See my media round-up for today for two trends: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...it-job-uk-us-states-ny-va-il-ok-tx-nm-ca.html
(1) The "minor morph" - a proposed ordinance or piece of legislation begins as a simple proposal to ban sales of PVDs to minors. Then, it "morphs" via ammendment into a general proposal to equate vaping with smoking (i.e. to apply all laws regulating tobacco burning to vaping). And since legislators and/or council people don't want to be seen as voting against a ban on the sale to minors, they vote for the proposal (after all, "so-and-so opposed a ban on the sale of e-ciggs to minors, vote against them!" makes a fairly powerful campaign message for potential opponents). BTW there's some evidence that the "minor morph" is also going to happen at the state level in several different states.
(2) Outright bans designed to protect children (but which also prohibit sales to adults). One has to wonder whether they're subject to constitutional challenge under a variety of rubrics such as Equal Pro. But they prob'ly don't violate the Supremacy Clause any more than bans on the sale to minors do (or any other form of taxation/regulation: if states and localities can do it w/ tobacco burning, they can do it w/ vaping). Anyway we'll have to see what happens to this one in La Mesa CA (a suburb of San Diego). National trends often begin in California.
(1) The "minor morph" - a proposed ordinance or piece of legislation begins as a simple proposal to ban sales of PVDs to minors. Then, it "morphs" via ammendment into a general proposal to equate vaping with smoking (i.e. to apply all laws regulating tobacco burning to vaping). And since legislators and/or council people don't want to be seen as voting against a ban on the sale to minors, they vote for the proposal (after all, "so-and-so opposed a ban on the sale of e-ciggs to minors, vote against them!" makes a fairly powerful campaign message for potential opponents). BTW there's some evidence that the "minor morph" is also going to happen at the state level in several different states.
(2) Outright bans designed to protect children (but which also prohibit sales to adults). One has to wonder whether they're subject to constitutional challenge under a variety of rubrics such as Equal Pro. But they prob'ly don't violate the Supremacy Clause any more than bans on the sale to minors do (or any other form of taxation/regulation: if states and localities can do it w/ tobacco burning, they can do it w/ vaping). Anyway we'll have to see what happens to this one in La Mesa CA (a suburb of San Diego). National trends often begin in California.
