Washington State seeks to ban online sales (and other provisions)

[Oliver]

Not very good New Year news, I'm afraid....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18613027/bill_draft_-_vapor_products_merged_11-19-14.pdf

 

[zoiDman]

A Similar bill was attempted and subsequently Amended / Defeated in California last year.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee-24.html

and

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nia-sb-648-would-define-ecigs-cigarettes.html

These members, as well a Many others, were Instrumental in organizing and coordinating opposition to the bills.

StefanDidak
berylana
uma
oplholik
Katya

Perhaps they could be contacted to get their Insights as to what was Effective (and what Wasn't Effective) and their General Observations in defeating this type of Legislation?

I don't want to Take Anything away from the Celebrating.

Because if AB-1500 is a Completely Dead, this is a Win for All Vapers and Retailers.

But one thing I would Suggest is that while this is Still Fresh in Peoples Minds is to ask themselves What Worked? And what Didn't Work? And to think Back and make a List of what you would do Differently knowing what you know Now.

We Will/Are going to Fight More Fights like this in the Future. How can things we Learned here be Applied to Other Situations? And how can our Experiences help Others?

Anyway... Just a Thought.

 

[skoony]

the attachments not working.
has any state successfully banned internet sales
of any legal item? i know cigarettes are a sore spot but,
only because of the taxes avoided.
it seems to me the internet ban is more of a negotiation
tool. its just there to be taken off any way.
regards
mike

 

[bigdancehawk]

Not very good New Year news, I'm afraid....

View attachment 400257

Bad link, it seems.

 

[Kent C]

Call to Action for WA Vapers | Mt Baker Vapor

 

[LaraC]

I "liked" that SmokeyJoe brought our attention to Washington state's attempt. I'd "like" the post even better when he gets the attachment link working.

Thanks Kent, for posting Mt Baker Vapor's announcement about it.

 

[zoiDman]

Can someone post the Assembly Bill Number?

Or better yet, a PDF Text of the Bill.

 

[Oliver]

Apologies - this should work: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18613027/bill_draft_-_vapor_products_merged_11-19-14.pdf

 

[zoiDman]

Wow... They don't Fool-a-Round in Washington State.

...

(2) A person under the age of twenty-one who purchases or attempts to purchase, possesses, or obtains or attempts to obtain a vapor product commits a class 3 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and is subject to a fine as set out in chapter 7.80 RCW or participation in up to four hours of community restitution, or both. The court may also require participation in a cessation program. This provision does not apply if a person under the age of twenty-one is participating in a controlled purchase as part of a board, law enforcement, or local health department activity.

...

 

[Oliver]

Apologies - it appears Bill already posted this.

Still, it's strong stuff - probably deserves two posts.

 

[Kent C]

Can someone post the Assembly Bill Number?

Or better yet, a PDF Text of the Bill.

It's the defeated 2795 bill of 2014, that Governor Jay Inslee(D) wants to reintroduce as part of his budget proposal/tax increases for 2015.

History:
"Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, has introduced a bill this session to tax electronic cigarettes similarly to tobacco cigarettes. Carlyle's bill would install a 95 percent "Other tobacco Product Tax" on e-cigarette wholesalers and make it illegal for kids 18 and younger to use e-cigarettes."

 

[zoiDman]

It's the defeated 2795 bill of 2014, that Governor Jay Inslee(D) wants to reintroduce as part of his budget proposal/tax increases for 2015.

History:
"Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, has introduced a bill this session to tax electronic cigarettes similarly to tobacco cigarettes. Carlyle's bill would install a 95 percent "Other Tobacco Product Tax" on e-cigarette wholesalers and make it illegal for kids 18 and younger to use e-cigarettes."

Thanks Kent.

I skimmed thru the "Draft" that SmokeyJoe posted. There are some Very Heavy Handed proposals in the Draft.

Do you know or have seen a Timeline or a Legislative path for this Draft to become a Bill? I am not up on Washington State legislative procedures.

 

[skoony]

2) A person under the age of twenty-one who purchases or attempts to purchase, possesses, or obtains or attempts to obtain a vapor product commits a class 3 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and is subject to a fine as set out in chapter 7.80 RCW or participation in up to four hours of community restitution, or both. The court may also require participation in a cessation program. This provision does not apply if a person under the age of twenty-one is participating in a controlled purchase as part of a board, law enforcement, or local health department activity.

don't they have this back words?
shouldn't it read any one who sells to or attempts to(anything vape related) to a person
under 21.
oh,i see they can buy if they are on a sting operation.
regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

Thanks Kent.

I skimmed thru the "Draft" that SmokeyJoe posted. There are some Very Heavy Handed proposals in the Draft.

Do you know or have seen a Timeline or a Legislative path for this Draft to become a Bill? I am not up on Washington State legislative procedures.

No. I just googled and recall the earlier proposal, which went through some watering down by Republicans - from 95% to 75% and to 50% then defeated.

In the 2014 elections, Democrats still hold the majority in the House but lost 4 seats to the Republicans. In the Senate, the Republicans have the majority and gained one more seat in the last election. So I would think that such a proposal has a slightly less chance of passing this time around. But that is without going 'deep' into the 'who voted for what' along the way

And....Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle plans to reintroduce the bill.

 

[zoiDman]

2) A person under the age of twenty-one who purchases or attempts to purchase, possesses, or obtains or attempts to obtain a vapor product commits a class 3 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and is subject to a fine as set out in chapter 7.80 RCW or participation in up to four hours of community restitution, or both. The court may also require participation in a cessation program. This provision does not apply if a person under the age of twenty-one is participating in a controlled purchase as part of a board, law enforcement, or local health department activity.

don't they have this back words?
shouldn't it read any one who sells to or attempts to(anything vape related) to a person
under 21.
oh,i see they can buy if they are on a sting operation.
regards
mike

State Bills that Require sellers to sell to someone 18 Years or older I don't have a problem with. 21 seems Extreme.

But what caught my eye was the Possession part.

So let me get this straight. If this Draft becomes a Bill and then becomes a Law, a Legal Adult in the state of Washington could receive a Class 3 Civil Infraction if they are pulled over and there is a PV in their Car? And the court may also Require participation in a Cessation Program.

I'm I reading this Right?

 

[zoiDman]

No. I just googled and recall the earlier proposal, which went through some watering down by Republicans - from 95% to 75% and to 50% then defeated.

In the 2014 elections, Democrats still hold the majority in the House but lost 4 seats to the Republicans. In the Senate, the Republicans have the majority and gained one more seat in the last election. So I would think that such a proposal has a slightly less chance of passing this time around. But that is without going 'deep' into the 'who voted for what' along the way

And....Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle plans to reintroduce the bill.

It looks like the Original bill, WA HB2795, was mainly a Tax Bill.

Bill Text: WA HB2795 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Comm Sub | LegiScan

WA HB2795 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

And didn't include the Sweeping Restrictions on Buying/Selling/Possession that this Draft includes.

 

[bigdancehawk]

A person may not sell, offer for sale, or possess with
intent to sell or offer for sale any flavored vapor product within
the state.

"Flavored vapor product" means a vapor product that imparts or
from which emanates a characterizing flavor.

"Characterizing flavor" means a distinguishable taste or smell
related to fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, or dessert
that emanates from or is imparted by a vapor product or the vapor or
aerosol emitted by the vapor product at any time prior to, during, or
after the use of a vapor product. "Characterizing flavor" does not
include flavors related to menthol, wintergreen, or mint.

It appears that coffee and tobacco flavored juice would be legal, but little else. Bye bye, Miss American pie.

 

[AndriaD]

They've clearly been smoking that stuff they legalized.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

It looks like the Original bill, WA HB2795, was mainly a Tax Bill.

Bill Text: WA HB2795 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Comm Sub | LegiScan

WA HB2795 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

And didn't include the Sweeping Restrictions on Buying/Selling/Possession that this Draft includes.

The new draft is more stringent There were a few versions of the 2013-2014 bill with substitute bills and amendments to each, so there were various levels of coercion involved along the way.

This was my starting point on the former/defeated bill:
HB 2795 - 2013-14

 

[Kent C]

They've clearly been smoking that stuff they legalized.

Andria

What happens when Californians migrate north