Oh, no, it's alive! CA no-shipping bill AB1500 assigned to committee

[Berylanna]

Kr3wsk8er : I had a discussion with a CASAA board member on this exact topic of signature. Please let me clarify a couple of things.

First, the amendment to allow shipping (and to take everything except e-cigs out of the bill) was the week before. We do not know the amendments they are going to make after talking to njoy, UPS, and FedEx.

Regarding sign-on-delivery, here are some issues.

1. The same ANTZ that want to require signatures online have been going from city to city in California getting cities to ban vape stores, or require tobacco licenses, which though inexpensive in CA at the moment, the ANTZ are saying their next step will be to ration those licenses, leaving tobacco stores with almost all the licenses. And they are making exceptions for the convenience stores that have been caught selling to minors and sell BT products, while banning the vape stores that card.

2. As someone already pointed out, tobacco and alcohol are available locally EVERY WHERE. And in not only rural but even far-from-urban areas, there are no ecigs stores at all.

3. The poor are hardest-hit by tobacco-related disease per some statistics someone found, and signature deliveries, besides possibly requiring you to take time off work (poor folks do not normally work for understanding bosses) add $5 per shipment. Poor folks are the LEAST likely to have the money to buy $100 worth of stuff in one shipment like I did last night.

4. Sending people back to smoking will deprive children of non-smoking parental role models, and deprive them of living grandparents. Both of these are probably drastically more harmful than playing with an e-cigs for 10 minutes, which is how the CDC defines youth e-cig "users."

5. Wine club deliveries tend to be quarterly, not weekly. And they tend to go to people with good jobs.

6. We have no evidence that kids are buying ecigs online, and CERTAINLY not from vendors using age-verification software.

7. E-cigs are for QUITTING smoking, they are not a gateway to smoking, it is smoke not nicotine that kills. Nicotine is not very addictive per lots of LONG-TERM studies on NRT done by the FDA and their "customers." It is like caffeine. I do not even need age verification AT ALL to buy coffee beans online. And CERTAINLY not to buy a coffee roaster, brewer, etc.

Sadly, we didn't have time to make many if any of these points during the 4 minutes allotted at the hearing. But it was made crystal-clear to us that the hearings are TOO LATE for us, the REAL chance to list reasons at length is ahead of time. Fortunately California has to give at least 48 hours notice and usually we can spot these things at least 2 weeks out. Now what we need is people who can go talk to committee members AHEAD OF TIME. Most spend a day a week in their own districts, so people might be able to reach them there, though I think district time is often reserved for district citizens, and Sac time for lobbyists. Ick.

 

[oplholik]

I think we can guess what's next.

 

[soba1]

yep. It has always bothered me that a person addicted to an illegal or prescription substance gets more consideration and compassion than a nicotine addict.

Seeing the above............................

I invite you to trade places with my friend "addicted" to prescription drugs. She has been diabetic since age 10 due to a birth defect in the pancreas, developed pancreatitis, dropped on her back by the hospital and ruined it enough to make sitting and walking both horribly painful while recovering from pancreas surgery, one of the most-painful diseases known to man, then because of the diabetes went blind in 10 seconds of bending over to tie her shoe one day. She is on the highest level of prescription pain meds in addition to insulin. For awhile, Medicare considered it unnecessary to pay for the type of insulin a blind person can use and still get the correct dosage, so she had to pay the difference herself. (It came in a pen where you can count loud clicks to know what dosage you are setting, and was considered luxurious.)

It bothers me that people who spend money in stores that sell flavored alcohol aren't trying to keep adults from buying alcohol, but trying to keep us from quitting smoking. It bothers me that caffeine, which HAS killed kids, is marketed to kids and legally sold to them AND sold in candy flavors.

Reading this response.
I am compelled to break my anonymity; I have been recovered from
alcohol getting close to eleven years.
It took a long time for people to become compassionate to
substance abuse.
When people abuse substances and alcohol. It affects family
society as a whole, I'm sure you have read or heard nmerous
accounts of a drunk driver taking out someone on a fwy.
Women on the street selling themselves for drugs, children
being neglected abandoned etc.
There are a lot of my brothers and sisters that belong to ECF
who are in recovery.

Now with that being said all this BS against smoking nicotene.
I have never seen nicotene cause an accident, cause someone
to do something stupid. Cause someone to beat his
wife or kids ummmmmmm. This whole thing against nicotene
is moronic.

When there is GMO's flouridated water; so many growth hormones in our foods.
If true chemtrails being sprayed. The manipulation of gas prices; summer blend my eye.
Lol shall I go on.
Also my story about my addiction I wasn't trying to give you a hard time Myrany.

 

[Bryong70]

It's all about a lack of education. When the general public think of nicotine, they think of smoking tobacco and cancer. They have no idea what nicotine really is and where is comes from. There is nicotine in a lot of the vegetable that we eat. They may as well not allow kids to buy the fancy flavored coffee from Starbucks and such. Must be over 18 to buy sodas, energy drinks, etc. Go to your Politian and demand that caffeine products be band for people under 18, lets see how that goes. Caffeine is basically the same thing as Nicotine, but nicotine is more additive than caffeine. Go to your Politian and demand that caffeine products be band for people under 18, lets see how that goes.

The public just needs to really know what Nicotine is.

 

[Nate760]

but nicotine is more addictive than caffeine.

Not by itself it isn't. Nicotine dependence has never been observed (or successfully induced) in any individual who never used tobacco.

 

[Berylanna]

There are enough vendors that could have made it especially up there in the Bay Area.
We have to wait and see whats next........

Remember, this was about SHIPPING. Vendors who do not ship either have no skin in that game or would have increased business if folks would rather buy locally.

We should have heard from a few of the shipping vendors. Probably what is really needed is an alias for California legislation and we need to aggressively locate vendors OF ALL TYPES to join.

Sadly, the very people who will be most-hurt by the legislation will be the same people who CANNOT show up to testify for the same reason they'd have trouble accepting signature deliveries.

However, the next steps might give us more freedom. Remember, the amendment to allow shipping with verification AND signatures was only 1 week old at the time of the hearing. Most folks probably thought we'd already won this one. However, as the bill moves forward, it has to go to the Assembly floor. That is enough of a no-brainer after this vote that even rural shut-ins can email their reps and tell their stories.

And if it passes the Assembly, I'd like to see people VISIT Ca-State-Senators on the CA Senate Health Committee and ask them to FORBID cities stopping vape stores as an amendment to the bill! (Really, there are more-important points to make but I think that one should be included. Or a rider requiring Medi-CAL to hire people to deliver to folks who can't go pick up the deliveries, and pay the $5 surcharge! Just a personal fantasy.)

 

[zoiDman]

It's all about a lack of education. When the general public think of nicotine, they think of smoking tobacco and cancer. They have no idea what nicotine really is and where is comes from. There is nicotine in a lot of the vegetable that we eat. They may as well not allow kids to buy the fancy flavored coffee from Starbucks and such. Must be over 18 to buy sodas, energy drinks, etc. Go to your Politian and demand that caffeine products be band for people under 18, lets see how that goes. Caffeine is basically the same thing as Nicotine, but nicotine is more additive than caffeine. Go to your Politian and demand that caffeine products be band for people under 18, lets see how that goes.

The public just needs to really know what Nicotine is.

AB-1500 Doesn't have Anything to do with Nicotine. So the Education Angle isn't going to work Very Well.

 

[Berylanna]

I would like to clarify something. NJoy got up to speak with the AGAINST group. They said they were in favor of not selling to minors, that they were in favor of the general aim of the bill (don't ship to minors) but "the devil is in the details." And they said the bill in its' current wording would pose an almost-insurmountable hardship in reaching some of their customers.

So we do NOT KNOW if what they were going to "fix" in the back room might easily have been EXACTLY what we are asking them to fix.
The only other provision in the bill that they might have been referring to was the requirement that vendors cannot have write access to the database of verified people, and, frankly, I don't think that's an insurmountable hardship.

So it is quite possible that NJoy is going to fix this IN OUR FAVOR.

 

[Myrany]

I invite you to trade places with my friend "addicted" to prescription drugs. She has been diabetic since age 10 due to a birth defect in the pancreas, developed pancreatitis, dropped on her back by the hospital and ruined it enough to make sitting and walking both horribly painful while recovering from pancreas surgery, one of the most-painful diseases known to man, then because of the diabetes went blind in 10 seconds of bending over to tie her shoe one day. She is on the highest level of prescription pain meds in addition to insulin. For awhile, Medicare considered it unnecessary to pay for the type of insulin a blind person can use and still get the correct dosage, so she had to pay the difference herself. (It came in a pen where you can count loud clicks to know what dosage you are setting, and was considered luxurious.)

It bothers me that people who spend money in stores that sell flavored alcohol aren't trying to keep adults from buying alcohol, but trying to keep us from quitting smoking. It bothers me that caffeine, which HAS killed kids, is marketed to kids and legally sold to them AND sold in candy flavors.

I think you misread my intent in what I said. I was not cutting down people addicted to Prescription meds or even illegal substances nor was I saying they were not worthy of compassion or help. What I was saying is it is ridiculous it is how demonized those addicted to nicotine are (nicotine being a far less troubling drug).

 

[Berylanna]

I did misread your intent. My apologies.

 

[Nate760]

I would like to clarify something. NJoy got up to speak with the AGAINST group. They said they were in favor of not selling to minors, that they were in favor of the general aim of the bill (don't ship to minors) but "the devil is in the details." And they said the bill in its' current wording would pose an almost-insurmountable hardship in reaching some of their customers.

So we do NOT KNOW if what they were going to "fix" in the back room might easily have been EXACTLY what we are asking them to fix.
The only other provision in the bill that they might have been referring to was the requirement that vendors cannot have write access to the database of verified people, and, frankly, I don't think that's an insurmountable hardship.

So it is quite possible that NJoy is going to fix this IN OUR FAVOR.

To clarify, my views regarding NJoy's duplicity and ulterior motives are not based entirely, or even primarily, on the testimony of their representative at this hearing. Rather, they're based on a continuing pattern of behavior that's been going on for some months.

I'm also more than a little suspicious about the timing of the $70 million cash infusion that NJoy received (and which they attributed to a "private fundraising effort") mere weeks before the issuance of the FDA's new proposed regulatory framework. I have a hard time believing that "private investors" would be eager to commit an eight-figure sum to a company whose ability to do business in the long term was about to be federally restricted to a then-unknown degree. From the point of view of a venture capitalist, this would seem far from a prudent course of action. If, on the other hand, this was laundered money being delivered as part of a pay-for-play arrangement, well then it makes all the sense in the world.

Again, I freely admit this is all speculation and supposition on my part. I'm just trying to read between the lines in such a way that the facts fit together in a coherent manner, which I believe they do not do when taken at face value.

 

[StefanDidak]

There are enough vendors that could have made it especially up there in the Bay Area.

Please allow me to add a few cents to this. I think everyone should help to make vendors aware of this.

If a single vendor had shown up to stand with us they would've had massive exposure and "free advertising" basically. I had over 4200 unique visitors to my report post. I have no idea how many listen to Smoke Free Radio but I know it has a very good "reach". (The episode that brings up the AB1500 hearing and this situation of missing vendors is in the first 20 minutes here: https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-2).

Imagine you're the single vendor that showed up. Imagine the marketing straight to the vaping community. Everyone would've applauded them. Exposure. Good exposure. If you weren't the single vendor but part of two or three, still amazing "value" for your business to attend hearings like this.

I consider this not only how most vapers think about it, I *also* consider this a major lost opportunity for vendors.

 

[Lessifer]

I would like to clarify something. NJoy got up to speak with the AGAINST group. They said they were in favor of not selling to minors, that they were in favor of the general aim of the bill (don't ship to minors) but "the devil is in the details." And they said the bill in its' current wording would pose an almost-insurmountable hardship in reaching some of their customers.

So we do NOT KNOW if what they were going to "fix" in the back room might easily have been EXACTLY what we are asking them to fix.
The only other provision in the bill that they might have been referring to was the requirement that vendors cannot have write access to the database of verified people, and, frankly, I don't think that's an insurmountable hardship.

So it is quite possible that NJoy is going to fix this IN OUR FAVOR.

The cynic in me thinks njoy is more concerned with protecting they're "recycling" program. They have some deal where if you send in a few used kings, they'll send you a free one(or a coupon). I'm sure they don't want to have their long term repeat purchasers buy access to a database just so they can send Njoy back their e-cigs.


Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Nate760]

Please allow me to add a few cents to this. I think everyone should help to make vendors aware of this.

If a single vendor had shown up to stand with us they would've had massive exposure and "free advertising" basically. I had over 4200 unique visitors to my report post. I have no idea how many listen to Smoke Free Radio but I know it has a very good "reach". (The episode that brings up the AB1500 hearing and this situation of missing vendors is in the first 20 minutes here: https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-2).

Imagine you're the single vendor that showed up. Imagine the marketing straight to the vaping community. Everyone would've applauded them. Exposure. Good exposure. If you weren't the single vendor but part of two or three, still amazing "value" for your business to attend hearings like this.

I consider this not only how most vapers think about it, I *also* consider this a major lost opportunity for vendors.

You raise a series of salient points. A couple thoughts:

1) vape shops are a type of cottage industry we probably haven't seen proliferate at this level in our lifetime. What makes them unique is that the majority of the owner/proprietors are people who tried a product and liked it so much they decided to start a business. There are also pretty low startup costs involved (in most places, all you need is a business license, a retail space, and some stock to put on the shelves), which means you have large numbers of people going into business who don't necessarily know much about how business is done. A lot of these shop owners are flying by the seat of their pants and trying to learn as they go, so they may not have the slightest idea how to maximize their public exposure, or build a marketing base, or any of it. Granted, this doesn't account for no independent vendors turning up at the hearing (and you're correct that it was a missed opportunity in terms of free advertising), but a good many of them may not yet have enough business savvy to realize it was a missed opportunity.

2) Some shop owners, and I know this for a fact, are very hesitant to become politically vocal for fear of persecution by their local officials. If you're a small town shop owner and business is going really well, but you've got an ANTZ mayor and a bunch of ANTZ councilmen looking over your shoulder because they think your store is an undercover head shop, or that you're trying to get little kids hooked on candy-flavored nicotine, the last thing you probably want is to rock the boat by having your name, your shop's name, and your town's name appearing in every major newspaper in the state because you went to Sacramento to oppose a bill that's ostensibly about preventing children from smoking. For perfectly valid reasons, some shop owners simply don't want the kind of exposure that would entail, because it would be more of a burden than a benefit.

 

[Lessifer]

Does the bill apply to sales from CA that are then sent out of state?

 

[Berylanna]

Does the bill apply to sales from CA that are then sent out of state?

Well, they are certainly TRYING to. That is how it's written. Maybe we need to ask CASAA why they said that would not work?

 

[StefanDidak]

I can understand (2) there but I've been a very strong opponent of allowing fear to drive our business or decisions (of course, this has little to do with vaping but more a thing I've had to unfortunately deal with in other situations). It is why they probably first had the whole smoking/tobacco wording in there only to drop it and make the bill 100% ecig centric. Because opposing a bill that's about kids and tobacco, "well, you wouldn't do that because we'd shame you out of town!". Indeed.

Regarding (1). I talked to a few vendors in the week leading up to the hearing but avoided the small B&M shops because they didn't really have a dog in this fight and I find it a disproportional effort to try and educate small B&M's when their original intention was to just get into the business quick and make a buck. The ones I did talk to, and the one I headed to in person an hour away from me (but I had to be in the area anyway) are the kind of e-liquid vendors that rely for the most part on online sales. One has a fairly substantial store/lounge at their facility but that's just an extra, not the primary source of business. All of these have been in the business for several years. So in a way it was even more frustrating to see this go the way it went.

 

[Berylanna]

To clarify, my views regarding NJoy's duplicity and ulterior motives are not based entirely, or even primarily, on the testimony of their representative at this hearing. Rather, they're based on a continuing pattern of behavior that's been going on for some months.

I'm also more than a little suspicious about the timing of the $70 million cash infusion that NJoy received (and which they attributed to a "private fundraising effort") mere weeks before the issuance of the FDA's new proposed regulatory framework. I have a hard time believing that "private investors" would be eager to commit an eight-figure sum to a company whose ability to do business in the long term was about to be federally restricted to a then-unknown degree. From the point of view of a venture capitalist, this would seem far from a prudent course of action. If, on the other hand, this was laundered money being delivered as part of a pay-for-play arrangement, well then it makes all the sense in the world.

Again, I freely admit this is all speculation and supposition on my part. I'm just trying to read between the lines in such a way that the facts fit together in a coherent manner, which I believe they do not do when taken at face value.

I don't know anything about the pay-for-play world but as a long-time resident of Silicon Valley and someone who divorced a workaholic after his 5th start-up, and had my career severely-damaged by the only startup I ever worked for, I can tell you that Venture Capitalists routinely risk large sums of money based on their guesses about payback. If I had $500 million to spend, I'd sink 70 into NJoy because I think they WILL play if they have the money to submit those studies, and if they play, they'll win big. And even if we defeat the FDA, I think NJoy will have established themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

This does NOT mean I'm even remotely happy with how NJOY is handling the FDA deemings regs. It goes not even mean NJOY was polite to us at the hearing. But if CA ends up with no shipping requirements I might go out and buy one (it's been YEARS since I've tasted a cigalike) out of grattitude.

 

[cramer]

SO my question is...
If you need verification to purchase online and when delivered for CA how does that affect other states and purchase from them?

Example: I buy ejuice from MOM/POP retailer online based in the East Coast where they do not have these laws, so what happens when they mail me my purchased goods? Since this would be a state law and not federal what do they have to do if anything? Also how would they be aware of it since it is strictly a CA law?

Thanks.

 

[Lessifer]

This may have been said before, I haven't read all 24 pages of the thread, but the actual wording of the bill and the definition of ecig only pertains to hardware, and a complete ecig at that. I don't think, as worded, e-liquid would even be covered under this.