Ohio House Health Cmte approves bill to ban e-cig sales to minors despite opposition by e-cig opponents

[Bill Godshall]

Ohio House Health Committee approves bill to ban e-cig sales to minors despite opposition by hypocritical drug industry funded e-cig prohibitionists (who falsely accused companies of target marketing e-cigs to youth when urging FDA to unlawfully ban e-cigs in 2009, and who are now urging FDA to impose the “deeming” regulation that would once again ban e-cigs) and by THR opponent US Senator Sherrod Brown.
Controversial e-cigarette bill moves forward | The Columbus Dispatch


Nothing like urging FDA to regulate e-cigs (because some states still haven't banned e-cig sales to minors), while simultaneously opposing state legislation that would ban e-cig sales to minors.

 

[Bill Godshall]

HB 144 is at
Laws, Acts, and Legislation

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here are two related stories about this OH legislation

E-cig bill called a

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...lifesaving-products-instead.html#post10169379

Interestingly, the Ohio House Health Committee's approval of HB 144 occurred that day after Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine's coauthored letter urged the FDA to ban e-cig sales to minors. Seems like DeWine is far more interested in enacting federal laws and regulations (than in enacting and enforcing state laws) to protect Ohio youth (if he truly believes that e-cigs pose a threat to youth).

 

[stevegmu]

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

The tax democrats wanted to impose on e-cigarettes was defeated.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The OH legislation to ban e-cig sales to minors, and the potentially forthcoming FDA regs on e-cigs have nothing to do with taxation.

I was pointing out that the very same e-cig prohibitionists who are aggressively lobbying FDA to ban e-cig sales to minors (and impose many other regs on e-cigs that would ban all/most e-cigs) are actively opposing state legislation that would ban e-cig sales to minors.

 

[NicoHolic]

The groups now opposing this will settle for nothing less than a total ban, or draconian regulations and taxes that essentially do the same thing, preferably at the federal level. If passed, this legislation will take a lot of the "for the children" wind out of their sails and make it more difficult for them to promote far more extreme action.

 

[stevegmu]

You are the one who posted articles about 2 different bills. This one is more important- at least for those of us in Ohio-

Rep. Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard, the bill sponsor, said her goal is to keep the addictive products with kid-friendly flavors away from youths. She said she remains surprised that anti-smoking groups oppose what she calls a “no-brainer” proposal.

Opponents are concerned because the bill, crafted by the tobacco industry, creates a new definition in law for e-cigarettes, rather than just adding the product to the current definition of tobacco products. Anti-smoking groups say higher tobacco taxes are much more effective at curbing youth smoking than banning youth sales.

E-cigarettes look similar to cigarettes, but contain no tobacco. When the user inhales, the device heats up nicotine-infused liquid inside, releasing a vapor that is inhaled and then exhaled. The vapor is largely odorless, and the cigarettes come in a variety of flavors, including chocolate, cotton candy and Dr Pepper.

The nation’s top cigarette producers have moved into the e-cigarette business.

Rep. Heather Bishoff, D-Blacklick, said she wants to keep the product out the hands of children, but while cigarettes are specially taxed at $1.25 per pack, and other tobacco products at 17 percent, e-cigarettes under the bill would continue to be subject only to regular sales taxes.

“Why the differentiation? It’s all nicotine,” she said.

Wachtmann said it’s too early to look at taxing e-cigarettes like regular tobacco products.

“I keep meeting more and more current smokers who are cutting way back on cigarettes with electronic cigarettes. I think that’s a good thing,” he said. “If you want more of something, you don’t tax it more.”

Democratic efforts to change the definition of e-cigarettes and add e-cigarettes to the state’s indoor smoking ban were defeated.

Controversial e-cigarette bill moves forward | The Columbus Dispatch

 

[stevegmu]

The groups now opposing this will settle for nothing less than a total ban, or draconian regulations and taxes that essentially do the same thing, preferably at the federal level. If passed, this legislation will take a lot of the "for the children" wind out of their sails and make it more difficult for them to promote far more extreme action.

That's why the oh-so-scary big tobacco companies are pushing for age restrictions. Why most on here are against them, I don't know. Take the children out of the argument, and the issue becomes de-sensationalized.

 

[Uma]

That's why the oh-so-scary big tobacco companies are pushing for age restrictions. Why most on here are against them, I don't know. Take the children out of the argument, and the issue becomes de-sensationalized.

Say what? We are not now, nor ever have been, opposed to age restrictions. We tried to get a bill passed requiring age restrictions. Vendors put up their own age restrictions on their sites, long before this ever became a public concern. We have fought fair.
We were turned down. We were dismissed. We were called a Trojan horse. The states realized we were not a tobacco taxed product. They dismissed our THR bill, in favor of future excessive taxing. Now they claiming the opposite. Both of Bill's links are paramount to this topic.

I might need more coffee, might have misunderstood, might have reacted out of place, & if so, I apologies, but my reasoning still stands.

 

[Uma]

Nice article, kudos to the journalist and the video.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/pages/video.html?video=/videos/2013/07/25/a-look-at-e-cigarettes.xml

 

[Anjaffm]

A bill banning the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18 moved a step closer to reality yesterday, despite objections from anti-smoking groups and Democrats who argue that it ensures the products would not be not taxed like regular cigarettes.

hahahahahahaha!
Now they let the cat out of the bag, eh?
It was never about public health or "the children", eh?
Liar liar, pants on fire.....


So anti-smoking groups, who are (allegedly) sooo concerned about the poor, poor children actually object to a bill that bans the sale of e-cigs to minors. Bwaahaaahaa!
You just made my day

 

[stevegmu]

Say what? We are not now, nor ever have been, opposed to age restrictions. We tried to get a bill passed requiring age restrictions. Vendors put up their own age restrictions on their sites, long before this ever became a public concern. We have fought fair.
We were turned down. We were dismissed. We were called a Trojan horse. The states realized we were not a tobacco taxed product. They dismissed our THR bill, in favor of future excessive taxing. Now they claiming the opposite. Both of Bill's links are paramount to this topic.

I might need more coffee, might have misunderstood, might have reacted out of place, & if so, I apologies, but my reasoning still stands.

The age restrictions will come in the form of expensive online verification or physically sending- either by mail, e-mail or fax a copy of a state or government issued ID. Nearly everyone in the posts I have read concerning the subject is against this. It won't be as simple as click the I am over 18 box to continue.