California vote on e-cigs coming--Gov. vetos--defers to SE v. FDA case

[Sinless1]

As this bill has taken on a new agenda I feel it is time to reflect and observe what the real issue is here. Almost EVERY single complaint/agenda against the e-cigs throughout the country is a result of marketing/sales tactics by Smoking Everywhere and their mall selling approach. It was the reason Oregon banned them and the SB-400 bill was a result of Smoking Everywhere selling e-cigs to minors in a Milpitas, Ca. Mall. Now we are weeks away from possibly enacting a statewide ban on e-cigs and I am sick and tired of all the bull**** I read on this site about this and that and nobody understands the fundamental issue ............selling these to kids.

What should be the main agenda for everyone on this site is to suggest and support the outlawing of selling e-cigs in an environment such as a mall. If they were only to be sold like cigarettes we would not be in the position we are currently in. If they could only be sold in a liquor store, cigarette store etc. then the kid issue would be a mute point.

I am shocked I never here anyone talk about this easy solution. Instead the main focus is on a ridiculously irrelevent lawsuit over border seizures.

As everyone puts their heads in the sand and focuses on the wrong agenda, one by one states will begin to ban e-cigs ..........all because of one damn company ruining it for everyone.

SE hasn't ruined anything , the people haven't stood up for thier rights!
in my state they have tobacco shops in the malls, minors have access to cigarettes everywhere. This is about you and i standing up for our freedom of choice. But first a law has to be passed that actually bans them before we can fight it in the courts. The socialist political agendas along with big pharma and big tobacco are manipulating the cowardly way. Which we don't have the $$$ to fight. The state of california fed government and all the other states don't give a **** about health, children or any other reason they keep citing about ecigs, it is about TAX DOLAARS period.
The states are broke and they want to protect thier tobacco tax!
They are all gonna make up whatever lies and reasons they want to protect the tax revenue. California is the first one to be stupid and try to pass a BAN law. That is actually a good thing once a LAW is passed that truely Bans them exists then we can really go to court and put the real question in front of the court.
I can't wait for them to try to ban them in my state i will go to court and i will win!

 

[Timekey]

Minors may have access to cigarettes from their parents stash but at least they cannot walk into a tobacco store and buy them readily as I think you are implying. They can however buy and use an e-cig as there are no laws prohibiting that. I would welcome that change and anyone in their right mind would agree. Perhaps passing such laws would take away some of the negative bashing going on right now. In fact if such regulation existed there likely wouldn't be an SB 400 to discuss.

 

[Moobyghost]

YouTube - Govenator Ban Senate Bill 400

Pass it around. Get the word out. Take a stand.

 

[Timekey]

I believe Arnold will indeed veto this bill but do you believe this will end the battle being drawn out over e-cigs? What's the next state on the horizon that will introduce laws banning their use? In time (maybe one more year), e-cig usage will become too large for anyone to stop it and will be political suicide for any politician taking a stand against it. Once it gets to that point in fact you will see some politicians stand up in favor of the e-cig to gather votes. Once that happens you know you have won the battle.

 

[TheScrye]

I hope he does to, and I hope the SE and Njoy case against the FDA is ruled in a way that still allows us to use these products for a long time to come. I understand the need to regulate them, but don't remove them from the market!

 

[gooney0]

I moved from Maryland to Virginia to escape just this sort of thing. Tax, spend, regulate, repeat.

Fortunately Virginia is only 30 minutes away, and while far from perfect is a breath of fresh air.

For years I warned my family and friends of the flawed and dangerous precedent of "sin tax" hikes. Like another poster said they don't care since they don't smoke. As I guessed as soon as they're done with "big tobacco" they'll go after "big food."

If the government has a vested interest in your health such that they can use taxes, regulation, and laws in your best interest there is no reason to stop at cigarette smoking. They constantly run TV ads showing teenagers being pulled over and fined for not wearing seat belts. The message is "wear your seat belt or you're a criminal and the police are out to get you"

Don't get me wrong, I do wear seat belts and agree that smoking is bad but do I deserve to be punished by the state for taking a risk with my own life?

The same principal applies to E-cigs. If my neighbor wants to use an e-cig and he risks getting sick or dying what's it to me? As long as he doesn't endanger others....

-Gooney0

 

[TheScrye]

We are slowly slipping into a country that has to babysit it's people. It's our fault it got this bad, the people wanted help, so they gave the government the power to do so. We wanted health care, we got it, now we want more, we're probably gonna get it. We wanted regulations on food and drugs, we got it. We wanted help when times got tough, government made a program.

This country is slowly slipping into a nanny state, were freedom is nothing more then a word we pass around to represent a dead idea we -think- is still available. We don't have freewill to make choices. The laws make sure of that.

The government has too much power, because we the people gave it to them. We can't wipe our own ..., so we asked the government to do it for us.

"It's only gonna cost us the very foundations this country was founded upon? Meh, sounds like a fair trade. Got any soft tissue paper? I got hemorrhoids, don't want to agitate them." (By the way, that was me being sarcastic)

 

[martha1014]

If you sale to customer in the same state you are located you already pay state tax. I don't know how many of their customers actually do this.

My husband has an online busiiness selling knives and his customers from Louisiana pay sales tax. He has to report this to the state and pay taxes.

 

[Webby]

The EFC and the CASAA need to begin a campaign to stop all sales of e-cigs in malls before another council person sees another kid being sold a kit.

If we could afford it, ECF and CASAA would do well to start a separate ad campaign highlighting the benefits of PV's. Only educating the public and bringing pressure on legislators through media will have any real affect.

We already have bids for production and several CASAA members “drafted” to write the PSAs. Right now, CASAA is in its formative stage and is finalizing nominees for the Board.

I know it may seem to some as a drawn out process, but the organization was born in the ECF and we’re trying to ensure that it follows an open and democratic process. I really can’t stress enough how important that every ECF member takes a minute to weigh in on the Articles of Organization thread.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/41976-casaa-administration.html

CASAA will be what you make it. We have the potential to draw from an incredible amount of member resources and talents. Our direction is being decided at this very moment and if you don’t chime in now, you really are missing an opportunity to contribute to forging the organization.

 

[fanofwalt]

Just posted this in a different thread, entitled "SB 400 Update! So far so Good," but I think it actually fits best in this thread.

I sure hope I'm reading this wrong, but...according to the Gov's website:

(NOTE: Ah. A newbie like me is not allowed to post urls. Go to the gov's website, click on Bill Signings, click the All Bills Acted On tab and search for "400" -- it'll be the fourth instance of "400" on the page)

...the status of SB 400 is "sign." The "chapter" designation (whatever that is) is "134."

Ruh-roh.

Note that the Governor's website describes SB 400 as "Medi-Cal: outpatient prescription drugs," yet you can see it's sponsored by CA Sen. Ellen Corbett, and the link takes you directly to the text of the e-cig ban legislation. On Corbett's website, SB 400 is described as "Tobacco," which is just as misleading, since e-cigs aren't tobacco.

I have only just discovered e-cigs, got to try one out at a county fair, and was delighted and surprised at having finally found a smarter way to get my nicotine. Now this happens. I haven't even yet made my first e-cig purchase.

So if that "signed" designation means what I think it means (sigh), can Californians still *use* their e-cigs? It's only the in-state _sale_ of the product that gets banned, or so it seems...right?

I'll stay tuned here at 3-cigarette-forum for your experienced insights. It looks like the Sacramento Bee is posting updates of what has been signed and what's been vetoed by Arnold, but it may not be updated as timely as the Gov's site. Again, I can't post the url, but if you search for Sacramento Bee, and "Capitol Alert," you should see what I'm referring to.

And, if I've somehow misread the status of the bill, PLEASE correct me!!

 

[Timekey]

You are reading an older bill that was called SB 400 from a few yers ago

 

[Timekey]

Arnold has not signed or veto'd this bill yet although he has signed into law 89 bills and veto'd 94 others today. I believe he will veto this as Republicans in Calif. are against this bill.

 

[fanofwalt]

Timekey, I sincerely hope you are correct, and that I am mistaken. I won't mind one whit being wrong on this issue!!!

However, as I previously mentioned, the Governor's website does describe "SB 400" as "Medi-Cal: outpatient prescription drugs," yet you can see it's sponsored by CA Sen. Ellen Corbett, and (here's the salient point) -- the link does, indeed, take you directly to the text of the e-cig ban legislation.

THAT's why I suspect the "sign" indicator is for the SB 400 we all know and detest.

I'm guessing the webmaster or whoever is responsible for the Gov's site saw that 400 referred to a Medi-Cal issue, and has referred to a Medi-Cal issue for some time, so never bothered to check for a previous SB 400 vs. a current SB 400...kind of like how so many legislators don't review bills' final versions before signing them. In fact, I thought I read right here on e-cig-forum that this very e-cig ban bill originally started off as an energy bill. Who knew it would have turned into a ban on e-cigs??

Those who don't fact check...

...well, that's why I'm calling upon you folks to double check me.

 

[fanofwalt]

Looks like I was wrong. Isn't that great???

Rooting for a veto!

 

[Timekey]

To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 400 without my signature.
While I support restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18, I
cannot sign a measure that also declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is
currently being decided through pending litigation.
Items defined as “tobacco products” are legal for anyone over the age of 18. If adults want to
purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they
should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco
products.
For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

[Timekey]

Gotta love Arnold.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

TimeKey - do you have a link?

 

[fanofwalt]

Timekey! That's awesome news!!! What's your source for this quote? Can you please supply the link?

Thanks!!

 

[creatormater]

Really? or is this a joke?

 

[boxhead]

hey timekey, we posted same time different threads...
and my question is going to ask sun; is gov. schwarzenegger statment is correct? "...declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is
currently being decided through pending litigation." thats what judge leone is working on. its who has athourghty not is/is not a drug, is there a other case?