What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states

Discussion in 'Campaigning discussions' started by Vocalek, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. Vocalek

    Vocalek CASAA Activist ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    1. If you live in one of the states that currently has a bill pending that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes,
    a) Find out who your Senator is and who your "House" representative is. (Titles vary from state to state. Examples include Representative, Assemblymember, Delegate).
    b) Phone their offices and/or send a letter by snail mail.
    c) Tell your story about how e-cigarettes have helped you and tell them that you oppose ### (where ### equals the official bill designation) because it would make the sale of the products illegal.
    d) Point out that thousands of citizens would be forced to relapse to smoking.

    2. If you don't live in the state, it would not be economical for you to phone or snail mail all the government officials, but you can send a brief email to all of the legislators in those states. See items c & d above for what to say.

    Currently, we know of proposed bills that would ban e-cigarette sales in CA, IL, MD, and NY. If you find out about another state, please post the information in the Campaigning section of ECF.

    Contact information for the four states mentioned above can be found within the following threads:

    New York: A9529
    Senate Version: S7234 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S7234
    NY state bill banning ecigs
    Look up your legislator - Response #34
    Email Addresses - Response #56

    Illinois: SB3174
    Illinois Bill to prohibit sale of PV's
    **Contact Info for House Human Services Committee Members - Response #62
    To find your state representative, go to www.ilga.gov and click on Legislator Lookup in the lower, right-hand portion of the page.

    ** Updated. bill moved from House Rules Committee to Human Services Committee

    Maryland: HB720
    Email addresses for both Illinois and Maryland:
    Email addresses for Il & MD
    Maryland email addresses grouped - See Response #3
    Look up MD elected official: http://mdelect.net/electedofficials/

    California: SB 882 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

    California: bill to define e-cigs a drug (= sales prohibition?)
    Contact Information for Sponsor Ellen Corbett - See Response #6
    List of CA Senators' email addresses: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senemail.htp
    List of CA Assembly members: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEMBERINFORMATION/memberdir_1.asp
    Look up your legislator: California State Legislature
    Sign up to receive email updates on the bill status: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery?maison=SB&nro=882&act=1
     
  2. Sun Vaporer

    Sun Vaporer ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Vocalek--nice post!! People might also add to their letters some of the relevent parts of Judge Leon's ruling. I have found in many cases that legislators like nothing better then to pass the buck to the Courts when ever they can.

    Some of the relevent part of Judge Leon's ruling is quite clear about the stance of E-cigs as a tobacco product and the scope of the FDA. The Court stated:


    "Because neither act encompasses electronic cigarettes, FDA contends that those products, at least as they are marketed by plaintiffs, are beyond the scope of Brown & Williamson Tobacco and are therefore regulable as a drug or device under the FDCA. This argument is too clever by half.... FDA's interpretation of "tobacco product" is not reasonable when considered in the context of the entire Tobacco Act. For instance, one provision of the Act specifically prohibits FDA from "banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products." 21 U.S.C. § 387g(d)(3)(A). Yet another provision prohibits FDA from "requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero." 21 U.S.c. § 387g(d)(3)(B). That Congress would single-out "traditional" products for specific protection but use the broader term "tobacco product" when denying FDA the power to eliminate nicotine yields suggests that Congress understood the term to encompass more than traditional tobacco products and that Congress intended to permit nicotine use, whether from unforeseen, non-traditional sources (like electronic cigarettes) or from well established, traditional sources (like regular cigarettes). More importantly, it is apparent from Congress's broad definition of "tobacco product" that it intended the Tobacco Act's regulatory scheme to cover far more than the fixed array of traditional tobacco products at issue in Brown & Williamson Tobacco. Both the FLCAA and the CSTHEA only apply to "cigarettes," "little cigars," and "smokeless tobacco," which Congress defined with considerable specificity, yet the
    Tobacco Act applies to "tobacco products," which Congress defined expansively as "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption." 21 U.S.C. § 321(rr)(l). Furthermore, Congress made clear that FDA's new jurisdiction over tobacco products applies, not only "to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco," but "to any other tobacco products" as well. Id. § 387a(b). Simply put, the Court cannot accept that Congress defined "tobacco product" in this manner when it knew all along that the only tobacco products beyond FDA's drug device jurisdiction were the traditional products governed by the FLCAA and CSTHEA". Id. at 17-18 (U.S. Federal District Court, DC circuit).

    Quoting this to these people would be of benefit as we should not assume that they know about the case let alone have read it so enlighten them.


    Sun​
     
  3. Lab

    Lab Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    everyone that quit in those states should send the governor the rest of their cigs and a letter saying how you no longer need them because e-cigs where the only thing that has helped you quit
     
  4. Tanner S Hyde

    Tanner S Hyde Senior Member ECF Veteran

    and tell them to smoke for a couple years, THEN decide if they wanna ban E-cigs
     
  5. ejoker

    ejoker Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    letters sent to all, except maryland cause i don't like those people (j/k). thanks for the central post vocalek.
     
  6. ZERO

    ZERO Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Letters will be sent tonight....
     
  7. Tanner S Hyde

    Tanner S Hyde Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Emails sent... And no I didn't tell them I hope they start smoking! ;)
     
  8. dreams n chains

    dreams n chains Super Member ECF Veteran

    I think it would be wise to say (and do) that if these bans are enacted that you will be a consumer of nothing..... nada... no money for the government.... no item to tax.

    You will not go back to cigarettes nor will you be purchasing false "help you quit" pharmaceutical alternatives. You will wean yourself off the nicotine and be what the government fears most in these hard times..... A Non Consumer/buyer/money-maker.

    They do not care about our health..... they just want sin-taxes bringing in the money they so carelessly spend.

    That's my plan. Then I'll vape flavored PG, since the act itself is at least 5o percent of my addiction.
     
  9. Kuya Dave

    Kuya Dave Moved On

    Im not the greatest writer but how would I add in the judge leon info?

    I reside in California so I must take act on this.
    Even if they ban them I will get them. Use them ETC
    Personal Opinions of course
     
  10. Sir_Lawrence

    Sir_Lawrence Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    I can't believe people can be so ignorant as to the benefits that e-cigs have for people. I quit my 30+ year smoking habit the day I got my first e-cig. I live in Maryland and just emailed everyone on that list a heart felt email. I think this whole thing is insane. My doctor was the one who "prescribed" e-cigs to me so I could kick my nasty habit. Now, I'm trying to set up a company making mods to help people as much as I can. Something needs to be done.
    Thanks Everyone.
     
  11. Happy Domino38

    Happy Domino38 Supplier Associate ECF Veteran

    I wish I could help!
    But, I live in Canada!
    Any chance they WOULDN'T know where you lived if you simply fired off an email? I think everyone here is 100% on the mark, they're bloody POSITIVE there's absolutely NO tobacco products in an e-cig! It's all about the taxes on their BLOOD MONEY!!
     
  12. Rosa

    Rosa Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    o.k. I wrote a letter to three senators and a congressman, what's next? Do I write the Gov. too?
     
  13. Kuya Dave

    Kuya Dave Moved On

    I did all 3
    Added in I was looking into moving to sacramento & if this bill passes I will be looking to move out of the country...
    The government don't care about the people.. They only care about lining there pocket. & it has been proven many times over.

    Grandfather & I and a few others I know in california Looking to support another country.

    Hopes that isn't out of line HAHA
     
  14. Rosa

    Rosa Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    not at all: My husband and I are leaving California as soon as we can get our junk together (not that the threat of a ban on e-cigs won't probably follow us anyway until the government can find a way to make money off of it)
     
  15. Kuya Dave

    Kuya Dave Moved On

    Rosa I agree with you there.
    Its not that I hate this place. Its I hate our government ruining our country.
    I can't blame voters or non voters Because it is beyond the people's Control of what happens.

    I never looked into the UK..
    Ive looked into Philippines mexico & a few others.

    Just trying to find a way to get gramps to move to philippines is the biggest challenge. I will try to move to sac or someplace out of state.
    Get my fiance here from Philippines then After she gets her citizenship Most likely leave here.

    Life may be poor in the philippines But the People are wonderful & Very Great.
    need a lending hand You can trade there easier then here. Earn respect easier. And be trusted easier.
    These are from my experiences there. Get treated like a person not like trash.
     
  16. brandon555

    brandon555 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Why all the hate for e-cigs by big brother? Are the cancer, I mean tobacco companies, lobbying against e cigs? Are they afraid of losing customers?
     
  17. Kuya Dave

    Kuya Dave Moved On

    thats exactly it.
     
  18. bobbysox10

    bobbysox10 Super Member ECF Veteran

    every single person that votes yes to pass any off these bills is a murderer.
     
  19. Above God

    Above God Senior Member ECF Veteran

    so what are the emial address to each office?
     
  20. Iceshack

    Iceshack Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Here is some food for thought. Some really good stuff to read. Don't know if it will help anything but I as well am from Canada but would like to help stop these people with there fight.

    "Can Electronic Cigarette’s help fight pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases?
    Posted in August 25th, 2009 By admin No Comments »

    Medicine Report: Possible Air Germicide


    Monday Nov. 16, 1942

    A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air.



    If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal.
    The idea of sterilizing the air is not new —London’s great fire of 1666, for example, was touched off by the countless fires which townsmen lit to purge the air of plague. Use of chemical sprays to control air contamination was first attempted in 1928 by three doctors who tried a fine mist of sea water containing sodium hypochlorite.

    This venture gave promising results, but all such research lapsed for another decade. Within the last few years, several research groups (notably the University of Pennsylvania’s new Air-Borne Disease Laboratories) again began testing various sprays. Many chemicals were found to kill airborne micro-organisms quickly, even in concentrations as low as one gram of chemical per 500 cu. ft. of air.

    Trouble was that all these air germicides smelled bad, or were toxic, or irritated the respiratory tract. Dr. Robertson’s propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal.

    Its discovery was accidental. Dr. Robertson and his colleagues were trying out another possible germicide—a detergent or “soapless soap” (similar to Dreft, Aerosol and other products widely sold for household and industrial use). Water solutions of the detergent were only mildly effective, so the researchers tried solutions of detergents in propylene glycol, which is a sort of thin glycerine.

    Results were much better. Then the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.

    How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles.

    Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

    Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.

    Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves.

    So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.





    Below is the conclusion of the above tests conducted.


    Tests for the Chronic Toxicity of Propylene Glycol (Glycerin) and Triethylene Glycol on Monkeys and Rats by Vapor Inhalation and Oral Administration


    1 From the Department of Medicine, the Douglas Smith Foundation for Medical Research and the Bartlett Memorial Fund of the University of Chicago and the Commission on Air-Borne Infections, U. S. Army Epidemiological Board

    With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months.

    Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

    Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains.

    Some drying of the skin of the monkeys’ faces occurred after several months continuous exposure to a heavy fog of triethylene glycol. However, when the vapor concentration was maintained just below saturation by means of the glycostat this effect did not occur.

    Examination at autopsy likewise failed to reveal any differences between the animals kept in glycolized air and those living in the ordinary room atmosphere. Extensive histological study of the lungs was made to ascertain whether the glycol had produced any generalized or local irritation. None was found. The kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow also were normal.

    The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless.
    Submitted on June 4, 1947"
     

Share This Page