California about to pass resolution calling for ban on e-cig sales

Status
Not open for further replies.

chad

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 6, 2009
512
101
NY, USA
cybervapor.com
+1 , seriously that's insane.

I'm sorry, but please, does anyone expect politicos to ever be logical with their decisions?

In any case, I've got letters out to my reps and I'll be faxing and emailing them as well. Just gotta make a little noise so they know their stupidity actually affects someone.
 

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
I still see the bill as little more than official buck passing. They could ban them in the state, but then the howls from the vapers and smokers wondering WTF would be loud enough for them to be comitting political suicide.

So they're saying "FDA, make a decision so we don't have to do anything that would risk our political careers. It's chicken and disgusting, but it's caving in to the antis without really doing anything.
 

ratthevol

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 24, 2009
41
2
So. Cal
hell yea to the part time legislature!!!

I pray for nothing short of a complete meltdown in Cali. I get much joy in the fact that I am screwing Cali out of tax money every day that I don't smoke thanks to my 510. It only been like 38 days and Cali is missing more than $60 from me in that time. Someone should try to turn John and Ken from 640 am onto this.
 

Mr_Slippery

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 9, 2009
76
0
I still see the bill as little more than official buck passing. They could ban them in the state, but then the howls from the vapers and smokers wondering WTF would be loud enough for them to be comitting political suicide.

So they're saying "FDA, make a decision so we don't have to do anything that would risk our political careers. It's chicken and disgusting, but it's caving in to the antis without really doing anything.[/quote]

Exactly. The FDA consists of unelected officials, to do the bidding of the 'knowitalls' so that they can have a 'level of separation' from any policy that may become unpopular.

It's like a casino where all the games are designed to favor the house.
 

vapn

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 10, 2009
3,457
525
UK
Those damn Kiosks in the malls are the culprits. This bill is saying that they are being marketed to children because they are in the malls. Those guys need to be shut down anyway. They are ripping off everyone anyway and giving e-cigs a bad name! A friend of mine came to work one day with a SA that cost him $160. One atomizer and O a car charger. I say ban the mall sellers. A kid is not going to be able to purchase over the internet. Keep them out of the stores!
 

Magestorm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 8, 2009
84
0
Let's be honest and fair.

Malls are not just where kids go and shop. Adults shop there too. Granted, SE is not a great product, as it's little more than a jazzed up RN-4081 that we can get for $30 direct from China. It's got a slick marketing campagn, and little else.

What happened is likely the anti smoking nazis saw these kiosks, and suddenly got infuriated that someone could be apparently smoking and get away with it. They have demonized smoking so much that even seeing a wisp of smoke is enough to get them going insane with the hate.

Is it smoking? No. It's not. Is it LIKE smoking? Yes. Does it address the nonsmokers concerns? Yes. Do smokers switching to this find some health issues clear up? Yes. Can you use this where smoking is banned? Most Clean Air acts are worded like Washington State's. As the electronic cigarette vaporizes basicly flavored fog machine juice (let's not bandy words, and show just what they are fighting here), there is no ignited product with this battery powered device, no tobacco, and no ETS.

Now, if someone developed a butane powered one, it pushes the grey zone into a point where it can run agound of the Clean Air Act. But, since it's battery powered, and nothing ignited, it is safe.

These were written to allow oral tobacco users the freedom to use their product, as they realized that it would push things too far. So they know that this all is on a fine line between outraged voters cleaning house and mute acceptance or tolerance.

We need to be vigilant, be ready, but also have some common sense.
 
Okay, you can distribute this now!!

BILL NUMBER: SJR 8 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 25, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Senator Corbett MAY 19, 2009 Relative to electronic cigarettes. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SJR 8, as amended, Corbett. Electronic cigarettes. This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by FDA to be safe the FDA has found them to be safe . Fiscal committee: no.
WHEREAS, The chemical nicotine is classified as a drug due to its stimulative, sedative, and addictive qualities; and
WHEREAS, More that than 90 percent of smokers who seek to quit their addiction to nicotine fail, most relapsing within one week on current nicotine replacement systems approved by the FDA; and
WHEREAS, Extended exposure to nicotine results in tolerance, requiring escalating doses of the drug to receive the desired stimulation; and
WHEREAS, Withdrawal symptoms from nicotine include cognitive and attention defects, cravings, inability to sleep, and sleep disturbance; and
WHEREAS, An unregulated product called electronic cigarettes is currently being marketed as a smokeless alternative to traditional cigarettes; and
WHEREAS, Electronic cigarettes are rechargeable, battery operated drug delivery devices that look similar to cigarettes and allow the user to inhale a smokeless vapor often containing nicotine; and
WHEREAS, Electronic cigarette producers market their product to children by utilizing shopping mall kiosks and locations frequented by children, (and the cigarette police will go after them if they are selling to children) and
WHEREAS, These marketing efforts are similar to previous attempts by the big tobacco companies to entice children to use nicotine products. Previous campaigns have included products such as cigarette candy and advertisements with cartoon characters and flashy packaging shame on them, I still have not received my Betty Boop PV! ; and
WHEREAS, Studies show a correlation between children who used cigarette candy and adults who are current or former smokers; and
WHEREAS, The federal Food and Drug Administration has previously banned nicotine lollipops and nicotine lip balm, which the FDA approved (I made that up); and
WHEREAS, A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that teens were more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure. Similarly, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that as much as one-third of underage experimentation with smoking was attributable to tobacco company marketing efforts; and
WHEREAS, Electronic cigarettes may increase the number of young smokers (PhhhhhhhT); and
WHEREAS, According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, over 3,600 people under the age of 18 18 years of age begin smoking daily (we still have not figured out how to stop this), 1,100 of whom will become regular smokers. One-third of these young smokers will die of smoking-related illnesses, and do not forget about smokers who have up to 40 year smoking habits who are in the health system now; and
WHEREAS, It is in the best interest of California to protect children from these products, to include all illicit (the word that cannot be mentioned here) which we still have not figured out how to do; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature calls upon local, state, and federal governments to find ways to prevent the use of nicotine products by children (don’t forget Illicit “”s); and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature requests that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has jurisdiction over the regulation of nicotine products, prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by that FDA to be safe the FDA has found them to be safe (Honey, you got this backwards) ; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice
 
Aug 11, 2009
0
0
41
  • Deleted by ZambucaLu
  • Reason: spammer

LaceyUnderall

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 4, 2008
2,568
5
USA and Canada
In combing through SB400 (California bill to ban electronic cigarettes), I found this interesting quote in an abstract:

"According to the author, a study published by the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that teens were
more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing
than by peer pressure. The author states that a similar report
published by the Journal of the American Medical Association
discovered that approximately one-third of underage
experimentation with smoking was attributable to tobacco company
marketing efforts.

The most recent innovation in marketing tobacco products to the
public is electronic cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes are a
tobacco substitute that is being marketed as a healthy and
smokeless alternative to traditional cigarettes. These devices
are battery-operated, rechargeable drug delivery devices that
look similar to cigarettes and allow the user to inhale a
smokeless vapor that often contains nicotine.

According to the author, electronic cigarettes are unregulated
by both state and federal laws. The author claims that because
the producers of electronic cigarettes, many of which are
predominantly foreign-based companies, have not applied for
approval from the Food and Drug Administration, some retailers
have taken the opportunity to market and sell these products to
adults and minors, alike, through using shopping mall kiosks and
promoting flavored cartridges."

Does anyone have a link to this study?

I have several studies done on the marketing of tobacco to kids from the credentials noted, but none of them go as far as to discuss electronic cigarettes. So I have a call into the person who prepared the analysis to find out what study he is referring to and if the last paragraph is not in fact in the study, was this a further discussion with the author after the fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread