Bill defeated in Virginia!

[Bad Ninja]

I even suggested the quit bashing vaping and provide us with e-liquids on Twitter and their website.

If they were as smart as they think they are they would make a quality regulated device and a matching RDA and RTA, instead of pushing those cig a likes.
Do they realize how much juice we go through?
Lol
I blow through more juice every month than a suitcase of cig a likes.

Not to mention they could dominate the entire equipment market with it less cash than it takes to lobby one state for a ban.

 

[OlderNDirt]

Your "voice" is better heard when your elected officials know you will vote them out of a job.

In this instance, there are 2 major problems with this logic:

1. I have yet to see a supreme court justice's name on a ballot. You are probably not aware a lower court found in favor of the objection to the ban's exemptions.

2. Your "voice" is easily ignored when your elected officials know you don't have the numbers to vote them out of a job. Unfortunately, that will likely be the problem in voicing objections to vaping bans.

 

[crxess]

In this instance, there are 2 major problems with this logic:

1. I have yet to see a supreme court justice's name on a ballot. You are probably not aware a lower court found in favor of the objection to the ban's exemptions.

2. Your "voice" is easily ignored when your elected officials know you don't have the numbers to vote them out of a job. Unfortunately, that will likely be the problem in voicing objections to vaping bans.

So one should fold, roll over, accept defeat?
Then surely the war will have been won. So long as there is even a single voice of reason there is a chance things will eventually change.

Should you choose defeat, I have no quarrel. Hopefully someone else will step up in your place.

 

[Racehorse]

Just goes to show that sometimes you your supposed enemies can be your ally.

Not everyone here has considered, or presently considers, Big Tobacco to be an "enemy". Just sayin'

You know, you make enemies of everybody and everyone, and there really isn't anyone left to stand with.

There's a number of situations where smart people know who to climb in bed with for brief periods of time, esp. when you have a few things in common. This is the way it's always been done.

There is no room for purists at the bargaining table. If you've ever BEEN to the bargaining table then you know what I'm saying.

 

[beckdg]

Altria wants the addiction racket and the failure at curing your addiction racket BP corners the market on all to their own.

Good for them.

Wonder what "better for your health" concoctions are coming down the pipeline...

Tapatyped

 

[motordude]

Not everyone here has considered, or presently considers, Big Tobacco to be an "enemy". Just sayin'

You know, you make enemies of everybody and everyone, and there really isn't anyone left to stand with.

There's a number of situations where smart people know who to climb in bed with for brief periods of time, esp. when you have a few things in common. This is the way it's always been done.

There is no room for purists at the bargaining table. If you've ever BEEN to the bargaining table then you know what I'm saying.

So true. I don't really see anyone as an enemy. Just trying to get the point that everyone likes to have some enemies, if only in their minds.

 

[Toronnah]

With regards to BT fighting the government over e-cigs brings to mind the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Maybe we don't trust BT, but they certainly will be useful in preventing an outright prohibition.

 

[Bad Ninja]

In this instance, there are 2 major problems with this logic:

1. I have yet to see a supreme court justice's name on a ballot. You are probably not aware a lower court found in favor of the objection to the ban's exemptions.

2. Your "voice" is easily ignored when your elected officials know you don't have the numbers to vote them out of a job. Unfortunately, that will likely be the problem in voicing objections to vaping bans.

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)

2. If you believe your vote doesn't count you are mistaken, and already beaten.
But don't waste your breath trying to convince me to lay down.

 

[Hans Wermhat]

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)


What about their decision on Obamacare. That time they wrote new law.

 

[crxess]

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)


What about their decision on Obamacare. That time they wrote new law.

Supreme Court ObamaCare | Ruling on ObamaCare

I do not believe the SCJ's wrote anything into Obamacare. Their task was to rule on Strict legality.
I assume that is why Government enlist attorneys to review Bills(OMB)

Legislative Analyst (or Attorney)

We do not have to like or even want a law for it to be legal. However, just because a law is legal does not make it Necessary or Required.

 

[beckdg]

I wonder if them going forward w/e-cigs and fighting legislation isn't somehow motivated as a PR campaign.

Tapatyped

 

[Vaslovik]

BT's big boy opposing a ban on e-cig use??????? Whaaaaaaaat??????????

Yeah, well seeing that BT wants to own vaping outright I'm not surprised. They see the handwriting on the wall, and and they aren't stupid, just evil and greedy. They want to outlaw open system vaping, in favor of their own closed systems, which down the road are likely to contain all the nasty chemicals they now put in cigarettes in the same game they have always played, just in a new format. A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

 

[Bad Ninja]

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)


What about their decision on Obamacare. That time they wrote new law.

The SCOTUS has never written a law.

They do not have that authority.

They ruled on the legality of the law, as per their job.
We have 3 branches of government:
Judicial (which includes SCOTUS), legislative (Congress), and Executive (The President).

Concerning laws:

Only the legislative branch of government has the authority to enact law.

The judicial branch rules on the legality of law.

The Executive branch enforces law.


This used to be required learning in 8th grade.

 

[Hans Wermhat]

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)

They did it anyway. Go back and read their ruling on the legality of the fines for not having insurance. It reads like an "interpretation" is you just peruse it, but if you really break it down, they wrote tax law. They also countermanded existing law allowing the government to force the citizens to purchase a product (insurance).

This used to be required learning in 8th grade.

It still is. And one would think that a person with a degree in constitutional law would know it, but...

 

[OlderNDirt]

So one should fold, roll over, accept defeat?
Then surely the war will have been won. So long as there is even a single voice of reason there is a chance things will eventually change.

Should you choose defeat, I have no quarrel. Hopefully someone else will step up in your place.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I stated or even implied one or all should "fold, roll over, accept defeat." I merely pointed out, in this instance, Bad Ninja's solution to "voice opinion and vote them out of office" either did not apply or at the least was flawed.

1. They are appointed by an elected official (though the SCJs are not really the issue, as they do not make or decide law, they assess legality of the law)

2. If you believe your vote doesn't count you are mistaken, and already beaten.
But don't waste your breath trying to convince me to lay down.

Again, I did not state nor indicate anybody should "lay down." Voting out legislative members after a law is enacted is of little to no benefit as it relates to said law enacted. It's rare to see a law removed, changed perhaps, but it remains with little change to its original intent. And the SCJ's certainly are a big part of the issue, particularly in this case. They are the final deciding body for those who do "voice their objections" or question the legality of a governing body's actions. And as for this case, they failed:

"In dissent, Justice William Cassel agreed with the majority that the exception for cigar bars is unconstitutional and the exception for some hotel rooms is permissible, but he said the exception for tobacco-only retailers should also stand.

“I recognize that the exemption may not be perfect, in that some nonsmokers may be exposed to secondhand smoke,” Cassel wrote. “But the Legislature is presumed to have acted within its constitutional power despite that, in practice, its laws may result in some inequality.”

Overruling a lower court's decision even though parts of the law are unconstitutional and may result in some inequality? Hotels/motels (imagine that! That industry has a pretty good statewide organization), just another business, no more, no less and tobacco-only (another strong lobby base) retailers are exempt, but the bar in Nebraska's smallest village can be fined and even shut down for one patron lighting up? That, IMHO, is not performing the duties and responsibilities of the position to which they were appointed!

Here's a fine one should you care to listen. A small, neighborhood diner in Lincoln with their small base of regulars is required to ban smoking. Owner of said diner happens to own a motorhome that he parks out behind the diner. A few of his regulars, all smokers, asked if they could get their daily breakfast to go and if they could use his motorhome to enjoy their meal and a smoke afterward. The state stepped in and demanded he stop or be subject to the same fines as if he were allowing it in the diner. Voices were raised, but not enough financial backing to go through the long, drawn out legal process.

Voices were raised and action taken to no avail. So go ahead and vote out the politicians responsible. Maybe, just maybe it will have some effect on the next issue. But for this issue, the damage is done and nothing is going to change with this highly questionable legislation.

I've been around the block a few times. I was personally involved in what may be the biggest anti-government movement in history in the '60's, and I'll leave it at that. No! I am not going to "fold, roll over, accept defeat, or lay down." But at my age, I don't have the stamina or longevity to undertake a fight that goes way beyond a simple state smoking or vaping ban. It's going to take a lot more then a vote to turn this mess around. But that discussion should be on another venue.

Sorry for the long post and accidently going way off topic. I thought my comment was a simple statement about the difference in two state's legislation. I'll step off my soapbox now and confine future comments to the subject at hand.

Way to go, Virginia!

 

[Bad Ninja]

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I stated or even implied one or all should "fold, roll over, accept defeat." I merely pointed out, in this instance, Bad Ninja's solution to "voice opinion and vote them out of office" either did not apply or at the least was flawed.



Again, I did not state nor indicate anybody should "lay down." Voting out legislative members after a law is enacted is of little to no benefit as it relates to said law enacted. It's rare to see a law removed, changed perhaps, but it remains with little change to its original intent. And the SCJ's certainly are a big part of the issue, particularly in this case. They are the final deciding body for those who do "voice their objections" or question the legality of a governing body's actions. And as for this case, they failed:

"In dissent, Justice William Cassel agreed with the majority that the exception for cigar bars is unconstitutional and the exception for some hotel rooms is permissible, but he said the exception for tobacco-only retailers should also stand.

“I recognize that the exemption may not be perfect, in that some nonsmokers may be exposed to secondhand smoke,” Cassel wrote. “But the Legislature is presumed to have acted within its constitutional power despite that, in practice, its laws may result in some inequality.”

Overruling a lower court's decision even though parts of the law are unconstitutional and may result in some inequality? Hotels/motels (imagine that! That industry has a pretty good statewide organization), just another business, no more, no less and tobacco-only (another strong lobby base) retailers are exempt, but the bar in Nebraska's smallest village can be fined and even shut down for one patron lighting up? That, IMHO, is not performing the duties and responsibilities of the position to which they were appointed!

Here's a fine one should you care to listen. A small, neighborhood diner in Lincoln with their small base of regulars is required to ban smoking. Owner of said diner happens to own a motorhome that he parks out behind the diner. A few of his regulars, all smokers, asked if they could get their daily breakfast to go and if they could use his motorhome to enjoy their meal and a smoke afterward. The state stepped in and demanded he stop or be subject to the same fines as if he were allowing it in the diner. Voices were raised, but not enough financial backing to go through the long, drawn out legal process.

Voices were raised and action taken to no avail. So go ahead and vote out the politicians responsible. Maybe, just maybe it will have some effect on the next issue. But for this issue, the damage is done and nothing is going to change with this highly questionable legislation.

I've been around the block a few times. I was personally involved in what may be the biggest anti-government movement in history in the '60's, and I'll leave it at that. No! I am not going to "fold, roll over, accept defeat, or lay down." But at my age, I don't have the stamina or longevity to undertake a fight that goes way beyond a simple state smoking or vaping ban. It's going to take a lot more then a vote to turn this mess around. But that discussion should be on another venue.

Sorry for the long post and accidently going way off topic. I thought my comment was a simple statement about the difference in two state's legislation. I'll step off my soapbox now and confine future comments to the subject at hand.

Way to go, Virginia!

1. Had the citizens voted for qualified representatives, there wouldn't be a problem to address later.
Voting absolutely counts. Apathy doesn't.

2. Read your own bolder text.
It affirms what I posted earlier.
"Legislature" isn't the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rules on the legality and constitutionality of Laws written by legislature.

I'm very active in my community with regard to politics, and I fully understand how our government works.

 

[Bad Ninja]

They did it anyway. Go back and read their ruling on the legality of the fines for not having insurance. It reads like an "interpretation" is you just peruse it, but if you really break it down, they wrote tax law. They also countermanded existing law allowing the government to force the citizens to purchase a product (insurance).


It still is. And one would think that a person with a degree in constitutional law would know it, but...

We aren't discussing illegal actions of officials.
Officials break the law often. So do regular citizens.
An elected official (prosecutor) also refuses to Prosecute them.

Voting for a prosecutor that does their job is a fantastic way to start.

How do you think crooked cops avoid jail time?
The DA refuses to prosecute.

It goes to accountability and oversight (which the current administration is apparently, deathly afraid of).

 

[OlderNDirt]

1. Had the citizens voted for qualified representatives, there wouldn't be a problem to address later.
Voting absolutely counts. Apathy doesn't.

I said I was done, but just can't help myself and have to ask.....

What exactly defines a candidate for political office as "qualified?"

If we can educate all voters, there will never be any problems to address again.

 

[Bad Ninja]

I said I was done, but just can't help myself and have to ask.....

What exactly defines a candidate for political office as "qualified?"

If we can educate all voters, there will never be any problems to address again.

We try to educate them. Some don't seem to value education enough to pay attention in school.

Look at how many adults right here on ECF have no clue how the three branches of government work.


For starters qualified candidate would be one that actually follows the will of the people that elected them above their personal position.

We do not elect "leaders", or "deciders" we elect representatives of the will of the people.

Their job is not to decide for you.
It is to do as the people decide regardless of whether they like it or not.

If more people voted for candidates that represent their will, instead of "the best person to decide for them" we wouldn't be in such a mess, now would we?

 

[YoursTruli]

If nothing else this goes to show these bills can be defeated, good for Virginia! We need to concentrate our efforts at the state and local levels otherwise once they get done banning, taxing and regulating us to death there won't be much of an industry left.