California flavor ban hearing needs e-smokers to participate


The California Congress Health Committee will hold a public hearing on sb 793, which will pass a bill banning all flavored tobacco products, including liquid and other flavored e-cigarettes. The meeting will be “remote” – hearings can be viewed online and comments can be sent over the phone. The hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on August 4.

It’s important for every e-smoker to spend some time “attending” hearings. Supporters of the bill portray e-cigarettes as a tool created by big tobacco groups to make teenagers addicted. More and more ordinary consumers begin to consider prohibiting the use of essence. With the decline of the tobacco industry, legislators are more difficult to eliminate the opposition.

The Consumer Association’s (casaa) call words are specifically targeted at California residents in the area where health committee members are located, but if they are not serving on the Council, you can use text to send a separate message to your own congressman.

The bill, which passed the State Senate in June, does not specifically mention online sales, and Senate sponsor Jerry Hill said it does not ban online sales. However, it is still possible to add provisions specifically prohibiting or restricting online sales through amendments. California passed a law last year that limits online and mail order sales of all e-cigarettes, including adult signature requirements on delivery.

Like many laws prohibiting flavors, SB 793 prohibits the characterization of flavors and prohibits the essence enhancer. The term is at best interpreted as a short filler or flavoring agent for an electronic liquid that does not contain nicotine, rather than an actual flavoring agent prohibited for the manufacture of DIY electronic liquids. But, as Alex Clark, casaa’s chief executive, points out, “the language is vague and mature and can be used by extremists in the tobacco control industry.”

The bill bans the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including Mint cigarettes. But the strong advocacy of the state’s hookah community won an amendment to lift the ban on flavored hookah. Senator hill. Hill also had the same thing in the 2019 ban on fragrance prohibition, which made the legislation lose support from anti tobacco organizations and finally forced Hill (Hill) to withdraw the bill. It is not clear if the same thing will happen this year.

“Supporters of sb 793 claim that the bill was made in such a way as to prevent police enforcement. If it is not implemented, then why introduce it first. “

There is also widespread opposition to the ban on Mint cigarettes, which many believe could lead to unnecessary interaction between the police and the black community. Although the act makes it not a crime to own or smoke Mint cigarettes, the illegal market developed to provide Mint cigarettes in black communities will attract law enforcement activities. Inevitably, marginalized smokers will be the first to bear the brunt of police attempts to enforce the mint ban. Many people also believe that products of specific groups are prohibited, patronage and discrimination are prohibited.

Last year, Massachusetts passed a ban on all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. The ban has added billions of dollars to the black market for tobacco products in the northeast. Other bans passed so far have banned cigarettes, including New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York. Lawmakers in New Jersey have publicly admitted that the state cannot afford the tax losses on cigarettes that could result from the mint ban.

Florida’s bill to ban flavoring aerosolized products has passed through both houses of Florida’s legislature and is currently under consideration by governor Ron de Santis. Wappers and other opponents urged the governor to veto the bill.



Source link

Leave a Reply