Are you listening to this?!
- Thread starter AudreySchroder
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
.
Listening Ms. Audrey. Only bad part is heard a blurb on the radio this afternoon that it passed, just can't find any story on-line that it did.... Hoping it was mis-reported.
I am sorry to say I am not surprised .This state is often one of the first to police its citizens and regulate ( for good and bad ) ....
There are already some counties where you cannot smoke if you live in an apt .
The city of Carmel once had a law that you could not walk downtown with an ice cream cone ,no lie .Clint Eastwood the former mayor took that one off the books ....
"ashing " ( flicking your ashes out your car window ) here will get you pulled over and a lecture from an officer ..not even the .... ...
I could go on but you get the picture .
all i can find is SB 648 is set for hearing in april ?
There are already some counties where you cannot smoke if you live in an apt .
The city of Carmel once had a law that you could not walk downtown with an ice cream cone ,no lie .Clint Eastwood the former mayor took that one off the books ....
"ashing " ( flicking your ashes out your car window ) here will get you pulled over and a lecture from an officer ..not even the .... ...
I could go on but you get the picture .
all i can find is SB 648 is set for hearing in april ?
Last edited:
Good news - no decision has been made yet!
I got the following word-for-word from: CASAA: Call to Action! California E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 648 (UPDATED)
"Call to Action! California E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 648 (UPDATED)
California: Attempt to Add E-Cigarettes to "Smoking" Ban -- SB 648
If enacted, this bill would:
Ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned. Among those provisions most likely to impact users are those that would:
Permit landlords to ban e-cigarette use in private homes. (Section 2)
Ban e-cigarette use inside or within 20 feet of any public building or in a vehicle owned by the state. (Section 5)
Ban e-cigarette use in hospitals and medical facilities, except in specifically defined rooms where smoking is allowed (Sections 7 and 8)
Declares that the use of electronic cigarettes is a hazard to the health of the general public, and would include e-cigarettes in all future smoking bans passed in California. (Section 14)
Ban e-cigarette use in workplaces. Violations would be punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500. (Section 15)
Ban e-cigarette use in railroads and air carriers. (Section 16)
UPDATED (3/20/2013): SB 648 has been scheduled for a hearing before the currently pending before the Senate Committee on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Sacramento at the State Capitol Building, Room #4203 (John L. Burton room). Public comment will be heard at the end of the hearing and is open to the public.
If you would like to submit testimony directly to the Health Committee, please email or fax Senate Health Committee Assistant Alex Norring at alex.norring@sen.ca.gov / (916) 324-0384. If emailing, please put "SB 648 Testimony" in the subject line. The deadline for official testimony is April 10th, but you can continue to contact individual legislators up to and after the April 17th hearing..
If you are in California and can travel to Sacramento to attend and speak at a hearing, please e-mail us at board@casaa.org with the subject line "California Testimony." We are going to need vapers throughout California to organize trips to Sacramento. Please help out in any way you can."
At the bottom of the article CASAA has given explicit directions on how you can help.
I got the following word-for-word from: CASAA: Call to Action! California E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 648 (UPDATED)
"Call to Action! California E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 648 (UPDATED)
California: Attempt to Add E-Cigarettes to "Smoking" Ban -- SB 648
If enacted, this bill would:
Ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned. Among those provisions most likely to impact users are those that would:
Permit landlords to ban e-cigarette use in private homes. (Section 2)
Ban e-cigarette use inside or within 20 feet of any public building or in a vehicle owned by the state. (Section 5)
Ban e-cigarette use in hospitals and medical facilities, except in specifically defined rooms where smoking is allowed (Sections 7 and 8)
Declares that the use of electronic cigarettes is a hazard to the health of the general public, and would include e-cigarettes in all future smoking bans passed in California. (Section 14)
Ban e-cigarette use in workplaces. Violations would be punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500. (Section 15)
Ban e-cigarette use in railroads and air carriers. (Section 16)
UPDATED (3/20/2013): SB 648 has been scheduled for a hearing before the currently pending before the Senate Committee on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Sacramento at the State Capitol Building, Room #4203 (John L. Burton room). Public comment will be heard at the end of the hearing and is open to the public.
If you would like to submit testimony directly to the Health Committee, please email or fax Senate Health Committee Assistant Alex Norring at alex.norring@sen.ca.gov / (916) 324-0384. If emailing, please put "SB 648 Testimony" in the subject line. The deadline for official testimony is April 10th, but you can continue to contact individual legislators up to and after the April 17th hearing..
If you are in California and can travel to Sacramento to attend and speak at a hearing, please e-mail us at board@casaa.org with the subject line "California Testimony." We are going to need vapers throughout California to organize trips to Sacramento. Please help out in any way you can."
At the bottom of the article CASAA has given explicit directions on how you can help.
I don't want to appear pessimistic but since i read it and basically they are adding ecigs to already existing laws about smoking ,it will most likely pass .I totally see in their small minds they are trying to pre-empt problems as to people using ecigs where smoking is not allowed already.Since the political climate especially in california is drivin by politicians need for attention and taking a "protective "stance is seen as the most popular in this mostly democratic state .As you can see ,they will justify it because most included here are public ( ie tax money ) funded places ,state run .This is going to be really almost impossible to fight .As to the landlord thing ,i cant see where that came from as a PRIVATE landlord renting a Private home can already specify exactly what they want and dont want their tenants to do ...At least here .They can't specify things like race or marital status legally but you can bet they do all the time .
I can tell you that here ,even the most prepared speakers at the city and county level are only given a chance to be heard because they have to do that ,open minds do not prevail here .
I can tell you that here ,even the most prepared speakers at the city and county level are only given a chance to be heard because they have to do that ,open minds do not prevail here .
In California, freedom is not encouraged. It will soon be so heavily regulated that people with bad breath will not be allowed to breathe! Born and raised here, but want to get the hell out ASAP!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
