Lets burn this motha to the grouuuund!
But in all seriousness, this is a terrible thing. Why is it always new york?
But in all seriousness, this is a terrible thing. Why is it always new york?
NYC Flavor Ban
- Thread starter Lessifer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Its always new york because they know what is best for citizens. Citizens are too stupid to figure out how to live on thier own... (sarcasm)
Good luck I think they are going to attack the juice vendors about flavors and protective packaging.
Do you guys think that if this ban of flavored is passed that other states will follow in their footsteps?
it certainly could set the precedent. that being said.. nyc often passes laws that don't spread to other areas.. like the amount of soda that can be sold... and laws like that. but as i said, it starts a dangerous precedent.
"The ordinance has been referred to the Committee on Health"
Essentially banning the more* healthy alternative to smoking/consuming traditional tobacco products. Whatever the reason it's just morally wrong. If it's for money it's already clear that big tobacco companies have a hand in the vaping game. All they have to do is come out with their own products, which will likely not only convince more people to switch to a safer method of smoking or quitting, but they would also make a rather large profit from it. If someone was a lifelong smoker dedicated to ___ brand cigarretes, they'd feel better using the same brand of vaporizers and the brand's e-liquid. But this is getting off topic.
I'll certainly be sending a letter. I'd hate to see this occur in Austin.
*I do not feel comfortable or professional saying the safest alternative, regardless of my personal opinion.
Essentially banning the more* healthy alternative to smoking/consuming traditional tobacco products. Whatever the reason it's just morally wrong. If it's for money it's already clear that big tobacco companies have a hand in the vaping game. All they have to do is come out with their own products, which will likely not only convince more people to switch to a safer method of smoking or quitting, but they would also make a rather large profit from it. If someone was a lifelong smoker dedicated to ___ brand cigarretes, they'd feel better using the same brand of vaporizers and the brand's e-liquid. But this is getting off topic.
I'll certainly be sending a letter. I'd hate to see this occur in Austin.
*I do not feel comfortable or professional saying the safest alternative, regardless of my personal opinion.
This is NOT the NYC I grew up in. I don't know what the hell is going on up there.
It's the tax money they lose. It's all a sham. The government doesn't give a crap if u die. All they want is ur tax money for an addiction u can't beat.
I would call it likely, but also likely it goes the other way in certain areas. If NYC does it, then of course L.A. and Chicago will have to do it. While certain states, that just happen to appear red when looking at a map, will possibly start passing ordinances that say no one can ban flavorings in this location for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years.
IOW, I think partisan politics will come up and have NYC decision seen for what it is.
Done! This is ridiculous, the city is mad because they are losing money from the insane price they charge for cigarettes. Money hungry, crooked politicians.
You can also help in the daily action plan for twitter, if you have a twitter account
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...vape-daily-action-plan-friday-10-10-14-a.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...vape-daily-action-plan-friday-10-10-14-a.html
I think this is what they are trying to do. Unfortunately
Greed is going on up here. If there is money to be made, or money being passed under the table ridiculous laws will be proposed.
The ordinance is--surprise!--poorly drafted. For example, they don't even seem to understand that "tobacco" is a flavor for e-cigarette liquid. But, yes, a hypertechnical reading of the ordinance would suggest liquids aren't covered, but we know that is not the intent and, as you said, the language can easily be cleaned up.
So for now, we proceed on the assumption that the intent is to ban all flavors for e-cigarettes and e-liquid, and that's how we're fighting it.
And you're welcome.
Am I the only one who remembers when NYC was fun?
I've lived in NYC for over 30+ years I don't ever recall it being fun, if it wasn't for my job I would have moved a long time ago.
Finally submitted my CASAA letter / response.
Did add to the form letter the following:
Added note: I further believe, nay strongly believe, that if this proposed ordinance were to go into effect in NYC, a black market would arise to meet the demand. This would become a cool market, that appeals to kids, and they would realize the joke and/or deception being put upon them by over zealous regulators. This is an unreasonable regulatory type ordinance and fully deserves to be exploited for its unreasonable nature.
Did add to the form letter the following:
Added note: I further believe, nay strongly believe, that if this proposed ordinance were to go into effect in NYC, a black market would arise to meet the demand. This would become a cool market, that appeals to kids, and they would realize the joke and/or deception being put upon them by over zealous regulators. This is an unreasonable regulatory type ordinance and fully deserves to be exploited for its unreasonable nature.
NYC had legislation to ban flavored e-cigs before, but they dropped it. I'm guessing they didn't have enough votes because some legislators realized it was very close to a ban and they know ecigs are to good to ban. But it never got a vote? so you can't see who voted for or against it.
But you can see who was for/against the ecig measures that did get voted on. The councilmen who voted against other ecig restrictions might be willing to talk off record about what stopped that earlier flavors measure and even what the prospects are for this new one.
But you can see who was for/against the ecig measures that did get voted on. The councilmen who voted against other ecig restrictions might be willing to talk off record about what stopped that earlier flavors measure and even what the prospects are for this new one.
This makes me so mad! I've long realized that the fines associated with things the government and other regulating bodies want to eliminate actually serve a purpose for them and help them out. They say they want everyone to quit smoking, but they make so much money off smokes that they will miss that revenue sorely if everyone did stop. If they would have been ethical about the taxes and put all the tax money toward helping people with smoking related illnesses and smoking prevention, then this obviously wouldn't be a problem. But that's not how they spend the money, so it is. Also, I feel that the people that have been trying to get everyone to quit smoking are upset that something finally got invented that can potentially end smoking for good, but they didn't invent it, and they aren't going to be making any money from it. So they are trying desperately to ban anything but products created by Big Tobacco so they can partner up with them and share in the profit. Either everyone hates the new BT ecigs and goes back to analogs, or they get to make money off the Blu type ecigs that are all they've allowed to remain. It's a win/win for them if this plan succeeds.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
