(Florida) Bill Would Block Electronic Cigarettes For Minors

[AgentAnia]

Have just spent a few hours reviewing the history of H0169. As far as I can determine, the bill was amended to include the Section 11 language on March 26. At least that's when the amendment was published. The amendment was written by Rep. Artiles.

Here's the current status page: FL H0169 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan (There are links there to all bill versions and amendments.)
And here's Artiles' amendment, pdf file: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0169/Amendment/974615/PDF

As I read the history, up to that point on 2/36, the bill was only about restricting sales to minors and verifying age.

I agree that the language of the bill as amended is ambiguous, as it makes no mention of online sales, but as I read it it could indeed be interpreted as prohibiting anything but face-to-face sales, although I believe it would affect only vendors located in Florida, not online sales from out-of-state vendors to Florida residents. However, since Wizard Labs is my main supplier of e-liquid, well....

Please tell me I'm wrong!

Will email my representative tonight and will be calling him tomorrow.

 

[ennagizer]

To me the wording raises quite a few questions. The first that comes to mind is if this would affect Florida business to business transactions, such as wholesaler to retailer transactions? Second, would it prevent Florida retailers from selling to out of state purchasers? Third, would it prohibit Floridia residents (or businesses) from purchasing online at all, even from out of state vendors?

I think the way it's worded means Florida retailers cannot sell to purchasers within the state unless it's face to face, but everything is subject to interpretation.

 

[AgentAnia]

To me the wording raises quite a few questions. The first that comes to mind is if this would affect Florida business to business transactions, such as wholesaler to retailer transactions? Second, would it prevent Florida retailers from selling to out of state purchasers? Third, would it prohibit Floridia residents (or businesses) from purchasing online at all, even from out of state vendors?

I think the way it's worded means Florida retailers cannot sell to purchasers within the state unless it's face to face, but everything is subject to interpretation.

Indeed, you've posed the relevant questions. If it passes as is, I would expect it immediately to be challenged in court. (Remember, SFATA is based in So. Florida.)

 

[jcalis1394]

Will e-mail and call representatives tomorrow. The wording can be twisted into prohibiting online sales and that will definitely affect a lot of us. There's many ways to go about online sales and verifying age, so we need to make sure we let them know that particular aspect of the bill should not go live.

 

[poconojo]

I no longer trust the language in this country.

 

[jmzjmz]

This bill is also seeking to stop "Online Transactions". It doesn't say that specifically, but it says "in line of sight". This could hurt a lot of businesses. If this gets passed, it only a matter of time before other states start to follow suit.

 

[B2L]

This is a copy of the email I sent,

Representative Ray,

As a longtime user of e cigarettes, I am writing to ask you to seriously consider voting no on House Bill 169.

Let me share a little of my story with you, I smoked for 27 years and had tried everything under the sun to stop. This included the patch, nicotine gum, Wellbutrin, hypnosis and going cold turkey. Nothing was successful until I learned about e cigarettes. I bought my first kit almost 4 years ago and have not smoked, nor missed, cigarettes since then.

E cigarettes are a very effective harm reduction tool for many long time smokers and are saving countless lives.

I, and most if not all e cigarette users and sellers, are staunchly for age restrictions on ecig purchases. However this bill if passed in its present form would have significant negative impact on some Florida businesses and some ecig users such as those who are disabled and must purchase online thereby forcing them back into smoking.

There are other means of age restriction available such as software and/or requiring signature confirmation of online purchases.

I strongly urge you to look into this and vote no on House Bill 169 and yes for the freedom of adult Floridians to purchase these valuable harm reduction tools online.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.
Brian

I hope many FL vapers are emailing and calling, only through numbers will it make a difference.

 

[AgentAnia]

My email to my representative said that the bill, as originally written, was a good thing, as it simply restricted sales to minors and gave the state jurisdiction on covering laws. The late amendment (Section 11) restricting ALL sales to line-of-sight, however, was extremely ambiguous in its wording and had nothing to do with the original intent and should be removed before the vote is called.

If you're on Facebook, Greg Conley has posted some comments on the situation here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cas...id=655235701180947&offset=0&total_comments=13

Personally, I don't think we should urge our reps to vote no on the bill but rather to move to take out the offending Sec. 11 before voting yes.

However, I very much fear it's a done deal....

 

[clnire]

I emailed my Senator stating pretty much what others have said. Basically that e cigarettes are the only thing that has helped me quit completely after 40 years of smoking. I also stated it is the wording I don't like. It should be changed to allow on line purchases for legal age adults.

I hope my voice helps.

 

[cpi47]

I would normally support banning the sale to minors but it's ambiguous language makes me question what else they want to limit us on. If they start with one bill then they'll keep rolling them out like the rest of the states doing this crap!

 

[aikanae1]

What a mess! I just read the FB post and it appears no one knows for sure what the additional is intended to do, just that it was slipped in at the last minute. It definatley smells like something is up and this last minute thing, with no hearing or debate is a new sneaky trick. I wonder if most of the legislature even know it's been changed before they vote on it.

 

[AgentAnia]

What a mess! I just read the FB post and it appears no one knows for sure what the additional is intended to do, just that it was slipped in at the last minute. It definatley smells like something is up and this last minute thing, with no hearing or debate is a new sneaky trick. I wonder if most of the legislature even know it's been changed before they vote on it.

Definitely smelly, definite sneaky, but unfortunately not a new tactic. Slipping in nefarious, ambiguously worded amendments to favor an agenda unrelated to or in opposition to the original author's intent is a long-standing politic trick.

That the amendment which basically rewrote the entire bill was authored by the bill's original sponsor (Artiles) says to me that this is what he intended all along.

However, I see that the Preemption Section, which several amendments tried to get deleted, is still there:

(12) PREEMPTION.—This subsection expressly preempts to the state the regulation of the sale of products under this section and supersedes any municipal or county ordinance on the subject.

 

[aikanae1]

I just had a second thought. Because the wording changed so soon before a vote, it doesn't allow anyone to read it and fully understand what it is saying is reason enough to object to passage of that portion - and I think most politicans would agree. They don't want to go on record voting for or against something that could backfire later on. Point out the new admendment uses broad and ambiguous language leaving it open to interpetion and possible court challenges. It's a dirty trick done by people with something to hide. It's clear as muddy water.

 

[AgentAnia]

I just had a second thought. Because the wording changed so soon before a vote, it doesn't allow anyone to read it and fully understand what it is saying is reason enough to object to passage of that portion - and I think most politicans would agree. They don't want to go on record voting for or against something that could backfire later on. Point out the new admendment uses broad and ambiguous language leaving it open to interpetion and possible court challenges. It's a dirty trick done by people with something to hide. It's clear as muddy water.

Without doing any fact-checking, I believe that most legislative bodies have procedural rules that establish a deadline for submitting amendments. Theoretically this is to give legislators time to read, understand, and come to a decision on them. In actuality, the deadlines are often unrealistic. That's why slipping in amendments right at the deadline is a long-established political tactic...

I'm sure the "letter of the law" was followed here...

Still, that doesn't pre-empt a poorly worded law, as passed, from being challenged in court.

ETA: And, as Greg Conley said on Facebook, many laws contain such muddy language, which is mostly ignored. (I call this a "glass half full" interpretation, but then, I'm totally cynical on this issue.)

 

[jcalis1394]

If this bill passes as it is, I'm fairly confident it'll be challenged in court. I'm watching the live stream at the moment, let's hope it doesn't come down to that.

 

[rexy]

UPDATE 4/21/2014

Due to my original email last night, there have been several active discussions started online surrounding the new language in HB169.
I feel it's my responsibility to share some of those updates.

I've been in phone conferences late last night and this morning with Kevin Skipper of VISTA (Vaping Industry Strategic Truth Alliance), who has a lobbyist in the state capitol on behalf of the vaping industry.
Greg Conley, a well respected attorney in the vaping community has also weighed-in on the CASAA Facebook page regarding the recent changes to the bill.
Greg expressed his professional opinion that if this issue had been noticed 2 weeks ago, there may have been merit in attempting an amendment to the bill, but at this late date, with the deadline already upon us, a last minute attempt at changing the law could be more harmful than allowing the bill to pass in its current form.
After carefully weighing all of the available options left to us at this time, VISTA has agreed, and decided to hold off on filing official paperwork in Tallahasee this morning.
Instead, they have decided the best course of action will be in focusing their efforts behind the scenes to get assurances from the sponsoring representatives that the intention of this new language is not to enforce an online ban in Florida.
If those assurances cannot be met, Kevin has advised me that they are fully prepared to file the necessary paperwork to challenge, and we have pledged our support.

At this point in time, with the most current information available to me, I am deferring to the expertise of Mr. Conley, CASAA, and VISTA's assessment.
Their position is that the time for emails and phonecalls has passed, and our best chances at this late hour now depend on having the bill sponsor go on the record on the House floor that his intent is not to ban sales online.
Now that VISTA is aware of the situation, they will be actively working toward that goal over the coming days.

I would like to express my gratitude to all of the Florida vaping community who have come together in their passion and awareness over this issue.
This situation highlights the importance for all of us to stay involved and informed of any pending legislation that affects us and our community before it's too late.

I will be continuing to follow the course of this legislation both on the government website: Florida House of Representatives - CS/CS/CS/HB 169 - Tobacco and Nicotine Product Regulation
and CASAA's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/groups/casaamembers?id=220551917982663&ref=notif&notif_t=like

Sincerely,

John MacLeod
Wizard Labs
6808 Hanging Moss Rd
Orlando, FL 32807
(321) 422-0803

 

[StefanDidak]

It definatley smells like something is up and this last minute thing, with no hearing or debate is a new sneaky trick.

If anything, what we as vapers get to positively take out of this situation is that we need to stay on point and aware that these things can happen in this way. In other words, if a bill looks fine one moment we can't let our guard down and assume it remains that way until it's passed. This is definitely an interesting wake-up call on that score.

 

[poconojo]

I don't trust the language in this bill! Once these so called public servants pass this, it will be like a domino effect. They will then be able to do whatever they want and add any type of amendment they please without public knowledge. You would like to think that these politicians would have better things to do with their time, like creating jobs and fixing the healthcare system. But no, they have to justify their high paying jobs off the backs of the working class by creating bills to try and ban online sales of electronic vaporizers. I guess this is a really important issue for them!

 

[Bill Godshall]

The key reason for the amending HB 169 was to preempt (i.e. prohibit) local governments from banning the sale of e-cigs and tobacco products to adults. That's why Big Pharma funded ACS, AHA, ALA are lobbying against HB 169.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0169&Session=2014

The following provision in Section 11 of the amended version of HB 169 exempts establishments (which would include online vendors) that don't allow children in their premises.

(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) shall not apply to an
establishment that prohibits persons under 18 years of age on
the premises.

 

[poconojo]

The key reason for the amending HB 169 was to preempt (i.e. prohibit) local governments from banning the sale of e-cigs and tobacco products to adults. That's why Big Pharma funded ACS, AHA, ALA are lobbying against HB 169.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Secti...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0169&Session=2014

The following provision in Section 11 of the amended version of HB 169 exempts establishments (which would include online vendors) that don't allow children in their premises.

Now that is the intelligent version of what I was trying to say! Everyone in the vaping community needs to get a law degree.