i like the first line here http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bi...jr_8_bill_20090625_amended_sen_v98.html...The FDA has found them SAFE.
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
WHEREAS, Extended exposure to nicotine results in tolerance,
requiring escalating doses of the drug to receive the desired
stimulation;
This was in the Senate bill, and it's blatantly untrue. I smoked the same amount of the same brand of cigs for 30years. Obviously I did not build up a tolerance to nic requiring higher doses.
requiring escalating doses of the drug to receive the desired
stimulation;
This was in the Senate bill, and it's blatantly untrue. I smoked the same amount of the same brand of cigs for 30years. Obviously I did not build up a tolerance to nic requiring higher doses.
I am confused by the cries of joy "and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature requests that the federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), which has jurisdiction over the regulation
of nicotine products, prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes
until they have been found by that FDA to be safe
the FDA has found them to be safe"
Resolved, That the Legislature requests that the federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), which has jurisdiction over the regulation
of nicotine products, prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes
until they have been found by that FDA to be safe
the FDA has found them to be safe"
Press Release from the ECA re: California
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...consumers-access-e-cigarettes.html#post640941
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...consumers-access-e-cigarettes.html#post640941
"It does not appear that the bill has enough support in the Senate to override this veto, so it is unlikely that the sale of electronic cigarettes will be banned in California."
Got this information tonight from Dr. Siegels blog. And this tidbit:
Got this information tonight from Dr. Siegels blog. And this tidbit:
Ken, there have been two bills in California: SB 400 (in its final version) about to ban e-cig sales in California. And SJR 8 (your citation) about that Cali calls on FDA to step up on the federal level. SB 400 was passed by legislation and just vetoed by the Governor. SJR 8, however, passed Senate but did not went on to Assembly and has fallen into hibernation. The topic might well be resumed next session, but there is not much sense in SJR 8, anymore. If passed these days, it would have called that FDA ignores pending federal courts decision. Celebration is about SB 400, which would have stopped sales in Cali, irrespective of what happens on the federal level.
Quit, Id say this was a full-fledged battle. Prohibition troups did take Sacramento (legislation) by Blitz, within 10 days. Last man standing was the Governor, his office and people like YOU, who did sent their concerns and informative letters to the Governor. While the war will be determined at judge Leons court in Washington, Id certainly like to thank YOU and all the other great people who did similar to win the battle of California.
Hey TOM09!!!!
I just wanted to say thank you to you particularly for staying on top of this and pointing many of us in the right direction so we could be proactive. You have NO IDEA how much your thoughts, links etc helped this portion of the battle and I do hope you stick around for the long haul.
I just wanted to say thank you to you particularly for staying on top of this and pointing many of us in the right direction so we could be proactive. You have NO IDEA how much your thoughts, links etc helped this portion of the battle and I do hope you stick around for the long haul.
Re: SJR 8 -- this bill itself may be moot, but the confusion over the language sampled from the bill's text serves as a good lesson in proofreading/editing/writing voice.
Here's how it's written in the link at info sen ca gov:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until [ begin strikethrough ] they have been found by FDA to be safe [ end strikethrough ] [ begin italic ] the FDA has found them to be safe [ end italic ]"
Without the strikethrough/italic notations, it's a confusing paragraph! But, what the notations mean is simply this:
- In an earlier version, the sentence read:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by FDA to be safe"
The sentence was rewritten slightly, changing the passive voice to an active voice, such that the revised sentence reads:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until the FDA has found them to be safe."
Grammar and voice; that's all. It still comes down to Corbett wanting to ban non-FDA-approved e-cigs. The language in the bill in no way expresses an FDA opinion of e-cig safety.
Here's how it's written in the link at info sen ca gov:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until [ begin strikethrough ] they have been found by FDA to be safe [ end strikethrough ] [ begin italic ] the FDA has found them to be safe [ end italic ]"
Without the strikethrough/italic notations, it's a confusing paragraph! But, what the notations mean is simply this:
- In an earlier version, the sentence read:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by FDA to be safe"
The sentence was rewritten slightly, changing the passive voice to an active voice, such that the revised sentence reads:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until the FDA has found them to be safe."
Grammar and voice; that's all. It still comes down to Corbett wanting to ban non-FDA-approved e-cigs. The language in the bill in no way expresses an FDA opinion of e-cig safety.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
