Cal NORML now urging CA legislators to oppose SB 648

[Bill Godshall]

Berylanna, when you wrote "today's update of SB648", what were you referring to?

Was the bill amended? Has Corbett offered an amendment to her bill? What specific document were you referring to?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that if the CA Assembly amends Corbett's bill (by even one word), it must go back to the CA Senate for approval.

 

[Berylanna]

I suspect it got amended in transit and possibly just now updated?

comments@www.leginfo.ca.gov

4:35 AM (7 hours ago)

to me
Date and Time of Update: Tue Aug 6 4:29:37 US/Pacific 2013



Legislative action has occurred on bill(s) you have subscribed
to through the California Legislative Counsel's web site
(Official California Legislative Information)
or the California State Senate's web site
(Welcome to the California State Senate | Senate Internet).

You can link to the Bill Documents page or to the specific page
of information that has been updated. If you cannot link from this
E-mail message, you can enter the URL on your Internet Browser.

SB 648 Bill List

AMENDED SB 648 Senate Bill - AMENDED


Which leads to:
BILL NUMBER: SB 648 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 5, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 7, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 22, 2013

INTRODUCED BY Senator Corbett

FEBRUARY 22, 2013

The amendments appear to be strikeouts talking about certain sections. I see now (on my bigger screen) that the nicotine part does not appear to be a new amendment. It is a challenge to get an "as-amended" copy of a bill, there are legislative staff that know how to do that. "as-amended" means showing all the delta between old and new, instead of just the most-recent changes.

I do see now why the web site only shows the very latest changes, if that affects the path of the bill.

 

[ClippinWings]

it's history states it was amended yesterday.

Aug. 5 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.

June 17 Referred to Com. on G.O.

May 24 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

May 24 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 21. Noes 10. Page 1044.) Ordered to
the Assembly.

Here's the main Bill page

 

[ClippinWings]

Ok... Unless I'm mistaken.... This is the bill's definition of "electronic cigarette":

Existing law defines an electronic cigarette as a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering an inhalable solution

"Can" is a very broad term.... Legally.

In fact this definition would, unless I'm mistaken... Clearly include devices used by medical .......... Users.

In addition I can think of numerous devices and items that would be banned.... Nicotine inhalers for instance...

Hell, I bet I CAN get a spray bottle to deliver an "inhalable dose"...

Because like I said... CAN is pretty broad...


Sent from my mobile, using Tapatalk... so ignore the typos.

 

[Berylanna]

Oh, noes! No more clean windows in any state-owned, county-owned, or city-owned buildings!

 

[Johnny101]

This will be interesting to see what happens

 

[Berylanna]

This will be interesting to see what happens

Did you call your Assembly rep? Is he/she on the committee? If not, did you ask your rep to talk to committee members before Aug 14?

 

[soba1]

Please note that if the CA Assembly amends Corbett's bill (by even one word), it must go back to the CA Senate for approval.

It appears that it has been, I have a feeling its just going to get poo pooed.

 

[Bill Godshall]

ClippinWings wrote

In addition I can think of numerous devices and items that would be banned.... Nicotine inhalers for instance...

The bill exempts all FDA approved products, just like all the other bills in other states (and municipalities) to ban e-cig use in workplaces, to ban the sale of e-cigs, to regulate e-cig sales, and tax e-cigs.

 

[ClippinWings]

ClippinWings wrote



The bill exempts all FDA approved products, just like all the other bills in other states (and municipalities) to ban e-cig use in workplaces, to ban the sale of e-cigs, to regulate e-cig sales, and tax e-cigs.

Oh my mistake, I must have missed that portion.

 

[Elnroth]

ClippinWings wrote



The bill exempts all FDA approved products, just like all the other bills in other states (and municipalities) to ban e-cig use in workplaces, to ban the sale of e-cigs, to regulate e-cig sales, and tax e-cigs.

Up next, FDA approved, pharmaceutical grade guns. You can use them anywhere without restriction as long as you have a prescription. And don't worry about locking them up. They couldn't possibly hurt children, they're fda approved . . .

I apologize if my sarcasm is out of place here.

 

[Uma]

I'm glad NORML stepped in. They know the types of vaporizers those medical people need and use. They have the inside scoop, the full info on it all. The rest of us? We are still under the demoralization spell that the propaganda force fed us all those years. Think about it.
First up to demoralize? Liquor.
2nd. pot
3rd. smoking
4th. eCigs.

Both pot and eCigs are healthier alternatives to big pharma's wonder pills. (wonder what's in those things, your life depends on it!!).

They are using the pot card.. why? Because they have the public brainwashed. Pot=bad. Pot=deplorable.
We can't even mention the life saving drug on eCf. It's "taboo".

Of course they're going to play that card. They have Americans visualizing Cheech & Chong instead of little Charlotte. It doesn't take much to bring back the demoralizing attitudes in the public. We've been brainwashed. Thoroughly brainwashed.

I'm sick of it. Hopefully, with NORML in the game, Charlotte, and thousands like her and others, will be respected as human beings once again. So will vapers who are seeking their healthier alternatives.

Who's Charlotte, you ask?
Therein lies the hugest problem.
I bet you know who Cheech & Chong are.

Charlotte's Web

Until the day Charlotte and thousands like her, are more famous than C & C, we just may have a problem.

 

[zoiDman]

Charlotte's Web

Until the day Charlotte and thousands like her, are more famous than C & C, we just may have a problem.

Maybe it is My Browser...

But the Link Doesn't seem to work.

 

[AgentAnia]

Maybe it is My Browser...

But the Link Doesn't seem to work.

Did you get the "CNN page not found" page? If so, type "charlotte" in the search box and you'll see a link to the Charlotte story.

 

[Uma]

Yes, it's CNN. ECF might have blocked it?
Let me try a direct link straight into the post?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-........./index.html?hpt=hp_t1

cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte etc... (the etc gets deleted in post probably).

 

[slider]

If ban smoking outdoors in CA, like they are doing in other parts of the US, vaporizers will be included in the ban if SB648 passes.

 

[Lisa Belle]

We are Americans we have a voice and a vote.... Let's not let TRENDY California send vapers back to smoking in shame!!! http://www.change.org/petitions/sb-648-california-e-cigarette-usage-ban-stop-the-california-e-cigarette-usage-ban-sb-648-3

 

[zoiDman]

If ban smoking outdoors in CA, like they are doing in other parts of the US, ...

This is Almost a Guarantee.

 

[soba1]

This a local radio talk show host here in LA he is pretty fair.
Here is his email and I just emaild him telling him about this measure along with a link to dark truths behind ecigs.
Email him and see if we can enlist his help I just did there more people he hears from the better.
His name is David Cruz see if we can get him to help also if you can get it on your local talk shows the more the better.
We have to get as much help accross the board....

DavidCruz2@ClearChannel.com