Wow. Is there still a chance to stop this? I read that it has to go through 2 more hurdles before becoming law. Or am I dreaming
URGENT - NYS Outright Sales Ban On the AGENDA Again
- Thread starter yvilla
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
...ok that might actually a good thing. We are winning in the courts forcing ecigs as a "tobacco product".. Loop hole anyone?
Thanks, you posted right before I hit reply. Maybe some sanity will come to Albany? Ha lets hope.
yes we can stop this....
listening live to a discussion about it right now on vapersplace.com
Will do. With a good enough strategy most anything can be done. Will check it out now.
Reading the proposed law, it seems to me there are a couple of problems: Section 1399-MM-1 states the law prohibits products not defined as tobacco products: problem one for their side, the Federal Appeals Court has defined e cigs as tobacco products (as noted previously by other posters).
Problem #2:, the law states this prohibition includes "products containing or delivering nicotine intended...for human consumption...unless approved by [the FDA] for tobacco use cessation...or other medical purposes". Are they aware this bill would ban the sale of tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, eggplant, tea, etc. - all contain nicotine, all are intended for human consumption, and none are FDA-approved for tobacco use cessation or other medical purposes?
Just sayin'.....
Problem #2:, the law states this prohibition includes "products containing or delivering nicotine intended...for human consumption...unless approved by [the FDA] for tobacco use cessation...or other medical purposes". Are they aware this bill would ban the sale of tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, eggplant, tea, etc. - all contain nicotine, all are intended for human consumption, and none are FDA-approved for tobacco use cessation or other medical purposes?
Just sayin'.....
Nic juice is going to be regulated in some way, no matter what we do... The writing is on the wall for that to happen...
I'm saying to separate the devices and flavorings from the nicotine to prevent additional control.
How about we all write a letter to Oprah?!? She maybe able to convince obama....
Sociopaths poised to commit mass murder to protect certain billionaires from making profits from cigarette deaths. Land of the free? This is so enraging, listening to the lies being told by a bunch of corporate goons taking lobby money. I'm too ...... to make a level headed comment right now.
Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate a point made in the past: vapers need to execute a more aggressive policy with regard to those in the "quit or die" crowd. No matter what their stated intention or justification, they are attempting to sentence current and future vapers to death.
How would you react if someone pulled a gun and threatened your life?
I am not advocating violence. Rather, vapers have many legal, non-violent options with which to appropriately retaliate against people like Ms. Rosenthal.
When it is understood that threatening your life will result in life-altering consequences (e.g., end of political career), then the Ms. Rosenthal's of the world will cease and desist.
New York vapers: Ms. Rosenthal has not only pulled a gun and put it to your head, she has pulled the trigger. The bullet has not left the chamber, because it requires the approval of additional groups of politicians, but she -- and apparently all but three members of the committee -- pulled the trigger.
They are shooting at you. How will you respond?
How would you react if someone pulled a gun and threatened your life?
I am not advocating violence. Rather, vapers have many legal, non-violent options with which to appropriately retaliate against people like Ms. Rosenthal.
When it is understood that threatening your life will result in life-altering consequences (e.g., end of political career), then the Ms. Rosenthal's of the world will cease and desist.
New York vapers: Ms. Rosenthal has not only pulled a gun and put it to your head, she has pulled the trigger. The bullet has not left the chamber, because it requires the approval of additional groups of politicians, but she -- and apparently all but three members of the committee -- pulled the trigger.
They are shooting at you. How will you respond?
Last edited:
Linda Rosenthal (in a recent interview) said "There's nothing to the rumors
about her and Margaret Hamburg being more than just close friends and
the photos were doctored using Photoshop"
I dont believe the federal court of appeals has defined e-cigs as tobacco products. I believe the federal court of appeals challenged the FDA to classify them as tobacco products if the FDA wishes to somehow regulate and control them.
Problem #2 is nonsense and a petty argument that will not help our cause.
It seems the problem is, the e-cig makers have not applied to have the e-cigarettes evaluated and approved by the FDA as a tobacco product (trying to get around it... who can blame them?) but it seems this is what must and most likely will have to happen. There will be some additional testing done, completed studies will then be considered by the FDA along with any additional testing they do before a decision is made.
In the meanwhile, since the FDA has their hands tied, they will pressure state governements to ban these units, which is what is now happening in NY. Ms. Rosenthal quoted WORD FOR WORD the FDA's press release regarding electronic cigarettes. Furthermore, she's a complete idiot to state that she has done quite a bit of research on these e-cigs and then only quote the FDA press release word for word and when interviewed afterwards, claim that the findings from her research are a mystery. WTF??? If she is so stupid that she cant make ANY sense from the research available, then she should NOT be in the position she is.
Ah, but that;s another battle...
This whole thing is pissing me off...
Problem #2 is nonsense and a petty argument that will not help our cause.
It seems the problem is, the e-cig makers have not applied to have the e-cigarettes evaluated and approved by the FDA as a tobacco product (trying to get around it... who can blame them?) but it seems this is what must and most likely will have to happen. There will be some additional testing done, completed studies will then be considered by the FDA along with any additional testing they do before a decision is made.
In the meanwhile, since the FDA has their hands tied, they will pressure state governements to ban these units, which is what is now happening in NY. Ms. Rosenthal quoted WORD FOR WORD the FDA's press release regarding electronic cigarettes. Furthermore, she's a complete idiot to state that she has done quite a bit of research on these e-cigs and then only quote the FDA press release word for word and when interviewed afterwards, claim that the findings from her research are a mystery. WTF??? If she is so stupid that she cant make ANY sense from the research available, then she should NOT be in the position she is.
Ah, but that;s another battle...
This whole thing is pissing me off...
Dear United States of America;
Please give NYC what it wants and allow it to become the 51st state.
Please allow the rest of us to get what we want and let NYC become the 51st state.
We're tired of the dumpster in the back yard stinking up the rest of the property.
Please give NYC what it wants and allow it to become the 51st state.
Please allow the rest of us to get what we want and let NYC become the 51st state.
We're tired of the dumpster in the back yard stinking up the rest of the property.
Am I the only guy that can see the irony in the fact that in the great state of New York it will become illegal to sell Freedom Smokes USA?
Well... I had contacted my local assemblyperson's office monday afternoon, and then again yesterday morning, to express my feelings and advise them about the FDA rulings. Don't know how he ended up voting.
But the news this morning got my goat, and I sent this off:
Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal
Assemblymember Richard Gottfried
Dear Sir / Madam,
It was with great dismay that I read this morning of the Health Committee's passage of A01468.
I should say up front that I am an e-cigarette user. Not someone who is using them in order to quit smoking, but rather someone who is using them as an alternative to smoking. I have no intention of giving them up, or using them temporarily in order to quit smoking. I apologize in advance if my tone seems harsh at all, but I did a great deal of research before making the informed choice of switching to e-cigarettes - and in reading quotes from both of you, it's clear to me that you didn't do even the most basic research on the subject before making up your minds - and trying to legislate away my choice.
First off - Mr. Gottfried: You stated that "E-cigarettes are for some people a tool for enabling them to continue their nicotine addictions when they are someplace where they can't smoke."
I don't know how many of those "people" you actually spoke with, but I'd venture a pretty safe bet that I've interacted with a whole bunch more - In fact, just one online forum I frequent has over 52,000 members who use e-cigarettes. I have yet to meet a single person there who smokes, but uses e-cigarettes to "continue their nicotine addictions" indoors. Not one.
You also reportedly said that the manufacturers should prove to the FDA that e-cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation aid in order to sell them to adults.
Well, the Federal District Court and the D.C. Appeals Court disagree with you. They have ruled that the FDA cannot regulate e-cigarettes as a drug/device, as they are not marketed or sold as therapeutic products. (This was decided in December - well in advance of yesterday's vote.)
E-Cigarettes Can't be Banned, Regulated by FDA - Other - Decided
D.C. Circuit decision:
DC Circ. Won't Revisit Decision On E-Cigarettes - Law360
Secondly - Ms. Rosenthal:
You are quoted as saying "So I did some research...I found what is in the e-cigarettes is a mystery." Which is odd, as I was able to to that research in a matter of under an hour before I started using them. And the D.C. Court of Appeals found out too... here, from their ruling:
___________________________________
Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered products that allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without fire, smoke, ash, or carbon monoxide. Designed to look like a traditional cigarette, each e-cigarette consists of three parts: the nicotine cartridge, the atomizer or heating element, and the battery and electronics. The plastic cartridge serves as the mouthpiece and contains liquid nicotine, water, propylene glycol, and glycerol. Id. at 5. The atomizer vaporizes the liquid nicotine, and the battery and electronics power the atomizer and monitor air flow. Id. When the user inhales, the electronics detect the air flow and activate the atomizer; the liquid nicotine is vaporized, and the user inhales the vapor.
____________________________________
Here - from Michael Siegel, professor of community health services at the Boston University School of Public Health: "The FDA and major anti-smoking groups keep saying that we don't know anything about what is in electronic cigarettes," Siegel said. "The truth is, we know a lot more about what is in electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes." This as part of a review from the Journal of Public Health Policy - which was also able to identify 16 separate studies identifying the ingredients found in e-cigarettes.
"Taking these products off the market would force thousands of users to return to cigarette smoking," Siegel said. "Why would the FDA and the anti-smoking groups want to take an action that is going to seriously harm the public's health? The only ones who would be protected by a ban on e-cigarettes are the tobacco companies, as these new products represent the first real threat to their profits in decades."
Siegel, an MD, has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control and has no financial interest in e-cigarettes.
One would expect that if you were going to sponsor / co-sponsor a bill, you would do even the most basic research before attempting to legislate something that affects people's health.
Since I switched over to electronic cigarettes, my breathing has drastically improved, my smoker's cough is gone, my blood pressure is lower, my sense of smell has returned - and I have avoided over 6700 traditional cigarettes. I have been cigarette-free for over 250 days...this after 35 years of smoking. Mine is not an unusual story, either. I have read and heard the identical story repeated back to me from other e-cigarette users more times than I can count.
I can surely understand wanting to prevent minors from obtaining e-cigarettes, and am strongly in favor of the same. But a complete ban is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... if this ban goes through, me and thousands like me will be forced to go back to cigarettes. Why on earth would you want me to go back to cigarettes?
I've read through both of your websites, and you strike me as pretty progressive - which makes me doubly disappointed, as I consider myself to be a progressive, and believe strongly in many of the public policy stances that you do. I can't help but wonder what your motivation is - because it's clearly not my health, or the health of any of my fellow NY residents who choose to vape rather than smoke.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue. Lives and health are in the balance.
For your consideration, I am attaching both court rulings I referred to in the above, plus the study from the Boston University School of Public Health, and, for comparison, a Department of Health and Human Services list of additives used in traditional cigarettes - which has been proven to be thousands of times more dangerous to public health than an e-cigarette.
Thanks to you both for your time.
But the news this morning got my goat, and I sent this off:
Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal
Assemblymember Richard Gottfried
Dear Sir / Madam,
It was with great dismay that I read this morning of the Health Committee's passage of A01468.
I should say up front that I am an e-cigarette user. Not someone who is using them in order to quit smoking, but rather someone who is using them as an alternative to smoking. I have no intention of giving them up, or using them temporarily in order to quit smoking. I apologize in advance if my tone seems harsh at all, but I did a great deal of research before making the informed choice of switching to e-cigarettes - and in reading quotes from both of you, it's clear to me that you didn't do even the most basic research on the subject before making up your minds - and trying to legislate away my choice.
First off - Mr. Gottfried: You stated that "E-cigarettes are for some people a tool for enabling them to continue their nicotine addictions when they are someplace where they can't smoke."
I don't know how many of those "people" you actually spoke with, but I'd venture a pretty safe bet that I've interacted with a whole bunch more - In fact, just one online forum I frequent has over 52,000 members who use e-cigarettes. I have yet to meet a single person there who smokes, but uses e-cigarettes to "continue their nicotine addictions" indoors. Not one.
You also reportedly said that the manufacturers should prove to the FDA that e-cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation aid in order to sell them to adults.
Well, the Federal District Court and the D.C. Appeals Court disagree with you. They have ruled that the FDA cannot regulate e-cigarettes as a drug/device, as they are not marketed or sold as therapeutic products. (This was decided in December - well in advance of yesterday's vote.)
E-Cigarettes Can't be Banned, Regulated by FDA - Other - Decided
D.C. Circuit decision:
DC Circ. Won't Revisit Decision On E-Cigarettes - Law360
Secondly - Ms. Rosenthal:
You are quoted as saying "So I did some research...I found what is in the e-cigarettes is a mystery." Which is odd, as I was able to to that research in a matter of under an hour before I started using them. And the D.C. Court of Appeals found out too... here, from their ruling:
___________________________________
Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered products that allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without fire, smoke, ash, or carbon monoxide. Designed to look like a traditional cigarette, each e-cigarette consists of three parts: the nicotine cartridge, the atomizer or heating element, and the battery and electronics. The plastic cartridge serves as the mouthpiece and contains liquid nicotine, water, propylene glycol, and glycerol. Id. at 5. The atomizer vaporizes the liquid nicotine, and the battery and electronics power the atomizer and monitor air flow. Id. When the user inhales, the electronics detect the air flow and activate the atomizer; the liquid nicotine is vaporized, and the user inhales the vapor.
____________________________________
Here - from Michael Siegel, professor of community health services at the Boston University School of Public Health: "The FDA and major anti-smoking groups keep saying that we don't know anything about what is in electronic cigarettes," Siegel said. "The truth is, we know a lot more about what is in electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes." This as part of a review from the Journal of Public Health Policy - which was also able to identify 16 separate studies identifying the ingredients found in e-cigarettes.
"Taking these products off the market would force thousands of users to return to cigarette smoking," Siegel said. "Why would the FDA and the anti-smoking groups want to take an action that is going to seriously harm the public's health? The only ones who would be protected by a ban on e-cigarettes are the tobacco companies, as these new products represent the first real threat to their profits in decades."
Siegel, an MD, has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control and has no financial interest in e-cigarettes.
One would expect that if you were going to sponsor / co-sponsor a bill, you would do even the most basic research before attempting to legislate something that affects people's health.
Since I switched over to electronic cigarettes, my breathing has drastically improved, my smoker's cough is gone, my blood pressure is lower, my sense of smell has returned - and I have avoided over 6700 traditional cigarettes. I have been cigarette-free for over 250 days...this after 35 years of smoking. Mine is not an unusual story, either. I have read and heard the identical story repeated back to me from other e-cigarette users more times than I can count.
I can surely understand wanting to prevent minors from obtaining e-cigarettes, and am strongly in favor of the same. But a complete ban is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... if this ban goes through, me and thousands like me will be forced to go back to cigarettes. Why on earth would you want me to go back to cigarettes?
I've read through both of your websites, and you strike me as pretty progressive - which makes me doubly disappointed, as I consider myself to be a progressive, and believe strongly in many of the public policy stances that you do. I can't help but wonder what your motivation is - because it's clearly not my health, or the health of any of my fellow NY residents who choose to vape rather than smoke.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue. Lives and health are in the balance.
For your consideration, I am attaching both court rulings I referred to in the above, plus the study from the Boston University School of Public Health, and, for comparison, a Department of Health and Human Services list of additives used in traditional cigarettes - which has been proven to be thousands of times more dangerous to public health than an e-cigarette.
Thanks to you both for your time.
- Status
Similar threads
