New California E-Cig Bill 1/14/10

[TheBoogieman]

Heres the Bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_882_bill_20100114_introduced.pdf

Supposedly this Bill is just to put an age restriction on ecigs.
But these two links tell me, theres more to this Bill.
(DisClaimer)
This is just my view of the situation. My only legal knowledge comes from watching COPS on TV.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/sb0400-1cw.pdf
From the above:

**Discussions with Senator Corbett’s staff indicated that the bill is also intended to identify and track sellers of electronic cigarettes by requiring their licensure under the Licensing Act.**

Tobacco Control Network
From the above:

New/emerging tobacco products – 1/14/09

Q: New tobacco products have been sighted in various parts of the country, including an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) that is being marketing in shopping mall kiosks. The TCN would like to raise awareness about these products as well as determine where the products are being marketed and sold.

Have you observed or heard about e-cigarettes being sold or marketed in your state? If so, what is your state doing to address this?

***(E.g., changing statutory definitions of tobacco products to include these products and subject them to excise taxes, oversight/tracking and other laws)***

Also from here:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/sb0400-1cw.pdf

3.
Electronic cigarettes do not fall under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law definitions of cigarettes or tobacco products since they do not contain tobacco. As such, they are not subject to the cigarette or tobacco products excise tax.

**Revising the definition of tobacco products to include electronic cigarettes under the
Licensing Act would not impact how these products are treated for tax purposes.**

In other words, this bill would not result in such products being subject to the excise tax.

4.
Since tobacco products defined under the tax law do not include tobacco substitutes, sales of electronic cigarettes would be limited to distributors, wholesalers and importers as defined under the tax law.

Thats what SB 882 does. It adds to the definition of Tobacco Products to include Tobacco Substitutes.
Then defines Tobacco Substitutes to include electronic cigarettes.

Is California now going to consider ecigs a Tobacco product, to tax the product? Or are they just doing this to save the children?

TheBoogieman

 

[TheBoogieman]

Additional info:

http://dist10.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={45C95F8C-B1A2-43E3-8A13-4068E216EA5B}&DE={6E68C9B3-ED03-4D9B-8B7A-FCDA370E84E6}

The bill updates the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act (STAKE) to halt the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. Senator Corbett’s bill banning the sale of electronic cigarettes was vetoed by the Governor in October.

SFGate: Politics Blog : Corbett also targets e-cigarettes

UPDATE #2: This is what Brown spokeswoman Dana Simas had to say:

"The DC district court's ruling that the FDA must regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products underscores the importance of requiring electronic cigarette makers to employ the same types of safeguards that apply to traditional cigarettes. These safeguards include prohibiting - not promoting - sales to minors and fully disclosing the health risks associated with the products, including Prop 65 warnings. Nothing in today's ruling prevents Brown from continuing to protect California consumers from unsubstantiated and often misleading claims about the benefits of electronic cigarettes."

 

[WonderfulMe]

Thanks Boogieman, I'll have to keep an eye on this.

 

[doots]

I doubt they are doing it to save children or they would have banned cigs years ago if they cared about anyones health..

 

[Vocalek]

Did you see this part?

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.

And finally, there is this:

SEC. 7. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to protect the health of minors from a product with
contents that have not been comprehensively studied and are
unregulated on the market, it is necessary for this bill to go into
immediate effect.

Looks as if Ellen is trying to go around the neccesity of having the Governor sign the bill into law.

 

[TheBoogieman]

Update:

Error

Its a Senate Bill. Search Bill 882

TheBoogieman

 

[WerkIt]

"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"

NICE! Now all who sell e-liquids are 'drug dealers.'

"This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution"

Translation: We better do something FAST, before our cigaratte tax base erodes!

"In order to protect the health of minors"

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?