Bumping just means adding a new post to a thread so it gets moved (bumped) back up to the top of the list of threads on the forum instead of being pushed down to page 6 or somewhere no one can find it.
Attention all vapors! N.Y. Vapers need your help!!! Casaa call to action!! Now!!!
- Thread starter ciarlone
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thanks sailorman,
How or why does this happen? I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
How or why does this happen? I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
How or why does what happen?
How or why does a thread get bumped?
How or why does a thread need to be bumped?
How or why would New York try to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes?
I bumped this thread to keep it visible. Most people don't search through a lot of back pages and this is something that is important to all of us. Out right bans need to be stopped before they are enacted upon.
Sorry for not responding right away, went offline for awhile
How or why does bumping happen? Or, how or why do bad bills happen?
Bumping happens any time someone writes a new post in an existing thread. Like right now. If this thread wasn't already on the top of the list, it would move there because I just wrote a new post. The system does it automatically.
Bad bills happen because politicians want to show support for the financial interests of corporations and organizations who they have either prostituted themselves to, or intend to in the future. Whether the bill is legal or can hold up to the flimsiest of court challenges is of no consequence. It's called "grandstanding". A bill is proposed with full knowledge that it will get nowhere and couldn't hold up in court even if it did. The purpose of the bill is to pad the sponsoring legislators resume and show support for the financial interests of whoever has the ability to stuff the politicians war chest.
Bumping happens any time someone writes a new post in an existing thread. Like right now. If this thread wasn't already on the top of the list, it would move there because I just wrote a new post. The system does it automatically.
Bad bills happen because politicians want to show support for the financial interests of corporations and organizations who they have either prostituted themselves to, or intend to in the future. Whether the bill is legal or can hold up to the flimsiest of court challenges is of no consequence. It's called "grandstanding". A bill is proposed with full knowledge that it will get nowhere and couldn't hold up in court even if it did. The purpose of the bill is to pad the sponsoring legislators resume and show support for the financial interests of whoever has the ability to stuff the politicians war chest.
I think Sailorman is bringing up an interesting point...
Hopefully he will correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be saying they can NOT ban electronic cigarettes.
And I assume he is saying that if this bill passes it will have zero chance of holding up in court.
And this is all based on the assumption that electronic cigarettes are a tobacco product.
But are they? Has that been officially decided yet? Does that depend on the FDA and the "deeming" process?
And if they are not tobacco products yet, and this ban passes, would it become invalid if they officially become tobacco products?
So yeah, I'm a little curious about how that works, now that you mention it.
Hopefully he will correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be saying they can NOT ban electronic cigarettes.
And I assume he is saying that if this bill passes it will have zero chance of holding up in court.
And this is all based on the assumption that electronic cigarettes are a tobacco product.
But are they? Has that been officially decided yet? Does that depend on the FDA and the "deeming" process?
And if they are not tobacco products yet, and this ban passes, would it become invalid if they officially become tobacco products?
So yeah, I'm a little curious about how that works, now that you mention it.
Last edited:
The courts have paved the way, with their ruling against the FDA, for e-cigs to be officially deemed tobacco products.
The FDA has little choice but to deem them so. That is inevitable because the only alternative is to leave them entirely unregulated. As much as that may delight us, it ain't going to happen.
Once they are officially deemed tobacco products by the FDA, they cannot be banned and any law banning them would be invalidated. The federal laws overrule any existing state laws with which they conflict. It might take a court case but, more likely, the state government will rescind it to be in compliance with the federal laws. Their biggest concern seems to be the unregulated status, not the loss of tax revenue. They could unilaterally impose a state tax right now if they so desired.
As a practical matter, this law has little to no chance of passing. The sponsor admitted as much and has said that the main reason for introducing it was to "begin a dialog" about e-cigs. Another bill that merely outlawed sales to minors couldn't even get through the process. They NY assembly is evidently backlogged and this particular bill is at the bottom of the pile. This, according to the AP report that was linked to earlier in the thread.
I'm in no way advocating that we be lackadaisical about this. They need to know we're watching lest they get any future ideas of proposing any serious legislation in this vein. But this isn't it.
The FDA has little choice but to deem them so. That is inevitable because the only alternative is to leave them entirely unregulated. As much as that may delight us, it ain't going to happen.
Once they are officially deemed tobacco products by the FDA, they cannot be banned and any law banning them would be invalidated. The federal laws overrule any existing state laws with which they conflict. It might take a court case but, more likely, the state government will rescind it to be in compliance with the federal laws. Their biggest concern seems to be the unregulated status, not the loss of tax revenue. They could unilaterally impose a state tax right now if they so desired.
As a practical matter, this law has little to no chance of passing. The sponsor admitted as much and has said that the main reason for introducing it was to "begin a dialog" about e-cigs. Another bill that merely outlawed sales to minors couldn't even get through the process. They NY assembly is evidently backlogged and this particular bill is at the bottom of the pile. This, according to the AP report that was linked to earlier in the thread.
I'm in no way advocating that we be lackadaisical about this. They need to know we're watching lest they get any future ideas of proposing any serious legislation in this vein. But this isn't it.
No problem Yiddle,
Thanks for the reply, sounds very reasonable. Off subject how do I work with my local NYC vapors to get Person to person instruction?
Thanks for the reply, sounds very reasonable. Off subject how do I work with my local NYC vapors to get Person to person instruction?
What I find interesting is that it's riding on the back of another bill that did pass that banned the sale or offering for sale to NY State analogs through the internet. We used to be able to order cigarettes online. (And of course take our chances that we would be caught and taxed later.) This current bill does not ban me from having e-cigarettes, it bans the sale or offering for sale in NY State.
Are you saying this can not be done Sailorman? It was done with cigarettes, so how is it that it can not be legally done with e-cigarettes? Can you point me to anywhere this would be in writing? I'd like to pass that along to the senate rules committee if that's the case.
Are you saying this can not be done Sailorman? It was done with cigarettes, so how is it that it can not be legally done with e-cigarettes? Can you point me to anywhere this would be in writing? I'd like to pass that along to the senate rules committee if that's the case.
I'm not Yiddle, but I would suggest you find someone who lives near you at the NYC members forum....
NYC Vapers Club
Or find a vendor near you, who could give you instructions....
VaporSearchUSA
Cigarettes weren't banned from sale in NY. They were banned from sale on the internet in NY. They could do that with e-cigs, but that's not the same thing as a ban.
The current bill can be done only insofar as the FDA has not yet ruled e-cigs tobacco products. The courts have already ruled that they are, so it's questionable whether it would hold up even prior to any FDA ruling. But an FDA ruling that they are tobacco products would overrule the NY law with respect to any way they were treated any differently than cigarettes.
All this was part of the big master settlement agreement with the tobacco companies years ago. Part of the deal was that tobacco products, (not restricted to cigarettes), could never be subject to a ban or laws that created a "de-facto" ban. By "de-facto" ban, they meant rules that would, for example, restrict the nicotine content to a level below some specified amount, or require cigs be non-combustible or something like that. Part of the agreement with the states was that, in return for billions of dollars, states would also agree not to ban, either explicitly or "de-facto", tobacco products. The whole agreement was made to avoid billions in lawsuits that the states were threatening to bring against the tobacco companies. It covered tobacco products, both present and future and not limited to cigarettes.
The Senate rules committee is aware of all this. They don't care. They'll do what they want to make their point and if it's challenged in court or over-ridden by federal law, they've made their point and earned their chops with their paymasters. Politicians do this all the time. They pass laws all the time that they know full well are not legally defensible.
The current bill can be done only insofar as the FDA has not yet ruled e-cigs tobacco products. The courts have already ruled that they are, so it's questionable whether it would hold up even prior to any FDA ruling. But an FDA ruling that they are tobacco products would overrule the NY law with respect to any way they were treated any differently than cigarettes.
All this was part of the big master settlement agreement with the tobacco companies years ago. Part of the deal was that tobacco products, (not restricted to cigarettes), could never be subject to a ban or laws that created a "de-facto" ban. By "de-facto" ban, they meant rules that would, for example, restrict the nicotine content to a level below some specified amount, or require cigs be non-combustible or something like that. Part of the agreement with the states was that, in return for billions of dollars, states would also agree not to ban, either explicitly or "de-facto", tobacco products. The whole agreement was made to avoid billions in lawsuits that the states were threatening to bring against the tobacco companies. It covered tobacco products, both present and future and not limited to cigarettes.
The Senate rules committee is aware of all this. They don't care. They'll do what they want to make their point and if it's challenged in court or over-ridden by federal law, they've made their point and earned their chops with their paymasters. Politicians do this all the time. They pass laws all the time that they know full well are not legally defensible.
This would in essence keep me from being able to go to my vendors of choice though. What they did with cigarettes is prevent any vendor within NY from selling online, and prevent any online vendor from selling to anyone in NY. So, my vendors in OH and PA would be unable to sell to me or anyone else in the state. That's where my main concern is. How they would go about classifying the things when we're talking about a battery, and a juice delivery system is another story. Do they ban batteries? What about tanks? How do they keep anyone from making juice when I can buy PG and VG at the drug store?
There are a lot of questions, but even if they are grandstanding, they need to know that some of us can and will be very vocal about it.
See, that's the thing. They can't. They might be stupid enough not to know it, or they might know it and that's o.k. because they are grandstanding. I'm sure when you say e-cig to them, the picture on the FDA site comes to mind and that's their total perception of it. It looks like a cigarette and there's an LED in the end. Even the definition they have written into the law wouldn't cover any of the individual components. So, Smokelessimage wouldn't be able to ship to NY. Except they could probably ship the X2 battery. Put an LED in a vision clearomizer and it's a flashlight. Duh!
But don't let up on them. Call them out on their idiocy. It may very well deter them from attempting to actually impose an effective ban in the future. But pols will always propose stupid, illegal, unenforceable and indefensible laws. That's what they do. Thousands of lawyers would be unemployed if they didn't.
Last edited:
Unfortunately also here (far away Israel) the politicians go hand by hand with the industry
Maybe we should propose a ban on stupidity instead. How many more people have explosions every Thanksgiving trying to deep fry a turkey than in the years since e-cigs came out? Seriously ridiculous!!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
