Here’s the unctuous, bombastic meltdown that I, to my horror witnessed early the other morning on MSNBC:
2 Likes
Ya know a purple slide would be total badass… 
2 Likes
When One Finds Themselves Rooting for Wealthy Goliaths - One Fathoms Their Own Desperation.
1 Like
Californication, Sacramento Style - Hot Summer Nights at State Capitol
It’s been nothing but bad news for the vaping industry these days - except in the California State Capitol. A strong bill to ban the sale of flavored vaping products was sidelined without a hearing in a committee controlled by Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Juul, earlier this summer.
In its place, Gray offered up a weaker bill. It mysteriously vaporized at the last minute. No big loss there. The American Cancer Society Action Network had called the first draft of Gray’s proposal “a complete sham.” State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, told Politico it was “an industry-sponsored plan that doesn’t help alleviate the epidemic of youth vaping.”
Surely, Gray’s actions had nothing to do with the fact that vaping and tobacco companies have poured lots of money into his campaign coffers. Juul, which markets a vaping device popular with school children, donated “$33,800 to Gray and his associated fundraising committees,” according to a story by CALmatters’ Ben Christopher.
The tobacco companies didn’t hesitate to reward Gray handsomely for killing off the bills. “On the first business day after the legislative year came to a close, Assemblyman Adam Gray accepted $25,000 to his ballot measure committee from Philip Morris USA, the maker of America’s most popular cigarette, Marlboro,” reported Scott Lay of The Nooner.
Philip Morris is a subsidiary of Altria, which also owns a large stake in Juul.
Source: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article235193092.html
.
Update (September 17, 2019):
California became the third state to take executive action on flavored vaping products, but Gov. Gavin Newsom failed to garner enough legislative backing to secure an actual ban, ABC News reported. … Newsom fell short of marshaling the required legislative commitment, announcing on Sept. 16 instead that his executive order would increase enforcement against counterfeit e-cigarettes and “against those abusing the law” by giving minors access to products containing nicotine, he said. … he announced a $20 million digital and social media advertising campaign to discourage vaping among teens.
2 Likes
Since this occurs in Michigan…
I’m shocked she did not blame vaping! 
3 Likes
5 Likes
Perhaps best to not give such a “dynamically stable genius” any ideas ? She needs a new “Sunday sermon”.
3 Likes
Yup, short fills … same we do here in the EU. It’s bloody annoying but it works.
Although I fail to see how it deters kids from doing the same. If they could get their hands on e-liquids before, they’ll be able to get their hands on the nic boosters as well.
4 Likes
More than surprising @woftam.
Michigan’s ban on flavored e-cigarettes provides a loophole for people worried about reverting back to cigarettes.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ban only applies to flavored nicotine. That means people may still buy vape liquids and pods that are free of nicotine. And for about $5, they can buy a flavorless nicotine packet and dump it into a bottle of vape liquid.
The ban no longer prohibits possession of flavored nicotine; it only prohibits the sale of it.
Since the process will make it more difficult for children to get their hands on both vape liquid and nicotine packets, Whitmer’s ban still has its intended impact. And for vapors who feared reverting back to cigarettes, they still have a way to vape flavored nicotine.
3 Likes
I (at present) cannot verify the above statement made here anywhere else. On September 10, 2019 the National Law Review (go to their mandatory “free sign-up screen”, do nothing, then “back-up” to the article text) published the following statement:
Another significant issue is whether enfarcement of this Dictum will rest (only) with a State level Liquor (etc) Board and its particular enfarcement ossifers, or (more threateningly, and potentially pervasively), if county and municipal police farces will also (or themselves) have jurisdiction to enfarce. Enfarcement duties make a huge difference. A small number of overworked Control Board Ossifers would be far less intimidating. 
3 Likes
I believe these are the current ones
3 Likes
Still ill-composed (where it comes to a hopelessly unclear meaning of the terms “tobacco taste/aroma”).
Here is statutory (actual Law) basis of the penalties stated in (a Public Health Rule) Rule 7 (1):
333.2261 Violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 2261. Except as otherwise provided by this code, a person who violates a rule or order of the department is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $200.00, or both.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978.
Popular name: Act 368
Source:
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rnrpekuawsreg4lukbbq2x54))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-368-1978-2.pdf
“Act 368” is (specifically) Michigan’s PUBLIC HEALTH CODE. Not entirely clear which public agency (or agencies) will get stuck with the un-enviable tasks of enfarcing these Public Health Rules. Will research …
[4] Enforcement Mechanisms. Under MCL 333.2255, the department, without
posting bond, may maintain an injunctive action in the name of the people of
Michigan to restrain, prevent, or correct a violation of a law, rule, or order which
the department has the duty to enforce; or to restrain, prevent, or correct an
activity or condition which the department believes adversely affects the public
health.
MCL 333.2261 provides that, except as otherwise provided in the Public Health
Code, a person who violates a rule or order of the department is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine
of not more than $200.00, or both.
Pursuant to MCL 333.2262(1), MDHHS may promulgate rules to adopt a schedule
of monetary civil penalties, not to exceed $1,000.00 for each violation or day that
a violation continues. Subsection (2) further states that if a department
representative believes that a person has violated the Public Health Code or a
rule promulgated or an order issued under it which MDHHS has the authority and
duty to enforce, the representative may issue a citation at that time or not later
than ninety days after discovery of the alleged violation. The citation shall be
written and shall state with particularity the nature of the violation, including
reference to the section, rule, or order alleged to have been violated, the civil
penalty established for the violation, if any, and the right to appeal the citation
pursuant to §2263. The citation shall be delivered or sent by registered mail to
the alleged violator.
MCL 333.2263(1) states that not later than twenty days after receipt of the
citation, the alleged violator may petition the department for an administrative
hearing, which shall be held within sixty days after receipt of the petition by the
department. The administrative hearing ma y be conducted by a hearings officer
who may affirm, dismiss, or modify the citation. The decision of the hearings
officer is final, unless the director grants a review of the citation within thirty days.
Upon review, the director may affirm, dismiss, or modify the citation. A civil penalty
shall become final if a petition for an administrative hearing is not received within
the time specified.
According to subsection (2), hearings and appeals under §2263 shall conform to
the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969. Subsection (3) further states that a
civil penalty imposed shall be paid to the state treasury for deposit in the general
fund. A civil penalty may be recovered in a civil action brought in the county in
which the violation occurred or the defendant resides.
Source: “Public Health Law Bench Book for Michigan Courts” (2016)
.
The document was indeed modified from the previously reported “draft” version. How humane (not to mention realistic) for the Rulers to target the Dictum to (whoever a Court may find is) a “retailer”/“reseller”. Moral of the story. Don’t get a business license. Don’t distribute to unknown strangers (even if “free”).
2 Likes
Holy shit, fuck, damn, son of a bitch! The empress did drop the four bottles or more, intent to sell bullshit!! The flavored e-juice (no nic) does default back to age restrictions already in place. The above article could actually be correct. I bet we will still have a secret flavor task force popo established however.
5 Likes
Now that’s my kind of “family friendly”. Rave on, my friend ! … 
4 Likes
Ya, old people these days…
3 Likes
With all due (sympathetic) deference towards the International Order of Curmudgeonly Dudes/Dudettes !
Now that I seem to have you “rolling” - I failed to consider the “initialized form” (International “OCD”) … 
Next act, litigation - and the cornpone establishment of an (allowed or dis-allowed) “Flavor Registry” … 
3 Likes
Lord, you do have an amazing imagination! Good humor however.
4 Likes
… is a virtual certainty (in their attempts to prevail against legal challenges surrounding what is or is not “Tobacco taste/aroma”). California had a companion bill for just that earlier this Summer (which I posted a link to at that time). It would become a “play to play” travesty. Such is the overall state/federal goal. Reward Cash Cows, purposely decimating any and all smaller players in the game (of Flavor Fascism Gone Wild).
3 Likes
These (flavoring) matters evidently “legally dovetail” (in terms of the type of the statutory authority, as well as public agency jurisdiction of enforcement) with this 2019 law. Michiganers might want to give the ESB 106 a look. Combined with recent Emergency Rule, it completes a “legal picture” surrounding these types of things:
Michiganers: If you make an effort to figure out your legal situation without success, and have a specific question(s), I’ll attempt to find some answer(s) for you (if needed). Am getting a bit burnt-out on research.
3 Likes
Don’t know if this has been shared… I posted it to my page before bed…
I also was accused of hurting people with this info… (WTF?)
3 Likes