SB 648 Died in Committee Last Week. Cause for Celebration? or Cause for Concern?

SB 648 died in committee this past week. I wanted to write about it sooner, but owing to a flu outbreak at my house I didn't make it to the hearing. I decided that I should, at the very least, watch the video of the hearing before putting my opinions about it into words.

I have now done so. Several times. And I’m sticking to my initial reaction that the death of SB 648 is not a good thing, in fact, while many are enjoying a celebratory drink, or a congratulatory self pat on the back, I firmly believe that the death of SB 648 is a bad thing

I also believe that the ANTZ have gotten to the committee members

First, lets consider what happened the last time SB 648 was in committee that didn't happen this time… Last time the committee criticized those opposing the bill, they were chastised for focusing on the omission of text that would have defined an e-cigarette as a cigarette rather than focusing on the intent of the bill. They were even accused of wanting to put electronic cigarettes into the hands of children. The committee didn't do that this time. The same committee looking at the same bill and hearing the same arguments… and yet they acted very differently.

The only reasonable interpretation is that, away from the committee room, in the hallways and offices of the capitol, or maybe over pricey dinners and drinks nearby, the Anti Tobacco and Nicotine Zealots influenced the committee members. Likely with money, or the treat of withholding money.

Before going further, you may want to view the video if you haven’t already… it can be viewed here

Pay special attention to what was said by Kally Hampt(?) on behalf of the American Heart and American Stroke Association. She complains that the bill “Takes us two steps back in our efforts to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products”

…And Alicia Sanchez – California medical association This bill “…would undermine our intent to see e-cigarettes regulated as other tobacco products

There it is. Stated right out in the open for all to hear. It was never about “the children” it’s about efforts to classify electronic cigarettes as tobacco.

And they've gained enough support to kill a bill that would have created a common sense restriction on electronic cigarette sales in vending machines based only on the fact that the bill did not also define electronic cigarettes as tobacco.

In other words, this insanity is getting worse.

Of course California law already defines e-cigarettes. Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code paragraph b reads: ‘“Electronic cigarette” means a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution’

Think about that for a moment. California law states that an electronic cigarette is a device… your box mod, your mechanical, your Ego battery, combined with an atomizer is, according to California law, an electronic cigarette. With or without nicotine. In fact, with or without e-liquid at all, it only needs to be a device that “can” provide inhalable nicotine. If we then allow electronic cigarettes to be legally classifies as tobacco products, then that copper, stainless steal, or brass tube with the battery in it will be regulated, and taxed, as if it was made from the leaves of a tobacco plant. Never mind that under current law tobacco products are defined in Revenue and Taxation Cod Sections 30121 and 30131,1 to include “all forms of cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, and any other articles or products made of, or containing at least 50 percent, tobacco, but does not include cigarettes.” Now I don’t know about you, but looking at my mods… none of them are either made of, or contain 50 percent, tobacco. Not a one. Not even when I add e-liquid. In fact, since nicotine is the only tobacco derived ingredient in my e-liquid, it would have to be 500mg/ml nicotine before it was “50 percent” tobacco.

Please not that I am not suggesting that anyone should ever make, or use 500mg/ml e-liquid. At best it probably wouldn't taste very good.

So the push is on to legally classify electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product in California despite the contradictions that it would cause between existing state laws covering tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes, and the defeat of SB 648 for the sole reason that it listed electronic cigarettes explicitly, and distinctly from tobacco products is evidence that our opponents are winning support…

…After all, it’s a public health issue. Right? Well, yes, but not in the direction that the public health officials are trying to present it… quite the opposite in fact, because when more people quit smoking that is a public health benefit.