Exactly! Spread the word, spread the link, and fight for yourself and those you care about because if this goes through your state is not that far behind. (And when they have enough states, their attention will turn to the national level.)
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
Exactly! Spread the word, spread the link, and fight for yourself and those you care about because if this goes through your state is not that far behind. (And when they have enough states, their attention will turn to the national level.)
Careful folks...
In the past (see Indianapolis) the people supporting the bill have claimed that these are form letters sent by electronic cigarette companies.
It can be counter-productive to copy someone else's letter or email.
Please go to the CASAA website where they provide guidance on the things you might want to consider saying...
CASAA: New York State Call to Action
And then take a few minutes it into your own words.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but the more they receive the more they listen.
Last edited:
I believe ya but I'm CRAZZZYYY here at work day in and out and it's tough to find a moment. Anythiing must be better than nothing
emails sent to every one twice. I wrote two diff emails. One last night and one this morning
Anything IS better than nothing, and we have far too many people doing nothing.
But I just wanted to put that out there.
I don't live in NY, but I sent my personal story to everyone on the mailing list, along with the facts CASAA provided. This really is something that matters to all of us- we cannot just sit quietly and wait for it to come to our states, don't let them get traction!
The tax revenue for ciggarettes is enormous in NY.
Dont mess with their "cookie jar"!
Looks liek they will try to ban the sale in public, but they will still be available "online". When they cannot stop the sales of them, they will go for outlawing the "use" of them.
Hang on to your shorts!
California is banning sale of 64oz drinks saying they are making people obese! LOL
Dont mess with their "cookie jar"!
Looks liek they will try to ban the sale in public, but they will still be available "online". When they cannot stop the sales of them, they will go for outlawing the "use" of them.
Hang on to your shorts!
California is banning sale of 64oz drinks saying they are making people obese! LOL
Just re-reading this and this is by no means me saying you folks in New York, shouldn't be doing whatever you can to get politically involved in this but,
the way the bill is written...all it means is someone can't sell you a WHOLE e cigarettes, they can sell you the batteries, the device, and the juice, just not all in one piece
the way the bill is written...all it means is someone can't sell you a WHOLE e cigarettes, they can sell you the batteries, the device, and the juice, just not all in one piece
I'm not sure I agree, and I'm not sure those who read this kind of legislation for a living agree.
If you are convinced that is the case, though, then I invite you to participate in this thread...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...saa-new-york-state-sales-ban-call-action.html
Because over there, things are not looking better necessarily, and in fact they might be looking worse.
And I'm still not sure that I am to the bottom of what this all means yet.
Ok first, I did post in that thread as well, but here's a quote from the proposed bill:
"Section one amends Public Health Law § 1399-aa to define an electronic
cigarette as a battery operated device that contains cartridges filled
with a combination of nicotine, flavor and chemicals that are turned
into vapor which is inhaled by the user."
See all the components you need there to make it illegal? It's got to be a battery operated device (is the sale of batteries illegal? nope) its also got to have a cartridge filled with 3 things namely nicotine, flavor and chemicals (so presumably unflavored nic cartridges are going to be ok) and finally its got to be both a battery powered "device" and contain all these other elements. A battery itelf isn't a "device" it's just a battery. Could be used in any number of devices none of which have cigarette applications.
A cartomizer isn't illegal because if it's delivered to you it could be powered not by a battery but via a passthrough so under this definition it fails to be illegal. Finally, it's got to have flavoring in it. If it doesn't, nope doesnt meet the definition. If you do away with the nic in it, nope, doesnt meet the legal definition. If they liquid is OUTSIDE the cartidge, again, doesn't meet the definition.
Are you selling an e-cigarette backwood brew? No sir, we don't even sell devices. I mean how are they going to handle that?
You should definitely do whatever you can to thwart this stupidity, but don't panic.
Lawmakers propose bills all the time that have no chance of surviving legal challenges.
This is one of them.
They can no more ban e-cigs than they can ban cigarettes. They occupy the same legal niche as tobacco products. By longstanding precedent achieved in court by BT, neither the states nor the federal government can ban the sale of tobacco products.
They can tax them to death. They can restrict their use so heavily they create a de-facto ban, they can do just about anything short of a ban. But they cannot impose an outright ban on the sale of e-cigs. States that are notoriously anti-ecig, like Utah for example, would have banned e-cigs outright if they had the legal authority.
This is an election year, so expect many politicians to propose a whole rash of laws that could never be upheld in court. The do it all the time in a cynical attempt to buy campaign contributions and get their faces in the news. They know full well that even if their ridiculous bills were passed, they'd never be upheld. But these proposals serve their purpose, gaining their sponsors publicity and support from the idgits who don't know any better.
Look around for a state, city or county that has banned the sale of cigarettes. Can't find one? That's because they can't, and don't think there aren't some cities and small municipalities that would have banned cigarettes if they could. Some people would argue, erroneously, that the only reason the feds don't ban cigs is because of the taxes. But smaller jurisdictions, like cities or counties, don't share enough revenue from tobacco taxes to preclude their ban. San Francisco would ban cigarettes if they could get away with it, but they can't. States and cities can ban the sale of alcohol or trans-fat or soda over 16oz. None of those have gained the legal protection enjoyed by tobacco products.
Only the FDA can ban e-cigs and, since the courts have ruled they are tobacco products, all they can do now is to regulate them. Congress can't ban tobacco products, only tax them to death. If Congress and the FDA can't ban e-cigs, the state of NY certainly can't. "States Rights" only extends so far.
Lawmakers propose bills all the time that have no chance of surviving legal challenges.
This is one of them.
They can no more ban e-cigs than they can ban cigarettes. They occupy the same legal niche as tobacco products. By longstanding precedent achieved in court by BT, neither the states nor the federal government can ban the sale of tobacco products.
They can tax them to death. They can restrict their use so heavily they create a de-facto ban, they can do just about anything short of a ban. But they cannot impose an outright ban on the sale of e-cigs. States that are notoriously anti-ecig, like Utah for example, would have banned e-cigs outright if they had the legal authority.
This is an election year, so expect many politicians to propose a whole rash of laws that could never be upheld in court. The do it all the time in a cynical attempt to buy campaign contributions and get their faces in the news. They know full well that even if their ridiculous bills were passed, they'd never be upheld. But these proposals serve their purpose, gaining their sponsors publicity and support from the idgits who don't know any better.
Look around for a state, city or county that has banned the sale of cigarettes. Can't find one? That's because they can't, and don't think there aren't some cities and small municipalities that would have banned cigarettes if they could. Some people would argue, erroneously, that the only reason the feds don't ban cigs is because of the taxes. But smaller jurisdictions, like cities or counties, don't share enough revenue from tobacco taxes to preclude their ban. San Francisco would ban cigarettes if they could get away with it, but they can't. States and cities can ban the sale of alcohol or trans-fat or soda over 16oz. None of those have gained the legal protection enjoyed by tobacco products.
Only the FDA can ban e-cigs and, since the courts have ruled they are tobacco products, all they can do now is to regulate them. Congress can't ban tobacco products, only tax them to death. If Congress and the FDA can't ban e-cigs, the state of NY certainly can't. "States Rights" only extends so far.
Please read this quote...
Which comes from this thread...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...saa-new-york-state-sales-ban-call-action.html
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the tactics involved AFTER you have read the links in the quote from Vocalek above.
Last edited:
This is as important to all of you who are new as it is to those who have been here for awhile. None of us want this taken away from us.ATTENTION ALL VAPERS!! NEW YORK needs your HELP!!
We need to POUNDwith emails and phone calls ESPECIALLY Sen. HANNON so we can save lives
and stop this bill from being passed..
Sen Hannon is in bed with the Tobacco Companies from what I heard from a friend that lives in New York..
Introduced by Sen. HANNON
BILL NUMBER:S7635
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the public health law, in relation to prohibiting the sale of
electronic cigarettes
PURPOSE:
To prohibit the sale or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one amends Public Health Law § 1399-aa to define an electronic
cigarette as a battery operated device that contains cartridges filled
with a combination of nicotine, flavor and chemicals that are turned
into vapor which is inhaled by the user.
Section two adds a section § 1399-11-2 to prohibit the sale or
offering for sale any electronic cigarette.
Section three provides that the act shall take effect on the first of
January succeeding its enactment.
JUSTIFICATION:= BS
Electronic cigarettes are products designed to deliver nicotine and
other substance to a use in the form of a vapor. They are typically
composed of a rechargeable, battery-operated heating element, a
replaceable cartridge that may contain nicotine or other chemicals,
and an atomizer that, when heated, converts the contents of the
cartridge into vapor.
In 2009, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press
release warning individuals about the safety of electronic
cigarettes. Their laboratory analysis revealed that some electronic
cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene
glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans. In
February 2012, a 57 year old man reportedly suffered severe injuries
when an electronic cigarette exploded in his mouth.
S7635-2011 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Prohibits the sale or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes - New York State Senate
Here are there email addresses..
hannon@nysenate.gov, skelos@nysenate.gov, alesi@nysenate.gov, breslin@nysenate.gov, dilan@nysenate.gov, duane@nysenate.gov, farley@nysenate.gov, fuschill@nysenate.gov, hassellt@nysenate.gov, ojohnson@nysenate.gov, lkrueger@nysenate.gov, larkin@nysenate.gov, lavalle@nysenate.gov, senator@senatorlibous.com, marcelli@nysenate.gov, maziarz@nysenate.gov, montgome@nysenate.gov, nozzolio@nysenate.gov, parker@nysenate.gov, perkins@nysenate.gov, saland@nysenate.gov, sampson@nysenate.gov, seward@nysenate.gov, skelos@nysenate.gov, masmith@nysenate.gov, scousins@nysenate.gov
For more info..http://blog.casaa.org/2012/06/new-york-state-call-to-action.html
PLEASE PEOPLE WE NEED EVERYONE TO HELP!!!! GO TO THE LINK ABOVE!!
THANK YOU!!!
Please read this quote...
Which comes from this thread...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...saa-new-york-state-sales-ban-call-action.html
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the tactics involved AFTER you have read the links in the quote from Vocalek above.
Taxation is undoubtedly the real goal here, in my opinion.
Years ago, I used to order cigarettes online for much cheaper than I could buy them locally in NYC. After about a year of getting my cigarettes this way, I received a letter in the mail one day from the NY Dept of Taxation and Finance, ordering me to cough up the unpaid local taxes on said cigarettes. Needless to say it was a nice chunck of change, but I paid it within the timeframe they gave me rather than face additional penalties, fees, etc.
The Public Health Law cited in those articles Vocalek linked to, the laws that allow NY authorities to go after online cigarette vendors and their customers for tax revenue, well those are the same sections of Public Health Law that the Hannon bill seeks to amend to include "Electronic Cigarettes."
And although the bill as it is currently drafted defines "electronic cigarettes" in a very narrow scope, I imagine it would be very simple to amend again to include nicotine ejuice.
The government wants their sin tax money, and they're not going to stand for a bunch of ex-smokers "cheating" them out of it by vaping instead.
All of which is a very different thing than a ban of the sale of e-cigs in NY.
Anyway, this bill was proposed as a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the assembly couldn't even pass a bill to prohibit the sale of e-cigs to minors. It's going exactly nowhere and is at the bottom of a long list of things they won't have time to address this session. Even the sponsors admit it was done to spur discussion. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
Anyway, this bill was proposed as a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the assembly couldn't even pass a bill to prohibit the sale of e-cigs to minors. It's going exactly nowhere and is at the bottom of a long list of things they won't have time to address this session. Even the sponsors admit it was done to spur discussion. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
I forgot to add, the current (on the books) law already includes "nicotine water" in the definition of "tobacco products," so why not nicotine e-liquids? I can easily see that being added.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
N.Y. PBH. LAW § 1399-aa : NY Code - Section 1399-AA: Definitions
As used in this article:
1. "Enforcement officer" means the enforcement officer designated
pursuant to article thirteen-E of this chapter to enforce such article
and hold hearings pursuant thereto; provided that in a city with a
population of more than one million it shall also mean an officer or
employee or any agency of such city that is authorized to enforce any
local law of such city related to the regulation of the sale of tobacco
products to minors.
2. "Food service establishment" means any area, including outdoor
seating areas, in which the business is the sale of food for on-premises
consumption.
3. "Person" means a person, firm, company, corporation, partnership,
sole proprietor, limited partnership or association.
4. "Private club" means an organization with no more than an
insignificant portion of its membership comprised of people under the
age of eighteen years that regularly receives dues and/or payments from
its members for the use of space, facilities and services.
5. "Tobacco products" means one or more cigarettes or cigars, bidis,
chewing tobacco, powdered tobacco, nicotine water or any other tobacco
products.
6. "Herbal cigarette" means any product made primarily of an herb or
combination of herbs, and intended to be smoked in any of the methods
that tobacco is smoked, including but not limited to, as a cigarette,
cigar or pipe filler.
7. "Bidis" means a product containing tobacco that is wrapped in
temburni leaf (diospyros melanoxylon) or tendra leaf (diospyros
exculpra), or any other product offered to consumers as "beedies" or
"bidis".
8. "Tobacco business" means a sole proprietorship, corporation,
limited liability company, partnership or other enterprise in which the
primary activity is the sale, manufacture or promotion of tobacco,
tobacco products and accessories, either at wholesale or retail, and in
which the sale, manufacture or promotion of other products is merely
incidental.
9. "Factory" means any mill or other manufacturing establishment where
one or more persons are employed in manufacturing including making,
altering, repairing, finishing, bottling, canning, cleaning or
laundering any article or thing.
10. "Gutka" means a product containing lime paste, spices, areca and
tobacco.
11. "Nicotine water" means bottled water that is laced with nicotine.
triditional cigarette bring more tax, electronic safter and no much tax. no much profit. more healthy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
