The good good fashioned switch-a-roo played in Utah

[skoony]

Utah Online Sales Prohibition – Utah Smoke Free Association

I believe this makes four states putting the kibosh on internet sales.
At the very least for those that wish to buy from US companies.
It will be interesting to see if they try to drag China into this web.
Regards
Mike

 

[r055co]

Utah Online Sales Prohibition – Utah Smoke Free Association

I believe this makes four states putting the kibosh on internet sales.
At the very least for those that wish to buy from US companies.
It will be interesting to see if they try to drag China into this web.
Regards
Mike

Yep and you still hear people say "oh we have at least 2 years, why are you stockpiling now?"

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Rossum]

It will be interesting to see if they try to drag China into this web.

Good luck with that.

 

[skoony]

Good luck with that.

I do not think anyone wants to tickle the dragon. however if they did
they have some pretty fancy feathers now days.
point to point international package tracking - Google Search

Regards
Mike

 

[nomore stinkies]

Someone enlighten me. If States are taking this issue into their own hands what will the FDA's regulations impact be for these states? I realize that States have the power to regulate some issues that go on in their states but this is so out of hand. Taxation, internet sales, security company choosing shops and closing others, etc. Will the FDA deeming change any of this? The inconsistency and ignorance of most of the politicians is staggering.
I need some 'going crazy' medication.

 

[mostlyclassics]

I'm more inclined to look at Utah's ban as an expression of the majority religion in the state. Remember, around 60% of the state is Mormon, a strong majority of the population. So, the rest of the state has to go along with what the majority in Utah wants ("When in Rome . . . ").

Mormons believe God has spoken against the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea (i.e. caffeine, a component of those two beverages) and illegal drugs. There have always been strictures in Utah on the use of these substances. And now they've added e-cigarettes (which use nicotine, a component of tobacco leaves) to the no-no list.

I assume non-Mormons in Utah have learned to live with these strictures and, if they want to continue to live there, extensions of these strictures. Those who can't have left.

I see it as a states' rights issue.

 

[skoony]

Someone enlighten me. If States are taking this issue into their own hands what will the FDA's regulations impact be for these states? I realize that States have the power to regulate some issues that go on in their states but this is so out of hand. Taxation, internet sales, security company choosing shops and closing others, etc. Will the FDA deeming change any of this? The inconsistency and ignorance of most of the politicians is staggering.
I need some 'going crazy' medication.

As long as state regulations do not lessen or dilute federal regulations their
free to add as many further restrictions as they like.
Regards
Mike

 

[r055co]

As long as state regulations do not lessen or dilute federal regulations their
free to add as many further restrictions as they like.
Regards
Mike

"free to add" is the key, example here in WA now that Vaping and anything attached to Vaping is classified as Tobacco we're going to get screwed. The floodgate has now been thrown wide open for excessive Taxes, regulations and out right bans at the State and Local level.

I know I sound like a broken record but if people want to continue to Vape they need to stock up. Unless the FDA suffers losses in the courts we're screwed. I honestly believe the best we can hope for is large sin taxes like there is on Tobacco. I hope I'm wrong, but with the history the way our government controlled I don't believe I am.

I've prepped and I'm good for the next few decades for I choose not to be grabbing my ankles saying to the Government "Thank You Sir may I have another!".

 

[Maestro]

I'm more inclined to look at Utah's ban as an expression of the majority religion in the state. Remember, around 60% of the state is Mormon, a strong majority of the population. So, the rest of the state has to go along with what the majority in Utah wants ("When in Rome . . . ").

Mormons believe God has spoken against the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea (i.e. caffeine, a component of those two beverages) and illegal drugs. There have always been strictures in Utah on the use of these substances. And now they've added e-cigarettes (which use nicotine, a component of tobacco leaves) to the no-no list.

I assume non-Mormons in Utah have learned to live with these strictures and, if they want to continue to live there, extensions of these strictures. Those who can't have left.

I see it as a states' rights issue.

They'll probably make an exception for "valley tan" flavored juice.

 

[Racehorse]

If States are taking this issue into their own hands what will the FDA's regulations impact be for these states?

Um...........this was discussed at length, at least by me and a few others, back before AR became one of the first states to ban online sales of eliquid. The FDA stuff wasnt' even a twinkle in anyone's eye at that point.

I have no idea what the Utah regs include or don't include. Are the eliquids being taxed? In AR they are not yet taxed. That will go up for a vote w/in 2 years of the regs which would be sometime in 2017 since the law was passed in July 2015.

If it helps anyone, here are the laws in AR about eliquid (and which I think other states are actually copying!).

But......the AR law doesn't include hardware. If it is not impregnated with eliquid, you can order anything you wish.

As for eliquid, It is unlawful for any retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer, with or without an Arkansas permit, regardless of whether located in or outside of Arkansas, to sell E-liquid, regardless of nicotine content, to any individual inside of Arkansas. You can sell to permitted retail stores (not directly to consumer) if you obtain an Arkansas manufacturer or wholesale permit. Licenses cost $50 a year.


Somebody in anotehr topic said these regs will be a boon to B&Ms. Maybe somebody can explain to me why more B&Ms, occupying what used to be empty storefronts, and having lots of vaping related stores that revitalize neighborhoods, is "BAD"?

I realize that people want to save money but I myself prefer to live in a vibrant community. Of course, I am also not a gloom and doom kinda person, so I try to find the positive / workable side of things esp if they are things I may not be able to change quickly or easily. Revolution / transformation is great, but ADAPTABILITY is what allows you to survive in most cases in life.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

I'm more inclined to look at Utah's ban as an expression of the majority religion in the state. Remember, around 60% of the state is Mormon, a strong majority of the population. So, the rest of the state has to go along with what the majority in Utah wants ("When in Rome . . . ").

Mormons believe God has spoken against the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea (i.e. caffeine, a component of those two beverages) and illegal drugs. There have always been strictures in Utah on the use of these substances. And now they've added e-cigarettes (which use nicotine, a component of tobacco leaves) to the no-no list.

I assume non-Mormons in Utah have learned to live with these strictures and, if they want to continue to live there, extensions of these strictures. Those who can't have left.

I see it as a states' rights issue.

Same thing with the USA. The vast majority of people in the USA neither vape nor support vaping.
So whatsa big deal about the FDA then?

 

[Train2]

You may not have looked too closely at the FDA regs. If they stand, in 2 years or so, those B&M's that remain will have nothing to sell but Blu and Vuse. Not to be gloomy, but they're doomed.

Um...........this was discussed at length, at least by me and a few others, back before AR became one of the first states to ban online sales of eliquid. The FDA stuff wasnt' even a twinkle in anyone's eye at that point.

I have no idea what the Utah regs include or don't include. Are the eliquids being taxed? In AR they are not yet taxed. That will go up for a vote w/in 2 years of the regs which would be sometime in 2017 since the law was passed in July 2015.

If it helps anyone, here are the laws in AR about eliquid (and which I think other states are actually copying!).

But......the AR law doesn't include hardware. If it is not impregnated with eliquid, you can order anything you wish.

As for eliquid, It is unlawful for any retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer, with or without an Arkansas permit, regardless of whether located in or outside of Arkansas, to sell E-liquid, regardless of nicotine content, to any individual inside of Arkansas. You can sell to permitted retail stores (not directly to consumer) if you obtain an Arkansas manufacturer or wholesale permit. Licenses cost $50 a year.


Somebody in anotehr topic said these regs will be a boon to B&Ms. Maybe somebody can explain to me why more B&Ms, occupying what used to be empty storefronts, and having lots of vaping related stores that revitalize neighborhoods, is "BAD"?

I realize that people want to save money but I myself prefer to live in a vibrant community. Of course, I am also not a gloom and doom kinda person, so I try to find the positive / workable side of things esp if they are things I may not be able to change quickly or easily. Revolution / transformation is great, but ADAPTABILITY is what allows you to survive in most cases in life.

 

[mostlyclassics]

Same thing with the USA. The vast majority of people in the USA neither vape nor support vaping.
So whatsa big deal about the FDA then?

Robert Cromwell, there is a fundamental difference.

Utah is just one of 50 states. Draconian legislation can be answered by people voting with their feet and leaving. That's why, over the last 50 years, Chicago has shrunk by more than a million people and Illinois has lost eight congressmen. People voted with their feet and moved to states that were more congenial. When my wife retires, we'll be moving to another state, in large part to get away from the downright Nicaraguan level of corruption in Illinois (though that statement may insult Nicaraguans by this point).

By contrast, the FDA Deeming Regulations affect everyone in the whole country, in every little corner of it. Emigration, a much scarier and more uncertain and expensive process, is the only option for people who want to vote with their feet.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Robert Cromwell, there is a fundamental difference.

Utah is just one of 50 states. Draconian legislation can be answered by people voting with their feet and leaving. That's why, over the last 50 years, Chicago has shrunk by more than a million people and Illinois has lost eight congressmen. People voted with their feet and moved to states that were more congenial. When my wife retires, we'll be moving to another state, in large part to get away from the downright Nicaraguan level of corruption in Illinois (though that statement may insult Nicaraguans by this point).

By contrast, the FDA Deeming Regulations affect everyone in the whole country, in every little corner of it. Emigration, a much scarier and more uncertain and expensive process, is the only option for people who want to vote with their feet.

People leave for jobs.
People can also leave the United States it is the same thing just a much bigger state governed by a constitution made by the states.
Not in any way for the FDA and against vaping, quite the contrary.
I just do not see things in our government the same way that you do.

 

[mostlyclassics]

With all due respect, Robert Cromwell, I see a qualitative difference between changing states and changing countries.

If you more from one state to another, all you do is chuck the wife, the kiddies, your possessions and the cat into a U-Haul and move from, say, Utah to Montana. Once in Montana, you can look for work. No government paperwork, no bonds, no nothing.

On the other hand, if you change countries, you have considerably more complications. Unlike a state-to-state move, you have to obtain passports for you, your wife and the kiddies. Then you have to obtain visas. The U.S. government will require inoculations, some expensive, depending on your destination. A permanent relocation visa may well require you to put up a cash or possessions bond in your destination country. Depending on the country, you may have to discard possessions or pay tariffs on them. Your cat Fuzzyface may have to be left in the U.S. Obtaining employment in most countries will require your prospective employer to jump through all kinds of paperwork hoops to get a work permit for you. Finally, depending on the country, some or every paperwork step will require considerable baksheesh.

Note that I'm not discussing the language problem, if all you and yours speak is English (a majority of the world's countries don't have English as the official or primary language). Note that I'm not discussing the difficulty of obtaining a loan or a mortgage: because you're a U.S. citizen, there are all kinds of complications caused by Dodd-Frank, and you probably won't even be able to obtain a loan or mortgage. If you remain a U.S. citizen, you face double taxation on your earnings. Finally, renouncing your U.S. citizenship is an extremely expensive proposition.

So, yeah, I see a fundamental difference between changing states and changing countries.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

So it is ok for one to keep moving as more and more states enact vaping laws?
After all it is states rights and the democratic process of the majority rule?

btw states are just like the feds on this. The majority does not vote on it, their elected representatives do.

 

[r055co]

With all due respect, Robert Cromwell, I see a qualitative difference between changing states and changing countries.

If you more from one state to another, all you do is chuck the wife, the kiddies, your possessions and the cat into a U-Haul and move from, say, Utah to Montana. Once in Montana, you can look for work. No government paperwork, no bonds, no nothing.

On the other hand, if you change countries, you have considerably more complications. Unlike a state-to-state move, you have to obtain passports for you, your wife and the kiddies. Then you have to obtain visas. The U.S. government will require inoculations, some expensive, depending on your destination. A permanent relocation visa may well require you to put up a cash or possessions bond in your destination country. Depending on the country, you may have to discard possessions or pay tariffs on them. Your cat Fuzzyface may have to be left in the U.S. Obtaining employment in most countries will require your prospective employer to jump through all kinds of paperwork hoops to get a work permit for you. Finally, depending on the country, some or every paperwork step will require considerable baksheesh.

Note that I'm not discussing the language problem, if all you and yours speak is English (a majority of the world's countries don't have English as the official or primary language). Note that I'm not discussing the difficulty of obtaining a loan or a mortgage: because you're a U.S. citizen, there are all kinds of complications caused by Dodd-Frank, and you probably won't even be able to obtain a loan or mortgage. If you remain a U.S. citizen, you face double taxation on your earnings. Finally, renouncing your U.S. citizenship is an extremely expensive proposition.

So, yeah, I see a fundamental difference between changing states and changing countries.

Depends greatly on the country, one just needs to do their homework

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[nomore stinkies]

Um...........this was discussed at length, at least by me and a few others, back before AR became one of the first states to ban online sales of eliquid. The FDA stuff wasnt' even a twinkle in anyone's eye at that point.

I have no idea what the Utah regs include or don't include. Are the eliquids being taxed? In AR they are not yet taxed. That will go up for a vote w/in 2 years of the regs which would be sometime in 2017 since the law was passed in July 2015.

If it helps anyone, here are the laws in AR about eliquid (and which I think other states are actually copying!).

But......the AR law doesn't include hardware. If it is not impregnated with eliquid, you can order anything you wish.

As for eliquid, It is unlawful for any retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer, with or without an Arkansas permit, regardless of whether located in or outside of Arkansas, to sell E-liquid, regardless of nicotine content, to any individual inside of Arkansas. You can sell to permitted retail stores (not directly to consumer) if you obtain an Arkansas manufacturer or wholesale permit. Licenses cost $50 a year.


Somebody in anotehr topic said these regs will be a boon to B&Ms. Maybe somebody can explain to me why more B&Ms, occupying what used to be empty storefronts, and having lots of vaping related stores that revitalize neighborhoods, is "BAD"?

I realize that people want to save money but I myself prefer to live in a vibrant community. Of course, I am also not a gloom and doom kinda person, so I try to find the positive / workable side of things esp if they are things I may not be able to change quickly or easily. Revolution / transformation is great, but ADAPTABILITY is what allows you to survive in most cases in life.

UM....... Sorry but I didn't read your post back then. So are you saying that any wholesaler can sell any eliquid as long as they have a permit to a B&M store? No PMTA required? I like to use my money for choice and convenience and I like my options on the internet and those choices might be taken away. I just wanted to know if there was any impact on the states From the fda regs.. According to your statement there is no internet sales but b&m's will have your choices. Ok then thanks.

 

[mostlyclassics]

Depends greatly on the country, one just needs to do their homework

r055co, could you name me one country that doesn't, at the very minimum, require the originating country's passport plus destination country's visa for permanent residence and some kind of permanent employment permit? (Other than the United States under the Obama administration, of course. )

Except for getting the U.S. passports (which are cheap: $80 each — plus $60 expediting fee if you want to get them sometime this year), those other two are quite uncertain, even if the destination country is Canada.

Dodd-Frank is a huge impediment if you want to get any kind of loan in the destination country. My sister and brother-in-law have a combined income of about C$650,000. They live in Edmonton, AB. Both are dual citizens. But when they wanted to get a mortgage with a 70% down-payment, all of the Canadian banks turned them down. They had to finance their new house with a non-secured personal loan of $450,000 for 12%.

 

[mostlyclassics]

So it is ok for one to keep moving as more and more states enact vaping laws?

Each individual has to look at the whole picture, not just the vaping laws.

In our case, when my wife retires, we're leaving Illinois. Yes, Cook County in Illinois has some ugly vaping laws on the books, and the state is in line to enact some bad ones, too.

But about 90% of why we're leaving has to do with the extreme level of corruption which has resulted in outrageous sales, real estate and income taxes. The present and future state vaping laws are just the nails in the coffin for us.

Other folks' mileage may vary . . .

After all it is states rights and the democratic process of the majority rule?

It is a matter of states rights. I'd be a lot happier if the federal government had actually followed the constitution and left to the states what it says are strictly states' matters. But the 10th Amendment has pretty much been repealed by court actions over the last century.

"Democratic process of the majority rule" is an entirely separate matter. This country doesn't have a direct democracy, not in the sense of ancient Greece, where everything was voted on by all citizens. Conflating "states rights" with "[direct] democratic process" in the same sentence results in a non sequitur.

btw states are just like the feds on this. The majority does not vote on it, their elected representatives do.

True. But there are 50 states, each of which can pass laws valid only within their borders, and one federal government, which can nail all 50 states with their laws which cover all the states.