Maybe it's time to raise the age of adulthood, including military service, from 18 to 21, too. It'd be nice if there was consistency in the law.
California SB140 to define ecigs as tobacco and treat vaping like smoking
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Do they ever?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
--Nancy Pelosi
They're all so proud of themselves, too. All they are really doing is stifling long-term smokers from even attempting to make the switch to a less harmful product, all in an attempt to fool adolescents into believing that smoking and vaping doesn't exist.
OK, here's an anecdote. My 18 year-old daughter just graduated from high school, and so we threw a big get-together at my house, where all her friends could hang out. Nearly all of these "adolescents" are between 18-20 years old, but only one was over 21. Anyways, most of them are vaping their faces off all evening in my back yard. Cool, I thought, and they all know about me--the one dad that chucks clouds nearly as big as they do. However, as the night wore on, eventually they all were smoking regular cigarettes. Well, all of them but my daughter, anyways.
Naively, I was surprised at first. But wait, I thought 30 years of demonization of smokers, all the bans, the age limits, and the prohibition of mail ordering were supposed to prevent teen smoking?!?!?!
Now an idiot might think that vaping had gotten all of these innocent teens into smoking, right? Well, it turns out they were vaping to quit smoking. By 18 years old, they were already fully addicted to cigarettes, and looking for a way out through vaping. And, by the end of the evening, they had failed at continuing to vape and had given in to their cigarette craves.
I need only look at my own family and backyard to know that Sacramento and the ANTZ don't have any idea what vaping is, and they haven't a clue about how to stop teen smoking. All they are accomplishing is screwing with peoples' lives and stealing yet more money from all of us to pay for it.
OK, here's an anecdote. My 18 year-old daughter just graduated from high school, and so we threw a big get-together at my house, where all her friends could hang out. Nearly all of these "adolescents" are between 18-20 years old, but only one was over 21. Anyways, most of them are vaping their faces off all evening in my back yard. Cool, I thought, and they all know about me--the one dad that chucks clouds nearly as big as they do. However, as the night wore on, eventually they all were smoking regular cigarettes. Well, all of them but my daughter, anyways.
Naively, I was surprised at first. But wait, I thought 30 years of demonization of smokers, all the bans, the age limits, and the prohibition of mail ordering were supposed to prevent teen smoking?!?!?!
Now an idiot might think that vaping had gotten all of these innocent teens into smoking, right? Well, it turns out they were vaping to quit smoking. By 18 years old, they were already fully addicted to cigarettes, and looking for a way out through vaping. And, by the end of the evening, they had failed at continuing to vape and had given in to their cigarette craves.
I need only look at my own family and backyard to know that Sacramento and the ANTZ don't have any idea what vaping is, and they haven't a clue about how to stop teen smoking. All they are accomplishing is screwing with peoples' lives and stealing yet more money from all of us to pay for it.
I'm confused about this too. The only time I know that 2/3rd majority is required is for a new tax, but not a new fee, which is what this bill proposes (and a common workaround used to avoid the 2/3rds majority).
However, it appears that the motion to reconsider was granted, so I'm assuming SB 24 it is still alive.
I'm also confused as to where to go with all of this. I guess I contact my representative in the Assembly about SB140, but we have two separate bills raising the smoking age to 21, one also has licensing requirements....no CASAA call to action...
They more you stigmatize something to teenagers, the more teenagers will want to do it.
This is the part that needs to be addressed. I mean, it certainly gives credence to the argument about dual use users and that vaping isn't effective as a cessation tool. Assuming, of course, they *wanted* to quit smoking.
Did you ask any of them why they were still smoking?
Only if you don't consider having less cigarettes harm reduction. If you vape and smoke you're a dual user, but if you smoked a PAD and then when you started vaping you cut down to 1/2 PAD, I consider that a vast improvement.
Vaping isn't smoking cessation, it's an alternative to tobacco use. "Dual use" is only an issue if you consider vaping equally as harmful as smoking. Even if you consider vaping as smoking cessation, the FDA has approved NRT for dual use... It's all grasping for any straw that they can to justify demonizing vaping.
No, I didn't ask. I already know the answer. It was the same reason why I used to start out vaping and then eventually have a smoke--did that for a couple of years before finally tossing the smokes altogether. I know they want to quit smoking cigarettes, and I know for many like me it is a challenge to do so.
I don't know why dual use is made out to be such a big deal. Is ripping off a patch and then smoking considered dual use? Or, what about chewing nicotine gum and them smoking a cigarette? Don't hear much uproar about it in the media, at any rate.
I think the term "dual use" implies that vaping and smoking are equivalent evils. But they are not: smoking is clearly more danger than vaping, smoking appears to be more addictive than vaping, smoking affects others nearby more than vaping, just name a few thoughts that come to mind.
I think the term "dual use" has been invented to propagandize the public into thinking that vaping is nothing more than a scary alternative version of cigarette smoking, rather than the life-saving cure that it really is.
Lessifer: Dude, you beat me to essentially the same conclusions.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Since there are 40 Senators in CA, I suspect that a vote by the majority of Senators (i.e. 21 votes) is required for passage of a bill. If that is the case, they'll only need to find one more vote (or wait until more Senators show up to a voting session in Sacramento) to pass SB 24 out of the Senate.
treat vaping the same as smoking? why yes.
we will just refer to all vaping as tobacco use.
we are just a tobacco product now. we all know
that tobacco is bad right?
this is going to spread across the country. in
some places it already has. deem vape products
as tobacco. its over. not even a need to justify
ant regulations with science or even rudimentary
reasoning. because as i have said,we all know tobacco
is bad for us,right?
regards
mike
we will just refer to all vaping as tobacco use.
we are just a tobacco product now. we all know
that tobacco is bad right?
this is going to spread across the country. in
some places it already has. deem vape products
as tobacco. its over. not even a need to justify
ant regulations with science or even rudimentary
reasoning. because as i have said,we all know tobacco
is bad for us,right?
regards
mike
Gotta remember this is the home turf of the infamous antismoker jihadist, Satan glANTZ. If we win here, it will be a major victory. If we lose it will be unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected...
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
SB 24 was ordered to inactive file at the request of Sen Hill.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_24&sess=1516&house=S
Not sure what that means (as I suspect Sen Hill could reactivate SB 24 when he has enough votes to pass bill).
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_24&sess=1516&house=S
Not sure what that means (as I suspect Sen Hill could reactivate SB 24 when he has enough votes to pass bill).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
