***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***
- Thread starter mackman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Throwing some support from the UK. I really hope this is stopped in it's tracks...
Are you kidding? You don't know what you're missing. Once they are finished socially engineering the people, this will be a model utopian state. And all the other states, if not the world, will want to copy what California is doing. After all, California always has been the "trail blazer" state. But, what is Calfornia doing? Limiting online sales to minors? No! It is slowly, steadily taking away the freedom of the people. Never before has there been more oversight and interference put into the daily lives of supposedly free citizens than now.
You might find that a License to Sell Tobacco in California Isn't exactly a Walk in the Park. And not just an Administrative matter of Giving the State 100 Bucks.
This suggests to me that you are more concerned about access to vape gear than the erosion of all your other freedoms. To that end, you can still just drive to a good B & M, well except in Hayward. But pretty much everywhere around LA is cool . . . for now. As for me, I'll just have things shipped to relatives in Montana, who will then ship it all to me here. Or, I can just pick up the motherload of stuff on my summer visits to Montana.
I would not want to get any sort of license related to vaping or tobacco anywhere in the U.S.--it could be used against you in the future. Just look at what the ACA is going to do to smokers, for an example. Getting a license legally relates you to something the government doesn't like, and you won't be albe to undo it. It's social engineering, plain and simple. I won't cooperate.
i met a man in napa valley that told me him and his wife had been buying cigs from an out of state indian reservation for 3yrs till the state contacted them about collecting cal. taxes , so wheres the lost revenue they are already tracking money down
If the FDA deems ecigs a tobacco product, they will fall under the PACT Act... meaning no interstate sale of anything used with or in ecigs. That means no purchasing of any of those by phone, mail or wire. You must be present, in person, to swipe your card. This effectively stops all internet sales and we experienced, as I said, a dry run of how this will go down in 4 or 5 States where banks/cc companies instituted it on 1/1/2014. Do a search here to read the threads (now closed I think) ... one was Bank of Okalhoma. I haven't been able to find out what the outcome was as all conversation about it was stopped with some just minimizing it to "clerical erro." Anyway, check it out and you'll see that it will be nation-wide if/when it hits... not just California.
I live in the same area as this Poster and I was Outraged when I read this until I thought it through. As a new Vaper I agree they want us back on the Analogs - There is no question in my mind after this.
Fortunately, there will be work arounds if this passes but I have to wonder if these Politicians are trying to see which State can make the biggest impact before the FDA.
If the bill was just introduced, are we looking at possibly months before it would get thru everything and passed? Just wanting to get some kind of time line here.
I'm not sure how this is all going to works WHEN e-Liquids are deemed a Tobacco Product by the FDA
Because I know that a person can Currently buy Cigars and Pipe Tobacco in California from In and Out of State Retailers.
I'm in a similar boat, but one bill isn't enough for me to change my fundamental values. A few misguided fools are not indicative of an entire party, and California tends to be overly parental.
That said, one cannot use Dickinson's contact form if one's address is not in his district. Go figure. Instead, I contacted Gorrell, who is.
If you're in CA, find your rep here.
Last edited:
This is True.
But I would Suggest that we try to Quash it ASAP before it gains any Momentum / Voting Support.
My understanding is that they're currently excluded federally (not local law in AZ though as its on ALL tobacco products) but the FDA deeming is going to include them along with ecigs bringing both (all three) under PACT.
It would seem that things would be So Much Clearer, and State Policies would be Easier to Understand, if the FDA would get Off their Hands and make Some Statement.
Absolutely, seconded. Waiting means two things. First, most of us who 'wait to do it later' aren't going to remember to do it, so do it now and have it over with. Secondly, the more people weighing in on this now mean the more people they will be telling to weigh in onit up until the vote comes in, and that means more overall support. Also remember that he who speaks first usually speaks loudest.
BTW - If the Purpose of CA AB-1500 is keep Tobacco out of the Hands of Minors, why don't they just Craft a Bill that would Require and an Adult Signature at the Buyers Door on Tobacco / e-Cigarette sales via the Internet?
Kinda like what they do with Alcohol.
Kinda like what they do with Alcohol.
Sent:
Dear Mr. Dickinson,
I am writing to express my concern that AB 1500 includes personal vaporizers ("PVs") and liquids as "tobacco products" and prohibits their shipment to anyone in California. I do not think they should be included.
One of the biggest challenges facing the PV industry is that they are also known as "e-cigs." This unfortunate choice of name gives the perception that PVs and cigarettes are equivalent.
PVs are NOT cigarettes and are not tobacco! My partner and I both "vape," but at 0mg of nicotine. We do it purely for the flavor and fun of it. We are both former smokers (I smoked for 17 years and quit almost 14 years ago) and both feel that the chance of us EVER returning to cigarettes has been eradicated by this activity.
My 79 year old mother has smoked since she was 15, at least a pack a day. She has also purchased a PV and her smoking has been vastly reduced, something I thought I would never see!
The local "vape shop" has helped dozens of people in my town quit smoking entirely and many times when I have been in the shop, I have seen people come in asking for help in quitting smoking and leaving with a starter kit. It is a very effective smoking cessation device.
I need look no further than my 11 year old daughter - the vapor from a PV does not trigger her asthma, but spending any time in a room where someone has been smoking, even if they are not anymore, triggers her asthma and she starts to wheeze.
Please do more research on the subject and the reduction in harm (start with http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf) and reconsider this ban. I can assure you that your reasoning that children will buy vaping products online is faulty and if anything will lead to more children turning to cigarettes, which are far worse.
I am a registered Democrat and contributed heavily to the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. I vote a straight blue ticket. The outcome of this bill will have a definite impact on my voting decisions going forward.
Thank you for your consideration,
--------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Dickinson,
I am writing to express my concern that AB 1500 includes personal vaporizers ("PVs") and liquids as "tobacco products" and prohibits their shipment to anyone in California. I do not think they should be included.
One of the biggest challenges facing the PV industry is that they are also known as "e-cigs." This unfortunate choice of name gives the perception that PVs and cigarettes are equivalent.
PVs are NOT cigarettes and are not tobacco! My partner and I both "vape," but at 0mg of nicotine. We do it purely for the flavor and fun of it. We are both former smokers (I smoked for 17 years and quit almost 14 years ago) and both feel that the chance of us EVER returning to cigarettes has been eradicated by this activity.
My 79 year old mother has smoked since she was 15, at least a pack a day. She has also purchased a PV and her smoking has been vastly reduced, something I thought I would never see!
The local "vape shop" has helped dozens of people in my town quit smoking entirely and many times when I have been in the shop, I have seen people come in asking for help in quitting smoking and leaving with a starter kit. It is a very effective smoking cessation device.
I need look no further than my 11 year old daughter - the vapor from a PV does not trigger her asthma, but spending any time in a room where someone has been smoking, even if they are not anymore, triggers her asthma and she starts to wheeze.
Please do more research on the subject and the reduction in harm (start with http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf) and reconsider this ban. I can assure you that your reasoning that children will buy vaping products online is faulty and if anything will lead to more children turning to cigarettes, which are far worse.
I am a registered Democrat and contributed heavily to the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. I vote a straight blue ticket. The outcome of this bill will have a definite impact on my voting decisions going forward.
Thank you for your consideration,
--------------------------------------
I understand the desire to squash it, but not sure how realistic that is.
What about the desire to address the issue? It seems like we've been discussing here many times, over several years. How would eCig companies be able to verify age of consumer via online sales? The language of the press release, suggests 'no way of knowing' which we vapers have only heard umpteen times before. Yet, it would seem with today's technology, there is ways of knowing. We've had many threads on this topic already. And there are perhaps methods we haven't considered yet to help overcome what is the fundamental perception at work in wanting this bill to go into effect.
The perception is that consumers, of any age, can purchase eCig products online, thus people under 18 have, in theory, no problem getting eCig products delivered to their front door.
It would seem credit card companies (banks) could, if not already do, verify the age of the cardholder. Which I previously understood as the primary way to verify age of eCig purchaser. We also have discussed previously that signing for orders would overcome the perceived problem. Additionally, I'm thinking the 'tobacco license' idea isn't such a bad one if it amounts to, you have to be 18+ to obtain, and in addition to using a credit card and signing for order, you present license info to receive shipments via online orders. The license could be on a tiered basis, with lowest level being essentially for consumers who realize (by law) that if they are found out to be distributors, they would be subject to penalties for falsifying agreements / rules with the license they applied for.
All these, and possible other considerations, seem like reasonable solutions to the perceived problem. Furthermore, if a vendor really wishes to include sales to states that are thinking of passing this sort of legislation, then they could set up technology that would automate taxation based on that state's policies. So, if I live in say LA and I'm purchasing from vendor in Maine, I would pay for price of order, plus added tax that is for my state. Yes, this would stink as extra step for the vendor, but if choice is between this step or you can't sell to CA at all, I'm wondering which choice the vendor would prefer to go with? Assuming this is workable, the CA state government would have dollar amount coming in thru taxation while knowing safeguards are in place to ensure the consumer making the purchase is an adult.
Everything I've written though is based on idea of working with reasonable persons who are genuinely interested in reasonable solutions to perceived problems. Prior to writing this post, I was feeling just cynical/apathetic enough to say there is little to no chance that vaping community / industry has to influence this bill. As I'm thinking it isn't (yet again) about the children at all. Not even a little bit. With this bill in full effect, CA minors will still be vaping nicotine, and of that I am 100% certain.
What about the desire to address the issue? It seems like we've been discussing here many times, over several years. How would eCig companies be able to verify age of consumer via online sales? The language of the press release, suggests 'no way of knowing' which we vapers have only heard umpteen times before. Yet, it would seem with today's technology, there is ways of knowing. We've had many threads on this topic already. And there are perhaps methods we haven't considered yet to help overcome what is the fundamental perception at work in wanting this bill to go into effect.
The perception is that consumers, of any age, can purchase eCig products online, thus people under 18 have, in theory, no problem getting eCig products delivered to their front door.
It would seem credit card companies (banks) could, if not already do, verify the age of the cardholder. Which I previously understood as the primary way to verify age of eCig purchaser. We also have discussed previously that signing for orders would overcome the perceived problem. Additionally, I'm thinking the 'tobacco license' idea isn't such a bad one if it amounts to, you have to be 18+ to obtain, and in addition to using a credit card and signing for order, you present license info to receive shipments via online orders. The license could be on a tiered basis, with lowest level being essentially for consumers who realize (by law) that if they are found out to be distributors, they would be subject to penalties for falsifying agreements / rules with the license they applied for.
All these, and possible other considerations, seem like reasonable solutions to the perceived problem. Furthermore, if a vendor really wishes to include sales to states that are thinking of passing this sort of legislation, then they could set up technology that would automate taxation based on that state's policies. So, if I live in say LA and I'm purchasing from vendor in Maine, I would pay for price of order, plus added tax that is for my state. Yes, this would stink as extra step for the vendor, but if choice is between this step or you can't sell to CA at all, I'm wondering which choice the vendor would prefer to go with? Assuming this is workable, the CA state government would have dollar amount coming in thru taxation while knowing safeguards are in place to ensure the consumer making the purchase is an adult.
Everything I've written though is based on idea of working with reasonable persons who are genuinely interested in reasonable solutions to perceived problems. Prior to writing this post, I was feeling just cynical/apathetic enough to say there is little to no chance that vaping community / industry has to influence this bill. As I'm thinking it isn't (yet again) about the children at all. Not even a little bit. With this bill in full effect, CA minors will still be vaping nicotine, and of that I am 100% certain.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
