Yeah, but they won't look so cunning when they find themselves in court by someone fighting a $10k fine for selling e-cig line by line according to the regulations!
Tennessee also proposing ban on e-cigs
- Thread starter Desert Willow
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yeah, but they won't look so cunning when they find themselves in court by someone fighting a $10k fine for selling e-cig line by line according to the regulations!
If passed, Section 18 of this bill would have the unintended consequence of making tomatoes, lettuce, and other vegetables that contain nicotine illegal since they are neither tobacco products nor are they approved by the FDA for therapeutic use.
Section 18 specifically makes a "loophole" for products from Big Pharma and Big Tobacco while blocking free market competition from any other industry. Any claim that this would protect children or consumers from "evil" industry is not only false, it actually does the opposite and protects corporate interests from competition in the consumer's interest.
Last edited:
Tennessee lawmakers don't care one way or another about health claims being made. There is no mention of health claims in SECTION 18.
You are confusing Tennessee's bill with the Federal Court case documents. Two. Separate. Animals.
Take a look at the top of the proposed bill:
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 15 and Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 1, relative to electronic cigarettes.
The entire purpose of this bill is to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to everyone. SECTIONS 1 - 17 are entirely a smoke screen to draw attention away from the fact that they are banning all sales in SECTION 18.
Smokeless tobacco is already included in Tennessee's defintion of Tobacco Product because the Defintion (9) states, "any product that contains tobacco and is intended for human consumption." It would NOT make perfect sense to include e-cigarettes in the TN definition of Tobacco Products and keep SECTION 18. There would no need for such a prohibition under your scenario, because e-cigarettes would be included with the Tobacco Products. Therefore, there would be no products that would be covered by this prohibition.
,,, I take that back. As Thad pointed out, it would ban sales of eggplant, tomates, potatos, and a number of other vegetables. But why would Tenessee, a heavily agricultural state, want to do that?
You are confusing Tennessee's bill with the Federal Court case documents. Two. Separate. Animals.
Take a look at the top of the proposed bill:
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 15 and Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 1, relative to electronic cigarettes.
The entire purpose of this bill is to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to everyone. SECTIONS 1 - 17 are entirely a smoke screen to draw attention away from the fact that they are banning all sales in SECTION 18.
Smokeless tobacco is already included in Tennessee's defintion of Tobacco Product because the Defintion (9) states, "any product that contains tobacco and is intended for human consumption." It would NOT make perfect sense to include e-cigarettes in the TN definition of Tobacco Products and keep SECTION 18. There would no need for such a prohibition under your scenario, because e-cigarettes would be included with the Tobacco Products. Therefore, there would be no products that would be covered by this prohibition.
,,, I take that back. As Thad pointed out, it would ban sales of eggplant, tomates, potatos, and a number of other vegetables. But why would Tenessee, a heavily agricultural state, want to do that?
Last edited:
This thing in Tennessee confuses me no end. Indoor smoking is allowed in 21 & over bars and doesn't seem to be in danger. Except for minor protections, what is it they're trying to accomplish & why?
Scott: The particular proposed legislation we are discussing here does not deal with where e-cigarettes are used. It would effectively ban sales of the products to everyone.
Hence my confusion. If there isn't an overarching, NY style "anti-tobacco & everything that might be tobacco bent" in current gov't policy - why legislate on 'em?
Hmmm, yeah, I guess it does! And eggplant! Someone posted an old study that showed eggplant at the top of the "harmful" vegetable list. I have no trouble at all believing laws are structured to corporate interest.
Ok, maybe my interpertation is way off, but I based it partly on what I found in the Legislative Report:
SB 0910: Sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. Prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. Prohibits distribution and sale of non-FDA approved nicotine delivery products or devices as tobacco use cessation products. Creates Class B misdemeanor for violations and authorizes the court to impose a civil penalty of no more than $10,000 for each violation. (S: Overbey; H: Armstrong)
House Co-Sponsors: Favors; Tindell
Senate Status: Referred to Senate Commerce, Labor & Agriculture.
House Status: Referred to House General Subcommittee of Agriculture.
It seemed to make sense to me when you put it all the elements context (except for the sloppy language), but I'll defer to you guys.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Vocalek wrote:
Yes, the bill was deceptively drafted to fool legislators into thinking that it bans the sale of e-cigs to minors (which Sections 1-17 do), while the key clause that bans e-cigarette sales (Section 18) to adults is buried at the end of the bill and deceptively states that only FDA approved nicotine products are allowed to be sold. Since the bill's description (which is what most legislators and their staff read, not the bills themselves) starts out by saying that the bill bans e-cig sales to minors, that's what most legislators believe to be the purpose of the bill.
This is very similar to the way Linda Rosenthal's bill was drafted and presented in NY (as it too begins by banning e-cigarette sales to minors, and that is what the bill's description states in the first sentence.
They're deceptive legislative strategies and tactics typically succeed unless the bills are carefully analyzed, exposed and opposed. And we're all over them.
Yes, the bill was deceptively drafted to fool legislators into thinking that it bans the sale of e-cigs to minors (which Sections 1-17 do), while the key clause that bans e-cigarette sales (Section 18) to adults is buried at the end of the bill and deceptively states that only FDA approved nicotine products are allowed to be sold. Since the bill's description (which is what most legislators and their staff read, not the bills themselves) starts out by saying that the bill bans e-cig sales to minors, that's what most legislators believe to be the purpose of the bill.
This is very similar to the way Linda Rosenthal's bill was drafted and presented in NY (as it too begins by banning e-cigarette sales to minors, and that is what the bill's description states in the first sentence.
They're deceptive legislative strategies and tactics typically succeed unless the bills are carefully analyzed, exposed and opposed. And we're all over them.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Thulium wrote:
I agree, and we should expose the fact that this clause would ban the sale of tomatoes, eggplant and other vegetables that contain nicotine.
It appears that this clause (and similar clauses in bills in other states that only allow sale of FDA approved nicotine products) was drafted in response to Judge Leon's ruling, which not only applied to e-cigarettes, but to all nicotine products (derived from tobacco) as long as they aren't marketed with therapeutic claims.
I agree, and we should expose the fact that this clause would ban the sale of tomatoes, eggplant and other vegetables that contain nicotine.
It appears that this clause (and similar clauses in bills in other states that only allow sale of FDA approved nicotine products) was drafted in response to Judge Leon's ruling, which not only applied to e-cigarettes, but to all nicotine products (derived from tobacco) as long as they aren't marketed with therapeutic claims.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
According to the following 1995 paper
Abstract from 1995 SRA Annual Meeting
the nicotine in tea, tomato, potato, green pepper, and eggplant is absorbed by the body at measurable quantities.
Section 18 of SB 910 and HB 1729 would ban the sale of these products in Tennessee.
Abstract from 1995 SRA Annual Meeting
the nicotine in tea, tomato, potato, green pepper, and eggplant is absorbed by the body at measurable quantities.
Section 18 of SB 910 and HB 1729 would ban the sale of these products in Tennessee.
NEXT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13th at 2 PM the Agriculture Sub-Committee will be holding a hearing (and likely a vote) on this bill
We need people to get on the phone with these members and let them know that Section 18 must be amended from the bill.
We also need people to attend and speak at the meeting.
We need people to get on the phone with these members and let them know that Section 18 must be amended from the bill.
We also need people to attend and speak at the meeting.
Last edited:
We're on it.
Placebo .... Do you know where this hearing is being held?
Nashville at the House of Rep -- 301 6th Ave N # 104, Nashville
I'll be calling tomorrow to find out what the procedure is for people to speak at the meeting.
If you'd be willing to speak to local media about electronic cigarettes, please PM me your e-mail and phone number. I'll be contacting the news stations tomorrow or on Monday.
Bill, I sent you a PM! If you could get back to me, that would be great! Thanks
PMed ya Placebo! Thanks
I'll make more calls too! Wish I could get out of work and go to Nashville, but I can't.
- Status
