California SB140 to define ecigs as tobacco and treat vaping like smoking

[bohrdom]

So to anybody who feels especially emotional about this, feel free to send the good senator an email:

Contact Me | Senator Mark Leno

Not that it will get read exactly, but the more notes his office gets in opposition to the bill the better.

So I used to live in Leno's district. And the irony is that there is a HUGE faction of vapers in that district. The single most amazing B&M I've ever visited is in Daly City, smack in the middle of Leno's territory. And there is a new one popping up every couple of months! He clearly doesn't know his constituency. Fingers crossed that he doesn't get re-elected...

Then again, my NEW city (about 15 miles south of Leno's reach) has since classified vaping the same as smoking, which is outlawed in all public places. Which means I can't legally vape outside in my apartment complex, on my patio, in the parking lot, etc. Not that anybody would squeal, but then again I'm perfectly happy inside the apartment... (spent enough time on the patio as a smoker, thank you very much...)

 

[catlady60]

a definition that would make sense would be "nicotine products" but then the law was about regulating tobacco not nicotine, my guess is that FDA is trying to extend their authority through some clever word play and meaning redefining.

Which means the FDA would be overstepping their authority by taking it upon themselves to redefine tobacco to include vapor products. That would take an act of Congress to change the law for tobacco products to mean vapor products as well as traditional tobacco products, e.g., cigarettes and RYO tobacco.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1256/text/enr#link=A_I_101_b_3_^Q1_IX_900&nearest=H0B6EEFBBF0D8468EADAB013D8AD1C528

I don't see anything in the law which classifies vapor products containing purified nicotine as a tobacco product, so if the FDA deems PVs and e-juice as tobacco, chances are a lawsuit is in the offing.

 

[DC2]

Which means the FDA would be overstepping their authority by taking it upon themselves to redefine tobacco to include vapor products.

You would think, but it seems that is not correct...

No, they very cleverly have defined tobacco products in two steps:

(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

‘(2) The term ‘tobacco product’ does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 503(g).

Our nicotine is "made or derived from tobacco" and thus fits the TPSAC definition of a tobacco product.
Congress would have to change that in order to avoid this issue.

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

I now contain nicotine from a tobacco plant am I a tobacco product? The FDA would love that.

 

[DrMA]

I now contain nicotine from a tobacco plant am I a tobacco product? The FDA would love that.

Only if you're intended for human consumption

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

hmmm I may have something....

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

If a woman vapes nic and breast feeds does it have a peppery taste?

 

[Zanderist]

If a woman vapes nic and breast feeds does it have a peppery taste?

good god man, good god.

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

it could be waaay worse

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

gunky coils

 

[Endor]

So, to revive this from Zoid's very prophetic TGOTTDASDP (Thread goes Off Topic to Die a Slow Death Phase), which indeed this thread did, I checked on the status over at Leginfo (Bill Text - SB-140 Electronic cigarettes.).

02/05/15 Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
01/27/15 From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 26.
01/26/15 Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Looks like it has been referred over to the Health Committee. Assuming I'm looking in the right place (California Senate Health Committee website), it is not showing up on the agenda for either March 4th or March 25th.

 

[lintz69]

I read on ECCR that they are challenging California. I hope we can all get together and fight California as well as all the other non-sayers.
Here is the news article from Source Electronic Cigarette Consumer Reviews

 

[zoiDman]

I read on ECCR that they are challenging California. I hope we can all get together and fight California as well as all the other non-sayers.
Here is the news article from Source Electronic Cigarette Consumer Reviews

I think the Link you posted is Not working?

 

[lintz69]

Yeah, apparently I can't post links from ECCR. Sorry.

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah... Guess there is some reason that the ECF is Blocking Links to that site?

 

[lintz69]

I don't know. It's a reputable site. Not sure why? Maybe they think it's spam?

 

[DC2]

Yeah... Guess there is some reason that the ECF is Blocking Links to that site?

ECF has been blocking links to that site for years, but I'm not sure why.

 

[zoiDman]

ECF has been blocking links to that site for years, but I'm not sure why.

Gotcha.

I'm not sure it Matters?

Because it Doesn't look like there is much Opposition to this Legislation here on the ECF. So it will Probably just Quietly Pass.

And then there will be a Big Thread about how Terrible it is. And how California is a just Crazy.

 

[DC2]

Gotcha.

I'm not sure it Matters?

Because it Doesn't look like there is much Opposition to this Legislation here on the ECF. So it will Probably just Quietly Pass.

And then there will be a Big Thread about how Terrible it is. And how California is a just Crazy.

When we have something more solid to rally around it would probably be a good idea to start a new thread.
People aren't going to notice developments if they start being posted this far into an old thread.

I'm thinking now that the bill has actually been referred to a committee we might hear something from CASAA soon.

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

We is a just Crazy Zoid land of fruits and nuts