California Senate Bill 400 Amended (September 2) to Prohibit the Sale of E-Cigs

[Tom09]

California had been about to pass a bill (SB 400 Amended July 23) which included electronic cigarettes into the definition of "tobacco products" for purpose of preventing sales to minors (previous ECF discussion here ). That’s obsolete.

This bill got substantially recrafted, the sensible "tobacco substitute" slot became deleted from this bill's definition. The revised bill (SB 400 Amended September 2) now classifies e-cigs as a drug for purpose of prohibiting the sale in California.

Specifically, the revised bill

3)Classifies electronic cigarettes and any similar devices that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution as a drug.
4)Expands the duties of the state Department of Public Health's Food and Drug Section inspectors so they can enforce the prohibition of the sale, distribution, or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes if they have not been approved or cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
[...]
This bill seeks to prohibit the sale, distribution, or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes in California as long as they have not been approved or certified by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Source: Bill Analysis SB 400 As Amended September 2, 2009

This bill would [...] authorize action to halt the sale, distribution, or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes that have not been approved or cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
[...]
32 SEC. 4. Section 111247 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
33 to read:
34 111247. Any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine
35 by delivering a vaporized solution, including, but not limited to,
36 an electronic cigarette, shall be deemed to be a drug as defined
37 in Section 109925.[...]

Source: Text of Senate Bill No.400, Amended in Assembly September 2, 2009

Following link provides the complete history of SB 400.

 

[yvilla]

Omigod, this is virtually earth shattering news! 8-o

California members especially - but all the rest of us as well - must attempt to stop this from passing!

 

[souporvapor]

As CA economy continues to 'crash'- it might seem that this state is among those with the biggest stake in insuring the safety of their
tobacco tax revenue.

Alternative to Smoking?

30 years of smoking...
Vaporized by my ScrewDriver!

 

[souporvapor]

In reading the bill it appears they are passing e-cigs off to get rid of the responsibility of regulating them as tobacco.
When you click the link to the bill you find a whole list of $$$$$$/costs that go along with enforcing 'no sales to minors' - which was the original concern I believe.

Could it be that it's just easier to create the classification of 'drug' and let the FDA be in charge? Looks like that might have a lot to do with it.
Not to say this is a good 'thing' - just my take on what the bill does.

Alternative to Smoking?

30 years of smoking....
Vaporized by my ScrewDriver!

 

[AngusATAT]

But pot is okay. Go figure.

 

[CollegeVapor]

WTF MAN marijuana is DEFINATELY more harmful then ecigs.... this is some bullsheet >:O is there any petition or anything of that sort that i can sign?? all e-smokers gotta stick together to make sure our hobby doesnt go under (i dont wanna go back to smoking cancer sticks =(

 

[jigtg]

What difference is this going to make when judge Leon is going to rule before this bill becomes effective?
Sounds like a plot of some sort. Either way, I'd be surprised if Arnold would let this one pass. Actually Arnold might not be around at that time anymore.

 

[jaspry]

I live in California, and I have just found hope in PV's for quitting smoking.

So, has this bill already passed or what? Does that mean that us Californians can't even buy online?

 

[wv2win]

I would suggest you stock up. If you have a PV that takes regular batteries at least that is one part of the process you won't have to worry about. Juice and atomizers is another story.

 

[LaterSkater]

Am I am going to need a friend in another state to hook me up? I will not stop vaping until I am off nicotine. I don't care what the law says in my Gestapo state! It won't be the first time I didn't follow their f'd up laws, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The Dead Kennedy's had it right "California Über Alles!" F***in' politicians, I hate them ALL!

 

[wv2win]

Am I am going to need a friend in another state to hook me up? I will not stop vaping until I am off nicotine. I don't care what the law says in my Gestapo state! It won't be the first time I didn't follow their f'd up laws, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The Dead Kennedy's had it right "California Über Alles!" F***in' politicians, I hate them ALL!

Come mid September when the federal judge rules in the NPro and SE lawsuit against the FDA, it won't just be California, it will be the whole country. I would suggest either buying or making a battery mod so at least the batteries will not be an issue.

 

[DisMan]

Notice it is geared towards the SELL, not the use of the device. The anti-smoking laws appear to be untouched.

 

[Tom09]

So, has this bill already passed or what? Does that mean that us Californians can't even buy online?

I’m not US, so please jump in for corrections on how the system actually works in Californa. The SB 400 has passed third reading in the Assembly by a vote of 51-24. Once the bill has passed third reading in both chambers, it has to be signed by the Governor.

It’s about a ban on sales. For the time being, you can certainly continue to buy online. Problem grows, however, when other authorities follow the lead of California. A number of stones builds a wall. California Legislature is about to lay a cornerstone, and futher wall-building can become self-reinforcing on various levels. No panic, but time to act.

 

[Tom09]

In reading the bill it appears they are passing e-cigs off to get rid of the responsibility of regulating them as tobacco.
[...] Could it be that it's just easier to create the classification of 'drug' and let the FDA be in charge?

IMHO, this bill took quite a dramatic turn. The originally proposed sensible regulation (recognizing e-cigs in terms of a „tobacco substitute") turned into a policy-driven regulation that only offers the „drug"-slot for e-cigs. Instead of passing the buck on to federal authorities (as done in a supplementary resolution SJR 8), the revised SB 400 now calls for authorities on the state level to enforce a de facto ban of e-cig sales.

 

[Maveric]

Just seems like more reason to fight for FDA approval.

 

[webtaxman]

Federal Government - Notice to the State of California:

You know that law you'all want to pass -- SB 400? We advise you amend the text as follows........

You do want the Federal Stimulus money, correct? We appreciate your prompt attention regarding this matter.

Signed:

Blackmailing Federal Government - Always at your service.

As I have said before I am in within walking distance of the Capital Building in Sacramento. Problem: I have no clout. Is there anything I can do? No ideas anyone offers will be considered unreasonable to me.

I have yet to read the entire bill and history. I will do that now, and look for something, anything that comes to mind. I personally want to carry a huge box of original letters, on paper from e-cig users (voluminous documents - right Yvilla? LOL) and drop them right at the entrance to the Governor's office. If nobody is waiting in the secretary/assistants area, I have a clear path to Arnold's desk. Not that he will be there. But I was actually able to do this when Pete Wilson was Governor. That is no joke.

OMG, how can I watch this bill pass. I can't. Ideas anyone?

 

[yvilla]

Hey Webtaxman, your idea of making sure that your California congresspeople see voluminous input from ecig users is a good one. That petition that has thousands of comments on it has been printed out for sending to congresspeople before, and is something your California legislators (and Arnold, if necessary) should see. But, they should also see the many position statements, articles and letters we've seen from experts like Drs. Nitzkin, Siegel, Whelen, Baron, Phillips and others. If you need links to any of that stuff, just let me know.

My other thought would be that you join up with all the other forum members and suppliers from California, because you're going to need plenty of local support to carry out any campaign against passage of this new amendment to SB 400 that you might come up with.

 

[Daedalus]

WTF MAN marijuana is DEFINATELY more harmful then ecigs.... this is some bullsheet >:O is there any petition or anything of that sort that i can sign?? all e-smokers gotta stick together to make sure our hobby doesnt go under (i dont wanna go back to smoking cancer sticks =(

No, no it's not. This is neither the time nor place for this discussion, but if you really want to quibble try finding a lethal dosage for marijuana and one for nicotine (one doesn't exist, and the other is surprisingly low). The original retort of "Well marijuana is okay?" is not analogous at all. In this state doctors have the option of prescribing it to patients who can benefit from it, the state making ecigs illegal in line with the FDA's current stance is completely different. It's also not that shocking, and I won't be surprised if every state doesn't adopt similar legislation if the FDA doesn't make any change in their policies towards ecigs soon.

 

[Pugzley]

Ditto that, Later Skater, I too live in Naziland, CA.

I've never seen such a bunch of meddlers as there are here. Time to move back to Alaska!

 

[TropicalBob]

Tom and Yvilla, your levels of concern are warranted. This is the first anti-vaping proposal I've seen. This goes further than anything yet made into law. And it clearly targets our DEVICES in this all-encompassing definition:

Any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine
by delivering a vaporized solution, including, but not limited to,
an electronic cigarette, shall be deemed to be a drug

The bottom line seems to be that California will not allow sale of anything that vaporizes nicotine. That would include the nHaler. There might be quibbles about what is and is not a vaporizer, but the intent of the law is clear: No e-smoking devices can be sold. Anything used to vaporize nicotine for inhalation will be taboo.

I'm also bothered that California -- say what you want in disagreement -- is a national leader among states. It pioneers; others follow. I would expect this law, if passed and upheld, to be copied in state after state until the FDA says "absolutely no" and the issue is resolved for every state.

I am also reminded how very long ago we suggested that Arnold the cigar smoker should be gifted with a box of e-cigars, delivered in person, by a company like Ruyan, with a full explanation of the product and its benefits. Arnold -- a kind of rebellious free spirit rarely found in politicians -- might have become an ally before we needed him so desperately.

Opportunity missed. As usual.