Vermont legislation (H 632) would ban the sale and possession of e-cigarettes by adults

[AgentAnia]

....Just don't let it dissolve into a partisan free-for-all of this party vs that party hate posts. That does no one any good, and is against TOS....

Snips but You should listen to the below

Bill, I don't think the moderators' point is to protect anyone on a partisan basis. It's the denerating into the generalized, and very heated, "this party vs. that party" or "this political philosophy vs. that political philosophy" arguments, which lose all track of the issue at hand, that so many of us find so offputting.

There are several current threads whose original topics are of great interest to me but that I no longer participate in because they've degenerated as above.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Is this what you're looking for? House Committee on Human Services

(That's all I can find, so far...)

D'oh! I looked at that page and missed it. I'll blame it on my foggy brain from a nasty cold. Thanks!!

 

[pamdis]

Yeah, I agree.

When the discussion moves from:

"Let's flood Mr. X with protestations/information/(even name calling)"
"This organisation is doing y - that's bad"

to

"The entire party is #$)(*#$ and all you who voted for them are idiots"
"Your party is just as bad - what about (fill in the blank)"
"I didn't vote for any of them - y'all are getting what you deserve"

I'm pretty much not paying attention anymore either. The first I'm OK with, even when it gets heated. The second is just unproductive and divisive to our mission.

 

[DrMA]

Great idea! Ban tobacco substitutes such that the only options are tobacco and FDA-approved NRT products. This can only mean one thing: BP and BT joining hands with the VT legislators to maintain the status quo. And in VT out of all places, a state which only a few years ago was considering decriminalizing other smokable herbs.

Interestingly, this bill goes directly after e-cigs without any reason or explanation, not even the token "save the chillun" argument.

 

[AgentAnia]

....Interestingly, this bill goes directly after e-cigs without any reason or explanation, not even the token "save the chillun" argument.

That was my first thought on reading the bill's text, that with good ole Yankee pragmatism, they eliminated all extraneous bs and cut right to the chase. Of course it's all bollocks; I'm hoping it's one of those "see ma, I'm doing good" bills that will die a well-deserved death in committee. What keeps me awake at night is that I could be wrong...

 

[DC2]

You can discuss the person/s responsible for starting/sponsoring these bills. Just don't let it dissolve into a partisan free-for-all of this party vs that party hate posts.

Exactly.

Lay down the facts and let people do what they will.
Injecting your personal "political convictions" does not further the discussion.

And I say this while agreeing with the vast majority regarding their "political convictions" on these matters.

 

[claudebo]

(8) "Tobacco substitute" means products including electronic cigarettes or other electronic or battery-powered devices that contain and are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances into the body through inhaling vapor and that have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation or other medical purposes. (Added 1991, No. 70, § 2, eff. May 1, 1992; amended 1999, No. 89 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 2007, No. 114 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 2011, No. 166 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 2013, No. 14, § 1.)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for looking this up Bill and your analysis.

I see a problem with the definition used by Vermont to define "Tobacco Substitutes" (plz correct me if my memory does not serve me right). It appears that Vermont used the FDA's first regulatory attempt to regulate e-cogs as a medical device. This was shot down by the courts.
So by the standard ("Tobacco Substitutes") that Vermont uses it is an impossible situation as far as it ever being approved FDA with that criteria.

Not having the legal credentials say assess what that means I can only speculate that

1: This law would never be enforceable or
2:E-Cigs (w/nic) could never be approved , but enforceable.


The draft wording of this bill sounds like a feel good bill for politicians. Coming out against something (smoking) and adding a few more spices to it, most people would feel good about that. Maybe I ought to send those Politicians my leftover Chantix, that stuff should be good for something : )

 

[DC2]

The court never said that the FDA could not regulate electronic cigarettes as medical devices. The court said that the FDA could not regulate electronic cigarettes as medical devices as long as the vendor did not make health claims. If a vendor wishes to apply to the FDA to have their product approved as a smoking-cessation device, they can do so. And if approved, they would then be able to make health claims and advertise their product as a smoking-cessation device.

 

[Exhaler]

This is beyond the pale. They are in the process of implementing a total state government controlled single payer healthcare system (only one in the nation but the Obama administration backs it) and this may be tied into it. But why not outlaw analogs too? If you're going to go for it, then go all the way! Of course THAT would never pass in legislature.

 

[Jman8]

We can win this one. Just gotta organize and stay on top of tactics.

I say this as out of stater. If I'm mistaken about VT politics then not to worry, I'll continue indefinitely as an out of stater.

 

[claudebo]

Thanks for the clarification DC2

 

[Fulgurant]

Actually if you read it...It says will have to have a license and no sales for those under age of 18

Actually, if you read it...

LOL.

This is beyond the pale. They are in the process of implementing a total state government controlled single payer healthcare system (only one in the nation but the Obama administration backs it) and this may be tied into it. But why not outlaw analogs too? If you're going to go for it, then go all the way! Of course THAT would never pass in legislature.

It's no shock that the state with the 9th highest cigarette tax (92% over the US median) would move directly against e-cigs without threatening traditional tobacco cigarettes. What's surprising is the refreshing lack of prevarication about the whole thing. "Yeah, we're banning e-cigs and not tobacco, LOL." The bill's so brashly nonsensical I almost admire it.

Almost.