The problem is that they are not accepting the Federal definition of tobacco product. They are specifying as defined in the State law:
What to do - Proposed bans in 4 states
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- provari totally wicked
- Status
The problem is that they are not accepting the Federal definition of tobacco product. They are specifying as defined in the State law:
No. As Elaine pointed out, the proposed New York legislation specifically refers to the New York definition of "tobacco product", found in 1399-aa of the New York Public Health Law.
So even if the federal question were finally and authoritatively settled, and e-cigs were ruled tobacco products for purposes of the feds, Rosenthal's bill would still invite litigation - over the proper interpretation of the New York definition of "tobacco product" as it relates to e-cigs and to this outrageous proposed sales ban (as well as a careful review of such questions as whether the federal definition should preempt or otherwise make unenforceable this New York attempt to ban sales to adults).
But wouldn't that fall under Federal Preemption of State Law? I mean, this would clearly be a constitutional conflict, right?
I've been trying to dissect a bill up in Tennessee and it raises the same issue. (Tennessee Senate Bill 910 - ban on e-cigs or sloppy language? ) If they are trying to ban the sale to all individuals (and I'm not so sure that's what this particular bill is trying to do, since it clearly amends all article related to minors' access to tobacco products to read "tobacco products or electronic cigarettes") but if they are - the language used requires that e-cigarettes met criteria that by federal law, it can never meet.
What got me started on this bill was that instead of actually banning all sales (as is everybody's first thought), it might be more about setting regulations regarding e-cig sales and distribution to minors, and putting into state law that non-FDA approved, non-tobacco smoking cessation products can not be sold (albeit sloppy language) - We DON'T want to petition articles intended to regulate sales to minors....
But my other concern is that if it IS a ban on all sales, how can they legally require a product to seek approval from an agency that is - by law - not allow to approve it??? Isn't that what many of these other bills are stating? I would think that with language like that, states would be sued before the ink dries.
In the case of the Tennessee bill, it also has the "as defined in 39-17-1503" but it also has electronic cigarettes being ADDED to 39-17-1503, which defines tobacco products. And if all e-cig sales are banned, then it makes all the other 20+ articles in the bill moot (regulating sales to minors).
I'm with ya, Rob, I would really like to understand what's at play here - I can't make sense of it and it's driving me batty (ier). I made a short novel out of my points in the other post, but nobody's biting. Are all of these really flat out bans or are we missing something?
I've been trying to dissect a bill up in Tennessee and it raises the same issue. (Tennessee Senate Bill 910 - ban on e-cigs or sloppy language? ) If they are trying to ban the sale to all individuals (and I'm not so sure that's what this particular bill is trying to do, since it clearly amends all article related to minors' access to tobacco products to read "tobacco products or electronic cigarettes") but if they are - the language used requires that e-cigarettes met criteria that by federal law, it can never meet.
What got me started on this bill was that instead of actually banning all sales (as is everybody's first thought), it might be more about setting regulations regarding e-cig sales and distribution to minors, and putting into state law that non-FDA approved, non-tobacco smoking cessation products can not be sold (albeit sloppy language) - We DON'T want to petition articles intended to regulate sales to minors....
But my other concern is that if it IS a ban on all sales, how can they legally require a product to seek approval from an agency that is - by law - not allow to approve it??? Isn't that what many of these other bills are stating? I would think that with language like that, states would be sued before the ink dries.
In the case of the Tennessee bill, it also has the "as defined in 39-17-1503" but it also has electronic cigarettes being ADDED to 39-17-1503, which defines tobacco products. And if all e-cig sales are banned, then it makes all the other 20+ articles in the bill moot (regulating sales to minors).
I'm with ya, Rob, I would really like to understand what's at play here - I can't make sense of it and it's driving me batty (ier). I made a short novel out of my points in the other post, but nobody's biting. Are all of these really flat out bans or are we missing something?
A year later, did you every get that company up and running? I am looking for a good cheap complete mod. Let me know. Thanks
the illinois reprentatives don't have listed email addresses......fantastic. Looks like snail mail is the only way to do this....oh well, it has to be done.
Take notice folks, all the states that want the ban on e-cigs are Blue states, not Red ones. Make a difference in 2012. Stop voting for these idiots that want to regulate everything, salt, sugar, sodas, fast food, etc. Take it from someone who believes in individualism and the private sector.
CraigW
CraigW
Last edited:
It is funny about people keep saying... "there is just not enough testing yet... not enough research....etc." It's just lack of education on the part of most people and maybe a touch of ignorance, people will always dislike things they don't understand. There will always be those that care more about "impressions" vs facts.
There are probably plenty of Representatives who smoke, or have friends and loved ones who do.
Best way is to show, not tell.
It would be great if the ecig industry could pool resources and set them up with some product, they could try it themselves, and then they would know what an "e-cig" is. Right now it's just a vague concept for them.
This thread was started in 2010, when we were battling the worst of it. FDA is no longer confiscating shipments from China. I have not experienced and hassles for well over a year personally.
Right now, like Racehorse posted above, I vape everywhere openly to let PV's be seen in action. I still run into curious people who ask about it, but it is becoming less often these days.
Right now, like Racehorse posted above, I vape everywhere openly to let PV's be seen in action. I still run into curious people who ask about it, but it is becoming less often these days.
If suppliers would start making more of their products, more people would have them, meaning more exposure. I didn't even know this stuff existed until a few months ago. Spent 15 years thinking I'd never be able to quit smoking, then the day I got a Provari, I quit cigarettes.
And I say that the more e-cigs gain in popularity, the greater resistance from our "honorable" lawmakers we vapers will face.
Bottom line, Republican or Democrat (in the USA), is that if they arent taxing it...they will find a way to do so. And if that means e-cigs and/or e-juice will "need to be regulated" then that is what they will do. Our politicians (a good majority of them) are drunk on the power that taxation brings. The fact there is something out there that they arent taxing, and worse taking away precious tobacco tax revenue, the more they will want to find a way to tax it.
To think anything else is just delusional on our part...
Bottom line, Republican or Democrat (in the USA), is that if they arent taxing it...they will find a way to do so. And if that means e-cigs and/or e-juice will "need to be regulated" then that is what they will do. Our politicians (a good majority of them) are drunk on the power that taxation brings. The fact there is something out there that they arent taxing, and worse taking away precious tobacco tax revenue, the more they will want to find a way to tax it.
To think anything else is just delusional on our part...
Taxation would be the least of our worries. The FDA already tried to ban e-cigarettes and it took a Federal court case to stop that. The Agency has already announced it's intention to "regulate" e-cigarettes. However, if you believe that all they would want to do is protect the safety of the consumer, I have this bridge.....
The FDA can use the provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to make all but the earliest, least effective models pulled off the market.
The way I see it, the Administrative Branch of Government is drunk with power. So far, with few exceptions, all of the proposed bans on sales and/or indoor use at the local and state levels have been sponsored by and supported by Democrats in office. In fighting these bans, we have had much better luck in gaining support to oppose them by talking to members of the other party.
I wonder how many "vapors" voted for the current President in power and those in the House and Senate in his Party. It would be interesting to know their numbers and their thoughts.
"Our politicians (a good majority of them) are drunk on the power that taxation brings. The fact there is something out there that they arent taxing, and worse taking away precious tobacco tax revenue, the more they will want to find a way to tax it.
To think anything else is just delusional on our part..."
Nah, they can just keep raising the taxes on smoking. Thats the real villan in the publics eye, so they can keep raising it until folks are robbing banks to get a few packs of smokes. Thats what pariahs are for.
To think anything else is just delusional on our part..."
Nah, they can just keep raising the taxes on smoking. Thats the real villan in the publics eye, so they can keep raising it until folks are robbing banks to get a few packs of smokes. Thats what pariahs are for.
- Status
