***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA***

[zoiDman]

This is no big deal fellas, vape on and stop worrying.

We will ship MECHS inside flashlights, provari-like tubes inside {OTHER STUFF}, and E-juice in (well here it comes) juice bottles.

Piece of cake, see?

As for atties, we will glue them to some robot toy and ship.

I Don't see the Solution as being Finding ways to Skirt a Law. Or to rely on Carriers to Look the Other Way and to Except Shipments e-Cigarette shipments.

The Solution is To Kill This Bill Before It Becomes Law In the FORST PLACE.

 

[2coils]

A lot of us don't want to go black market (but of course I will if I have to.)

But more-importantly, current smokers need to switch to vaping, which requires that what we have now remains legal and reasonably-priced, AND that there be a lot of improvement in the product. One reason our group is so small is that the so-called Public Health industry is promoting smoking, big-time, by lying about us. We few already vaping should not be the only victorious survivors of this fight. And it isn't a war compared to being exposed to IED's or having to shoot at people, but the loss of life among smokers will be more Americans than have been killed in recent wars -- PER YEAR. Something like 390,000 per year. (I subtracted the number for 'second-hand smoke' since I think those numbers are exaggerated. It's only about 12%, 49,000 out of 440,000 are attributed to 'second-hand smoke.'

But another reason is that, each improvement in the product brings in more people who can find a way to vape and be satisfied. I think innovation will slow down 90% if they put on harsh restrictions and/or taxes. It's already slowed down, IMO, compared to 2012, partly because the anti-Tobacco-Company crowd is...PROMOTING BT PRODUCTS by complaining that the innovation stuff is "the wild west."

Irony.

+1000
we have to get the population thinking only of the workaround to see the Entire picture. If they do see it, and still don't care, i guess then its on them, but we still need to send the message!

 

[DC2]

They don't care wether we live or die.

People in power may care a little bit about whether we live or die.
But in the end, they only care about their money/power, not who has to suffer when they make that money or achieve that power.

That is, after all, why they have climbed so far up the political ladder.
After all, you can't climb the political ladder by trying to do what is right.

It's been that way since caveman days.
And it's not likely to change.

 

[oplholik]

Please, lets not get this thread closed by getting off track. I feel it's an important thread to keep up on what's happening.

 

[mackman]

Update for AB 1500 2013-14 FY
CA AB1500 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

 

[Berylanna]

Update for AB 1500 2013-14 FY
CA AB1500 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

Is there an update in there after 1/14/2014? I couldn't see one. I need to send myself a note to ask my Rep to see to it that there is some NOTICE about WHAT committee before it goes to one!

 

[soba1]

Please, lets not get this thread closed by getting off track. I feel it's an important thread to keep up on what's happening.

I agree, I apologize I do get wound up.

 

[soba1]

It might help; maybe we can post messages on their facebook page.
Every little bit helps.
At least tell your ecig stories.
https://www.facebook.com/TobaccoFreeCA
I have been posting telling them to call their local reps
and telling them to take the ecig portion out of AB1500

 

[Mohamed]

It might help; maybe we can post messages on their facebook page.
Every little bit helps.
At least tell your ecig stories.
https://www.facebook.com/TobaccoFreeCA
I have been posting telling them to call their local reps
and telling them to take the ecig portion out of AB1500

For some reason I thought they were already on our side and in favor of taking that. Thought I saw that somewhere around page 40-60 lol. But yeah it can't hurt. Least they could use those as examples.

 

[soba1]

For some reason I thought they were already on our side and in favor of taking that. Thought I saw that somewhere around page 40-60 lol. But yeah it can't hurt. Least they could use those as examples.

We gotta start lighting it up everywhere we can, we cant take anything for granted.
By all peaceful means necessary...........

 

[Berylanna]

For some reason I thought they were already on our side and in favor of taking that. Thought I saw that somewhere around page 40-60 lol. But yeah it can't hurt. Least they could use those as examples.

I would have guessed the opposite. What did you find, and how did you find it? Are we talking about going to a FB page and scrolling down for 45 minutes? Or waiting 10 minutes for it to load then using ctl-F?

 

[Mohamed]

I would have guessed the opposite. What did you find, and how did you find it? Are we talking about going to a FB page and scrolling down for 45 minutes? Or waiting 10 minutes for it to load then using ctl-F?

No not on FB...I could have sworn it was in this thread around page 40-60 about them in favor of not banning internet sales. Citing that would actually encourage more smoking especially underage smoking. I don't know if I have time tonight but maybe I'll try to find it.

BTW anyway to search just this thread?

 

[Berylanna]

No not on FB...I could have sworn it was in this thread around page 40-60 about them in favor of not banning internet sales. Citing that would actually encourage more smoking especially underage smoking. I don't know if I have time tonight but maybe I'll try to find it.

BTW anyway to search just this thread?

Top of the page, just under the "like" count. Seems like I get mixed results though. I'll search it, no need for you to unless you are also curious.

 

[Mohamed]

Top of the page, just under the "like" count. Seems like I get mixed results though. I'll search it, no need for you to unless you are also curious.

I may be wrong I can't find any thing in the searches...is the a similar tobacco free education organization or something else I'm thinking of. I just remember reading an acronym which I thought stood for Tobacco Free Something California or Tobacco Free California Something. And the poster saying good news we now have them on board and they are against the internet portion but are in favor of the rest of the bill.

Maybe I'm going crazy but I could have sworn that some organization that you would think would be for it were at least against the internet part of it.

EDIT: Also briefly and by briefly I mean really quickly searched pages 30-70 and didn't find a link I was referring to so maybe no link just someone saying something like that...sorry for wild goose chase.

 

[Berylanna]

I may be wrong I can't find any thing in the searches...is the a similar tobacco free education organization or something else I'm thinking of. I just remember reading an acronym which I thought stood for Tobacco Free Something California or Tobacco Free California Something. And the poster saying good news we now have them on board and they are against the internet portion but are in favor of the rest of the bill.

Maybe I'm going crazy but I could have sworn that some organization that you would think would be for it were at least against the internet part of it.

EDIT: Also briefly and by briefly I mean really quickly searched pages 30-70 and didn't find a link I was referring to so maybe no link just someone saying something like that...sorry for wild goose chase.

Search seems to only work for me when I bribe it (just kidding) I didn't find it either. But I'll look because it's a shock if someone joined our side (other than NORML)

 

[Mohamed]

Search seems to only work for me when I bribe it (just kidding) I didn't find it either. But I'll look because it's a shock if someone joined our side (other than NORML)

I also think it was an abbreviation because I remember having to google what it stood for. Extremely apologize if it wasn't this thread ;( I'm not finding to what I was referring to either. But I'm pretty sure it had to do with this thread.

 

[Bramble]

By forcing you to buy from a local B&M the state earns tax revenue that they otherwise wouldn't see if you bought online from a vendor outside your state.

I'm getting really sick of California and its nanny state behavior, I've had one hobby after another attacked by either the state of the feds. California has many more serious problems to deal with, especially when it comes to public safety and health and yet they busy themselves with trvial crap in an attempt to look like they're doing something. This rally cry of "save the children" ought to be met with a response about how parents should be the ones to be responsible for safegaurding their children. If an issue falls into the domain of what a parent can reasonablly control, the responsibilty lies with them and them alone.

That's what they want to do here too (Utah). I do have an answer to "what about the children" :

What about the children of people who would quit tobacco using e-cigarettes?

 

[Mohamed]

@Berylanna Maybe SFATA organization I was thinking of but could have sworn it was Smoke Free and something about California and/or Kids and/or Education. I give up though.

It might help; maybe we can post messages on their facebook page.
Every little bit helps.
At least tell your ecig stories.
https://www.facebook.com/TobaccoFreeCA
I have been posting telling them to call their local reps
and telling them to take the ecig portion out of AB1500

And my apologizes on derailment of this post soba1 It might be in one of these close to 1000 posts now but if it is I can't find it. But yeah feel free to post can't hurt and can only help.

 

[soba1]

Search seems to only work for me when I bribe it (just kidding) I didn't find it either. But I'll look because it's a shock if someone joined our side (other than NORML)

NORML is on our side, whew. That's good to read.

i did see links to other non smoking FB sites along with if memory serves me correct the Amer Lung Assoc.

 

[AndriaD]

Important things to get in this are comments from the CA vendors that generate sales tax locally, speaking as to how without mail-order business, they may have to shut down, which could potentially outweigh the gains proposed by the bill. Also important are the users relating how they will simply go out of state to purchase instead of suffering under a ban. The enforceability needs to be questioned, as well as the likelihood of people doing stawman buys and a black market effect of people willing to break the law and ship anyways for a small fee. Reinforce that there is no way to ban the shipment of all components and that the legal definition of an ecig currently refers to an assembled device or kit that as a whole is an 'ecig'. Parts and arguably liquids are not in and of themselves subject to this definition, much like a gun stock is not a gun until it has all the other parts assembled onto it.

Call into question the ability of the bill to survive intact in the Supreme Court. State why we are doing what we are doing. Quote studies (with references) and give (verified) numerical data, where possible. Reinforce that there has never been one confirmed death or serious illness associated with vaping in almost a decade. Reinforce that minor illnesses reported from e-juice, such as nicotine overdose, have all been due to carelessness or improper use of the products, much like curling irons causing burns. Contrast keeping kids safe by limiting ecigs with kids being endangered by blackmarketeers, gang members, and 'e-juice moonshiners' doing anything they have to to make a buck, no matter who gets hurt.

And most of all, remind them that they are beholden to we the people, and that when they choose an action, they are also selecting the consequences of it. So they had better love those consequences before they act, or they will reap them later, to their dismay.

If anyone has the list of people to contact on this matter (the politicians in question), please post this information so we can begin fighting one of the opening skirmishes in what promises to be a war.

You make some truly excellent points! I'm not a Californian myself, but I think it behooves all of us to pay attention to this, because of the danger of setting legal precedent that could potentially affect ALL of us trying to do something as simple and responsible as keep ourselves alive and well; doesn't the taken-for-granted right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" trump anything and everything else? Notice the first word of that is "life!" If someone threatens our life, do we not have the right to defend ourselves, and is this right not upheld in court on a regular basis? I think their (and our!) so-called representatives would do well to keep that in mind!

To be honest, I am somewhat surprised that this is happening in California, of all places, with their oft-referenced laws regarding the legal medical use of that other smokable stuff, the general stereotype of CA as the "land of fruits and nuts" (by which they usually mean "hippies and liberals"), and their historical association with many progressive movements -- the flower-children for consciousness-expansion and against the vietnam war, San Francisco's championing of same-sex relationship issues and certainly, AIDS research, conservation of natural resources, and a great many other forward-thinking causes. Who would have thought that BT and BP could generate such repressive tactics in California! It certainly boggles *my* mind!

We cannot let this happen, not anywhere, and certainly not in a politically-sensitive and -powerful state like California. My voice may not count for much with CA's in-state lawmakers, but anything else I can do, I intend to!

Andria