California -- SB 648 would ban the use of e-cigarettes wherever smoking is banned

[Placebo Effect]

This was just introduced and has not been assigned to a committee. Once it is assigned, CASAA will put up a Call to Action.

In addition to banning e-cigarette use is bars, restaurants, public buildings, etc., SB 648 would also permit landlords to ban e-cigarette use (as if something like that is enforceable).

The good news is that there is only one sponsor and no House companion bill. The bad news is that the one sponsor of SB 648 is Senator Ellen Corbett, the Majority Leader of the California Senate.

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-b...number=sb_648&sess=CUR&house=B&author=corbett

CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 648
AUTHOR(S) : Corbett.
TOPIC : Electronic cigarettes: restriction of use and advertising.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL : Active Non-Urgency Non-Appropriations Majority Vote Required State-Mandated Local Program Fiscal Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/22/2013
LAST HIST. ACTION : Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

TITLE : An act to amend Section 1947.5 of the Civil Code, to amend Section 48901 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 7596, 7597, and 19994.35 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 1234, 1286, 1596.795, 104495, 110995, 113978, and 114332.3 of, and to add Section 118882 to, the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code, to amend Sections 561 and 99580 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Section 12523 of the Vehicle Code, relating to electronic cigarettes.

 

[Petrodus]

There's a world-wide movement against e-smoking
Guess this explains why: LINK

 

[Fiamma]

Here we go again. I am really getting fed up with the nannies. They tried an outright ban once before, got it thru both houses but the Gov refused to sign it.

Jerry Brown was against e cigs as Attorney General. I see no reason for him to change sides now. If they get this through both houses odds are that he would sign it. The man's ego is monumental. Californians need to PUSH HARD against this. The Assistant AG now keeps sending letters to B&M's telling them they can't sell e liquid, with NO BASIS IN LAW. She seems to think the no flavors in tobacco cigarettes covers this. Something our Gov, Jerry Brown pushed again as AG.

 

[Petrodus]

Seems to me the FDA really doesn't have too much to worry about
since states and local governments are pushing hard to ban e-smoking
for them.

 

[DC2]

The Assistant AG now keeps sending letters to B&M's telling them they can't sell e liquid, with NO BASIS IN LAW.

Is the above comment based on the following?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...05500-can-anyone-verify-news.html#post6380633

Or have there been some more recent developments?

 

[Fiamma]

Is the above comment based on the following?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...05500-can-anyone-verify-news.html#post6380633

Or have there been some more recent developments?

I think it is still ongoing DC, never stopped.

I am more worried about the new bill from Corbett and the former efforts of Jerry Brown when he was AG, which is what started the assistant AG sending out letters. If they get this passed, he will most probably sign it. As the hogs at the trough are never satisfied they will then push for more restrictions.

 

[Mark Burton]

Time to make it clear to our non-vaping friends that e-cigs are the safest and most effective way to quit smoking. The retailers, manufacturers and distributors can not make that claim, but we can. As soon as I mention to others that e-cigs are not drugs, they immediately get on board. I am using social media to get the word out and it seems as though that is helping this go viral in a small way.

 

[Fiamma]

Get them writing letters to Sacramento then Mark. And to their reps in DC. When enough non vapers understand we do them no harm by vaping around them perhaps they will understand the Lung Assoc and Cancer Society have been lying thru their teeth about e cigs all along.

What would help greatly is if all the new vapers got on board and realized all of this is at risk, and added their voices.

 

[DC2]

Get them writing letters to Sacramento then Mark. And to their reps in DC. When enough non vapers understand we do them no harm by vaping around them perhaps they will understand the Lung Assoc and Cancer Society have been lying thru their teeth about e cigs all along.

What would help greatly is if all the new vapers got on board and realized all of this is at risk, and added their voices.

Just waiting for that Call to Action...

 

[Placebo Effect]

It has still yet to be referred to a committee. The presumption would be that it goes to the Health Committee, which the sponsor is unfortunately the chairman of, but that could prove false.

 

[Berylanna]

It has still yet to be referred to a committee. The presumption would be that it goes to the Health Committee, which the sponsor is unfortunately the chairman of, but that could prove false.

I put this into Ellen Corbett's web site "Contact Me" page:

As a lifetime Democrat, I am horrified to see you have sponsored a pro-smoking measure to discourage people from switching to electronic cigarettes.

There are studies proving that second-hand vapor is no more dangerous than second-hand coffee steam from the next table over. I am one of thousands of people that have successfully stopped inhaling 4000+ chemicals including tar, arsenic, carbon monoxide, etc by switching to e-cigs. At 60 I am starting to be able to breathe again, so I have a better chance of seeing my grandchildren graduate from college.

Even the FDA admits e-cigs are drastically safer than smoking, and has admitted publicly that their claims of carcinogens in e-cig vapor are effectlively false (by publishing their ACTUAL test data which does not agree with their press release.) They say e-cigs are not long-term proven to be safe, but there is NO evidence they are safer than smoke inhalation -- would you tell people to stay off the lifeboats of the Titanic because they are not proven long-term safe?

And we don't drop cigarette butts on beaches, in playgrounds, or on the street, nor near doorways.

Some hospitals even allow patients to vape in bed.

Democrats have always in the past stood behind my right to control my body, why do Democrats want to tell me what I can do with my body when it does not harm anybody else and it improves my health compared to the easier-to-learn, easier-to-pay-for, smoking?

I don't have URL's to every study being done on e-cigs (since the outdated 2009 FDA press release there have been quite a few!) but I found a lot of data on CASAA.org and other anti-smoking sites.

Please please don't discourage switching. It is hard enough to learn how to switch when there ARE obvious advantages.

 

[Fiamma]

She's going to get a message a day from me. I want to know how much they paid her.

 

[Katya]

Where is Arnold when we need him.

It's so depressing; fighting the same battle over and over again...

 

[Fiamma]

Anyone have anything new on this? I'm getting no response at all from Corbett.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Anyone have anything new on this? I'm getting no response at all from Corbett.

It has been referred to the Rules Committee. Unless Godshall disagrees, I don't feel it's worth targeting Rules, as they merely decide what committee to send it to.

 

[Fiamma]

Ok. I've been trying to get a response from Ms Corbett but no joy. I am terrified Gerry Brown will sign it if it makes it thru.

 

[Lessifer]

I tried to contact the Senator, but I don't live in her district, I'll be writing to my representatives about this.

 

[Berylanna]

I subscribed to get email updates on status changes to this bill (it's free via the legislature) and got this:

From: comments@www.leginfo.ca.gov (<-----This is a computer)

SB 648 Assembly Bill - Status

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 648
AUTHOR(S) : Corbett.
TOPIC : Electronic cigarettes: restriction of use and
advertising.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/11/2013
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

TITLE : An act to amend Section 1947.5 of the Civil Code, to
amend Section 48901 of the Education Code, to amend
Sections 7596, 7597, and 19994.35 of the Government
Code, to amend Sections 1234, 1286, 1596.795, 104495,
110995, 113978, and 114332.3 of, and to add Section
118882 to, the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section
6404.5 of the Labor Code, to amend Sections 561 and
99580 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Section
12523 of the Vehicle Code, relating to electronic
cigarettes.

Vehicle code? VEHICLE CODE? Are they trying to make vaping equivalent to texting? I'm at work and do not have time to analyze this bill, but here is a link:

Bill List -- sb_648

 

[Lessifer]

I subscribed to get email updates on status changes to this bill (it's free via the legislature) and got this:

From: comments@www.leginfo.ca.gov (<-----This is a computer)

SB 648 Assembly Bill - Status



Vehicle code? VEHICLE CODE? Are they trying to make vaping equivalent to texting? I'm at work and do not have time to analyze this bill, but here is a link:

Bill List -- sb_648

The vehicle code section is for "drivers of a youth bus" school bus drivers can't smoke while driving the bus, including electronic cigarettes.

 

[Berylanna]

The vehicle code section is for "drivers of a youth bus" school bus drivers can't smoke while driving the bus, including electronic cigarettes.

OK, we need a complete analysis from CASAA. We need to be able to not only point out the needlessness of some restrictions, but the NEGATIVE health impact. Possibly carefully.