I think all the bills were passed, and are going to the governor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Tobacco laws: California Assembly votes to raise smoking age, regulate e-cigarettes
- Thread starter oplholik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Apparently they haven't "been advanced" to the Governor, as of yesterday (3/17):
California smoking bills in holding pattern, stalling lobbyist threat
California smoking bills in holding pattern, stalling lobbyist threat
In the meantime, please, please email, write a letter, call the Governor!
CASAA's CTA--click below:
http://cqrcengage.com/casaa/app/take-action?engagementId=181753
1st - Call the Governor at 916-445-2841
· Urge Governor Brown to Veto SBX2-5.
· Regulating low-risk, smoke-free vapor products like cigarettes sends the confusing and dangerously inaccurate message that they are equally hazardous.
2nd - Send two messages to the Governor
· Oppose misguided tobacco and vaping 21 laws - Send a Message
· Oppose indoor vaping bans - Send a Message
Not really. The enemy of our enemy....
Also look at how legislation in some states explicitly exempts pre-filled cartridges (in other words BT's products) from regulation so as not to create such alliances.
If it becomes law, could an 18yo sue the state on the basis that other 18yo have been exempted (military) for arbitrary reasons? Wouldn't this be the same as passing a law stating that only blonde blue-eyed 18yo are exempt from it?
We've had strange bed partners before that have helped us indirectly....
There was a California bill a few years ago sponsored by Senator Corbett that would have treated ecigs just like smoking, including banning the use of them in apartments (I can't recall the number exactly, I'm getting old).
It ended up being withdrawn at the very last minute after a certain group associated with, um, you know (obfuscated just in case: N*RML) wrote a very pointed letter stating that this would impact their members' ability to use their "medicine" in vaporizers. These groups are typically held in high regard by the liberal Democratic leaders in California (especially, probably, by Senators from San Francisco), and likely contribute heavily to their campaigns. Even though us "typical" ecig users were hammering her with letters against the bill, THIS one letter from this group got her attention, and poof.. the bill was gone.
Clearly, the exemption of military personnel is political pandering, and aimed to defuse the "I can get shot at and die for my country but not buy a pack of smokes" argument... and I can't disagree with this viewpoint.
I know that military personnel could also buy alcohol at 18 if purchased on base, although I don't think that's the case any longer (open to correction).... technically, it would be the same standing for an 18 year old civilian to purchase alcohol, but I don't think any lawsuits were ever filed to my knowledge.
Bills on smoking still have not been sent to the governor.
Bills on smoking still haven't been sent to the governor as tobacco politics play out
Bills on smoking still haven't been sent to the governor as tobacco politics play out
It's the same bill now just broken up and the apartment clause removed with a few others added
I went back through the forums... the bill I was originally referring to was SB648 (2014 session). Although you are correct in that the net result is more or less the same, in reality, this bill is much worse.
Corbett's SB648 kept electronic cigarettes as a separate product class; in essence, it added things like "and electronic cigarettes" to some aspects of the law targeted to smoking restrictions. An example: it would have modified Civil Code 1947.5, which covers apartment restrictions on smoking cigarettes, by adding "an electronic cigarette, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code" as an additional prohibition.
This bill is worse in that it categorizes e-cigs as a tobacco product outright, which is a very broad brush. This means that, in all areas of California law where the use of "tobacco products" is restricted or prohibited, e-cigarettes would be as well. Back to Civil Code 1947.5, today it reads:
1947.5. (a) A landlord of a residential dwelling unit, as defined
in Section 1940, or his or her agent, may prohibit the smoking of a
cigarette, as defined in Section 104556 of the Health and Safety
Code, or other tobacco product on the property or in any building or
portion of the building, including any dwelling unit, other interior
or exterior area, or the premises on which it is located, in
accordance with this article.
Since e-cigarettes would fall under the "other tobacco product", I read this to mean that they too would be restricted in apartments if the landlord decides to prohibit smoking (which many already do).in Section 1940, or his or her agent, may prohibit the smoking of a
cigarette, as defined in Section 104556 of the Health and Safety
Code, or other tobacco product on the property or in any building or
portion of the building, including any dwelling unit, other interior
or exterior area, or the premises on which it is located, in
accordance with this article.
It went to the governor to be signed, and haven't heard anything since. Guess he's been busy in LA signing the minimum wage hike.
It's on his desk, he has 12 days total to sign or veto. I live in SoCal, I wrote a letter letting him know how much positive influence vaping has had - everywhere, and how many will suffer if these bills make it to law. Also, the now near insult of denying scientific evidence exists. Said his help needs to look into this thing called Google. I said it in a nicer way, but they got the idea about the growing mountain of positive data. There, they might be able to find a clue. Also made a phone call, stayed nice - bloodied my lip from biting it so many times.
There is a problem in that they only see two ways to classify it - a tobacco product, or a medical cessation device. If medical nicotine - that's bad, unreachable financing required to get just the first product to market. If tobacco, not as bad, but as said - it can send a confusing message by placing vaping alongside tobacco use. But, the tobacco industry has been able to survive for over 50 years in a climate that seeks to eradicate it. I heard one of them is developing an open tank system. They tried, and can't stop vaping; so they're trying to get in on it and that means it may be in their best interest to help in saving it. Perhaps we can use them... glean info and tactics -
Don't get me wrong - I'd like to "torch" the tobacco companies - they killed my Dad, and are killing my big sister right now. Hopefully, the rest of us all got away from our captor in time.
Very unlikely, but we need a new classification - as a recreational alternative to tobacco. Betting that won't happen.
I have more than a vested interest - Cali is my home - vaping is more than my only alternative to the stinkies - it also has become a very large part of my life.
Peace-
Rick
There is a problem in that they only see two ways to classify it - a tobacco product, or a medical cessation device. If medical nicotine - that's bad, unreachable financing required to get just the first product to market. If tobacco, not as bad, but as said - it can send a confusing message by placing vaping alongside tobacco use. But, the tobacco industry has been able to survive for over 50 years in a climate that seeks to eradicate it. I heard one of them is developing an open tank system. They tried, and can't stop vaping; so they're trying to get in on it and that means it may be in their best interest to help in saving it. Perhaps we can use them... glean info and tactics -
Don't get me wrong - I'd like to "torch" the tobacco companies - they killed my Dad, and are killing my big sister right now. Hopefully, the rest of us all got away from our captor in time.
Very unlikely, but we need a new classification - as a recreational alternative to tobacco. Betting that won't happen.
I have more than a vested interest - Cali is my home - vaping is more than my only alternative to the stinkies - it also has become a very large part of my life.
Peace-
Rick
Today's CTA from CASAA!
After an unusual 43 day wait, SBX2-5 has finally made it to Governor Brown’s desk. The governor has 12 days to sign or veto the bill.
It is VITAL that California vapor consumers and their friends Call The Governor NOW and urge him to veto this bill.
Call Governor Brown TODAY: 916.445.2841
· Urge Governor Brown to Veto SBX2-5.
· Regulating low-risk, smoke-free vapor products like cigarettes sends the confusing and dangerously inaccurate message that they are equally hazardous.
After an unusual 43 day wait, SBX2-5 has finally made it to Governor Brown’s desk. The governor has 12 days to sign or veto the bill.
It is VITAL that California vapor consumers and their friends Call The Governor NOW and urge him to veto this bill.
Call Governor Brown TODAY: 916.445.2841
· Urge Governor Brown to Veto SBX2-5.
· Regulating low-risk, smoke-free vapor products like cigarettes sends the confusing and dangerously inaccurate message that they are equally hazardous.
I hope so too! There is still time to call -
For me, it helped to have notes or an outline on what to say when on the phone. It helped me stay on point and not ramble. I used the CASAA notes for speaking points.
As avid vapers, we're looked upon a bit like heretics, so it's important to be direct, to the point, and most importantly - calm and professional.
We can do this - Jerry is an old man now who pretty much doesn't give a sheit about the political B.S level. He will listen and is somewhat less swayed by the big interest voices around him. But, he is a politician...
Rick
For me, it helped to have notes or an outline on what to say when on the phone. It helped me stay on point and not ramble. I used the CASAA notes for speaking points.
As avid vapers, we're looked upon a bit like heretics, so it's important to be direct, to the point, and most importantly - calm and professional.
We can do this - Jerry is an old man now who pretty much doesn't give a sheit about the political B.S level. He will listen and is somewhat less swayed by the big interest voices around him. But, he is a politician...
Rick
It's been 7 days. He has three more days to decide, I believe.
Honestly, I don't even remember what I said. I was talking to a bored aide who couldn't give a
about what I was saying, so I just voiced my opposition to the bill. 
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
