America: the land of the free as long as you don't ever stray out of the little box they build around you
catchy little slogan eh
catchy little slogan eh
California vote on e-cigs coming--Gov. vetos--defers to SE v. FDA case
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Ok... Californians... with knowledge, weigh in here if you can:
In the KY thread regarding a potential ban, http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...tial-kentucky-ban-help-e-mail.html#post560774 Sherid brought up an excellent group who might be more willing to hear the information that is presented by eSmokers/Vapers than the person who is wanting to get the ban on ecigs rolling, Ellen Hahn.
We certainly can't change Hahn's position, (and the info provided by Sheri about Hahn will make you see why) however, with the group The Bluegrass Institute: Reclaiming Liberty! :: Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions They are for consumer choice and have political power in KY.
So... What about California? Any groups that anyone knows of that actually does have political policy influence... or at least the ability to listen openly to your comments and then help direct those comments in a respectful way to the media and the legislators? I have found: Policy Areas but I know nothing about them.
The Bluegrass Institute is an excellent example of organizations where letters should be sent. They are willing to listen to you. Watch the video on the website for BI... this is the type of ears we need.
For anyone whose state has yet to be affected, start doing searches for organizations like the Bluegrass Institute and start directing your letters there.
Maybe a sticky in the campaigning section will be necessary once we get a few states together that have groups that are willing to work with us. IMHO - This is something that consumers can certainly do and it would be minimal to medium work to contact a group in your state who you think would be willing to listen. We have to remember that each and every state that falls into the trap set out by the FDA, affects us all. Smoking bans are a clear example of this and history will repeat itself.
Edit: And Sheri can weigh in on this one: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/918 For Ohio.
In the KY thread regarding a potential ban, http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...tial-kentucky-ban-help-e-mail.html#post560774 Sherid brought up an excellent group who might be more willing to hear the information that is presented by eSmokers/Vapers than the person who is wanting to get the ban on ecigs rolling, Ellen Hahn.
We certainly can't change Hahn's position, (and the info provided by Sheri about Hahn will make you see why) however, with the group The Bluegrass Institute: Reclaiming Liberty! :: Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions They are for consumer choice and have political power in KY.
So... What about California? Any groups that anyone knows of that actually does have political policy influence... or at least the ability to listen openly to your comments and then help direct those comments in a respectful way to the media and the legislators? I have found: Policy Areas but I know nothing about them.
The Bluegrass Institute is an excellent example of organizations where letters should be sent. They are willing to listen to you. Watch the video on the website for BI... this is the type of ears we need.
For anyone whose state has yet to be affected, start doing searches for organizations like the Bluegrass Institute and start directing your letters there.
Maybe a sticky in the campaigning section will be necessary once we get a few states together that have groups that are willing to work with us. IMHO - This is something that consumers can certainly do and it would be minimal to medium work to contact a group in your state who you think would be willing to listen. We have to remember that each and every state that falls into the trap set out by the FDA, affects us all. Smoking bans are a clear example of this and history will repeat itself.
Edit: And Sheri can weigh in on this one: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/918 For Ohio.
Last edited:
Lacey - funny you should write that - take a look at http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/36756-campaigning-new-post.html .
Um... http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/36757-organizations-ability-listen.html
Get out of my head will you!!! LOL
There is a new world order coming ... unless we stop it. A world where the state tells us in no uncertain terms, across the board, what is permissable and what is not
We need to act before it is too late. If I want to drink an effin' sugary soda then i'll drink one. Whether the state likes it or not.
Y and Lacey: Could you take a look at the latest revisions to CA SB400 and make sure I'm not misinterpreting the effect I believe it will have on adult vapors?
I had this lovely post quoting and explaining what I am about to summarize below, but every time I tried to fine tune it I'd lose it. You're now getting my post with all typos included.
SB400 as originally written, dealt with prohibiting sales of tobacco products to minors with changes to the Ca. Business and Professions Code. At first, the bill (section 1) classified electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product for purposes of prohibition of sales to minors.
Now that section relating to Ecigs has been struck out and replaced with Section 4 and 5 which classify the ecig as a drug and seems to me to impact adult vapors.
If this post's formatting is fouled up, I'm sorry, but I'm not taking the chance of losing it again.
an electronic cigarette, shall be deemed to be a drug as de
I had this lovely post quoting and explaining what I am about to summarize below, but every time I tried to fine tune it I'd lose it. You're now getting my post with all typos included.
SB400 as originally written, dealt with prohibiting sales of tobacco products to minors with changes to the Ca. Business and Professions Code. At first, the bill (section 1) classified electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product for purposes of prohibition of sales to minors.
Now that section relating to Ecigs has been struck out and replaced with Section 4 and 5 which classify the ecig as a drug and seems to me to impact adult vapors.
If this post's formatting is fouled up, I'm sorry, but I'm not taking the chance of losing it again.
SEC. 4. Section 111247 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
111247. Any article that can provide inhaled doses of nicotine
by delivering a vaporized solution, including, but not limited to,
to read:
111247. 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 as de
fined
in Section 109925. This section shall not be construed as bearing
on or being relevant to the question of whether any other product
is a drug as defined in Section 109925 or a device as defined in
Section 109920.on or being relevant to the question of whether any other product
is a drug as defined in Section 109925 or a device as defined in
SEC. 5.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Did you know that the California Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee favors having Californians develop lung disease, heart disease, and cancer? Hard to believe, but this is a direct quote form page 23 of their Master Plan, "Endangered Investment."
"TEROCs vision of a tobacco-free California does not support the harm reduction strategy and believes that promoting these products as an alternative to maintain an addiction will not reduce risk."
TEROC's belief is mistaken. The greatest risk to health is continued tobacco smoking.
There is plenty of evidence that these products DO reduce risk. Take my own case as an example: I smoked for 45 years. After I switched to an electronic cigarette in March, I no longer had any desire to smoke tobacco. My lungs are healthier: I no longer wheeze and cough up junk. My heart disease risk has been significantly reduced by virtue of the fact that my blood pressure is down to normal. Mine is not a unique experience. Read comments from thousands of folks at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available The recurring theme you will see in these comments is that we are people who
Please keep these life-saving products available. Delete section Section 111247 from SB 400. My life is at stake.
"TEROCs vision of a tobacco-free California does not support the harm reduction strategy and believes that promoting these products as an alternative to maintain an addiction will not reduce risk."
TEROC's belief is mistaken. The greatest risk to health is continued tobacco smoking.
There is plenty of evidence that these products DO reduce risk. Take my own case as an example: I smoked for 45 years. After I switched to an electronic cigarette in March, I no longer had any desire to smoke tobacco. My lungs are healthier: I no longer wheeze and cough up junk. My heart disease risk has been significantly reduced by virtue of the fact that my blood pressure is down to normal. Mine is not a unique experience. Read comments from thousands of folks at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available The recurring theme you will see in these comments is that we are people who
- Smoked for many years
- Tried just about everything imaginable to stop smoking
- Succeeded in greatly reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking with these products
- Have experienced measurable health improvements
Please keep these life-saving products available. Delete section Section 111247 from SB 400. My life is at stake.
hehe yah - very catchy and true. Also Im diggin the avatar. Very nice.
Connie - So are you asking if you are clear on what Sections 4 and 5 states?
To me, it is clear that not only are they removing the availability of the electronic cigarette to consumers of legal age, but they are also removing the ability to purchase any product that could potentially vaporize nicotine. This could very well include all types of vaporizers that currently only need tobacco. IMHO, this is a very open ended statement they have made and by using the words "potentially", they are also trying to get water pipes off of the market as well.
In your words: "SB400 as originally written, dealt with prohibiting sales of tobacco products to minors with changes to the Ca. Business and Professions Code. At first, the bill (section 1) classified electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product for purposes of prohibition of sales to minors. This is something that any adult smoker and user of the electronic cigarette could definitely support.
Now that section relating to Ecigs has been struck out and replaced with Section 4 and 5 which classify the ecig as a drug and seems to me to impact adult vapors. Nicotine is not an illegal drug. It is fact that combustion is the biggest danger in smoking and the ability to vaporize nicotine eliminates the combustion while allowing adults to consume a completely legal product which has similar effects as caffeine.
My additions in red. Is this what you are looking for?
The KY here may as well stand for KY Jelly, so the government can screw us without the lube.
The KY here may as well stand for KY Jelly, so the government can screw us without the lube.
You have been particularly saucy today... coming up with all kinds of things
KY... V.I.A.G.R.A. Or was your P.E.N.I.S? That was too funny.
You have been particularly saucy today... coming up with all kinds of things
KY... V.I.A.G.R.A. Or was your P.E.N.I.S? That was too funny.
I'm actually surprised people caught that joke.
Well, it's my birthday and I deserve to be saucy. LOL
California Legislature has passed the bill to classify e-cigs as a drug for purpose of prohibiting the sale in California. For details read this ECF thread on the recent history of SB 400 (Amended Sept.2).
Sept. 11, 2009
The prohibition bill SB 400 (Amended Sept. 2) has been passed by Legislature.
After the formal act of enrollment, the bill will be sent to the Governors desk.
Oct. 11, 2009
Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 11
Jan. 1, 2010
Statutes take effect. E-cigs classified a drug and sales prohibition in California - if the Governor does not veto.
Sept. 11, 2009
The prohibition bill SB 400 (Amended Sept. 2) has been passed by Legislature.
After the formal act of enrollment, the bill will be sent to the Governors desk.
Oct. 11, 2009
Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 11
Jan. 1, 2010
Statutes take effect. E-cigs classified a drug and sales prohibition in California - if the Governor does not veto.
I don't understand how an E-Cig can be a tobacco product? It has no tobacco right? That is the whole point of it.
Wait... and another question... Are cigarettes considered a drug? Then why is the E-cig considered a drug? IT all comes down to any government wants to make money on this product and they can.. they are just figuring out how to make the most on it. Good luck stopping it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
