Nearing disaster in New York - please take action NOW to prevent e-cigarette ban.

[Poeia]

There are 4 types of taxes on cigarettes - federal, state, city (in some places like New York City) and sales tax (where they get to tax the taxes.)

One of the reasons the government doesn't want people to quit is because smokers are an unsympathetic group to most voters. When the state couldn't balance their budget earlier this year, they added another $1.60 per pack. If they hadn't, they would have needed to raise the money some other way and people would complain. But, as long as it's just taxing smokers, they "deserve" to be punished.

In NYC, the combined city and state tax is $5.85 per pack. Add 8.875% sales tax (in the city) and that's $6.37 revenue per pack. A Manhattanite (or someone in one of the other 4 boroughs) who smokes one pack a day will add $44.59 to the city and state treasury each week and $2,325 a year. So, if 215,000 people in the city quit smoking, that's half a billion dollars in lost taxes.

 

[jimho]

This is a good thing, I think.

Short term, it definitely is.... it remains to be seen how it gets spun politically from the other side. I don't think it will have any positive effect on the NyS laws in play.

 

[ACM]

Short term, it definitely is.... it remains to be seen how it gets spun politically from the other side. I don't think it will have any positive effect on the NyS laws in play.

I wonder if that's actually not so. If e-cigs are being classified by the courts to be a tobacco product, then I would think that the legislature would have a harder time approving a law banning e-cigs without also applying the same law to cigars, cigarettes, snus, and any other tobacco products. And we all know THAT'S not going to happen. At the very least, a law that says, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em, but vaping is illegal!" would very likely, if passed, be challenged successfully in the NYS Supreme Court.

 

[jimho]

I wonder if that's actually not so. If e-cigs are being classified by the courts to be a tobacco product, then I would think that the legislature would have a harder time approving a law banning e-cigs without also applying the same law to cigars, cigarettes, snus, and any other tobacco products. And we all know THAT'S not going to happen. At the very least, a law that says, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em, but vaping is illegal!" would very likely, if passed, be challenged successfully in the NYS Supreme Court.

You have a good point- I just don't see them letting up. They could always pass a law banning sale, taking a calculated risk that it will be challenged (wouldn't be the first time) and knowing the wheels of justice move slowly.

 

[ACM]

You have a good point- I just don't see them letting up. They could always pass a law banning sale, taking a calculated risk that it will be challenged (wouldn't be the first time) and knowing the wheels of justice move slowly.

I totally agree that the FDA won't give up the fight easily. Maybe they won't ban sales outright, but they could push to have the USPS and private carriers like UPS and FedEx agree to refuse shipments of e-cigs and accessories under the ruling of them as tobacco products. That happened with cigarettes a few years ago, at least in New York. UPS and FedEx reached an agreement with either the state or federal government (can't recall which) to stop shipping cigarettes purchased online. And for sure, proposed indoor vaping bans won't be affected by this ruling.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. My big fear now is that it WILL go to the next level of appeal and this ruling will be overturned. And since the next level is the last level, whatever happens then will be the final word on the matter.

 

[HeatherC]

I totally agree that the FDA won't give up the fight easily. Maybe they won't ban sales outright, but they could push to have the USPS and private carriers like UPS and FedEx agree to refuse shipments of e-cigs and accessories under the ruling of them as tobacco products. That happened with cigarettes a few years ago, at least in New York. UPS and FedEx reached an agreement with either the state or federal government (can't recall which) to stop shipping cigarettes purchased online. And for sure, proposed indoor vaping bans won't be affected by this ruling.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. My big fear now is that it WILL go to the next level of appeal and this ruling will be overturned. And since the next level is the last level, whatever happens then will be the final word on the matter.

As far as I know (and I don't know much) the next level is the supreme court of the USA. Because it was already appealed at the district/state level in DC. and there is almost no way the supreme court will waste their time on this.....it is pretty clear cut. Congress already passed the tobacco act which DISALLOWS the banning of tobacco products.......therefore....ecigs are safe. The supreme court generally takes cases only that are a question of constitutional law. There is none here they won't hear it IMO.... but that's also going from my limited knowledge.....someone with a better understanding of such things might be able to enlighten us further.

 

[Zeroi]

Just wanted to say that if someone used a household vaporizer and put in nicotine to inhale, issit illegal?
They ban because they worry of sales of Tobacco, If they care about the people, they should really look into it rather than trying to ban it.
What does FDA really do here? i thought they are in charge of Food and Drug admin thing?
Then They should really work on that mission rather then touching on the Devices here. The device is definitely and shouldn't be under their care in the first place.
I was wondering why they never ask how you drink your Water from the Tap or how did you all Boil it and from what equipment before you all can drink it?

As far as I know (and I don't know much) the next level is the supreme court of the USA. Because it was already appealed at the district/state level in DC. and there is almost no way the supreme court will waste their time on this.....it is pretty clear cut. Congress already passed the tobacco act which DISALLOWS the banning of tobacco products.......therefore....ecigs are safe. The supreme court generally takes cases only that are a question of constitutional law. There is none here they won't hear it IMO.... but that's also going from my limited knowledge.....someone with a better understanding of such things might be able to enlighten us further.

 

[jimho]

As far as I know (and I don't know much) the next level is the supreme court of the USA. Because it was already appealed at the district/state level in DC. and there is almost no way the supreme court will waste their time on this.....it is pretty clear cut. Congress already passed the tobacco act which DISALLOWS the banning of tobacco products.......therefore....ecigs are safe. The supreme court generally takes cases only that are a question of constitutional law. There is none here they won't hear it IMO.... but that's also going from my limited knowledge.....someone with a better understanding of such things might be able to enlighten us further.

Heather- the point was that while this is good from a national perspective, it does not prohibit NYS from clamping down on shipments, banning indoor use and even restricting outdoor use as they are trying to do with other tobacco products - they could also pass restrictions or bans knowing they might be challenged. There has been alot of zealous rhetoric from Albany - particularly our governor elect ... we know the state is hard strapped for cash, the assembly is still controlled by the same crowd and one or two swing votes in the senate can make or break a decision there - regardless of the ruling, I don't expect the threat of restrictions is just going to go away... we're on their radar.

Also, regarding the tobacco act, my understanding is that it doesn't say that ecigs or tobacco are safe - actually the contrarry, it says that tobacco is an important part of the economy but is a hamful product- it gives the FDA a different set of rules with which to regulate its manufacture, distribution and advertising of tobacco products... it disallows banning products that conform to the regulations....

you might want to browse through it (not an easy read): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1256enr.txt.pdf

The decision included discussion over the fact that it is possible to use e-cigs without niccotine- leaving the door wide open for a different approach there- hard to argue how that's a tobacco product.

While for now, it's greate that njoy can get their products through customs and the risk of shipments of e-cig products from china being siezed will be all but gone, I just do not think we're done here, especially in NYS just because of this ruling. I guess we'll have to see what the new year brings.....

 

[Willriker]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. My big fear now is that it WILL go to the next level of appeal and this ruling will be overturned. And since the next level is the last level, whatever happens then will be the final word on the matter.

Judge Leon is on our side.

The District Appellate Court is on our side 3-0

I dont think the supreme court will take this up. Not when every judge on the appellate court, in addition to the judge that originally heard the case, said the FDA is full of crap.

 

[smoothcannibal]

so is it almost better that the tobacco act passed because the courts ruled that it is a tobacco product. bad label to have for sure. but that doesn't let the fda ban them. humble pie anyone?

just googled if e cigs are in the works of being banned here in colorado and came up with nothing. doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.


fog machines uses the same base as a pv. when i had a band i had a fog machine. i'd fog my basement to the point i couldn't see my band mates and really not even my guitar. i'd do that 2 times a week for at least 3-4 hours for almost a year. i think i went through a couple gallons. that's a heck of a vaping habit lol! i never felt any side effects other than i needed some fresh air once in a while. more so because i needed a break from sweating to the metal.


if we're so free why do we need permission to do what we want? i used to be very prideful of being american but no so much in the past ten years. it's going to be like demolition man. if it's bad in any way, shape, or form it's illegal. we need a previously frozen man to lead us undergrounders in a revolution against the man.

 

[ACM]

...humble pie anyone?

I'm still choking down leftover pumpkin and pecan from Thanksgiving, so thanks, but I'll pass! LOL!

 

[Koman]

Ok, I will try to help with this.

 

[Dob_Bobolina]

Wow this is not good. Im glad I live in California though, we may hold out until last =)

 

[pcore]

if we're so free why do we need permission to do what we want? i used to be very prideful of being american but no so much in the past ten years. it's going to be like demolition man. if it's bad in any way, shape, or form it's illegal. we need a previously frozen man to lead us undergrounders in a revolution against the man.

A good point and an awesome joke in the same statement. Profound, good sir.

 

[Placebo Effect]

The bill appears to have been reintroduced

Bills

I haven't read much of this thread. Has anyone reached out to a Republican member of the NY Senate and recommended that he or she introduce their own bill that would only prohibit e-cig sales to those under 18? Republicans are now the majority in the NY Senate.

 

[ACM]

Currently, I believe the courts have determined e-cigs to be classified a tobacco products, so they would be safe under this legislation. Please correct me if I am mistaken - there's so much information on these legal battles that it's getting hard to keep clear what's federal, what's state, and what's local. I know Albany, NY, recently signed a law to prohibit sales of e-cigs to minors. Maybe this is just the same idea applied on a statewide level.

 

[jimho]

Currently, I believe the courts have determined e-cigs to be classified a tobacco products, so they would be safe under this legislation. Please correct me if I am mistaken - there's so much information on these legal battles that it's getting hard to keep clear what's federal, what's state, and what's local. I know Albany, NY, recently signed a law to prohibit sales of e-cigs to minors. Maybe this is just the same idea applied on a statewide level.

As far as selling e-cigs to minors, this is a good thing-
I believe you are correct about the ruling from last month telling the FDA that they should regulate e-cigs as tobacco products so this bill would be meaningless in terms of prohibiting sale of e-cigs...

 

[chibox]

Like I didn't know this .... was going to happen ! Once they see all the money involved in e cig's the hands start coming out ! Thats why it was good in the 40's-50's when the right people got their money to make good ! It's like a double edge sword, what people don't know about are scared to accept and if we get them to understand then they will want more($)!

 

[Cee_Jay]

AFAIK the court advised the FDA that a PV was NOT a drug dispensing device, and recommended control similar to cigarettes as a tobacco product. So far I've seen a loop hole in their attempts, plenty of PV's, carts and cartos have NO (-ZERO-) nicotine and therefore IMO are not "tobacco products".

 

[merlin440]

AFAIK the court advised the FDA that a PV was NOT a drug dispensing device, and recommended control similar to cigarettes as a tobacco product. So far I've seen a loop hole in their attempts, plenty of PV's, carts and cartos have NO (-ZERO-) nicotine and therefore IMO are not "tobacco products".

I agree completely and do feel that e-cigs should be regulated under thier own category but if we were to introduce that, I fear that the regulations would end up being worse then regulation as a drug delivery system simply because we no longer create laws or regulations based upon fact, but based upon fear, and fear of the unknown...