So if this is ruled in favor, when will the bill go into effect? I thought it was a "defacto" ban on ALL online sales, not just an increased delivery charge/added hassle?
CA vote STILL GOING!! - action needed NOW by 5/23/14!
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The very best of luck to everyone involved in this issue. I know you'll all fight hard.
I added that term because, to me, that seems how it will play out: if you are a legal CA business (maybe also in other States when all this settles down) then you will be adding $10 costs to a $10 order. If you are a grey market business then you just ship as normal, no age ID, no sig required, no adult age check for the sig. Therefore people will buy on the grey market. Who is going to buy from legal traders when it doubles the cost of a small order?
This is a tax on online sales designed to shrink the business as much as possible. It isn't for protecting minors or health or anything like that: it's to remove online sales as far as possible. So I added my interpretation in order that the issue becomes clearer: it is not about a couple extra dollars ('de facto' means in practice, for all practical purposes). OK it won't make much difference on a $200 order but CA businesses might not exist or might only be in B&M after a time. Then when this sort of thing becomes universal, as it got passed in CA first and that is often the way it goes, the overall effect will be devastating on the legal trade.
The black market will always exist, but suggesting we can rely on that is not the solution we need. Anyway, the way things are going, it will become an offense to buy on the grey or black market at some point. They want to tell you what you can buy, when you can buy it, who you can buy it from, and what you will pay - and don't forget it will be about 1% of what we have now if they succeed.
Probably too late to reach my assemblyman before the meeting today, but sent anyway... thanks for the link.
It almost seems like California tries to find ways to drive business out of the state, even Hollywood and the porno business is fleeing because of taxes and regulations. Los Angeles has the worst job growth of any metropolitan area in the USA in the last 25 years including Detroit and Cleveland. Texas has rolled out the red carpet to their state for our businesses and it seems like the politicians here helped them unfurl it half way.
I don't see how the 18-20 year old requirement could be enforced. If 19 year old requests signature confirmation after having provided "full name, birth date, and residential address" to the seller, then the requirements of the bill will have been met. To the degree this is disputed, it would be a matter of legal decision, but one that given the way the bill is written, I would say would greatly favor the 19 year old legal buyer. 19 year old legal buyer could take extra step at time of delivery and show mail delivery person their state issued I.D. Mail delivery person may say, "I don't need to see that" but 19 year old will have fulfilled their duty under the law.
Delivery confirmation costs $2.90 from USPS and about same at UPS.
While that extra charge stinks, I don't see what the 'fair' alternative is to those who keep advocating for 'no sales to minors' and I mean those persons who are vapers and support such age restrictions.
I'm out of state and wish I could help. I did write Dickinson in Jan. 2014 when AB 1500 was previously up for discussion. Bill text has changed a lot since I last looked at it (in January).
If this bill is defeated, I'll call that a good thing, but it will mean that people under 18 will be able to get eCigs online. I'm very okay with that. Are you? (That being a general "you.")
Contacted my assemblymember.
"I am opposed to AB 1500. Vaping nicotine offers reduced health risk to Californians who smoke or smoked tobacco products. AB 1500 imposes a financial penalty on Californians like me who choose to vape and not to smoke. If you want to impede minors from vaping nicotine fine them for possession of the products. Don't penalize adults who obey the law and choose a reduced risk alternative to smoking tobacco."
"I am opposed to AB 1500. Vaping nicotine offers reduced health risk to Californians who smoke or smoked tobacco products. AB 1500 imposes a financial penalty on Californians like me who choose to vape and not to smoke. If you want to impede minors from vaping nicotine fine them for possession of the products. Don't penalize adults who obey the law and choose a reduced risk alternative to smoking tobacco."
You're asking the wrong person. I grew up in the day and age of cigarette machines and everyone of any age smoking anywhere they wanted. If people didn't want their kids to smoke, they didn't let them.
Apparently so.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...b1500-assigned-committee-75.html#post13208986
The text of the bill is here Bill Text - AB-1500 Electronic cigarettes.
According to the text of AB 1500, it only covers ecigs. “(4) “Electronic cigarette” has the same meaning as defined in Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code.” The entire text of Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code is:
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 119405
119405. (a) To the extent not preempted by federal law, including,
but not limited to, the regulation of electronic cigarettes by the
United States Food and Drug Administration, it shall be unlawful for
a person to sell or otherwise furnish an electronic cigarette, as
defined in subdivision (b), to a person under 18 years of age.
(b) "Electronic cigarette" means a device that can provide an
inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution.
(c) A violation of this section shall be an infraction punishable
by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for the first
violation, by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for
the second violation, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000) for a third or subsequent violation.
(d) Nothing in this section nor any other law shall be construed
to invalidate an existing ordinance of, or prohibit the adoption of
an ordinance by, a city or county that regulates the distribution of
electronic cigarettes in a manner that is more restrictive than this
section, to the extent that the ordinance is not otherwise prohibited
by federal law.
CA Codes (hsc:119405)
Not terribly bright are they?
Not sure how Calif. Is going to make money out of this when they can’t even enforce it. Do they have ecig sniffing dogs? Are they going to x-ray all packages? Cop going to sit there while you open all your mail to make sure you only ordered batteries and cotton balls? All the extra cost of ordering goes to the mail carriers and vendors.
ETA - Should also add that this bill is a financial disaster to California employees and businesses. Our government at work.
This is a feel-good bill pandering to insecure parents, BT and BP for voter ($) support.
ETA – Now that I’ve written this they seem to have caught on to the idiotic wording of an ecig.
Last edited:
I've always wondered about the wording. I mean, a drip tip is not an ecig, a metal tube with a button and a 510 connection is not (Saber touch flashlight anyone?), an atty is not and a battery is not an ecig. Even flavored PG or VG is still not necessarily elqiuid. Of course there's always nicotine, but an ecig an eliquid is just a matter of parts -- at what level are any of those parts an ecig?
In the case of any pre-assembled gear/with included nicotine liquid in a delivery system I can almost understand what may constitute an ecig, but setting that aside (which I did in 2011), it still seems to me to be a case where the only legal issue (something that can't truly be proven otherwise) can come from anything pre-assembled. Not that I agree with that, but I look at all the many parts of my gear (most of which is all bought separately) and I am struggling to find where the "ecig" actually is!
To be honest, I’m kind of amused that they now have to squeeze through that sticky wicket of what constitutes and ecig. Is my 510 flashlight an ecig? Once they think they have it figured out, they’ll probably just get sued.
I buy everything separately. Are they going to include 0mg juice? Not a tobacco product and not addictive. Have to sign for 18350 batteries? Wire? Nicotrol?
I buy everything separately. Are they going to include 0mg juice? Not a tobacco product and not addictive. Have to sign for 18350 batteries? Wire? Nicotrol?
Interestingly, with that wording if you put some UnFlavored 26mg Mixing E- Liquid into a fog machine, which is no problem to do at all, it immediately becomes an e-cig.
This bill apparently did not pass this stage. Congrats to all to worked to oppose it! 
Superb news and well done to all involved. Must be noted, however, that this is not the end I the matter...
Yeah, good luck with that definition. It should keep them busy for a while. Hopefully past the midterm elections.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
