S7234 is not on the agenda for the May 25th Health Committee meeting. After this they only have one more meeting on June 8th for this year. Do we think that it may just get pushed off till the next legislative calendar year?
New York Senate Health Committee Meeting
- Thread starter r8ross
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I would find it suspicious if it didn't go through them until their next legislative year... It just sounds fishy to me. I could be wrong though, maybe they're waiting to see if anything new happens in the appeals case first.
And maybe it's such a relatively insignificant bill in the context of Albany's total catastrophic mess of REAL problems (it really is important to remember that most people don't even know what these things ARE), and has had surprising resistance/info/protest from a small but passionate and distressed group of citizens, and maybe the senate is just too distracted and beleaguered just now to be likely to want the hassle of same sort of response if the bill got thru HC... and really, maybe they are going to quietly table it? Politics are insane in NY right now and an ecig debate on that floor would seem to me to be unbelievably frivolous. But I don't know.
It's become dead quiet in the thread that's linked to at the top of the forum page... and it's tedious to scan the whole forum for now-scattered info. Rants are understandable, it's what happens while we wait, but nada there. Dying before or in committee isn't unusual for a piece of legislation. And hope springs eternal. And there's always next year, sigh.
When IS the next calender year, anyway?
Thing is, the only people who really care deeply, or at all, about this bill are... us. That wasn't exactly an impassioned Assembly debate. It was clear that no one gave a rat's ... and it was 'sposed to be a rubber stamp deal. I even quite doubt that Rosenthal exactly loses sleep on its fate. We might just win by virtue of being such small beans, with no energy down there to bother wrangling with us, as we're also noisy and more well-informed than they are by a huge margin.
?
It's become dead quiet in the thread that's linked to at the top of the forum page... and it's tedious to scan the whole forum for now-scattered info. Rants are understandable, it's what happens while we wait, but nada there. Dying before or in committee isn't unusual for a piece of legislation. And hope springs eternal. And there's always next year, sigh.
When IS the next calender year, anyway?
Thing is, the only people who really care deeply, or at all, about this bill are... us. That wasn't exactly an impassioned Assembly debate. It was clear that no one gave a rat's ... and it was 'sposed to be a rubber stamp deal. I even quite doubt that Rosenthal exactly loses sleep on its fate. We might just win by virtue of being such small beans, with no energy down there to bother wrangling with us, as we're also noisy and more well-informed than they are by a huge margin.
?
Yea no news may not be a bad thing. Hopefully it wil just die and go away. The senate can't agree on a budget and Paterson has lost most all of his credibility. 9.2 billion dollar deficit is nothing to sneeze at. It's really sad the way things are headed and I doubt it will get any better for quite some time. NY state workers have accepted a 4 day work week due to the lack of available funds so anything not budget related is probably getting pushed aside until they figure out some plan of attack on this mess.
Rest assured that CASAA is on top of watching this and any updates will be posted in the CASAA New York thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rs-casaa-members-call-action-new-york-28.html
Don't forget - CASAA's legal director, Yolanda Villa, is a New Yorker too, so she is is especially keen on following this legislation!
Don't forget - CASAA's legal director, Yolanda Villa, is a New Yorker too, so she is is especially keen on following this legislation!
I agree with you aubergine and your "bigger picture" viewpoint. There is so much going on now, not only in New York, but the US and beyond. I like your prognostication
about us remaining the 'annoying little gnats' and we end up winning through de-fault by virtue of being proportionally less important than other more pressing issues. I'll take it any way we can get it. And I agree that we tend to be far better informed on this issue than the law-makers.
about us remaining the 'annoying little gnats' and we end up winning through de-fault by virtue of being proportionally less important than other more pressing issues. I'll take it any way we can get it. And I agree that we tend to be far better informed on this issue than the law-makers.
I would have to say with all the major budget dilemas on the table, and the pressing issues with it, it will be washed for the time being. Just my .02 since this shouldnt be a big issure with them with what they have on the table now. Lets hope
E Cigarette Ban in New York Electronic Cigarette News | New-Smoke.com
I found this today. The article states that ASH started this ball rolling in NY. I don't know if the contact information at the end of the article differs any from other posts as to who to write or call.
I found this today. The article states that ASH started this ball rolling in NY. I don't know if the contact information at the end of the article differs any from other posts as to who to write or call.
I don't think that article is quite accurate. We have proof that New York was lobbied by the Axis of Evil (ALA, AHA, ACS, et al.) and I doubt ASH had a lot (if anything) to do with it. He just likes to take credit for everything. He may have sent an email as claimed, but I think the lobbyist had much more influence, considering New York used the lobbyist's language in the bill.
And other stateS (plural) have not banned indoor use - only New Jersey and one county in New York has, as far as we are aware.
And other stateS (plural) have not banned indoor use - only New Jersey and one county in New York has, as far as we are aware.
Last edited:
I'd rather that this was over with. Being pushed off at this point, only gives the ALA more time this summer to push their interests. I'm sure they will be spending their time shoring up their position with Senators.
While I'll be spending my summer asking Senators:
Why the ALA uses the claim that ecigs are not a PROVEN smoking cessation product and therefore should be banned? When ecigs are a smoking aternative and not a cessation device.
Why people don't see a conflict of interest with the ALA. When they recieve money from companies that sell NRT's. Are the ALA and others worried that ecigs will get some market share if they aren't banned?
Why with all the $$ that the WHO, FDA and all the other big boys have, WHY is there no study of proof of harm? Why are they looking for proof of safety?
(Like the FDA states: Make the claim, PROVE the claim) FDA keeps stating ecigs could be harmful.
PROVE IT!
WHY it's ok to get nicotine from NRT's, but from no other source? When did the Pharm Companies decide there should be a Nicotine Monopoly in there favor? Why is it ok to use nicotine as long as its THEIR nicotine?
Why the ALA keeps pushing NRT's that don't work and suck?
I happen to know for a fact there are other options out there to get people off tobacco.
The reason I know this for a fact is because the product is in my hand right now.
It's called an ECIG. So why are we banning this?
TheBoogieman
While I'll be spending my summer asking Senators:
Why the ALA uses the claim that ecigs are not a PROVEN smoking cessation product and therefore should be banned? When ecigs are a smoking aternative and not a cessation device.
Why people don't see a conflict of interest with the ALA. When they recieve money from companies that sell NRT's. Are the ALA and others worried that ecigs will get some market share if they aren't banned?
Why with all the $$ that the WHO, FDA and all the other big boys have, WHY is there no study of proof of harm? Why are they looking for proof of safety?
(Like the FDA states: Make the claim, PROVE the claim) FDA keeps stating ecigs could be harmful.
PROVE IT!
WHY it's ok to get nicotine from NRT's, but from no other source? When did the Pharm Companies decide there should be a Nicotine Monopoly in there favor? Why is it ok to use nicotine as long as its THEIR nicotine?
Why the ALA keeps pushing NRT's that don't work and suck?
I happen to know for a fact there are other options out there to get people off tobacco.
The reason I know this for a fact is because the product is in my hand right now.
It's called an ECIG. So why are we banning this?
TheBoogieman
I know you know the answers Boogie, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
Because they are no longer anti-smoking, they are anti ADDICTION.
The reason NRTs are ok with them is because they view it as a treatment and expect people to wean themselves off. (Not to mention the lovely funding from NRT compaies.)
Reading the Tobacco Harm reduction 2010 ebook has made this all the more apparent.
It's no longer a HEALTH issue, it's a MORALS issue.
People who are addicted are weak sinners. It doesn't matter if the product they are addicted to is relatively benign.
The lengths these people will go to to push their morals on us is astounding and the justifications they give to opposose reduced harm products are inconceivable:
If we promote THR (tobacco harm reduction) people will just keep using THR products instead of quitting altogether.
Yeah, so? If it's only a moderate health risk - like eating lowfat yogurt - what's the problem?
There is no "safe" level of tobacco or nicotine use.
And how many products can you name that are 100% safe? Smokeless tobacco and nicotine products are 99% safe. How many other products can say that?
Using TRH products will lead to smoking.
Where is the proof of that? In Sweden, the exact opposite has been shown to be true.
Seeing people using THR products could influence children and non-smokers to use them.
So, it's better for them to see people smoking?
Current THR products aren't 100% safe, so we should wait until better products are offered before supporting them.
Meanwhile, smokers are killing themselves because you refuse to tell them that they could cut their health risks by 99% using what is on the market now.
Smokers are better off quitting, so we shouldn't tempt them with THR products.
Yet, the health improvements they would experience, even if they used THR products for the rest of their lives, are actually greater than the damage that would be caused during the extra months it takes before they actually quit.
We cannot back a product that could possibly cause harm. As public health, we promise to do no harm.
Then we need to stop with vaccinations, chemotherapy, x-rays and the use of any medications on the market that have potential health risks.
And, of course, pharmaceutical NRTs, as they also contain nicotine, which has some health risks.
People also need to stop driving cars, because even with seatbelts (reduced harm products), there is a huge risk.
And that is just a few of their circular arguments! Everyone needs to read that eBook!
Because they are no longer anti-smoking, they are anti ADDICTION.
The reason NRTs are ok with them is because they view it as a treatment and expect people to wean themselves off. (Not to mention the lovely funding from NRT compaies.)
Reading the Tobacco Harm reduction 2010 ebook has made this all the more apparent.
It's no longer a HEALTH issue, it's a MORALS issue.
People who are addicted are weak sinners. It doesn't matter if the product they are addicted to is relatively benign.
The lengths these people will go to to push their morals on us is astounding and the justifications they give to opposose reduced harm products are inconceivable:
If we promote THR (tobacco harm reduction) people will just keep using THR products instead of quitting altogether.
Yeah, so? If it's only a moderate health risk - like eating lowfat yogurt - what's the problem?
There is no "safe" level of tobacco or nicotine use.
And how many products can you name that are 100% safe? Smokeless tobacco and nicotine products are 99% safe. How many other products can say that?
Using TRH products will lead to smoking.
Where is the proof of that? In Sweden, the exact opposite has been shown to be true.
Seeing people using THR products could influence children and non-smokers to use them.
So, it's better for them to see people smoking?
Current THR products aren't 100% safe, so we should wait until better products are offered before supporting them.
Meanwhile, smokers are killing themselves because you refuse to tell them that they could cut their health risks by 99% using what is on the market now.
Smokers are better off quitting, so we shouldn't tempt them with THR products.
Yet, the health improvements they would experience, even if they used THR products for the rest of their lives, are actually greater than the damage that would be caused during the extra months it takes before they actually quit.
We cannot back a product that could possibly cause harm. As public health, we promise to do no harm.
Then we need to stop with vaccinations, chemotherapy, x-rays and the use of any medications on the market that have potential health risks.
And, of course, pharmaceutical NRTs, as they also contain nicotine, which has some health risks.
People also need to stop driving cars, because even with seatbelts (reduced harm products), there is a huge risk.
And that is just a few of their circular arguments! Everyone needs to read that eBook!
Last edited:
I just posted this in the seller's private forum as well:
I just got an order from someone who works at the NYS Assembly. Verified she works there and used an assembly.state.ny.us email
I'm not sure if this should be making me happy or worried
I just got an order from someone who works at the NYS Assembly. Verified she works there and used an assembly.state.ny.us email
I'm not sure if this should be making me happy or worried
Last edited:
I'm sure whatever the response (pre-canned or original!) will be, the fine thing you did by sending it is at least opening the door to reality for some, perhaps!I just posted this in the seller's private forum as well:
I just got an order from an "executive secretary" at the NYS Assembly. Common sense tells me if it were for her personal use she'd have sent it home and with a personal email address but this order is actually going to the NYS Assembly and from a government email address.
I'm not sure if this should be making me happy or worried
They don't bite or anything! They don't curl you up and kill you on sight. Really!
Let us know!
Well I did just email her whether this is a personal order or am I now potentially putting a target on my back.
Heck, publicity is publicity, I'm not gonna complain if I stumble on my name in some press release lol
I just posted this in the seller's private forum as well:
I just got an order from an "executive secretary" at the NYS Assembly. Common sense tells me if it were for her personal use she'd have sent it home and with a personal email address but this order is actually going to the NYS Assembly and from a government email address.
I'm not sure if this should be making me happy or worried
Jiff, It wouldn't surprise me if it just sat there until next year. That happens, especially when governing bodies have high volumes of more important matters. NY is WEEKS beyond the deadline for passing a budget, spending is frozen, and the Governor is fighting with all sorts of government workers over pay and financial expenditures. This has happened here for several years.
After reading Enigma's post it seems that maybe they are still looking at this at least in the committee. I am still concerned that we could be banned out of our right to choose an alternative.
Can you PM me who's secretary it was? This could be an advocacy opportunity - we're looking for someone in the Assembly to back us and it'd be nice to know if it's going to friend or foe.I just posted this in the seller's private forum as well:
I just got an order from an "executive secretary" at the NYS Assembly. Common sense tells me if it were for her personal use she'd have sent it home and with a personal email address but this order is actually going to the NYS Assembly and from a government email address.
I'm not sure if this should be making me happy or worried
Who are you referring to by "we", sorry I'm just not familiar with whoes who around here
And not just yet either way, I'm not going to flagrantly violate a customer's privacy, i'm waiting to hear back from her.
Last edited:
get me a pm from someone official here since I really don't know whoes who here but I definately am not against using this as an advocacy opportunity for all of us
Who are you referring to by "we", sorry I'm just not familiar with whoes who around here
And not just yet either way, I'm not going to flagrantly violate a customer's privacy, i'm waiting to hear back from her. The one piece I overlooked: it was BILLED to the NYS Assembly address. I doubt her personal credit card bill comes to the assembly. I will DEFINATELY update you guys when I hear back from her because this could be a really good thing
Enigma -- Kristin is on the board of CASAA and they are heavily involved advocacy against the NY ban bill
Yes, Kristin is on the board. There is a list of board members on the CASAA site. And yes, CASAA is heavily involved in advocacy. Yolanda (YVilla) is CASAA's legal advisor and she has been personally meeting with legilators in New York to stop the passage of the bill that would ban all sales. CASAA is working with other groups such as National Vaper's Club, Midwest Vapers Club, and Right to Vape to coordinate efforts to stop the bans and also to work toward getting some needed research accomplished. We call that group of groups the Vaper's Coalition.
That being said, several of us took a look at the Pure Cigs site and the consensus is that it is doing a very good job of making liars out of those who claim that elecronic cigarettes are aimed at children or that there are no warnings on the products.
We especially like the boxed message at the bottom of the screen:
That being said, several of us took a look at the Pure Cigs site and the consensus is that it is doing a very good job of making liars out of those who claim that elecronic cigarettes are aimed at children or that there are no warnings on the products.
We especially like the boxed message at the bottom of the screen:
- Status
Similar threads
