Oh my Lord! Flavors banned in San Francisco !

[nikosm]

Somebody (vape shops? e-cig makers?) could file suit in a federal, not state court, since it involves a product regulated by the FDA, and could also potentially involve interstate commerce. Right now, the FDA is relatively favorable towards vaping (much more than they have ever been, which isn't saying much), so if a judge agrees that its up to them to regulate it, they might allow some flavors-assuming of course, that the judge lets the case go forward.

I have never heard about allowing people without any legal background to serve as judges, but this seems consistent with progressives making a mockery of the rule of law when it suits their agenda, while at the same time using the law to clamp down on things they don't like.

 

[Beamslider]

I don't know about other states but here Judges for Superior Courts are required to have 10 years of legal practice.

Governor appoints Superior court justices and State Supreme court justices that then have to be vetted by the judicial review board for qualifications. They serve until next election then have to be approved by voters to continue.

 

[zoiDman]

... Getting back to the SF ban, I was wondering if that city has any authority to do this, since I thought only the FDA can regulate tobacco products/flavorings. ...

Cities, Counties, and States have an Authority to Regulate Tobacco Products. But they do Not have Unlimited Authority.

And a Lawsuit would site that SF presented No Statistical Evidence as to what would be the Quantitative Reduction of Under Aged use verses the Financial Hardships incurred on SF Businesses.

 

[englishmick]

I don't know that the appointment of judges should be so political, they wield a TON of power. There should be term limits if you ask me (for EVERY politician, including judges.)

Anna

I think you hit a nail on the head there. To me it's hard to see judges as more than just another face of the party system, democratic judges and republican judges. I'm sure Party People believe their guys are real judges and judges from the other party are politically motivated. I used to be cynical about the UK system where judges were chosen by senior judges in smoky rooms, but the result was less party political than the current American system.

What it means to us is that judicial decisions on vaping will probably be decided on party / money / influence lines rather than what the law says, like everything else. In the case of vaping it's just a crapshoot which way it goes.

 

[DancingHeretik]

I'm very worried that I might have to quit vaping. That's where this is all going to wind up. They're going to end up taxing the hell out of this. Or prohibition. The future ain't looking so great for us. You might say I'm a nervous kind of guy. Remember when you had one cigarette left in your pack? Yep!just like that feeling

Like others have already said, stock up on nic and RBAs. For peace of mind if nothing else.

 

[englishmick]

Talking of science, here is a nice example of government science. It's about drinking not vaping, but it shows how the process operates. And gives an idea of how government research into vaping might go.

Major Study of Drinking Should be Stopped, N.I.H. Says

I hope this is OK to post.

 

[ScottP]

There should be term limits if you ask me (for EVERY politician, including judges.)

Every politician, absolutely. Judges, I am of the mind that ALL judges at all levels, whether elected or appointed should be lifetime. I think this for the same reason that SCOTUS Justices are lifetime, to avoid the coercion of favorable rulings in exchange for campaign contributions, or extortion of favorable rulings using the threat of removal from office. Our politicians are already too easily bought, I don't want judges to be as well.

 

[ScottP]

I don't know about other states but here Judges for Superior Courts are required to have 10 years of legal practice.

What about the lower and first level courts?

 

[zoiDman]

What about the lower and first level courts?

"The term "superior court" raises the obvious question of superior to what. Formerly, many jurisdictions had inferior trial courts of limited jurisdiction such as municipal courts, traffic courts, and justice of the peace courts, so it was natural to call the next level of courts "superior." However, some states, like California, have unified their court systems. In California, all lower courts were absorbed into the Superior Courts of California after 1998. The lower courts now exist only as mere administrative subdivisions of the superior courts. The superior courts are legally no longer superior to any other trial courts. Thus, the term "superior court" persists in California only as a matter of tradition. Similarly, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is the sole local trial court, and what would be inferior courts are divisions of that court.[20]"

Superior court - Wikipedia

 

[Beamslider]

What about the lower and first level courts?

It would apply to all judges as Superior court is defined as:

Superior courts in California are the state trial courts with general jurisdiction to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court or before a governmental agency. As mandated by the California Constitution, each of the 58 counties in California has a superior court. The superior courts also have appellate divisions (superior court judges sitting as appellate judges) which hear appeals from decisions in cases previously heard by inferior courts.

The superior courts are the lowest level of state courts in California holding general jurisdiction on civil and criminal matters. Above them are the six California Courts of Appeal, each with appellate jurisdiction over the superior courts within their districts, and the Supreme Court of California

Superior court judges are elected by each county’s voters to six-year terms. California attorneys are allowed to run against sitting superior court judges at their retention elections.

To be eligible to become a superior court judge in California, one must have been a member of the State Bar of California for at least 10 years.

There used to be some Municipal Courts which were labeled Inferior Courts that could do civil cases within city limits and misdemeanors within city limits. A constitutional amendment turned those over to the Superior court in 1998. They have been unified into one Superior court system in each county since 2001.

Basically there are 3 court systems under the state. Superior Court, Appeals Court and Supreme Court.

 

[Philabos]

Now that the flavor threat has been vanquished, the city is once again safe for.....

'Am I in the bad part of town?' Tourists shocked by what they see on San Francisco streets

 

[stols001]

I'm scared of the hipsters, not THAT. I lived near East Baltimore, and worked in it. The last Baltimore riot, they were rioting in MY street. LOL. Tucson is similar, every time we go to the dog park, we find the homeless and their stuff under all the pavilions.

But, we can vape everywhere! It's actually kind of sad, at least in this sort of heat. Although, you can vape in the parks.

I actually have a feeling that Tucson will remain slow on the uptake on vaping. It's just that there are so many problems to worry about, coupled with the fact that our "lawmakers" aren't that you know, bright.

Anna

 

[CMD-Ky]

...
coupled with the fact that our "lawmakers" aren't that you know, bright.

Anna

Other than selling used cars what else could they do other than politics?

 

[untar]

what else could they do other than politics?

Comedy.

Didn't say it would be good.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Comedy.

Didn't say it would be good.

I do laugh at much of what passes for governance.

 

[stols001]

I think there was some "live modeling" in store windows. They could do THAT. I would go watch my son's "judge" stand around in clothing that didn't fit for DAYS. I mean, I'd CAMP.

LOL.

Anna

 

[kristin]

Oh hell the NRA is as worthless as CASAA and others were when they declared that "some" manufacturers targeted children with their packaging and flavors...

Sure, all these alphabet groups claim to work for people's rights, all the while making silly conciliatory gestures by giving inches of people's rights away as if those portions shouldn't matter.

You must have CASAA confused with some other group? CASAA has never declared "that 'some' manufacturers targeted children with their packaging and flavors..." CASAA is quite concerned about claims that vapor products are targeting children, because there is no way to determine what is considered "targeting." What is considered a "cartoon?" Any line drawing? Certain colors? What is a flavor only children would like? It's too broad and undefined, not to mention constitutionally questionable.

 

[sdennislee]

Nothing California does surprises me. I hope they are successful in their vote to divide the state, then secede from the union.

 

[VHRB2014]

Vape flavors are banned, but pooping in the streat, go right ahead.