out. It appears to be a Bill about e-Cigarettes and Age Verification Now.
But I'm not the One to Ask. I'm sure there are people More Adept at reading Legislation who could Chime in on this.
(a) The transfer and shipment of
4
5 the Internet or by telephone or by mail order, or by any other means
6 in which the seller is not in the physical presence of the buyer, to
1 residents of this state poses a serious threat to public health, safety,
2 welfare, and economy of the state.
3 (b) When
4 shipped directly to a consumer, adequate proof that the consumer
5 is of legal age to purchase the products cannot be obtained by the
6 vendor, thereby enabling sellers of
7
8 sales to minors.
9 (c) By preventing shipment of cigarettes, tobacco products, and
10 e-cigarettes directly to consumers, minors the state will be better
11 able to measure and monitor
12 e-cigarette consumption, determine the public health and fiscal
13 consequences of smoking, and keep these products out of the hands
---
BTW - It dawned on me that when I Copy and Paste from the PDF that the Strike Out formatting is Lost.
Last edited:
Where is the HATE button? Really? Cigarettes are going to be easier to get online than e-cigs?
Last edited:
Only the content, SORRY! A bill to limit tobacco (mostly) that had ecigs as an afterthought has turned into a simple War On Quitting Smoking bill?!?! I HATE THAT.
That's what it amounts to. I've now re-read that concoction of incoherence several times and am starting to think that we don't have any specific parts of it we can oppose while still making sense. How can we make sense opposing parts of this bill if the thing itself has morphed from its original intention into something we can clearly understand as a "war on ecigs" act.
At this late a stage, with the 30th looming just days away, I wonder if trying to get another amendment going could be tricky and dangerous. What if it morphs into something even crazier?
I think that we may have only one option as an action and that is to oppose the bill in its entirety. It's not like they can accuse us of not "thinking of the children" or "want children to buy these things online" because they've just turned their original intentions into something completely different, hence we oppose what it has turned into, completely and in its entirety.
If this thing passes as it is now, that's pretty bad. Not as bad as it was before the amendment, but still pretty bad considering what it was supposed to do vs. what it will do. We have less to lose by opposing the entire bill than we have if we're going to push for another amendment, knowing in the back of our minds that it might turn into something even more incoherent.
What do y'all think?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
