I’m going to try and keep this one short but wanted to share some insights and details of todays SB648 hearing.
SB648 got amended in committee and as a result stopped the definition of e-cigs = cigs from going through. As a result it is a bill that will prevent minors from accessing e-cigs from vending machines, basically. This is a bill we could support, of course, because it is common sense, accomplishes what the bill set out to do, and that’s about it.
I’m not taking credit for the amendment, nor is our local NorCal group here that got together at the last moment. A small group, including some of the very pro-active vendors we’ve also had by our side when battling AB1500. This time we had some expert help and insights that have proven to be invaluable. It allowed us to know ahead of time the bill would be coming up. When it did it was still short notice and had to scramble to get our points together and strategize on how to approach the situation. Our original plan was to oppose the bill on the portion that defined ecigs as regular cigs.
Last night an amendment was agreed upon to only moments later have the ANTZ push for it to be reverted again. This morning we received insights and details that allowed us to change our strategy at pretty much the last moment. We came prepared with props and talking points to deal with the definition of e-cigs but it’s better to be prepared and not need it than be unprepared and caught off guard. Based on the situation it made sense to support the bill "as proposed amended, as per the analysis”. Might sound strange and trust me, last month I would also not have known what that means in practical terms.
In simple terms, vapers support the bill WITH the proposed amended that was agreed on and should be stuck to. So that’s what we did. The lobbyists for NJOY who had been working on this intensively, and the one for VMR (V2), supported the bill on the same basis. This unified the voice and position of “us” the vaping consumers and industry!
The really interesting thing this change of strategy caused is that it “forced” our ANTZ opposition to flip their support of the bill into opposition. So all of a sudden the very people who had been pushing for this bill started OPPOSING IT INSTEAD. This showed their true motivations and intentions. Clearly, it was not about the safety of children and the availability of vending machines to minors. It was all about the definition for them. Something we strongly believe they needed to push through in order to start building a push for more legislation on top of that definition.
This true face of the ANTZ was also recognized and observed by the committee. After all speakers were done the a committee member stated how incredibly disappointed he was with them opposing this bill that would do exactly what they wanted and also stated, “being opposed to this bill means you are in some way in support of minors having access to e-cigarettes”.
Several harsh words were said that I am sure they were not pleased with, at all. Needless to say we had to wipe the smiles off our faces a bit because frankly, it was almost pure entertainment for vapers. We don’t often get to see our opponents treated this way, a very deserved way at that. It showed that they could not care less about minors and e-cigs. What they cared about was using this bill as a cover to slip their definition into the legislative process and all the way up into state law.
This was a good day for vapers in California. Afterwards we went out to have lunch and beers and hang out for a while. Which is why this summary is so late… my wife and I only got back at around 6:30pm. And yes, the beer was good but nothing was as sweet and nice as seeing our opposition bite the dust the way they did. That was, PRICELESS!
If I find the video or audio of all this I will update this post. I was just told they once again did not have video for the G.O. committee but there is audio. Don't have the link at this time, yet.
