Only 10 kilos of nicotine?!? No problem. You'll probably make the FBI most wanted list. lol
***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***
- Thread starter mackman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Only 10 kilos of nicotine?!? No problem. You'll probably make the FBI most wanted list. lol
Only 10 kilos of nicotine?!? No problem. You'll probably make the FBI most wanted list. lol
Yeah... With all the Fear of Second Hand Vapor, Spilling a 55 Gallon Drum of 100mg/ml Nicotine Base down a Storm Drain is bound to get some Media Coverage.
BTW - Once the FDA Regulates e-liquids, I wonder what OSHA Requirements will be Involved with Storing and Handling Nicotine Base?
OSHA has requirements in place already for nicotine pesticides. I don't know what the strength of the solutions they use are, however I would guess they would be similar. Respirators etc.
Although it has loosened up over the years, many states banned alcohol shipments... they'd basically apply the same scheme here for e-cig stuff, I'm guessing.
Doing an out-of-state purchase would be a pain... for those of us in the LA/Socal region, Nevada is closest but still close to 4 hours away with typical traffic.
Interesting side note... I know some folks drive to Nevada for those really good fireworks (which are illegal in California), and I've heard from several sources that CHP scans the parking lots of those fireworks shops looking for California plates, then pops people when they cross the border with the fireworks in their car. I'm sure they'd expand that to vape shops to catch us evil .......s trying to destroy children's lives...
Yeah, doesn't Australia categorize nicotine as a poison because it was used in pesticides?
Two Words. Pahrump Nevada
I have been there Many Times. The Key is to Not Go there the Weekend before the 4th of July.
Washington is trying to pass the same laws California is.
Check out HB 2795, (the 75-95% tax bill), and SB6595.
Between the two, it will kill e-cigs here.
MtBakerVapor has already told them in one hearing, that they would leave the state if HB 2795 passed
Don't forget .. ProVape (your provari) is located here too.
This is spreading from one state to another.
I'm pretty sure they are. Two of the best known names in the industry.
Two Words. Pahrump Nevada
I have been there Many Times. The Key is to Not Go there the Weekend before the 4th of July.
Lol, where I went to HS..good ol Pahrump.
They said at the hearing, that they were getting ready to open a place in Lynden (semi close to Bellingham, where they are), and that it was now on hold because of the tax bill (HB 2795).
If this new tax passed, they would leave the state ... PERIOD
The big hearted representatives, after the hearing, decided to lower the tax to 75%.
There another meeting tonight (3/13/24), so we will see what happens now.
I'm not sure if this is the final enactment or not.
Last edited:
They also get you at the so called "agricultural inspection" stations. The attendants can't do anything but if they see fireworks (soon probably ammo or vaping suplies) they radio one of the seven CHP cars that seem to be conveniently parked on the other side of the inspection station. The Nazi's are alive and well in cali, border checkpoints and everything, soon you'll need special "papers" to get in or out.
This was posted by Ravagex yesterday on the "Where my Washington state Vapers at?" thread.
Ok Folks Im not gona sugar this .... last night I figured out HB 2795 break it and break it in to its smaller parts.
Part One: O no its a big ... tax (start .....in)
this is the smoke screen.
Part Two: Nicotine is now tobacco ( when we all know its not continue to .....)
this is the low lights.
Part Three: makes it against the law to order e-cig/vape items over any electrionic network including but not limited to phone and computers.
NOW FOLKS I HAS QUESTIONS 4 YA
1. if ya cant use ur comp or phone how ya goan get juice? (mail or in person)
ok now that we know that and ur all gona tell me the tax is importaint and not this part ur stupid. if you cant order and just figure you will use ur local b&m ur a fool how will they get stuff if they cant order? this law dosnt say who cant order just says cant
its a Anti vape bill
Ok Folks Im not gona sugar this .... last night I figured out HB 2795 break it and break it in to its smaller parts.
Part One: O no its a big ... tax (start .....in)
this is the smoke screen.
Part Two: Nicotine is now tobacco ( when we all know its not continue to .....)
this is the low lights.
Part Three: makes it against the law to order e-cig/vape items over any electrionic network including but not limited to phone and computers.
NOW FOLKS I HAS QUESTIONS 4 YA
1. if ya cant use ur comp or phone how ya goan get juice? (mail or in person)
ok now that we know that and ur all gona tell me the tax is importaint and not this part ur stupid. if you cant order and just figure you will use ur local b&m ur a fool how will they get stuff if they cant order? this law dosnt say who cant order just says cant
its a Anti vape bill
Sounds the same as the Cali bill, its all about tax revenue. People quit smoking and we lose tax money, which is going to fund somebody pensions (not to hospitals and cancer research as promised). So, now that we have spent this tax revenue for the next 50 years already we have to make up for it somewhere. Ok people switched from smoking to vaping (at least a good portion) so we need to tax that, and the first step is make it look evil and regulate it. Just the beginning, i expect the tax on a bottle of juice to be as high if not higher than a pack of smokes in the next five years, thats why i've invested in supplies to make my own juice.
Well, an example is called for at this point.
I'll use Los Angeles sales tax rate, currently at 9.000%, and the tobacco excise tax (surtax), currently at 29.82%.
At this rates a 15ml bottle of e-liquid available at a local retailer for $8.95, will cost $12.43.
A proposal to increase cigarette taxes from $0.87 (per pack of 20) to $2.87 (per pack of 20), is on the table. In the case of cigarettes the surtax applies as well. If this moves forward, than I suspect the above equation will change as well.
The tobacco products tax rate (surtax) is determined annually by BOA and is equivalent to the combined rate of the taxes applied to cigarettes.
HOWEVER, per California State Board of Equalization (Publication 93 LDA) "Tobacco products include all forms of cigars, except “little cigars,” smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, and snuff, as well as other products containing at least 50 percent tobacco". Which e-cigarette or e-liquid contains at least 50 percent tobacco??? In conclusion, if they push to amend the laws to include e-cigarettes and/or e-liquids the State could be challenged in the courts of law.
Last edited:
I agree, problem lies in the fact that California politicians have become experts at dragging court cases out for years or even decades if they know they will lose. The plaintiffs have a high rate of running out of cash or willpower before they get their day in court. That's why every questionable law or tax imposed in California is scary.
White House OMB rejects FDA's draft regs for e-cigs as too restrictive, tells agency
This was posted by Bill Godshall elsewhere.
"Several reliable sources in DC have confirmed that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has rejected the draft e-cig regulations FDA submitted to the agency back in October because they were too restrictive (just as I've been saying since 2011).
While there haven't been any news stories exposing this huge victory for vapers and the e-cig industry (and the White House OMB isn't likely to acknowledge this to any news reporter, as doing so would reveal a split within the Obama Administration), this would explain why the FDA deeming and other e-cig regulation still haven't been proposed (i.e. published in the Federal Register) despite past assertions that the e-cig regs would be proposed in October, then in December, and then again in January.
A news story several days ago exposed our campaign urging the White House OMB reject the FDA's e-cig regs
(including meetings with 35 different companies/organizations/groups) is at
E-cig industry on tenterhooks ahead of U.S. regulation | Reuters
I suspect it would take the FDA another several-to-six-months (and perhaps longer) to draft and submit another e-cig regulatory proposal, which buys us some very important additional time to expose the facts about e-cigs, expose and criticize the false and misleading claims by e-cig prohibitionists, and further expose and oppose the lethal (for vapers and smokers) ramifications of Chapter IX tobacco regulations if/when they are applied to e-cigs.
Don't know how many different sets of regs the FDA has drafted for e-cigs since 2011, but they've missed a half dozen dates they previously claimed the e-cig regs would be proposed (the first was in October, 2011).
So while this is a huge temporary victory for vapers and the e-cig industry, we must now step up our efforts to defeat the next FDA e-cig regulatory proposal before the agency mobilizes another PR and lobbying campaign (as occurred from Sept-December) for its next e-cig regulatory proposal.
If you haven't already done so, please contact your members of Congress urging them to oppose FDA e-cig ban/reg per my alert at
Action Alert: Urge Congress to prevent FDA from banning e-cigarettes again and to stop FDA from giving the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco
This setback for FDA also should help us focus our efforts on defeating the many awful state/local bills we now face (as 49 State legislatures are currently in session, and many will end their legislative sessions in March, April and May).
Thanks to everyone who met with the White House OMB."
********************************************************
PS .. The Washington state bill HB 2795 is dead (for now)
This was posted by Bill Godshall elsewhere.
"Several reliable sources in DC have confirmed that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has rejected the draft e-cig regulations FDA submitted to the agency back in October because they were too restrictive (just as I've been saying since 2011).
While there haven't been any news stories exposing this huge victory for vapers and the e-cig industry (and the White House OMB isn't likely to acknowledge this to any news reporter, as doing so would reveal a split within the Obama Administration), this would explain why the FDA deeming and other e-cig regulation still haven't been proposed (i.e. published in the Federal Register) despite past assertions that the e-cig regs would be proposed in October, then in December, and then again in January.
A news story several days ago exposed our campaign urging the White House OMB reject the FDA's e-cig regs
(including meetings with 35 different companies/organizations/groups) is at
E-cig industry on tenterhooks ahead of U.S. regulation | Reuters
I suspect it would take the FDA another several-to-six-months (and perhaps longer) to draft and submit another e-cig regulatory proposal, which buys us some very important additional time to expose the facts about e-cigs, expose and criticize the false and misleading claims by e-cig prohibitionists, and further expose and oppose the lethal (for vapers and smokers) ramifications of Chapter IX tobacco regulations if/when they are applied to e-cigs.
Don't know how many different sets of regs the FDA has drafted for e-cigs since 2011, but they've missed a half dozen dates they previously claimed the e-cig regs would be proposed (the first was in October, 2011).
So while this is a huge temporary victory for vapers and the e-cig industry, we must now step up our efforts to defeat the next FDA e-cig regulatory proposal before the agency mobilizes another PR and lobbying campaign (as occurred from Sept-December) for its next e-cig regulatory proposal.
If you haven't already done so, please contact your members of Congress urging them to oppose FDA e-cig ban/reg per my alert at
Action Alert: Urge Congress to prevent FDA from banning e-cigarettes again and to stop FDA from giving the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco
This setback for FDA also should help us focus our efforts on defeating the many awful state/local bills we now face (as 49 State legislatures are currently in session, and many will end their legislative sessions in March, April and May).
Thanks to everyone who met with the White House OMB."
********************************************************
PS .. The Washington state bill HB 2795 is dead (for now)
I had hoped that AB1500 was dead for now, but received this update.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1500
AUTHOR(S) : Dickinson.
TOPIC : Cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/20/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on G.O.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
TITLE : An act to repeal and add Section 22963 of the Business
and Professions Code, to add Section 119406 to the
Health and Safety Code, and to repeal Section 30101.7 of
the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to public health.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1500
AUTHOR(S) : Dickinson.
TOPIC : Cigarettes, tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/20/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on G.O.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
TITLE : An act to repeal and add Section 22963 of the Business
and Professions Code, to add Section 119406 to the
Health and Safety Code, and to repeal Section 30101.7 of
the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to public health.
If the FDA drags its feet long enough, and there are no major incidents or issues with vaping, we have a basis to say that we only need minimal oversight by the FDA as we are doing fine without them thus far.
Government oversight should exist only insofar as to protect consumers - the longer we fare well without them "protecting" us the more it shows how little protection we need.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
