URGENT - NYS Outright Sales Ban On the AGENDA Again

[retird]

Hello all,
I just received a call from my Assemblyman, Dennis Gabryszak, D - Buffalo who is a personal friend. I spoke with him at length while he was on his way home from Albany for a couple days and while he is familiar with the pending legislation to ban the e-cigarette currently in the Assembly, it was very clear to me after speaking to him that both he and his fellow Assembly members know almost nothing about the product they are proposing to ban. Clearly all they know is the negative propaganda about e-cigarettes. He is extremely interested in learning more about the product and invited me to his office tomorrow to make a case against the ban. I will be bringing the letter the CASAA wrote in addition to the article published by Michael Siegel and Zachary Cahn about e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. As a supplier, I will also be showing him several of the countless testimonials that I receive from my customers who praise the changes this product has made in their lives. What I did get from speaking to Assemblyman Gabryszak is that many of his colleagues are hanging their hat on waiting for FDA approval of the e-cig as a drug delivery device and none of them have any idea that currently the FDA has lost multiple rounds in court against the e-cig industry and unless they appeal and win in the supreme court, it will be classified as a tobacco product. To their knowledge, the FDA holds all the cards.
Anyhow, can anyone suggest any other documents or articles they think would be helpful? Also I would like to find an article or timeline that shows a summary on the FDA case. Thanks in advance.

Taras[/QUOTE Edit: won't take link for vapers forum (info I put together)

 

[kristin]

+1 What she said.

These people cannot fathom us being addicted to anything. Listening to and reading Rosenthal and others supporting this bill, they keep equating addiction with smoking. One guy even insisted that there is no difference between tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes because of the ADDICTION. It had nothing to do with the actual health risks and he insisted that the delivery method didn't matter. Rosenthal even stated that we shouldn't be allowed to just switch one addiction for another. She completely misses (or ignores) the point that we are greatly reducing the health risks. It's a fundemental lack of understanding the vastly different health risks and forgetting that it was the health risks that caused the backlash against smoking in the first place, NOT the addiction itself. They started the battle against nicotine to fight the addiction to smoking, which is what caused the illnesess and disease. E-cigarettes remove the risk of illness and disease, but they still want to fight the addiction - with absolutely no justification.

Not only do they want us to quit smoking, they want us to be free from any addiction - even if that addiction has extremely low health risks. They insist that remaining addicted to nicotine means we will go back to smoking. They don't understand that the only way most nicotine-addicted vapers will go back to smoking is if you take away their access to e-cigarettes!

There is one major problem with your analysis Zen. Our opponents are the ones who conflate, confuse, and just plain don't understand the difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation. We DO understand it.

THEY believe smoking cessation and nicotine cessation are one and the same thing. All their so-called smoking cessation methods and drugs are designed and marketed with one underlying purpose and goal - to get people to stop smoking AND cease all nicotine intake. That's what NRTs, or nicotine replacement therapy drugs are for. They all come with those wean-down-over-time-to-zero instructions and plans (which is why so many NRT quit attempters who need nicotine in their systems continually relapse time after time).

So when we say ecigs are not a smoking cessation device/drug, we are really trying to rebut their MISperceptions, for the most part, that we are trying to cease nicotine use, when most of us are not (obviously some are, but I think not the majority of ecig consumers). Again, they are the ones who fail to understand the critical difference between ceasing smoking and swearing off nicotine. So we say we have switched to ecigs, or that ecigs are an alternative to cigarettes, or that we WANT to continue to use nicotine, all in the attempt to make them see the truth - that there is a critical difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation.

Bottom line, given the meaning our opponents ascribe to the term smoking cessation - ecigs are not smoking cessation products. In an ideal world where they understood that smoking cessation does NOT mean nicotine cessation, then your thesis would hold true - for we ecig users for the most part do not want to smoke anymore. But since we do not inhabit that ideal world, we have to continue to educate opponents that they are the ones who are wrong, and who do not understand.

 

[kristin]

Regarding Ms. Rosenthal:

Nothing worse than an ex-smoker who obviously needs nicotine to relax. Someone should send her an e-cig!

 

[Unchained]

Here is Ms. Rosenthal in front of her cancer wagon I hope it is still around if I need to go back to cigs.

and here is another pic of her hey is that a pv in her hand oh nevermind

 

[Motivaper]

Here's an article about how oral sex causes head and neck cancer....watchout.....New York may have to ban that too!

Rise in Some Head and Neck Cancers Tied to Oral Sex: Study - HealthGrades.com

 

[Matthis1]

I just sent this out to every assembly member. I encourage other out-of-state vapers to do the same.

 

[tigerlily]

Having just read through some of the latest comments on this thread, I can't help but ask a few questions.

Does it really matter whether vapors are using pv's as a smoking cessation device or a nicotine replacement therapy? There are perhaps as many reasons for us to be using this device as there are pv users. We all have our own stories to tell. Vaping does work for both of the reasons stated.

Does it matter that we may be replacing one addiction for another? Most people are addicted to something. Some examples are addictions to television, to computers, to overeating, drinking, sex, working out....I could go on and on. Who's right is it to determine what addictions should be legal?

What reason are the legislators using for proposing such a ban on the electronic cigarette? Are they really concerned about our health? If that is the case then do they propose to pass laws against everything that is bad for our health? That would certainly put a lot of fast food restaurants out of business...plus the automotive industry.

I certainly support scientific studies which may determine the effects of vaping. These studies should be conducted by unbiased parties that don't have conflicts of interests. These studies should be conducted solely for the purpose of having educated consumers....not for the purpose of having something to tax or some method of exercising parental control over the adult population.

Smoking cigarettes has been proven to be harmful to your health. We all knew this when we started smoking. Unfortunately, many of us began smoking when we were young and naive. Nothing like that could ever happen to us! And if it did, it would take decades before we ever saw it. Surely, we would have the willpower to stop smoking as soon I we started seeing negative effects. Well, now that I am older and wiser I realize the foolishness of my youthful thinking. Nicotine is powerfully addictive. Although I've felt the negative impact cigarettes have had on my life, the only thing that has given me hope for the future is the electronic cigarette. Is vaping a healthy addiction? Probably not completely, but it is certainly healthier than smoking cigarettes. I've already seen the benefits of not inhaling cigarette smoke. As I gradually reduce the amount of nictotine in the liquids I use, I know I will be able to kick the nicotine addiction that has kept me a slave to the tobacco industry for the last 40 years. Without that nicotine addiction, I have an improved chance to eventually stop the behavior associated with smoking as well.

 

[Gummy Bear]

Well said even if you are preaching to the choir.
I loved smoking, I just didn't like the side effects. I got into vaping so I could get a nic fix between breaks at work. but after 2 days I haven't smoked a cig in 8 months now and consider myself quit. As for lowering the nic levels and then stopping vaping, WHY? I like it. My health is so much better now that I can breath and don't caugh all the time and (did I mention I like it) no I'm not going to quit vaping. I can make my own PV from end to end and I'm sure I could make my own juice if I had to.

We all know that the only reason this bill and others like it is 3 fold 1, is the money and the other is fear of the unknown without taking the time to learn about it and 3, The power over others. Welcome to the nanny state. When I was a kid in the early 60s the old folks were all up in arms about Communism's control over it's people. Well if those old guys could only see what this country has come to now they'd think Communism was better. at least they would give you a job.

 

[Vapinginmyboots]

Wow I live in NY. Look at my sig. What percentage of that would have gone to the peoples republic of new york state? 10? 20? LOL. Im just sayin. If they had their way 2 years ago my sig. would be the reverse, and I might possibly be dead by now, all over a bunch of fools voting on something they apparently know almost nothing about. This needs to be stopped if possible, will send e-mails in my very tiny amount of free time.

 

[Gummy Bear]

You can't stop a politician from doing what ever that want. Here in Fl we voted for class room size limits, that was years ago the class room are still over crowded and they just modded that law so they don't have to now. In Tampa they voted to stop a tax to fund a light rail train, the very next day the spokesman was on TV and said,, Yea, they voted it down but we're still going to build it, we'll just find the money somewhere else.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Wow I live in NY. Look at my sig. What percentage of that would have gone to the peoples republic of new york state? 10? 20? LOL. Im just sayin. If they had their way 2 years ago my sig. would be the reverse, and I might possibly be dead by now, all over a bunch of fools voting on something they apparently know almost nothing about. This needs to be stopped if possible, will send e-mails in my very tiny amount of free time.

Try to focus on your own representative -- make a phone call and maybe even see if there's a time that he'll be at his home office to meet with constituents. Make it known how important it is that an amendment is offered is to only ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.

 

[phenixred]

Ive been gone from the forum for a while because life got on the way, and a friend of mine at work was telling me about the ban. I havent heard anthing about this on the news or in the paper. I was listening to the radio yesterday to see if they had anything to say. I heard nothing, I live in New York, how can none of our news stations or radio stations report something like this. is it a huge secret?? BUT I did hear a report that home heating causes obeasity. Obviously this was more important. Since Rosenthal seems to go on BANwagons, Maybe someone should bring this new study to her attention so she can start a new BAN ON HOME HEATING and prove to the people shes insane.

 

[Gummy Bear]

So here is what seems to be the offending part of this bill:


S 1399-MM-1. PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTS NOT DEFINED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS
40 OR APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1.
41 PRODUCTS CONTAINING OR DELIVERING NICOTINE INTENDED OR EXPECTED FOR
42 HUMAN CONSUMPTION THAT ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
43 THIRTEEN HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-AA OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL NOT BE DISTRIB-
44 UTED OR SOLD UNLESS SUCH PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNITED
45 STATES S 1399-MM-1. PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTS NOT DEFINED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS
40 OR APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1.
41 PRODUCTS CONTAINING OR DELIVERING NICOTINE INTENDED OR EXPECTED FOR
42 HUMAN CONSUMPTION THAT ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
43 THIRTEEN HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-AA OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL NOT BE DISTRIB-
44 UTED OR SOLD UNLESS SUCH PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNITED
45 STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FOR SALE AS TOBACCO USE CESSATION OR
46 HARM REDUCTION PRODUCTS OR FOR OTHER MEDICAL PURPOSES AND ARE BEING
47 MARKETED AND SOLD SOLELY FOR THAT APPROVED PURPOSE.
48 2. IN ADDITION TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION THIRTEEN
49 HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-EE OF THIS ARTICLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY APPLY
50 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON FIVE DAYS NOTICE,
51 FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION. IN ANY SUCH
52 PROCEEDING THE COURT MAY IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
53 EXCEED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION.
54 S 3. This act shall take effect immediately; provided however that
55 section two of this act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it
56 shall have become a law.



What I find strange is the wording that says PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTS NOT DEFINED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS

I thought the FDA was ordered to treat these as TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

SHALL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED OR SOLD UNLESS SUCH PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNITED
45 STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FOR SALE AS TOBACCO USE CESSATION OR
46 HARM REDUCTION PRODUCTS OR FOR OTHER MEDICAL PURPOSES AND ARE BEING
47 MARKETED AND SOLD SOLELY FOR THAT APPROVED PURPOSE.

So even if you have one you must be trying to quit, you can't just use it because you like it?????????
Also it looks like you could buy own and sell them as long as the have 0mg nic.
I'd like to see the over worked police lab try to prove how much if any nic my juice tank has in it.

 

[DC2]

What I find strange is the wording that says PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTS NOT DEFINED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS

I thought the FDA was ordered to treat these as TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

I am really not clear on what is going on anymore...

The recent Appeals Court ruling was on the injunction granted by Judge Leon.
This injunction was only to stop the FDA from seizing NJoy shipments while the REAL case proceeded.

The Appeals Court ruling was supposed to mean that FDA was indeed supposed to stop seizing NJoy shipments for now.
And then the case was supposed to go back to Judge Leon's court so that the case could actually begin.

But now I see a lot of people acting as though a final ruling on the entire matter has been issued.
This is different than what I always understood, and different from what many of these people have been saying all along.

So I am confused now...

 

[MoonRose]

No ... a final ruling on the entire matter has not been issued. PV's have not been ruled as tobacco products nor as drug delivery devices at this time, that still has to be determined.

 

[yvilla]

And furthermore, everyone keeps ignoring the language of the bill, as quoted above, that specifically refers to the NEW YORK STATE defintion of "tobacco product" (I have posted about this before).

Products "THAT ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION THIRTEEN HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-AA OF THIS ARTICLE". That article being the NY Public Health Law.

Not that this wouldn't create potential legal challenges based on whether the federal defintion should control, if it conflicts, since the bill then proceeds to defer directly to the FDA, but in any event, as Moonrose and DC2 correctly observed, the federal issue is still not finally decided yet.

Finally, there are also potential legal issues to be raised based on the interpretation of NY's defintion of "tobacco product".

 

[markfm]

1399-AA 5. "Tobacco products" means one or more cigarettes or cigars, bidis,
chewing tobacco, powdered tobacco, nicotine water or any other tobacco
products.

"Nicotine water" sounds like it might already inherently apply to any e-juice containing nic? So, is this much ado about nothing, in that per 1399-AA nic-containing juice is already nominally classified as a tobacco product in NY?

(Just curious, not asserting this is the case.)

 

[kristin]

Maybe this will help too:

Njoy and Smoking Everywhere filed an injunction - basically asking Judge Leon to stop the FDA from seizing their product while the case was ongoing, because they would go out of business and not have money to pay their lawyers. (To put it very simply.)

Judge Leon's ruling was only on the injunction, in which he agrees that the FDA had to stop seizing Njoy and Smoking Everywhere shipments while the case was ongoing.

The FDA argued that they had every right to seize the products, because the were unapproved drug devices.

Judge Leon disagreed that the FDA had justification for seizing the shipments as unapproved drug delivery devices and gave the opinion that he agrees with Njoy et al. that what Njoy and Smoking Everywhere sells and advertizes are tobacco products.

It's basically an order to the FDA to stop seizing Njoy and Smoking Everywhere products during the trial.

The FDA filed an appeal with the DC Appellate Court, which kept Judge Leon's ruling from taking effect (stopping the seizures of property).

Then the DC Appellate Court agreed with Judge Leon and refused to let the FDA keep seizing Njoy and Smoking Everywhere products during the court case. Now, the FDA has to stop seizing Njoy and Smoking Everywhere products by claiming they are unapproved drug devices while the case is still ongoing.

None of this ruling has any impact on OTHER companies not involved in the lawsuit or their seized goods. However, it sets a precedence if any other companies want to sue the FDA for the same reason.

Next, so long as the FDA doesn't try to take it to the Supreme Court, the case goes back to Judge Leon's court and he'll rule on whether or not the FDA should regulate Njoy and Smoking Everywhere products as drug devices or tobacco products. But based on his comments in his ruling on the injunction, we pretty much know which way he is leaning!

 

[DC2]

Kristen, are you feeling well? Lately you've been a little green and cheesy looking.

 

[kristin]

Kristen, are you feeling well? Lately you've been a little green and cheesy looking.

Ha. Ha.

Go Packers! lol