You don't have to. I choose not to believe the fear mongering...
Arizona Call to Action: HB 2648
- Thread starter powerband
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You don't have to. I choose not to believe the fear mongering...
A little history lesson in case you forgot just how bad these companies are ...
I will NEVER trust a tobacco or drug company or public health agency again. That's the fall out that they are toying with. They are discrediting themselves by buddying up. I think many of these people pushing for legislation have significantly underestimated the amount of backlash.
Last edited:
Steve, I am really puzzled by your position. The problem that we had with this bill was that the legal framework was vague and the punishments are high. This bill was pushed from a seat of piety without perspective. The American Cancer Society was not for this bill either when we had talked with them, they believed it was redundant. What vendor in their right mind would try to target children with their juice line. Even if you were a sociopath and only saw money, children don't have it and already can't buy the product.
What is your point about Halo and Johnson Creek? Not everyone likes tobacco flavors, so do you expect them to plug their nose and toot it down in an ineffective act of self preservation. Get real and get involved. You aren't going to change anything by making your clouds smaller, your flavors more unappealing, or your bottle design more flat. You can be complacent and it's your right. If you are complacent, you also have no right to complain down the road when the letter of the law gets twisted in a way that negatively effects you.
What is your point about Halo and Johnson Creek? Not everyone likes tobacco flavors, so do you expect them to plug their nose and toot it down in an ineffective act of self preservation. Get real and get involved. You aren't going to change anything by making your clouds smaller, your flavors more unappealing, or your bottle design more flat. You can be complacent and it's your right. If you are complacent, you also have no right to complain down the road when the letter of the law gets twisted in a way that negatively effects you.
Have you seen some juice names and bottle designs? While I don't think they are targeted at children, the are targeted at young adults, if not teens,which is probably close enough for some politicians. The bill is too vague to pass and never will. Given the incorrect link in the OP, I actually don't think anyone else read the bill. If you don't see how some of the vendors will have to change names and bottle designs to meet FDA regulations, you are in for a big surprise...
Yeah well this is about NOW. The FDA stuff is much further down the pipeline, so that doesn't justify inaction.
Are they trying to advertise to children or are they trying to capture the nostalgia of foods from the past that self respecting adults no longer eat? Are the colors on bottles vibrant to appeal to kids, or to make your bottles stand out on the shelf? If a kid wants trix, they'll eat trix, they aren't going to be on the fence about nicotine until it tastes like Trix, understand? There may be some off the handle examples of bad marketing, but my point is that the media is already saying that children are being targeted based on logical fallacies. The last thing we need is for these statements to carry legal authority.
Are they trying to advertise to children or are they trying to capture the nostalgia of foods from the past that self respecting adults no longer eat? Are the colors on bottles vibrant to appeal to kids, or to make your bottles stand out on the shelf? If a kid wants trix, they'll eat trix, they aren't going to be on the fence about nicotine until it tastes like Trix, understand? There may be some off the handle examples of bad marketing, but my point is that the media is already saying that children are being targeted based on logical fallacies. The last thing we need is for these statements to carry legal authority.
Last edited:
Redundant bills cost more money than they are worth. I could just as easily say "ban the tobacco flavors" because they keep smokers hooked on smoking tobacco flavor. They are worried about "renormalizing" smoking, so why not restrict the sales of all cig-a-likes too? (I'm actually for getting rid of ecigs that look like cigarettes, aka candy cigarettes) That would reduce confusion and wouldn't normalize or glamorize smoking.
Yes people did read it. ECF is not the only source of local information. In fact ECF is used probably the least by vapors in Az. There is a state website for b&M's, there are more group meets per month than I can count, several are happening every weekend and most groups have several FB pages; general discussion, DIY, Cloud chasers, buying and trading. The state is very active vaping. I think the results are obvious too. One county is solid red and the rest are blue. So it's not a partisan issue. So far, the only bill that's made it through the legislature was one supported by the vaping community to limit the legal age that products could be sold to. A lot of public health agencies were vocal against it, which didn't work in their favor.
I live in a town of 500k and the vape meets top 200 every month with a total of several thousand members. Not too shabby IMO. There are over 11 good, supportive, active b&m's within the city limits and I've got 5 just minutes away.
The bill was read by all. There have been several threads discussing this one and the one on taxes. Goodall has even voiced his opinion as well as CASAA. There are at least 2 groups with professional lobbyist's and being the home of NJoy, they have contributed quite a bit to keeping legislation from appearing in this state.
Yes, I wanted to see more active discussion on ECF because states learn from each other. A bill in one state will often pop up in several states with nearly the exact same wording.
I know from experience in this state that broad and vague terms are intentional to allow others to apply the narrowest definition possible when it suits them. That has happened with many issues, not just vaping. If anything it was a nicely worded attempt to apply plain packaging and that would discourage future smokers from transitioning to vaping, and continue buying cigarettes.
Even though I don't like your taste in eliquid, I wouldn't want to take it away from you - so why would you want to remove mine? I think this state benefits greatly by allowing individual shops to customize eliquids. Some of the best flavors have been local and they do have clean rooms. I would rather see local health regulations and inspectors check premises with workers getting specific health cards. I think that would be more practical and focus more on health and safety. But so far, there has never been an issue to require it.
I am against corporations eliminating small shops and vendors because I think there is a serious lack of transparency that creates an enivorement vunerable to shady practices such as adding additives that make an eliquid more addicting, like what has happened in the past. To my knowledge, the only labeling requirement FDA has is "natural and artifical flavors added" and that is not enough for me. Currently I know much more about my eliquids than I would under this labeling law or under FDA regulation.
There is no evidence labels attract kids since the juices targeted are sold in vape shops. Kids are not browsing them in convienence or drug stores like they might do with nic gums / patches / and other adult items. They are not sold next to the candy aisle.
However, I'm not going to restrict you from vaping big no ingrediant or source listed juices that may or may not be bottled in the US, using flavors and additives that no one knows about, under whatever standards they volunteerly have with no inspections required. You can take their word for it.
I also know local tobacco distributors have spread a lot of fear mongering to smoke shops against locally made juices (made in a bathtub) since, after all, their largest products are from the tobacco companies who were in full support of this bill.
Yes people did read it. ECF is not the only source of local information. In fact ECF is used probably the least by vapors in Az. There is a state website for b&M's, there are more group meets per month than I can count, several are happening every weekend and most groups have several FB pages; general discussion, DIY, Cloud chasers, buying and trading. The state is very active vaping. I think the results are obvious too. One county is solid red and the rest are blue. So it's not a partisan issue. So far, the only bill that's made it through the legislature was one supported by the vaping community to limit the legal age that products could be sold to. A lot of public health agencies were vocal against it, which didn't work in their favor.
I live in a town of 500k and the vape meets top 200 every month with a total of several thousand members. Not too shabby IMO. There are over 11 good, supportive, active b&m's within the city limits and I've got 5 just minutes away.
The bill was read by all. There have been several threads discussing this one and the one on taxes. Goodall has even voiced his opinion as well as CASAA. There are at least 2 groups with professional lobbyist's and being the home of NJoy, they have contributed quite a bit to keeping legislation from appearing in this state.
Yes, I wanted to see more active discussion on ECF because states learn from each other. A bill in one state will often pop up in several states with nearly the exact same wording.
I know from experience in this state that broad and vague terms are intentional to allow others to apply the narrowest definition possible when it suits them. That has happened with many issues, not just vaping. If anything it was a nicely worded attempt to apply plain packaging and that would discourage future smokers from transitioning to vaping, and continue buying cigarettes.
Even though I don't like your taste in eliquid, I wouldn't want to take it away from you - so why would you want to remove mine? I think this state benefits greatly by allowing individual shops to customize eliquids. Some of the best flavors have been local and they do have clean rooms. I would rather see local health regulations and inspectors check premises with workers getting specific health cards. I think that would be more practical and focus more on health and safety. But so far, there has never been an issue to require it.
I am against corporations eliminating small shops and vendors because I think there is a serious lack of transparency that creates an enivorement vunerable to shady practices such as adding additives that make an eliquid more addicting, like what has happened in the past. To my knowledge, the only labeling requirement FDA has is "natural and artifical flavors added" and that is not enough for me. Currently I know much more about my eliquids than I would under this labeling law or under FDA regulation.
There is no evidence labels attract kids since the juices targeted are sold in vape shops. Kids are not browsing them in convienence or drug stores like they might do with nic gums / patches / and other adult items. They are not sold next to the candy aisle.
However, I'm not going to restrict you from vaping big no ingrediant or source listed juices that may or may not be bottled in the US, using flavors and additives that no one knows about, under whatever standards they volunteerly have with no inspections required. You can take their word for it.
I also know local tobacco distributors have spread a lot of fear mongering to smoke shops against locally made juices (made in a bathtub) since, after all, their largest products are from the tobacco companies who were in full support of this bill.
Last edited:
The number one advertisment to young adults is the word "ban". That's a well tested method to get their interest and based on results, I'd say it's working. Before ecigs made headlines from legislation, most kids thought the contraptions their parents had were weird and looked stupid.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Want to give kids guaranteed easy access to shady products, do a total ban. I'll give an example with children in another context(no I'm not going there). When and Tango Makes Three was banned from Gibbs Elementary in Rochester, New York the interest in the book sky rocketed. Librarian Kimberly Edson stated that the hold list went from 2 to 15 in a two day period. The public discourse of sanctimonious parents create the perfect advertisement for youth, they don't need anyone elses help....
I just reviewed the Status of this bill and it is in Government and Higher Education committee. It has been tabled in committee for re-write. That as of 19 Feb.
It is a very vague bill.
Just an update...
It is a very vague bill.
Just an update...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
