Oh, no, it's alive! CA no-shipping bill AB1500 assigned to committee

[Nate760]

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?

This is what devious legislators do when they're trying to perform an end-run around public opposition. I would bet a large sum of money that the plan from the beginning was for this bill to be only about e-cigs, and the tobacco-related language was only in there to quell any protests that might have arisen; since, as we know, if you publicly oppose any piece of legislation that (ostensibly) seeks to keep tobacco out of the hands of children, then you're a contemptible lowlife who wants to turn kids into drug addicts.

So, they wait until the last minute, then remove all the language about tobacco in the hopes that no one will notice, including their fellow legislators (many of whom will not re-read the bill before voting on it, but will just assume it's still mainly an anti-youth smoking bill, which they'd be tarred and feathered if they voted against).

I'm sure the same types of things happen in other states, but as a lifelong California resident who's all too familiar with the crooked shenanigans through which dozens of idiotic laws get passed each year in Sacramento, this is par for the course.

 

[StefanDidak]

This is what devious legislators do when they're trying to perform an end-run around public opposition. I would bet a large sum of money that the plan from the beginning was for this bill to be only about e-cigs, and the tobacco-related language was only in there to quell any protests that might have arisen; since, as we know, if you publicly oppose any piece of legislation that (ostensibly) seeks to keep tobacco out of the hands of children, then you're a contemptible lowlife who wants to turn kids into drug addicts.

I was just saying something along those lines to my wife while we were having dinner. That is just reeks of there being something off here and that this might've been the plan all along. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that way. It makes perfect sense in a corrupt and deceitful world of politics, greasing palms, and people with different interests and ulterior motives.

 

[Berylanna]

So what is the Solution?

I've been corresponding with a couple of people and thinking madly all evening (and watching my blood pressure go up) and I think we need to find out:

1. What are the current laws regarding cigarettes over the internet in CA? Were those other tobacco things stricken because of lobbying or because they were already illegal to order here? Don't forget, this committee has tobacco BECAUSE THEY HAVE INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

If they are going to allow sales of combustible cigarettes over the internet, this should be EASY to shoot down. Hence I suspect they do NOT allow that, which raises the question: what is the language in CA law about age verification for remote tobacco purchases?

2. Are other states putting in details about WHAT KIND of software must be used?

3. Are other states requiring BOTH purchase-time verification AND pickup-time verification?

4. Are any states requiring age verification to buy wineglasses, corkscrews, those corks you put in wine bottles to keep the wine fresh? Decanters? Pint glasses?

I have a day job (as do all of the CASAA board and most of us here) so I can't do all that research. I do know the Democrats have already embarassed themselves VERY recently regarding performance of websites -- does the California Legislature really want to go into the software design consulting business?

 

[StefanDidak]

1. What are the current laws regarding cigarettes over the internet in CA? Were those other tobacco things stricken because of lobbying or because they were already illegal to order here? Don't forget, this committee has tobacco BECAUSE THEY HAVE INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

I have a day job (as do all of the CASAA board and most of us here) so I can't do all that research. I do know the Democrats have already embarassed themselves VERY recently regarding performance of websites -- does the California Legislature really want to go into the software design consulting business?

I think I can answer (1) there since I had been looking into that earlier today. I believe that online sales of cigarettes is handled (at the federal level) through the PACT Act. (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0361.pdf) which came to be in 2010. It says "Preventing Illegal Internet Sales of Cigarettes & Smokeless Tobacco".

Because of PACT the requirement for online sales of cigarettes is to "Check the age and ID of customers both at purchase and at delivery to stop Internet cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales to kids". So that answers that question and it appears to be a recurring theme, the checking on both ends, that is.

Edit: I think this also answers (3).

 

[Berylanna]

I think I can answer (1) there since I had been looking into that earlier today. I believe that online sales of cigarettes is handled (at the federal level) through the PACT Act. (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0361.pdf) which came to be in 2010. It says "Preventing Illegal Internet Sales of Cigarettes & Smokeless Tobacco".

Because of PACT the requirement for online sales of cigarettes is to "Check the age and ID of customers both at purchase and at delivery to stop Internet cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales to kids". So that answers that question and it appears to be a recurring theme, the checking on both ends, that is.

Hmmm, but not for alcohol?

Well, ick. Thanks for the info.

 

[Nate760]

I have a day job (as do all of the CASAA board and most of us here) so I can't do all that research. I do know the Democrats have already embarassed themselves VERY recently regarding performance of websites -- does the California Legislature really want to go into the software design consulting business?

The California Legislature is not in the habit, and hasn't been at any time in my living memory, of contemplating the unintended consequences of a piece of legislation before they vote it into law. They live in a happy little bubble of utter obliviousness where every statute is going to have exactly the desired effect and will not cause undue harm or inconvenience to anyone. This is why our state arguably has as many stupid, destructive, nonsensical, counterproductive, asinine laws as the other 49 states put together.

 

[StefanDidak]

Hmmm, but not for alcohol?

Well, ick. Thanks for the info.

Not sure about the alcohol thing. I couldn't remember the name of the PACT Act all day and had a hard time digging it up until a few hours ago. The reason PACT came up a few months ago in relation to ecigs is because there were a few incidents where a carrier refused to handle packages from a vendor because they claimed they were not allowed to transport it, based on the PACT Act. Of course, they were wrong about that but it came up.

Then a few weeks later there were issues with a customer and a vendor and a bank/card company where the card company refused a transaction because it was an online purchase of a tobacco product. Again, they were incorrect about that because ecigs have not (yet) been officially classified as a tobacco product. But again, the PACT Act was brought up.

So clearly the PACT thing has already been going around and has been affecting ecig related transactions. It feels like what they did with the amendment was borrow some parts from PACT and mold it in some incoherent way.

 

[StefanDidak]

4. Are any states requiring age verification to buy wineglasses, corkscrews, those corks you put in wine bottles to keep the wine fresh? Decanters? Pint glasses?

This one, and the question about online alcohol sales in general from your other post are seriously muddy waters that may not be possible to properly dig into in any detail.

I asked around real quick and yes, some (most, if not all) states have age verification for online alcohol but may or may not cover related things like glasses, corks, whiskey stones, etc. The latter appears to be an issue of vendor. A vendor that needs to perform age verification will do so regardless of products being ordered. So if you were to order whiskey stones and glasses from a BevMo! the verification thing is done because it is probably too bothersome for them to figure out for which products it should and shouldn't. I guess it's sort of like the "let's just card everyone to make it consistent" even though it leads to ridiculous situations, like with ordering whiskey stones that contain no alcohol whatsoever and basically are just that, rocks, stones! Now if you were to order these things from, say, Amazon. No age verification takes place. So in the case of product specifics it appears to be a matter of "depends on where you order it".

Online alcohol sales are really a mess. Some states have different restrictions than others. Not only are restrictions different from state to state regarding the order process but also the transportation process as well as restrictions on amount or volume. Apparently in Maryland if you ship a case of bottles to a nearby distributor that's ok only if there is no other distributor nearby and it's under a certain amount. Virgina on the other hand limits everything shipped into the state to a single gallon unless you're a licensed buyer. All in all I think that looking at the relative difference between ecigs, tobacco, and alcohol leads me to believe that the alcohol portion of this is like trying to make sense of too many differences and a complete lack of any uniformity.

 

[Berylanna]

Thanks! (Puts on thinking cap and bedcap at the same time)

 

[Berylanna]

OK, I'm going to oppose this on several grounds and ask for changes. Unless we can get them to pull it off the schedule by pointing out that the FDA is on this, making AB1500 redundant in a way that is burdensome to California businesses. Let the feds handle it.

Folks, I'd like to ask for letters to the committee on this point over the weekend.

Otherwise, if you plan to go to Sac on Wednesday, please PM me. I want to coordinate so we don't all take the same talking points. There are several.

I live in Cupertino, and plan to drive from there on the morning of the hearing unless someone (female) from far away needs a hotel room and can't afford one, in which case I'll go up the night before and we can each take a bed in a 2-bed room. Bring earplugs.

We don't need a 50-state patchwork of local laws on top of the federal ones.

 

[StefanDidak]

Folks, I'd like to ask for letters to the committee on this point over the weekend.

Any specific angle or aimed at the overall incomprehensible nature of what the bill turned in to while completely going way off its original intentions (i.e. the removal of "tobacco products")?

Otherwise, if you plan to go to Sac on Wednesday, please PM me. I want to coordinate so we don't all take the same talking points. There are several.

Will do in a few minutes! And thanks for taking on the role of coordinator.

I live in Cupertino, and plan to drive from there on the morning of the hearing unless someone (female) from far away needs a hotel room and can't afford one, in which case I'll go up the night before and we can each take a bed in a 2-bed room. Bring earplugs.

We're in Oakley, so technically a bit closer to Sac.

I'm going to be in Marin tomorrow (gee, it's already 10pm and I need to get up at 4am) and afterwards will be heading by Tasty Vapor in Oakland. I had some initial contact with them the other day because they were discussing whether or not to go to Sac and I told them we could discuss details tomorrow since I'd be dropping in to restock on some liquids anyway. Not sure what their plans are right now but I hope they would join us because it's also good to have representation from the jobs and economy aspect of things.

 

[Katya]

OK, I'm going to oppose this on several grounds and ask for changes. Unless we can get them to pull it off the schedule by pointing out that the FDA is on this, making AB1500 redundant in a way that is burdensome to California businesses. Let the feds handle it.

I agree. And it indeed is redundant--at least in its present form. Tell them it will save taxpayers' money. And that it would be unwise to one up the Feds.

Folks, I'd like to ask for letters to the committee on this point over the weekend.

Paper letters? Send via USPS? I already contacted my reps.

We don't need a 50-state patchwork of local laws on top of the federal ones.

As far as I'm concerned, we don't need any.

Good luck Berylanna! You go girl!

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Berylanna, thank you for diving in head first on this. I hope the FDA has taken some wind out of their self-righteous sails. Good luck to all of you!

 

[Berylanna]

I agree. And it indeed is redundant--at least in its present form. Tell them it will save taxpayers' money. And that it would be unwise to one up the Feds.



Paper letters? Send via USPS? I already contacted my reps.

Sorry, I've been using email since 1983, I forgot there WERE paper letters! No, phone calls would be best. Failing that, then some bits and bytes.

 

[Berylanna]

OK, I'm calling members of the G.O. committee (the roster with email and phone#'s is in the CASAA call-to-action) and asking them to revisit AB1500 in light of the FDA's announcement. No need to burden CA folks with a second set of regulations, with the end result being the same. I'd like if if CA people can email the committee members and make this point, and let them know your zip code (and possibly phone #) ?

Thanks.

 

[Berylanna]

If you are going to Sacramento on Wednesday, I'll be going too. I know someone on Vapor Joe's said she was going and so did a guy. I'd like to meet ahead of time. We get 2 people for 2 minutes, everybody else just gets to say their name and for or against. We think the language in the amended bill might have been taken from the language used to restrict a multi-million-$$ online industry for adults only. It should be replaced by something other states use for ecigs.

Please PM me if you want to speak! (Or if you want to meet, including meeting afterwards.

It's 9am, and we appear to be FIRST on the agenda.

 

[aikanae1]

Nude Nicotine posted in their thread that they will be closing so they can make the drive from San Diego to Sacramento. I've also gotten an email from Velvet Cloud Vapor that they were planning to also.

 

[StefanDidak]

That's a long drive for Nude Nic! Wow. Dedication. I wonder if anyone from the vape place across the capitol building will also be there given that... well, if anything, they wouldn't have an excuse about distance.

 

[aikanae1]

Well, they probably enjoy what they are doing. I do a lot of business with Calif. and so I'm worried about this. I doubt if I'm alone. So know that there are a lot of us there with you in spirit.

 

[Uma]

Thank you so much for all your work and dedication!! Thank you for going to the meeting, for speaking up. You kids rock, you really do.

I've tried and tried to write, but ipad doesn't agree with the email forms. I've tried to call, but my phone reception is horrible. I live too far, to travel in person. (Plus I am kinda mostly too social phobic to boot).

Here's my attempt at a letter for all those on the list that I can't write to. Why am I sharing? Just in case it reminds anyone of something that might be useful in its own way.
"I would like to thank you that AB 1500 has been amended. While a step in the right direction (no outright ban on online sales), the bill will still impose substantial hardships on consumers:

While I support bans on sales to minors, I oppose any restrictions that impose unnecessary burdens on adult consumers. Requiring age verification before delivery (with third-party database verification) and then mandating a delivery service with age-verified signature required--and requiring it each and every time an order is delivered to a particular address--imposes an unnecessary burden on adult consumers, especially those who are not able to be present at the time of delivery. Moreover, the additional costs associated with these requirements will be passed on to consumers and make low-risk e-cigarette use far more expensive for California consumers..

Please remember the rural area citizens who have to travel a good 30 miles or more, round trip, to the closest open and working postal office. The postal service has cut back on offices and hours or both, all over America. There are some rural roads where it takes an hour just to travel 10 miles! The trips to town are usually planned well in advance, however, the postal service does not comply with consumer schedules & the pkgs will be sent back to sender within a few days time if and when rural Americans cannot coincide finances for gas, tires, cab fares, and time. Not everyone works in or near a city. Please reconsider this bill and the hardship it causes the citizens of California.

I'm also concerned for the environment. The extra vehicle emissions, resources used, land fill dumps of car parts and tires, and more. This bill seems contradictory to an earth friendly environment, especially to Vapers who have chosen to replace a smoke product with a vapor product to reduce the carbon buildup.

I hope you stand with the consumer adults and oppose the signature requirement.

Thank you for listening,"
Me