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

[aikanae1]

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.

That's really important. njoy has been a political player lobbying in AZ including running for office (failed) but is contributed with saving us from onerous regs and bans. There's a couple of vapers in the state house that they could probably be credited for so I was pretty alarmed when I first saw this and about ready to announce it to several vape clubs locally. I'm still guarded with their involvement, but they are keeping their pass for now.

Now VCV sent "alarm and panic" emails out to customers. Yea, I'm going to ask them why they didn't show. I made purchases that right now, feel more like marketing than anything else. Where was Vape Rev? Sun-Vapors? There are quite a few in Calif.

I think the buying public has a lot to say. I know I'm not going to react the same way to the next "alarm" in all caps that I get from a vendor. That's not right.

 

[aikanae1]

So, essentially it seems that if vendor's do not have "skin in the game", they are a no-show when it comes time for these regulations. How is that different than ANTZ? Maybe that's a little rough, a little - maybe. Not really in my book.

Your not the first state. Washington state waged a heroic war against taxes. The largest 2 manufacturers/vendors in the state sent out all cap "emergency" letters to customers within the final 48-24 hours before the bill was set to vote. They were not at rally's, showing support or saying anything online even in their vendor threads. This seems to be the norm.

I don't know what the political climate was in Illinois where all sales of nicotine were banned (except cigalikes) due to "child safety packaging" that their health dept has no time line or framework set to write, eventually (some think it'll take a court case to get). I'm honestly not sure what kind of support they got from vendors.

From my observation, it takes much less effort to get the ear of a local representative, maybe even get an appointment with them, if you are calling representing your business interests. Of course donors get their attention first, but business is second. The average citizen/voter comes in dead last.

I had a conversation with a vendor (who actively supports vaping) and they found this hard to believe, "do you think YOU care more about their business than they do?" Yea. I do.

I know these are just a handful of experiences, but I find it increasingly important to reward the vendors that support us. I'm going to give myself some time to think about it, but I'm thinking of opening a thread to list vendors and their actions that support vaping and hopefully put them in a positive light. I don't know if this idea would be of much interest.

 

[aikanae1]

I hope you get a chance to write up some of your experiences to a blog post. It might serve as a guide someday to someone else fighting local state regulation.

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.

 

[Bill Godshall]

California Assembly Cmte on Government Organization amends/approves bill (AB 1500) that would ban Internet, mail order and telephone sales and deliveries of e-cig products to adults, re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Cmte
Bill Text - AB-1500 Electronic cigarettes.
Bill History

 

[oplholik]

It might help me decide who I want to order from next time I need something.

 

[StefanDidak]

California Assembly Cmte on Government Organization amends/approves bill (AB 1500) that would ban Internet, mail order and telephone sales and deliveries of e-cig products to adults, re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Cmte
Bill Text - AB-1500 Electronic cigarettes.
Bill History

There's something odd about that. If I look in the votes I see 19 Ayes and 0 Noes. We were there. We clearly heard one pretty much immediately vote no early on in the call. I just checked with my wife who was there and she concurs. We both heard it. Yet now in the votes it doesn't list the one no. Also, not all 19 members were present yesterday. How could their votes be Ayes.

 

[Berylanna]

There's something odd about that. If I look in the votes I see 19 Ayes and 0 Noes. We were there. We clearly heard one pretty much immediately vote no early on in the call. I just checked with my wife who was there and she concurs. We both heard it. Yet now in the votes it doesn't list the one no. Also, not all 19 members were present yesterday. How could their votes be Ayes.

The ones not there get to vote later, they have until 5pm. The 'no' voter was almost-certainly Republican. There are 2 other Republicans on the committee. Either they messed up, or they later contacted the Republicans and told them the deal they struck with NJOY and if that is true the odds are we will like the deal too. (I'm a recovering ex-Democrat and not yet a Republican, so I'm only talking here about what I garnered on the day I was making phone calls.)

If someone is retired or at home, you might try calling the offices of one or more of the Republicans and asking what happened? The only one who told me it was a no-brainer to vote "NO" on the bill as of Monday night was the one at the top of the list on the casaa CTA.

 

[Katya]

(I'm a recovering ex-Democrat and not yet a Republican, so I'm only talking here about what I garnered on the day I was making phone calls.)

I'm still a registered Democrat, I've been voting Republican for quite some time. Libertarian at heart.

 

[StefanDidak]

It's probably a moot point to check why that one vote was changed if it's legal for them to do so after the vote was taken. I didn't think that was possible (or legal) actually.

I did just hear from a reputable source that NJoy is against the age verification on delivery part and is still working on that. The words used were basically lobbyist speak for "we oppose it but want to work with the sponsor to work on making it acceptable". It also appears that AB1500 is not *yet* over at this point.

 

[Katya]

It's probably a moot point to check why that one vote was changed if it's legal for them to do so after the vote was taken. I didn't think that was possible (or legal) actually.

I did just hear from a reputable source that NJoy is against the age verification on delivery part and is still working on that. The words used were basically lobbyist speak for "we oppose it but want to work with the sponsor to work on making it acceptable". It also appears that AB1500 is not *yet* over at this point.

Interesting...

 

[Lessifer]

I think my question got skipped over. I finally read the full amended text of the bill, and the related definition of an electronic cigarette. It would appear this bill doesn't apply to e-liquid? Or is this more of a "spirit of the law" kind of thing?

 

[Berylanna]

I think my question got skipped over. I finally read the full amended text of the bill, and the related definition of an electronic cigarette. It would appear this bill doesn't apply to e-liquid? Or is this more of a "spirit of the law" kind of thing?

I don't know but unless you are as picky about eliquid as I am, it's easier to find an acceptable e-liquid locally than replacement parts for my mods.

 

[Lessifer]

I don't know but unless you are as picky about eliquid as I am, it's easier to find an acceptable e-liquid locally than replacement parts for my mods.

Since I've started using mechs and rda/rbas, I haven't made a single hardware purchase period. I can find good liquid locally, but not the one's that I actually like/use/reorder and not at the lower price that I find online. Of course, if I have to tack on extra shipping fees, B&M juice might actually work out the same.

ETA: I'm not saying we should accept the bill because it doesn't effect liquid. I think the bill should be rejected in its entirety for being redundant pending FDA regulations regarding age restrictions.

 

[aikanae1]

I just watched this and thought it was very good. I think it captures the mood of the FDA from what I can tell. But it's also about people getting off their butts and doing something. A few of you might be able to relate.

 

[cramer]

I think my question got skipped over. I finally read the full amended text of the bill, and the related definition of an electronic cigarette. It would appear this bill doesn't apply to e-liquid? Or is this more of a "spirit of the law" kind of thing?

Hey Les...

I read it also to to find out what they were deeming an e cigarette.
I come to the same conclusion as you in that it seems like the bill is only for a full e-cigarette item.
So juice would not be covered and my reading is that parts individually would not be covered either.
Seems like it is just the full kits that is in question but who knows...

AB-1500...
(4) “Electronic cigarette” has the same meaning as defined in Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code.

Health and Safety Code - HSC
119405.
(b) “Electronic cigarette” means a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution.

 

[StefanDidak]

By the definition of 119405 even lightbulbs could be covered. Or lighters and tinfoil. Just sayin'

 

[Berylanna]

Too confusing.

 

[Nate760]

Health and Safety Code - HSC
119405.
(b) “Electronic cigarette” means a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution.

So a Nicotrol inhaler is an e-cigarette under California law. Brilliant.

So, for that matter, is a household humidifier, since there's nothing preventing you from putting e-liquid in it.

 

[zoiDman]

So a Nicotrol inhaler is an e-cigarette under California law. Brilliant.

So, for that matter, is a household humidifier, since there's nothing preventing you from putting e-liquid in it.

I believe that a Nicotine Inhaler is Classified as a Medical Device.

As for the Humidifier? Don't Tempt them.

 

[zoiDman]

Shouldn't there be a List Somewhere to reference Non e-Cigarette Friendly Reps.

If Not, I can start it off with these Names.

Achadjian, Bigelow, Campos, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Medina, Nestande, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Salas, Waldron, Wilk

Please think Long and Hard before Re-Electing these People.