Michigan Legislation

[Tedlee]

Thanks Bill. Great info there.

 

[Tedlee]

Davis says, “After all, liquid in e-cigarettes is extracted from tobacco and so therefore, they are essentially tobacco products . And certainly tobacco-derived products, it would make sense to use the existing regulations that we have about tobacco products and classify e-cigarettes under that existing regulation."

*SMH*

 

[Charley Crystal]

None of the places I've ever bought e-cig products from sell them to minors. Second, it's just a matter of time before they ban vaping in public just like they did smoking. Sigh! Not sure how I feel because one one hand vape can fill a place up just like smoke can but it doesn't smell too much or contain any known products that can harm others.

 

[VapieDan]

None of the places I've ever bought e-cig products from sell them to minors. Second, it's just a matter of time before they ban vaping in public just like they did smoking. Sigh! Not sure how I feel because one one hand vape can fill a place up just like smoke can but it doesn't smell too much or contain any known products that can harm others.

You raise many interesting aspects concerning restrictive legislation. Cigarette sales to minors has been enacted for years. Yet we continue to see retailers selling to minors. No major outlet is going to risk such a sale. Even major outlets "goof up" from time to time usually due to an employee mistake or negligence. Small stores run by shady people have done so and will continue to do so. Add to this adults buying for children. Alcohol seems to get into many minor hands this way. There is never any analysis of how effective a law becomes after enacted. If challenged the retort is always "If it saves one life......" We can speculate over and over on this topic. The reason for the legislation is to pave the way for taxation. Have you not noticed how many of these proposed laws contain taxes right at the inception? It is not a matter of being regulated it is just when and how much.

 

[VapieDan]

So you're claiming patches, gum lozenges and nicotrol inhalers are tobacco products? Certainly the states haven't taken that stance.

They contain Nicotine don't they? Big Pharmaceuticals have far more power than we do. Campaign contributions and lobbying.

 

[MTFogger]

Just cause the bad legislation is not in your state yet does not mean it won't be. Have to fight bad laws as best as you are able to in all states rather you live there or not.

 

[VapieDan]

This is true however I am not sure that emails or calls or letters mean much if you are not a constituent. Obviously it is difficult to travel in person to rallies or protests. One does what they can. Join Casaa.

 

[Tedlee]

Thread in the forum with more info on the "Let It Rip" segment.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...tion-hits-hard-against-war-e-cigs-vaping.html

 

[Bill Godshall]

Although I couldn't access the audio, posters on the other ECF thread (posted above) claimed that MI Rep. Henry Yanez absurdly said e-cigs are “training wheels to cigarettes”
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/24925498/let-it-rip-weekend-e-cigarettes-pet-cokes-comeback

Nobody should be surprised that Rep. Yanez is one of the 12 cosponsors of HB 5393, which would ban the sale of ALL e-cigs in MI (by mandating compliance with an inappropriate federal poison control law) and would define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" to further confuse and scare people to believe its the same as smoking (so they can lobby next year to ban vaping by calling it smoking, and to tax e-cigs at same rate as cigarettes by calling it smoking).
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2014-HIB-5393.pdf

Michigan vapers and vendors (and e-cig manufacturers and importers) should urge MI House Regulatory Reform Committee at
Committee Information
to reject HB 5393, and to instead support S 667 & S 668, which were just approved by the MI Senate.


Hugh D. Crawford (R) Committee Chair, 38th District
Ed McBroom (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 108th District
Cindy Denby (R) 47th District
Tom McMillin (R) 45th District
Andrea LaFontaine (R) 32nd District
Bruce Rendon (R) 103rd District
Ken Yonker (R) 72nd District
Tim Kelly (R) 94th District
Klint Kesto (R) 39th District
Harold Haugh (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 22nd District
Theresa Abed (D) 71st District
Woodrow Stanley (D) 34th District
Scott Dianda (D) 110th District
David Nathan (D) 8th District
Andy Schor (D) 68th District
_____________________________
Angie Lake, Committee Clerk
517-373-5795

 

[VapieDan]

Thread in the forum with more info on the "Let It Rip" segment.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...tion-hits-hard-against-war-e-cigs-vaping.html

Charles Elias did a fine job.

 

[VapieDan]

I was waiting for this comment to surface.

"E-cigarettes are often produced by the same parent companies as traditional cigarettes and have grown increasingly popular over the past few years. U.S. middle and high school students' use of e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2011 to 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in September"

As soon as Big Tobacco started getting into the industry my fear was the ANTZ would lump e-Cigs in with them.

I agree completely. I was aghast when Blu was the first to go. It may also be a bid to take over the market if the government instills regulations that only the huge tobacco giants have the resources to afford compliance. In a way Big Tobacco is in a win win situation at least at this point.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Instead of blaming tobacco companies for the legislative threats by prohibitionists to demonize/ban/tax e-cigs, please note that Lorillard and Reynolds are the ones that have actively lobbied for good bills in most states (including Michigan) to ban "vapor product" and "alternative nicotine product" sales to minors.

Tobacco companies have also done far more that large e-cig companies to oppose vaping ban bills, e-cig tax bils, and unwarranted e-cig regulation bills.

 

[VapieDan]

Instead of blaming tobacco companies for the legislative threats by prohibitionists to demonize/ban/tax e-cigs, please note that Lorillard and Reynolds are the ones that have actively lobbied for good bills in most states (including Michigan) to ban "vapor product" and "alternative nicotine product" sales to minors.

Tobacco companies have also done far more that large e-cig companies to oppose vaping ban bills, e-cig tax bils, and unwarranted e-cig regulation bills.

As I said they are in the Catbird's seat. No matter which way it goes they are going to profit from the industry.

 

[Tamnakz]

So you're claiming patches, gum lozenges and nicotrol inhalers are tobacco products? Certainly the states haven't taken that stance.

No! This is the EXACT differentiation I'm commenting about! Selective logic.

 

[Charley Crystal]

Fact: I started smoking in high school. Fact: I first drank alcohol in high school. Fact: I came from a nice home that provided me with good values and while my parents were smokers they told me a bazillion times to never start. I started because I was stressed out, I didn't fit in, boys didn't like me (edit boys i wanted to like me didn't)and the few people that seemed ok with having me hang with them were those that smoked. I started smoking because I always thought it looked cool. I thought smoking would help me fit in. I was able to hide smoking for awhile, too. It was always easy to have access to cigarettes because everyone's parents smoked and kids would steal one here or there - I never did -to scared and honest. We also had kids in 12th grade who were 18 and could legally purchase and there was a party store that sold to everyone (except me! Dang it!). Being one of the few girl smokers I was generally free to bum from the boys because of my gender.

So all of that to say I do not think an e-cig is as available to kids as cigarettes. It's much easier to steal something disposable that comes in large quantities as opposed to a large device. In many ways vaping provides obstacles. It's much harder to steal a device, charger and juice than to sneak 2-3 smokes from a pack. I personally think all libations should be legal at 18 including tobacco, nicotine and alcohol products.

Advertising for ecigs is different too. Old tobacco ads used to make it look glamorous to smoke but ecig ads highlight being able to vape in public places without being rude. I feel that sends more of a message like "here's a better alternative to something you are already addicted to. Lets not also forget the disgusting ads attacking tobacco use. If its about the kids, I think kids are inundated with how bad smoking is, I don't think vaping is as appealing to children as they think it.

I also think its in Big Tobaccos interest to lobby to ban vaping everywhere. It demonizes the alternative and the inconvenience could very well lead many back to smoking and that's where we come full circle and its more accessible to youngsters.

I'll also mention alcohol is fairly accessible to the youth. How many of us have wine racks and beer fridges? I'm not a parent and I'm sure if I were I'd certainly keep a tighter lock on things but sneaking a beer isn't that hard. I'm going to do it in a second. Who didn't go to school with a friend who had an older sibling old enough to buy beer?

I agree with legislation prohibiting sales of ecigs to minors but banning ecigs is on the way, I'm afraid. If it looks like it might be a pesky real cigarette then it's bad and sets a bad example for the children. What about alcohol? No one is coming down on that!

I love how the government likes to step in and regulate my personal addictions.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

<snip>
Instead, the ANTZ want HB 5393 enacted because it legally defines e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices".
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2014-HIB-5393.pdf

This same (or a similar) battle has been and will continue playing out in many different state legislators (as the ANTZ are now lobbying for more than a dozen bills in different states/municipalities to legally defined e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" so they can return next year to urge the legislatures to ban their use in workplaces (by claiming they are smoking devices just like cigarettes) and to tax them at the same rate as cigarettes (by claiming all smoking products should be taxed at the same rate).

While I understand that getting vaping treated as smoking for all purposes is part of the larger strategy as outlined by Glantz and others ... I still don't quite get why they were willing to give up indoor clean air act extensions in so many states. OR shoud've been a slam dunk. MI and OH have very large populations. IMO the PR value of having smokers huddled outside with vapers is tremendous - not the least because vapers will smell like smokers after the said exposure to cigarette smoke.

On the other side, having nonsmoker/nonvapers realize that vapor isn't terribly onerous is clearly not a good thing for the ANTZ cause. Better to have them see the vapor clouds from some distance away and be terrified of them. Or smell the cigarette smoke when they see the clouds.

Anyway I'm not arguing with you Bill ... youi've been doing this for three+ decades now or so, and probably have hundreds of contacts to keep you posted about their thinking. So I accept your explanation. And if I'm correct that the ANTZ have frittered away a massive PR gift in so many states lke OR, OK, KS, NE, OH, MI, SD, and who-knows-where-else, then perhaps they'll make other mistakes in the future.

 

[VapieDan]

While I understand that getting vaping treated as smoking for all purposes is part of the larger strategy as outlined by Glantz and others ... I still don't quite get why they were willing to give up indoor clean air act extensions in so many states. OR shoud've been a slam dunk. MI and OH have very large populations. IMO the PR value of having smokers huddled outside with vapers is tremendous - not the least because vapers will smell like smokers after the said exposure to cigarette smoke.

On the other side, having nonsmoker/nonvapers realize that vapor isn't terribly onerous is clearly not a good thing for the ANTZ cause. Better to have them see the vapor clouds from some distance away and be terrified of them. Or smell the cigarette smoke when they see the clouds.

Anyway I'm not arguing with you Bill ... youi've been doing this for three+ decades now or so, and probably have hundreds of contacts to keep you posted about their thinking. So I accept your explanation. And if I'm correct that the ANTZ have frittered away a massive PR gift in so many states lke OR, OK, KS, NE, OH, MI, SD, and who-knows-where-else, then perhaps they'll make other mistakes in the future.

No matter what specifics are proposed, or techniques used, it is all a slippery slope and we are sliding fast!

 

[Charley Crystal]

I think it's funny they enact bans on smoking yet the state would hate for anyone to,quit and lose that tax money. E-cig/liquid taxes co,IMF soon. Addicts are a great source of renewable funds.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Good news. SB 667 and 668 have hearings today (March 11th) in the House Regulatory Reform Committee, but the new House bill is not scheduled.

 

[VapieDan]

I think it's funny they enact bans on smoking yet the state would hate for anyone to,quit and lose that tax money. E-cig/liquid taxes co,IMF soon. Addicts are a great source of renewable funds.

I'll go you one better. The low income population are a high user of tobacco products. A nice tax on the poor.