Illinois Government moving to ban sale of PVs
- Thread starter Drozd
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Having lived in NYC and California, I'd have to agree.
First time I landed in Cal., I thought it was OZ.
Your perspective is interesting, esp. re Sweden and France... I've traveled to both, and considered expatriating to Sweden, long ago, but never lived in either country. Have been unable to find reliable info of status of ecigs in either country.
Poland has suffered too much. and I wander off topic, and will cease.
And I'm wandering off-topic, and will cease.
First time I landed in Cal., I thought it was OZ.
Your perspective is interesting, esp. re Sweden and France... I've traveled to both, and considered expatriating to Sweden, long ago, but never lived in either country. Have been unable to find reliable info of status of ecigs in either country.
Poland has suffered too much. and I wander off topic, and will cease.
And I'm wandering off-topic, and will cease.
Hi All, I just called Schmitz office and I would recommend anyone else intersted in helping and or giving an opnion to do the same.
49TH REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
Timothy L. Schmitz (R), State Representative
217-782-5457
Chris Lauzen, Republican State Senator, 217-782-0052
Timothy Schmitz, State Representative, 217-782-5457
Lauzen sits on the Senate Public Health Committee who reviewed and approved this legislation - It passed the Senate on 3/10/2010
Now it is in the House and has been referred to the Rules Committee for review your rep. Schmitz sits on that Committee.
The process is that the Senate sends their version to the House, if the House accepts the Senate version they vote on it and it gets sent to the Governor for signature. If they don't agree then it gets sent back to the Senate for revisions.
The Governor can also veto it and then it gets sent back and both have to vote to override his veto.
Anyway your best bet is to contact your representative and have as many other business owners as possible contact him about how this bill will adversely affect business. He is a Republican and should care about businesses. The only way to stop this now is to make sure it gets voted down in the House.
Chris Lauzen/District Office:
52 West Downer Place, Suite 201
Aurora, Illinois 60506
Phone: (630) 264-2334
Email: chrislauzen@lauzen.com
Timothy Schmitz District Office Address:
127 Hamilton Street
Suite D
Geneva, IL 60134
Phone:
(630) 845-9590
E-Mail:
info@timschmitz.org
49TH REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
Timothy L. Schmitz (R), State Representative
217-782-5457
Chris Lauzen, Republican State Senator, 217-782-0052
Timothy Schmitz, State Representative, 217-782-5457
Lauzen sits on the Senate Public Health Committee who reviewed and approved this legislation - It passed the Senate on 3/10/2010
Now it is in the House and has been referred to the Rules Committee for review your rep. Schmitz sits on that Committee.
The process is that the Senate sends their version to the House, if the House accepts the Senate version they vote on it and it gets sent to the Governor for signature. If they don't agree then it gets sent back to the Senate for revisions.
The Governor can also veto it and then it gets sent back and both have to vote to override his veto.
Anyway your best bet is to contact your representative and have as many other business owners as possible contact him about how this bill will adversely affect business. He is a Republican and should care about businesses. The only way to stop this now is to make sure it gets voted down in the House.
Chris Lauzen/District Office:
52 West Downer Place, Suite 201
Aurora, Illinois 60506
Phone: (630) 264-2334
Email: chrislauzen@lauzen.com
Timothy Schmitz District Office Address:
127 Hamilton Street
Suite D
Geneva, IL 60134
Phone:
(630) 845-9590
E-Mail:
info@timschmitz.org
wow, this sucks. Stock up on 100mg nic juice and VG/pg bases. Flavourings are easy to create. But this really sucks I could care less about the government because I have no say in what happens. Truley some are right about the outcomes of this. Money money money. Thats all any politician cares about. Not people. Maybe Arnie in cali does though. But we ae small and few and far between. Will will be buying nicorettes E cig in a couples years with a prescription from a doctor. It will be billed to our insurance for 700 dollars (If you can get insurance) and will be ....ty tasting and hardly any nicotine. Thats what i think. But who am I? Not anyone with money.
The irony of it all is that the anti-smoking groups have managed to get the country addicted to tobacco tax money. They lobbied governments to tax higher and higher in the attempt to stop us smoking, lest they be annoyed. Now too much national infrastructure relies on us paying those obscene taxes. A huge part of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is paid for by smokers. If they quit....there is no money. Plus roads, bridges and lord knows what else.
I will build a Nicostick and make my own juice before I go back to that tax slavery. Until then...open up the taps on that Kant and Cool, V4L....I am gonna clean you out on the stuff.
Stockpile, baby....stockpile.....
Exactly! Someone should put the cig tax pie in local newspapers so taxpayers see where the money really goes. There has to be a way to expose the charade between government and BP and BT.
NY stopped the Indian reservations from selling cigarettes to NY residents but NY was not able to stop them from selling to residents of other states (online). Of course, BT and the government put pressure on the charge card companies to not accept charges for tobacco products and forced UPS and FedEx to not accept these packages for delivery. Legally, I don't know how they orchestrated all this. Seems to me that BT still makes money - as nicotine is extracted from tobacco - it's the government that's really missing out on tax revenue and of course BP is missing out on vapors passing on their nasty gum, lozenges, patches, etc.
....the only recreational use of nicotine allowed by that law is tobacco. Deep pockets have lots of influence.
Anien't that the truth, You hit the nail on the head
California probably shouldn't relax too much either. Although Gov Schwarzenegger's veto was of course a positive thing, and we'd like to believe that even more positive statements and sentiments were implicit in it, I wanted to add that subsequently it was often concluded that the only real point and statement behind it was that he found it more appropriate to let the pending federal litigation decide the matter. Not that he was defending or standing up for vaping and personal liberties around it per se. And at that time a decision on the prelim injunction that later found ecigs to be tobacco products was still pending. If the appeals court now doesn't allow that injunction from Judge Leon to stand during the trial, who knows, maybe there would be less the gov could or would do towards freedom to use these products during that trial (which could be quite lengthy too). And of course nothing after, if FDA wins. The below even shows he was already looking at this as a 'tobacco product' when he vetoed, not as the unapproved drug device the FDA considers it and wants it treated as, including during trial.
"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"
"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"
I just sent the following to my house rep (Illinois) James Sacia
Mr Sacia,
I am a resident of Illinois, and your district.
I'm sure that you're aware of recent Senate passage of a bill that would ban the distribution of e-cigarettes. As this issue is currently being decided through pending litigation at the federal level, I would urge you to remember that items defined as “tobacco products” are currently legal for anyone over the age of 18 in all states.
The recent federal ruling on this matter, which is awaiting further ruling on appeal, declared:
"(The e-cigarette companies in question) have sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has the FDA cited any evidence that electric cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."
In truth, there IS no such evidence. And there is much informal evidence to the contrary.
No reports of related health damage among users have been substantiated. No laboratory findings concluding that the parts and ingredients used in e-cigarettes (beyond readily available and legal nicotine) are more harmful than cigarettes exist. The effects of smoking traditional cigarettes are extremely well-documented.
There is also a very substantial and growing body of persuasive anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes can provide a truly desirable alternative.
To be consistent in its legislation, fair to citizens, and congruent with common sense, the state of Illinois would have to ban distribution of all cigarette distribution in Illinois along with this pending ban.
I applaud the balanced decision of the Governor of California, who vetoed similar legislation. He stated:
"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."
E-cigarette users (virtually all of us are ex-smokers, and we are very grateful to be quit of the hundreds of known toxins delivered by burning tobacco and myriad additives) agree that minors should be prohibited from using any nicotine product. In my own avid perusal of many, many anecdotal reports in open internet forums, I have not yet encountered one person who was initiated into nicotine use by e-cigarettes, nor have I heard anyone promote that idea. (Theoretically it could happen, of course - but so could a child be initiated into alcohol use by tasting cherry flavored liquor. Many claims and arguments presented by those opposed to e-cigarettes are hyperbolic, hysterical, ill-informed or shamelessly dishonest.) The numbers of persons on those forums who report that their health has benefited by replacing cigarette use is very impressive.
We're just ordinary people, many of whom who have either stopped or significantly cut down cigarettes and much prefer ecigs for a number of reasons, and we have seen family members and friends do the same. We hope most fervently that you will sensibly forbid minors to use this product, and then veto this bill if the House passes it.
Please take the time to inform yourself deeply on this somewhat complex issue, Mr. Sacia. Large corporate interests and lobby-choked governmental bodies have the experience, motive and money to override both good law and common sense. Small, very vigorous "prohibition" groups who want the use of nicotine banned altogether do not have avid general support, or the principles of civil liberty on their side.
This is not good bill, on numerous counts.
Sincerely,
Chad Nicks
Orangeville Il
Mr Sacia,
I am a resident of Illinois, and your district.
I'm sure that you're aware of recent Senate passage of a bill that would ban the distribution of e-cigarettes. As this issue is currently being decided through pending litigation at the federal level, I would urge you to remember that items defined as “tobacco products” are currently legal for anyone over the age of 18 in all states.
The recent federal ruling on this matter, which is awaiting further ruling on appeal, declared:
"(The e-cigarette companies in question) have sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has the FDA cited any evidence that electric cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."
In truth, there IS no such evidence. And there is much informal evidence to the contrary.
No reports of related health damage among users have been substantiated. No laboratory findings concluding that the parts and ingredients used in e-cigarettes (beyond readily available and legal nicotine) are more harmful than cigarettes exist. The effects of smoking traditional cigarettes are extremely well-documented.
There is also a very substantial and growing body of persuasive anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes can provide a truly desirable alternative.
To be consistent in its legislation, fair to citizens, and congruent with common sense, the state of Illinois would have to ban distribution of all cigarette distribution in Illinois along with this pending ban.
I applaud the balanced decision of the Governor of California, who vetoed similar legislation. He stated:
"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."
E-cigarette users (virtually all of us are ex-smokers, and we are very grateful to be quit of the hundreds of known toxins delivered by burning tobacco and myriad additives) agree that minors should be prohibited from using any nicotine product. In my own avid perusal of many, many anecdotal reports in open internet forums, I have not yet encountered one person who was initiated into nicotine use by e-cigarettes, nor have I heard anyone promote that idea. (Theoretically it could happen, of course - but so could a child be initiated into alcohol use by tasting cherry flavored liquor. Many claims and arguments presented by those opposed to e-cigarettes are hyperbolic, hysterical, ill-informed or shamelessly dishonest.) The numbers of persons on those forums who report that their health has benefited by replacing cigarette use is very impressive.
We're just ordinary people, many of whom who have either stopped or significantly cut down cigarettes and much prefer ecigs for a number of reasons, and we have seen family members and friends do the same. We hope most fervently that you will sensibly forbid minors to use this product, and then veto this bill if the House passes it.
Please take the time to inform yourself deeply on this somewhat complex issue, Mr. Sacia. Large corporate interests and lobby-choked governmental bodies have the experience, motive and money to override both good law and common sense. Small, very vigorous "prohibition" groups who want the use of nicotine banned altogether do not have avid general support, or the principles of civil liberty on their side.
This is not good bill, on numerous counts.
Sincerely,
Chad Nicks
Orangeville Il
I'm terrible at organizing, but I'd be happy to help out if needed, if it comes to this.
Sorry Johnny, ever since I went over to my cousin's house and watched the wonder pets...that's all I've been saying for the last 2 days...it cracks the wife up....great avatar
Just thought I'd let you guys know.
The Chicago tribune contacted me after I sent them a letter about the possible ban in Illinois.
Apparently the reporter who contacted me was already trying to dig up info on it for a story she was writing. At the time that she contacted me she was in Springfield and it makes me wonder if the story was relevant to the entire health care debate.
In any sense, she did say she wants to get this story rolling for print ASAP. I put her in contact with Chris from Cigtechs when she mentioned that she would like to talk to somebody on the business side of the industry as well.
She wasn't speaking from an Anti E-CIG angle and seemed sympathetic.
During the conversation she even brought up that there are tons of products not authorized by the FDA yet still legal to sell. Weight lifting supplements, vitamins, etc.
In my letter I detailed the possibility of a connection between Senator Links crusade on E-CIGS and the large amounts of money he has received from various pharmaceutical groups. Groups included those who have been taking an active stance against the vaping industry.
PRIOR to contacting the media I sent a copy of my letter to the Governor as well as nearly every Senator and Rep that has in any way been connected with the bill. (Theres a TON) I mentioned in the letter than I am about to contact the media on the topic of the ban in general and what could possibly be a major conflict of interest due to the funding concerns.
They didn't even bother responding to phone calls or Emails. After the lack of any reply I sent the letter off to the media and was contacted the following day.
Anyhow, I can't claim this as an absolute fact as I didn't hear it myself. But apparently when Senator Link was questioned about the ban he basically said "He didn't even know anything about E-Cigs but somebody said he should ban them. So he authored the bill."
If in fact this is true then I am floored by the lack common sense being displayed by political figures in Illinois.
The Chicago tribune contacted me after I sent them a letter about the possible ban in Illinois.
Apparently the reporter who contacted me was already trying to dig up info on it for a story she was writing. At the time that she contacted me she was in Springfield and it makes me wonder if the story was relevant to the entire health care debate.
In any sense, she did say she wants to get this story rolling for print ASAP. I put her in contact with Chris from Cigtechs when she mentioned that she would like to talk to somebody on the business side of the industry as well.
She wasn't speaking from an Anti E-CIG angle and seemed sympathetic.
During the conversation she even brought up that there are tons of products not authorized by the FDA yet still legal to sell. Weight lifting supplements, vitamins, etc.
In my letter I detailed the possibility of a connection between Senator Links crusade on E-CIGS and the large amounts of money he has received from various pharmaceutical groups. Groups included those who have been taking an active stance against the vaping industry.
PRIOR to contacting the media I sent a copy of my letter to the Governor as well as nearly every Senator and Rep that has in any way been connected with the bill. (Theres a TON) I mentioned in the letter than I am about to contact the media on the topic of the ban in general and what could possibly be a major conflict of interest due to the funding concerns.
They didn't even bother responding to phone calls or Emails. After the lack of any reply I sent the letter off to the media and was contacted the following day.
Anyhow, I can't claim this as an absolute fact as I didn't hear it myself. But apparently when Senator Link was questioned about the ban he basically said "He didn't even know anything about E-Cigs but somebody said he should ban them. So he authored the bill."
If in fact this is true then I am floored by the lack common sense being displayed by political figures in Illinois.
Sorry about the couple typos there. Is there no edit feature on these forums?
Anyhow one thing I forgot to add about the whole FLAVOR thing. It seems as soon as flavors are introduced to a nicotine product the FDA immediately says its designed to lure in children.
Funny that... Nicotine gum now has 3 flavors. The orange one even says "Now better tasting orange" on the box.
In addition it doesn't take much digging to find stories of kids in junior high and grade school abusing both the gum and even the patch.
Woo found the Edit Feature. Don't know how I missed it before.
Anyhow one thing I forgot to add about the whole FLAVOR thing. It seems as soon as flavors are introduced to a nicotine product the FDA immediately says its designed to lure in children.
Funny that... Nicotine gum now has 3 flavors. The orange one even says "Now better tasting orange" on the box.
In addition it doesn't take much digging to find stories of kids in junior high and grade school abusing both the gum and even the patch.
Woo found the Edit Feature. Don't know how I missed it before.
Last edited:
He who has the money, makes the rules... Simple as that. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma have the money, and e-cigs are taking money from them (a drop in a bucket, I'm sure, but a drop is a drop to those greedy .......s), so they will pay off the politicians who make the rules, and we are screwed.
I hope V4L expands either way. Maybe there should be 2 or 3 V4L distributors nationwide, just in case the Illinois government turns against us.
Please begin to expand now, V4L, you're a lifesaver and we need you !!
Please begin to expand now, V4L, you're a lifesaver and we need you !!
To show just how insane the e-cig ban would be....
In California there is a ballot initiative for the November election day.....to legalize....
Well...I know the the forum management doesn't like us to mention the stuff, so you can read for yourself:
The Associated Press: Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot
In California there is a ballot initiative for the November election day.....to legalize....
Well...I know the the forum management doesn't like us to mention the stuff, so you can read for yourself:
The Associated Press: Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot
I'm so glad you did that Hudsonkm, thanks for your great efforts! 
Oh and re the editing, actually I think you must just be special -- I thought that was another of the things new members couldn't do until they had at least 15 posts (other ones being start new threads in all forums, and post links). Well I could swear I tried to edit when I had less than 15, and didn't have that button yet!:
Oh and re the editing, actually I think you must just be special -- I thought that was another of the things new members couldn't do until they had at least 15 posts (other ones being start new threads in all forums, and post links). Well I could swear I tried to edit when I had less than 15, and didn't have that button yet!
:- Status
Similar threads
