Contact Schwarzenegger to oppose SB 400, CA ban - Form Letter

[June]

I just emailed him. However, are we sure that this bill will make e-cigarettes illegal? How come there is no press about it?

Following is text from the SB 400 Bill. They are trying to make the e-cigarette illegal. Anyone ever heard of hardware being classified as a drug before?
"This bill would deem any article that can provide inhaled doses of
nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution a drug under these
provisions. By expanding the definition of an existing crime, this
bill would impose a state-mandated local program."

 

[Kamanjah]

The actual text that bans the sale is "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. By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program."

Oddly enough, there is no penalty for said "crime."

SB 400 wasn't amended to include electronic cigarettes until Sept 2. Could be that not many people noticed - Tom09 posted about it in the news forum, where I found it. When it left the Senate, it was an energy bill. The Assembly changed it totally, and sent it back to the Senate, where it narrowly passed. Wonder how many Senators even knew it wasn't an energy bill any longer?!

Sneaky, sneaky!

_____________

 

[Regman]

Oddly enough, there is no penalty for said "crime."

I think it didn't need any set out penalties, the penalties would just be whatever they are for selling illegal unapproved drugs.

Seems to me the bill is mostly to just give the right to sieze and shut down places that sell them, not really to send people to prison. They just want to have legal jurisdiction to confiscate e-cigs.

 

[sherid]

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,

Great letter!

 

[BARENETTED]

I sent an email to the Governor and I did let him know I was not from California, but thatI was concerned this bill would follow to other states across our country. I told him of my personal success and stated my concern about forcing people to go back to smoking cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

Super letter, Sherid.

 

[Vee]

Letter sent. I hope it doesn't pass.

 

[FizzleFisch]

Ok people... here's something that bugs me a little.

One of the important (or so I thought) points in our arguments for advocating that e-cig products be allowed
to remain available as a choice....

....is the premised contention that the removal of such a choice (as from a legislative ban or from stifling heavy regulation)
-- would (for those of us who were previous smokers) almost inevitably cause substantial numbers of us (as if being forced) to revert back to smoking dangerous tobacco products again.

But there's a recent poll in progress right here on ECF ... which seems to suggest that perhaps this (above) point of argument may not be as valid as it initially seemed to be.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-if-its-banned-would-you-go-back-analogs.html


I dunno .. I mean I sent my own objections to CA SB-400 with that element of concern as part of my argument.... but I guess I'm having to ask myself now...

just how valid is it?

 

[June]

Ok people... here's something that bugs me a little.

One of the important (or so I thought) points in our arguments for advocating that e-cig products be allowed
to remain available as a choice....

....is the premised contention that the removal of such a choice (as from a legislative ban or from stifling heavy regulation)
-- would (for those of us who were previous smokers) almost inevitably cause substantial numbers of us (as if being forced) to revert back to smoking dangerous tobacco products again.

But there's a recent poll in progress right here on ECF ... which seems to suggest that perhaps this (above) point of argument may not be as valid as it initially seemed to be.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-if-its-banned-would-you-go-back-analogs.html


I dunno .. I mean I sent my own objections to CA SB-400 with that element of concern as part of my argument.... but I guess I'm having to ask myself now...

just how valid is it?

I see the poll numbers reflect that most who voted, and there are not that many who voted, would not go back to tobacco cigarettes if e-cigarettes were banned. I think this is high and mighty wishful thinking. Read the posts with folks who have COPD, emphysema, etc. Smoking is not given up easily even when we know it is killing us. Be realistic folks here only stopped smoking after switching to vaping e-cigs.

 

[Kmel]

"SB 400 wasn't amended to include electronic cigarettes until Sept 2. Could be that not many people noticed - Tom09 posted about it in the news forum, where I found it. Sneaky, sneaky!

_____________

It was sneaky for a lot of reasons.

The final SB 400 was a combination of the SB400, restricting the sale of e cigs to adults, and SJR 8 -- a bill also authored by Corbett. SJR 8 was a bill solely dedicated to banning the the sale of e-cigs until the FDA approved them. If you add the three "w"s to this to make a link, you can find SJR 8 here: totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=11232

A week before the vote on SB400, the e cig ban requested in SJR 8 got rolled into SB400 before any of us could react.

Sneaky and low.

 

[sherid]

The people who voted no voted that while still being able to vape. Should that change and it is not possible to use e cigs, the number who will return to smoking will go way up IMO

 

[usamare]

Most of the people who won't go back to smoking have one or all of the following cessation aids:

-Large stockpiles of e-cig supplies.

-An affinity for Stonewalls and Swedish snus. (after a few months of pure e-cig usage, many people are able to get by with just these).

-Tobacco vaporizers. These devices are believed to be about 95% cleaner/safer than smoking. They also allow more mileage from the same amount of tobacco.

-A few people have the technology to make their own equipment/juices.

In most cases, falling back on 'alternatives' is seen as workable, but not necessarily desirable. (certainly the case for me)

I think working for a VETO on SB 400 is more to allow current smokers the oppertunity to discover e-cigs than for personal reasons.

 

[modestmark]

although Im new to this whole scene, I sent an email, and a twitter message.
I hope this b.s. doesn't stop me from ordering supplies online.

 

[Pocket Aces]

Do it Today! Time is shorter than you think. Since the bill needs a veto by the 11th which is a Sunday all contact with the Governors office needs to hit by this Friday to have an effect.

Takes less than 3 Minutes! Do it Now!

 

[GrimmGreen]

Good to see everyone jumping on this , i have had a tremendous response from my video. Viewers from Canada and the UK have shown their support as well...

YouTube - HELP STOP THE CALIFORNIA E-CIG BAN!!!!

 

[LaceyUnderall]

This just in: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/41871-ca-gov-issue-mass-veto.html#post627592

 

[ritalin]

Sent My email to him the other day...

Ive been sending every e-cig user I know to the governators contact page.

 

[SusBan]

Subject: Please veto Senate Bill 400.

I am right now reading the warning on my husband's bagged cigarette tobacoo, designed for rolling and smoking: This Product Contains/Produces Chemicals Known To The State Of California To Cause Cancer, And Birth Defects Or Other Reproductive Harm.

Yet, this product is NOT banned in California.

Please consider the letter to the FDA submitted by Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, Chair, AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force and Kevin Sherin, MD, President, American Association of Public Health Physicians, which states, in part:

"This year, about 400,000 American adult cigarette smokers will die of a tobacco-related illness. Their second hand smoke will kill about 48,000 non-smokers. About 700 more will die in residential fires. Despite progress on other measures of tobacco use, per CDC estimates, this death count continues to inch up from year to year. In contrast, even though smokeless tobacco products represent about 20% of nicotine intake in the United States, the number of deaths per year from these products is too small for reliable estimates from the CDC.

Our (AAPHP) best estimate is that smokeless tobacco products currently cause about 700 cancer deaths per year in the United States. This is less than 1% of the more than 110,000 deaths that would occur each year if smokeless products carried the same mortality as conventional cigarettes.

****

It should be possible to save the lives of 4 million or more of the 8 million adult American smokers who will otherwise die of a cigarette-related illness over the next twenty years. This could be done by making smokers aware of selected smokeless tobacco products (including but not limited to snus and electronic cigarettes) that promise to reduce the risk of tobacco-related illness by 99% or better for smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit."

See: http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/AAPHP.pdf

Senate Bill 400 is designed to ban electronic cigarettes which are, according to all preliminary studies performed by the Food and Drug Administration, a safer alternate to tobacco cigarettes. Placing a ban on them now will force many users to go back to regular cigarettes at the expense of their health and the health of those around them. Rather than banning them, we should embrace them, regulate them, and help forward their acceptance for their positive health benefits.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[webtaxman]

The latest news in Sacramento is that Arnold was sent 702 bills, they sit on his desk, and to date signed only 3. 3! out of 702!

Friday is a good deadline for consumer action, but he will be there Sunday, the last day.

So no need to stop faxing and writing letters. E-mails are just not that effective. No log is kept. He uses "Ghost" writers for twitter and his web submission form. Fax logs and snail mail are logged. Plus someone needs to refill the fax machine with paper--if you faxed like I did. The more times the fax needs paper, the better chance someone will read one. Sad, but true.

 

[webtaxman]

Update: Arnold has vetoed one bill:

Look at the reason for veto:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed the following bill:

AB 264 by Assemblymember Paul Cook (R-Yucca Valley) - Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day. See attached veto message.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 264 without my signature.
Our state is facing significant challenges, including the need for comprehensive changes in our policies on water, energy, and corrections and the need to take meaningful steps to
stimulate the economy and rein in the rising levels of unemployment. This bill does nothing to address any of these issues. I look forward to considering this measure when these other major issues are addressed.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger