I tweeted at him about this. One can hope that he is paying attention. I mean, I don't source any of my parts and liquids from shops in California, but as a resident the last thing I want is for my goods to be illegal in the state.
Contact Schwarzenegger to oppose SB 400, CA ban - Form Letter
- Thread starter Kamanjah
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I just emailed him. However, are we sure that this bill will make e-cigarettes illegal? How come there is no press about it?
This is the correct link to the (html) text of the bill sitting on the governor's desk. Link to pdf file. Hopefully CASAA will have all this info compiled soon!
I was also asked by a mod to refrain from contacting people on this forum about this issue, so if you read this and know someone from CA, make sure they know that if Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't veto this thing by Oct 11, it will become law. Action will be taken to halt the sale of electronic cigarettes in CA. Request your family and friends to become involved.
The more Veto SB 400 messages that are seen in Sacramento, the better chance we have of at least having electronic cigarettes stricken from this otherwise redundant legislation - all it does besides ban e-cigs is repeat existing legislation and calls agents of the Public Heath Department Peace Officers while conducting enforcement activities. That scares me.
So, I'll back off and wait. I've done what I can at this point.
Thanks to everyone who contacted the governor's office.
Kamanjah
I was also asked by a mod to refrain from contacting people on this forum about this issue, so if you read this and know someone from CA, make sure they know that if Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't veto this thing by Oct 11, it will become law. Action will be taken to halt the sale of electronic cigarettes in CA. Request your family and friends to become involved.
The more Veto SB 400 messages that are seen in Sacramento, the better chance we have of at least having electronic cigarettes stricken from this otherwise redundant legislation - all it does besides ban e-cigs is repeat existing legislation and calls agents of the Public Heath Department Peace Officers while conducting enforcement activities. That scares me.
So, I'll back off and wait. I've done what I can at this point.
Thanks to everyone who contacted the governor's office.
Kamanjah
Last edited by a moderator:
Surely this can't be a new policy of ECF ??
'Refrain from fighting the fight to keep e-cigs legal' ???
I hope SJ can tell us a reason for not wanting these actions on this board - or can tell us this was some kind of message that was mistakenly interpreted. I totally don't understand where a reason for this could be coming from?
Last edited:
HUH????
I just dont get it either......We N E E D to keep up the info....or WHY have this forum????
I need answers....NO.....I E X P E C T the *mod* to post here if in fact that was true.....
VERY SAD INDEED IF TRUE.....would not be analog free almost 6 months if not for this forum....but what a joke it is turning out to be,,,,
SHAME ON YOU
I just dont get it either......We N E E D to keep up the info....or WHY have this forum????
I need answers....NO.....I E X P E C T the *mod* to post here if in fact that was true.....
VERY SAD INDEED IF TRUE.....would not be analog free almost 6 months if not for this forum....but what a joke it is turning out to be,,,,
SHAME ON YOU
First I've heard of this, and totally bizarre if a mod did do this. I'll check to see what happened - I'm assuming it's a misinterpretation
Didn't realize there was further modification to it. Surprised at this point the legislature doesn't just block out a page or two of blank space in the bill and add in italics...this space reserved for future modifications.
Yes I did, and it's been taken care of.
There is no issue contacting other members on the forum, so long as it is done in good faith (ie, not for commercial purposes).
Please bear in mind that some members may not appreciate being contacted out of the blue, so it's very important to be polite.
SJ
There is no issue contacting other members on the forum, so long as it is done in good faith (ie, not for commercial purposes).
Please bear in mind that some members may not appreciate being contacted out of the blue, so it's very important to be polite.
SJ
I hate for this to be my first post, but i've been watching this forum for a while and decided to finally join in.
Kam, way to go!! Good to see you rallying support to oppose this bill, we need to do all we can.
BUT, i'd like to encourage everyone to take out the paragraph about the FDA study. I'd point out two things:
1- when talking to politicians don't confuse them or give them a reason to support the bill in the letter you are writing to oppose it. Mentioning the FDA study does little for the cause other then support the assertion the FDA did a study which suggests these are "dangerous" products and should be banned until further testing can be done.
2- the FDA did not find 1% DEG (diethylene glycol) in e-liquid, they found 1% DEG in ONE of 19 samples from only two manufacturers. Saying 1% DEG accomplishes exactly what the press has lately in painting all e-cigs as dangerous tainted products.
Let's keep the governor focused on the fact this bill started as a green energy bill and now contains no energy at all and that while the FDA and manufacturers conduct further studies, all the studies done so far have shown ecigs to be a much safer alternative.
Just don't give them any ammo they can use to shoot our cause!!
Kam, way to go!! Good to see you rallying support to oppose this bill, we need to do all we can.
BUT, i'd like to encourage everyone to take out the paragraph about the FDA study. I'd point out two things:
1- when talking to politicians don't confuse them or give them a reason to support the bill in the letter you are writing to oppose it. Mentioning the FDA study does little for the cause other then support the assertion the FDA did a study which suggests these are "dangerous" products and should be banned until further testing can be done.
2- the FDA did not find 1% DEG (diethylene glycol) in e-liquid, they found 1% DEG in ONE of 19 samples from only two manufacturers. Saying 1% DEG accomplishes exactly what the press has lately in painting all e-cigs as dangerous tainted products.
Let's keep the governor focused on the fact this bill started as a green energy bill and now contains no energy at all and that while the FDA and manufacturers conduct further studies, all the studies done so far have shown ecigs to be a much safer alternative.
Just don't give them any ammo they can use to shoot our cause!!
I will know if the bill passes or not by not even knowing if it did. Here in California there are several places that I know of that sell ecig kits at outrageous prices IMOP. And the kits are ones I've never even seen on the forum or anywhere else. So maybe they are not that good...Or maybe they are...IDK. But I'll bet my 510 is better.
The point being...I ask if they sell or even heard of ecigs just to see if maybe they have some juice for sale. They never do, they just have kits. So when I see them stop selling the kits then I will know that it must be illegal for them to sale now. Or maybe they won't even know about the bill that just took effect (if it's not vetoed) and they will unknowingly be selling it illegally.
The point being...I ask if they sell or even heard of ecigs just to see if maybe they have some juice for sale. They never do, they just have kits. So when I see them stop selling the kits then I will know that it must be illegal for them to sale now. Or maybe they won't even know about the bill that just took effect (if it's not vetoed) and they will unknowingly be selling it illegally.
so, I read the second to last paragraph of the bill and it says "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 defined by blah blah blah"
Um, when you smoke a cigarette, aren't you vaporizing the nicotine in the tobacco that you inhale? (I might be wrong on this, but i think i read it someplace) so....cigarettes are a drug and therefore would also be banned by the bill?
Can they really be that stupid?
Um, when you smoke a cigarette, aren't you vaporizing the nicotine in the tobacco that you inhale? (I might be wrong on this, but i think i read it someplace) so....cigarettes are a drug and therefore would also be banned by the bill?
Can they really be that stupid?
From those of us in other states...thanks for informing us on this. I sent off an email to your governor. I included quotes from MD's and a few from the washingon post article....
I didnt focus on the FDA- just medical opinions of the devise. Thanks for rallying the troops! I hope it helps
I didnt focus on the FDA- just medical opinions of the devise. Thanks for rallying the troops! I hope it helps
Another letter to Arnie.
Re: SB 400
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Please Veto SB400!
This bill masquerades as a bill to restrict access to tobacco products from minors. The real purpose of this bill is to support the interests of tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and ban the use of electronic cigarettes for adults.
Electronic cigarettes are the safer alternative for adults who have been able to give up tobacco smoking because of the availability of electronic cigarettes.
According to polls on electronic cigarette forums, the average age of electronic cigarette users in 41 years old. Mostly long term smokers who have tried unsuccessfully for years to quit smoking tobacco. The majority, if not all, electronic cigarette smokers including myself, have tried the nicotine replacement products with little success in quitting smoking. Electronic cigarettes have enabled me and thousands of other smokers to quit the deadly habit of smoking cigarettes.
Regarding minors and electronic cigarettes, the initial cost of electronic cigarettes is prohibitive for the majority of minors. Furthermore, access to any tobacco or nicotine products is already illegal and difficult for minors to access without the assistance of an adult. Any future bills truly intended to restrict tobacco or nicotine products from minors should focus on stricter laws against the adults who provide minors access to these products.
It has also been stated that electronic cigarettes are being marketed to minors due to the flavors of the nicotine liquid used in electronic cigarettes. Many smokers are sick of the tobacco taste, and do not want electronic cigarettes to taste like tobacco. Nicorette, the nicotine replacement gum, offers nicotine gum in several flavors, yet there are no accusations that they are marketing to minors.
Nicorette gum flavors:
- White Ice
- Cinnamon Surge
- Fruit Chill
- FreshMint
- Mint
The FDA has not banned electronic cigarettes and cannot legally justify the restriction of nicotine that is readily available to the public in other forms, including lethal tobacco cigarettes.
Please support the interest and health of all people in California by vetoing SB400.
Respectfully submitted,
Re: SB 400
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Please Veto SB400!
This bill masquerades as a bill to restrict access to tobacco products from minors. The real purpose of this bill is to support the interests of tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and ban the use of electronic cigarettes for adults.
Electronic cigarettes are the safer alternative for adults who have been able to give up tobacco smoking because of the availability of electronic cigarettes.
According to polls on electronic cigarette forums, the average age of electronic cigarette users in 41 years old. Mostly long term smokers who have tried unsuccessfully for years to quit smoking tobacco. The majority, if not all, electronic cigarette smokers including myself, have tried the nicotine replacement products with little success in quitting smoking. Electronic cigarettes have enabled me and thousands of other smokers to quit the deadly habit of smoking cigarettes.
Regarding minors and electronic cigarettes, the initial cost of electronic cigarettes is prohibitive for the majority of minors. Furthermore, access to any tobacco or nicotine products is already illegal and difficult for minors to access without the assistance of an adult. Any future bills truly intended to restrict tobacco or nicotine products from minors should focus on stricter laws against the adults who provide minors access to these products.
It has also been stated that electronic cigarettes are being marketed to minors due to the flavors of the nicotine liquid used in electronic cigarettes. Many smokers are sick of the tobacco taste, and do not want electronic cigarettes to taste like tobacco. Nicorette, the nicotine replacement gum, offers nicotine gum in several flavors, yet there are no accusations that they are marketing to minors.
Nicorette gum flavors:
- White Ice
- Cinnamon Surge
- Fruit Chill
- FreshMint
- Mint
The FDA has not banned electronic cigarettes and cannot legally justify the restriction of nicotine that is readily available to the public in other forms, including lethal tobacco cigarettes.
Please support the interest and health of all people in California by vetoing SB400.
Respectfully submitted,
- Status
Similar threads
