Senator Corbett presents SB400

I was watching the video of California senator Corbett presenting SB400, to amend the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act which originally spelled out restrictions on how retailers can present tobacco products around children. It gave mandates on how close products and marketing can be placed to such things as candy and gum and soft drinks and required that tobacco products be put behind the counter in any store that did was not a tobacco store. Makes sense right?

Well, it did until in early Sept Corbett decided to add clauses that may now ban the sale of electronic cigarettes in the state of California and classify them as "drug devices" and the nicotine liquid as a drug, and authorizes law enforcement as well as civil action against those selling such products.

When presenting the bill she said:

this is a product, that because it is a new technology it is not yet regulated by the FDA, yet they are electronic cigarettes that, um, they are completely unregulated and will be illegal until the FDA has a chance to comprehensibly study the effects of this product.

the bill has no known opposition and has not been opposed by the tobacco industry.

The bill passed 16 to 14 with 10 not present and now goes to the governors office for signature or veto.

But wait a minute? No known opposition? Not opposed by the tobacco industry?

First off, of course it's not opposed by the tobacco industry, it's their main competitor at the moment!! But why on earth would that matter anyway? What? We need the tobacco industry's approval before passing bills that regulate tobacco?

Second, I didn't see any reference to any testimony by electronic cigarette users, manufacturers or sellers who I am sure would oppose this bill.

I hate to say it, I'm usually not one to instantly accuse lawmakers of ulterior motives, but this strikes me as a Senator who started out in February with a green energy bill that now does nothing for energy at all but only helps the tobacco industry stifle their competition. I have to question her motives and wonder how a bill can so radically change in 7 months.

The whole point of this bill was to outlaw electronic cigarettes, give a precedent to other states and strike a blow to big tobaccos first real competition in years, if ever.

If cigarettes are not FDA approved, why do electronic cigarettes need to be? Nicotine is a legal drug and the most widely available delivery system is the cause of most of the negative effects of it's use.

But I think her specifically mentioning the tobacco industry and their lack of opposition to this bill just shows how much power big tobacco really has in our legislative system.

It's going to be an uphill battle for e-cig makers and users to get them approved, the sooner they start, the less ammunition their foes will have to destroy them. It's time for some studies, it's time for some research, it's time for users to speak out about their experiences.

And it's time for me to do some research into what exactly is needed for FDA approval. More to come.