# San Francisco, California Bans E-Liquid Sales



## Spydro (28/6/17)

Starting April 2018 no e-liquids can be sold in the city.

https://vaping.com/blog/news/vape-s...ail&utm_term=0_22416810d6-0526a09de4-51253929

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## kev mac (28/6/17)

Spydro said:


> Starting April 2018 no e-liquids can be sold in the city.
> 
> https://vaping.com/blog/news/vape-s...ail&utm_term=0_22416810d6-0526a09de4-51253929


@Spydro ,I've been following this.More left wing lunacy!

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## RichJB (28/6/17)

Apparently it's not illegal to possess juice, just to sell it. So I can't see the point really. It's rather like those gun bans in cities where if you drive 20 miles, you can get one easily in a neighbouring state. I guess people will just vapemail juice in or take up DIY. Either way, it's not going to stop vaping.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Spydro (29/6/17)

Big tobacco and their bought and paid for politicians may make it harder to vape, but they will never stop vaping. Nothing is going to stop vaping in America. The laws of this land have always been ignored by many citizens, always have been in the SF Bay Area and always will be... even by most that are otherwise law abiding citizens except when it comes to ridiculous laws. Incorporated San Francisco itself is only a small percentage of the population of the entire Bay Area... 860,000 within the 7 million residents there.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Amir (29/6/17)

The sale of Weed is legal in Cali right? But E-juice isn't?

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RichJB (29/6/17)

Yeah. But weed doesn't appeal to kids coz there is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Kids only like Cookies n Cream. That is why kids never take up drinking. There is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Does beer taste like Cookies n Cream? No. It tastes like beer. Yuck. That is why kids never drink it and why we don't have an alcoholism problem anymore. If people would only think like politicians, life would be a lot simpler.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 4 | Funny 2


----------



## ivc_mixer (29/6/17)

RichJB said:


> Yeah. But weed doesn't appeal to kids coz there is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Kids only like Cookies n Cream. That is why kids never take up drinking. There is no Cookies n Cream flavour.



There is Cookies & Cream alcohol. And bubblegum. And apple and strawberry and banana and and and and... I don't know who the manufacturers are, but I see it when I go get some Jack Daniels for myself and I taste of it once a year or so when someone brings it to a party.

But drinking alcohol makes you smoke more, so big tobacco will never pursue them.

The struggle continues, but we shall prevail.


----------



## Spydro (29/6/17)

Amir said:


> The sale of Weed is legal in Cali right? But E-juice isn't?



The SF ban includes all so called tobacco products, and e-liquid is being considered one of them. Medical weed has been legal in some US states for years, with more getting on the list. Non medical is gaining support in some states. 

When I lived in the SF Bay Area off and on from 1967-1971 the California legal smoking and drinking age was 21. Buying either on a military base was easy. In town without a military ID booze and smokes were not as easily acquired as weed/all the illegal drugs. The military and local businesses had the opinion that if someone was old enough to serve and die for the country they were old enough to smoke and drink despite the CA age laws. All the street drugs were illegal then, but SF was the world capitol of the counter culture (the true hippies and diggers) back then, so drugs and free love was anywhere and everywhere.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Amir (29/6/17)

Spydro said:


> The SF ban includes all so called tobacco products, and e-liquid is being considered one of them. Medical weed has been legal in some US states for years, with more getting on the list. Non medical is gaining support in some states.
> 
> When I lived in the SF Bay Area off and on from 1967-1971 the California legal smoking and drinking age was 21. Buying either on a military base was easy. In town without a military ID booze and smokes were not as easily acquired as weed/all the illegal drugs. The military and local businesses had the opinion that if someone was old enough to serve and die for the country they were old enough to smoke and drink despite the CA age laws. All the street drugs were illegal then, but SF was the world capitol of the counter culture (the true hippies and diggers) back then, so drugs and free love was anywhere and everywhere.



I've had the pleasure of visiting Cali a few years ago and enjoyed my time out on Venice Beach simply because of the very relaxed attitude towards weed smoking. I was a big time stoner back then and it was something of an adventure to familiarize myself with the latest, craziest hype with different strains and breeds of plants... I particularly recall a small surf shop next to a 3 wheel cycle rental place directly across the pier with a blue VW camper out front, a hippie van, and you could literally walk in there and do grocery style shopping with different strains, papers, pipes and other stuff. This couldn't have been more than 5 years ago because my visa is still valid.


----------



## Amir (29/6/17)

RichJB said:


> Yeah. But weed doesn't appeal to kids coz there is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Kids only like Cookies n Cream. That is why kids never take up drinking. There is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Does beer taste like Cookies n Cream? No. It tastes like beer. Yuck. That is why kids never drink it and why we don't have an alcoholism problem anymore. If people would only think like politicians, life would be a lot simpler.



Weed can taste like whatever they want it to... I once tried a strain that tasted like rose water... and which kid wouldn't wanna try some purple haze or Cali Orange? How awesome does that sound compared to lets say... A friggin mentos?


----------



## RichJB (29/6/17)

Politicians don't know that, though. If weed growers advertised that their stuff tasted like jelly beans, politicians would be on them like a cheap suit.


----------



## aktorsyl (29/6/17)

Amir said:


> How awesome does that sound compared to lets say... A friggin mentos?


Better not let @Silver hear you...


----------



## Amir (29/6/17)

aktorsyl said:


> Better not let @Silver hear you...



@Silver is so chilled we need to check his pulse every once in a while... That's what 18mg DL does to a person. He is the Chuck Norris of vaping. The only time I see him show emotion is if you put an ad in the classifieds without pics

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## kev mac (1/7/17)

RichJB said:


> Yeah. But weed doesn't appeal to kids coz there is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Kids only like Cookies n Cream. That is why kids never take up drinking. There is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Does beer taste like Cookies n Cream? No. It tastes like beer. Yuck. That is why kids never drink it and why we don't have an alcoholism problem anymore. If people would only think like politicians, life would be a lot simpler.


But they sell pot cookies and candies though I've never tried them I hear they're delicious!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CMMACKEM (1/7/17)

RichJB said:


> Yeah. *But weed doesn't appeal to kids coz there is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Kids only like Cookies n Cream. *That is why kids never take up drinking. There is no Cookies n Cream flavour. Does beer taste like Cookies n Cream? No. It tastes like beer. Yuck. That is why kids never drink it and why we don't have an alcoholism problem anymore. If people would only think like politicians, life would be a lot simpler.



I think you should check again. There are probably more flavor variations of weed than ejuice .


----------



## RichJB (1/7/17)

I know there are hundreds of different strains of marijuana now but aren't they just different takes on the same basic marijuana taste, the same that you can get thousands of different red wines but they're all just red wine? Yes, I realise beer connoisseurs like the Vaping Bogan will note that a particular beer has a chocolate or honey or licorice note or whatever. But give that beer to a kid and I don't think they'll taste chocolate, honey or licorice. They'll taste beer. Get a kid to inhale Cuprian, I suspect they will taste chocolate mint, not smoke.

Therein lies the difference. I don't think marijuana will ever taste like chocolate mint to a child. But vapour can and does.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CMMACKEM (1/7/17)

Spydro said:


> The SF ban includes all so called tobacco products, and e-liquid is being considered one of them. Medical weed has been legal in some US states for years, with more getting on the list. Non medical is gaining support in some states.
> 
> When I lived in the SF Bay Area off and on from 1967-1971 the California legal smoking and drinking age was 21. Buying either on a military base was easy. In town without a military ID booze and smokes were not as easily acquired as weed/all the illegal drugs. The military and local businesses had the opinion that if someone was old enough to serve and die for the country they were old enough to smoke and drink despite the CA age laws. All the street drugs were illegal then, but SF was the world capitol of the counter culture (the true hippies and diggers) back then, so drugs and free love was anywhere and everywhere.





RichJB said:


> I know there are hundreds of different strains of marijuana now but aren't they just different takes on the same basic marijuana taste, the same that you can get thousands of different red wines but they're all just red wine? Yes, I realise beer connoisseurs like the Vaping Bogan will note that a particular beer has a chocolate or honey or licorice note or whatever. But give that beer to a kid and I don't think they'll taste chocolate, honey or licorice. They'll taste beer. Get a kid to inhale Cuprian, I suspect they will taste chocolate mint, not smoke.
> 
> Therein lies the difference. *I don't think marijuana will ever taste like chocolate mint to a child. But vapour can and does.*



I definitely agree but with fruity and candy type marijuana names who is to say the child will not try it. 

In my opinion this whole thing absolutely stinks of political corruption. It just makes me despise them even more no matter what country they are from. I guess that is why I like Trump, he is by nature not a politician.


----------



## RichJB (1/7/17)

Why do you suppose there is corruption against vaping but not against marijuana, though? Marijuana is as much a rival for tobacco and pharma products as vaping is. So why aren't tobacco and pharma shutting it down? I think it's because Dem elected representatives smaak the odd joint. Politicians will never restrict something they enjoy doing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## CMMACKEM (1/7/17)

RichJB said:


> Why do you suppose there is corruption against vaping but not against marijuana, though? Marijuana is as much a rival for tobacco and pharma products as vaping is. So why aren't tobacco and pharma shutting it down? I think it's because Dem elected representatives smaak the odd joint. Politicians will never restrict something they enjoy doing.



I reckon because vaping is eating into the money that they would receive from tobacco. Marijuana a rival for tobacco? I personally wouldn't think so.


----------



## RichJB (1/7/17)

I'd be interested to know how the master settlement payments are structured, whether it's just a percentage of cigarette sales, a percentage of all tobacco sales (pipes, cigars too) or whether it's a percentage of all tobacco company income that goes to state governments. If it's just cigarettes or just tobacco, that's a good motive for the tobacco companies to move into vaping and smokeless tobacco.


----------



## Silver (1/7/17)

RichJB said:


> I'd be interested to know how the master settlement payments are structured, whether it's just a percentage of cigarette sales, a percentage of all tobacco sales (pipes, cigars too) or whether it's a percentage of all tobacco company income that goes to state governments. If it's just cigarettes or just tobacco, that's a good motive for the tobacco companies to move into vaping and smokeless tobacco.



Good point @RichJB 
I think its worthy of further investigation

Last time I read about those settlement agreements, I seem to recall they were just bonds with a scheduled regular payment, i.e. Not dependent on the tobacco company's income, but I could be wrong

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB (1/7/17)

From what I've heard, payments are tied directly to the tobacco company's income. This is why there is such consternation about the tobacco bonds issued by state governments. They issued bonds and borrowed heavily from investors, using the collateral of tobacco income into perpetuity as security. Their actuaries factored declining cigarette sales into the projected income and worked out the interest and bond repayment terms with that in mind. Then vaping happened, cigarette sales dropped more than the actuaries expected, tobacco companies are giving less money to states each year, and some state governments are now in the position where they might default on repayments to their investors. 

I'm not sure how state governments got themselves into a position where they would make money from voters continuing to smoke. It seems a clear conflict of interest with their public health goals. But governments everywhere seem to get themselves into these sort of messes, the US being no exception.

I'm struggling to see this as a big tobacco ploy, though. In SF, big tobacco will no longer be allowed to sell menthol cigarettes from 2018. That is going to hit their sales hard. So they'll be biting the bullet as well. Although, much like vapers with juice, I guess menthol smokers will just have their fix delivered in from another state.

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Silver (1/7/17)

RichJB said:


> From what I've heard, payments are tied directly to the tobacco company's income. This is why there is such consternation about the tobacco bonds issued by state governments. They issued bonds and borrowed heavily from investors, using the collateral of tobacco income into perpetuity as security. Their actuaries factored declining cigarette sales into the projected income and worked out the interest and bond repayment terms with that in mind. Then vaping happened, cigarette sales dropped more than the actuaries expected, tobacco companies are giving less money to states each year, and some state governments are now in the position where they might default on repayments to their investors.
> 
> I'm not sure how state governments got themselves into a position where they would make money from voters continuing to smoke. It seems a clear conflict of interest with their public health goals. But governments everywhere seem to get themselves into these sort of messes, the US being no exception.
> 
> I'm struggling to see this as a big tobacco ploy, though. In SF, big tobacco will no longer be allowed to sell menthol cigarettes from 2018. That is going to hit their sales hard. So they'll be biting the bullet as well. Although, much like vapers with juice, I guess menthol smokers will just have their fix delivered in from another state.



Makes a lot of sense @RichJB - 
Its quite an intricate intertwined web...


----------



## RichJB (2/7/17)

OK, I just found out how the payments work. There are certain guaranteed minimum payments but:



> *Payments by the Participating Manufacturers (PMs)*
> The amount of money that the PMs are required to annually contribute to the states varies according to several factors. All payments are based primarily on the number of cigarettes sold.
> 
> *For the OPMs (Original Participating Manufacturers),* the payments are determined in accordance with their relative market share as of 1997. The payment amount of a particular OPM is also dictated by the "Volume Adjustment," which compares the number of cigarettes sold in each payment year to the number of cigarettes sold in 1997. If the number of cigarettes sold by an OPM in a given year is less than the number it sold in 1997, the Volume Adjustment allows that OPM to reduce its payment to the settling states. In other words, a reduction in the amount of cigarettes sold by the OPMs results in the settling states receiving less money.



The OPMs that they refer to are Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard. Brown and Williamson was a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, and has subsequently merged with Reynolds.

Additionally:



> At the time the Master Settlement Agreement became effective, the OPMs collectively controlled approximately 97% of the domestic market for cigarettes. In addition to these "originally settling parties" (OSPs), the Master Settlement Agreement permits other tobacco companies to join the settlement; a list of these "subsequently settling parties" (SSPs) is maintained by the National Association of Attorneys General. Since 1998, approximately 41 additional tobacco companies have joined the Master Settlement Agreement. These companies, referred to as the Subsequent Participating Manufacturers (SPMs), are bound by the Master Settlement Agreement's restrictions and must make payments to the settling states as set forth in the Master Settlement Agreement. Collectively, the OPMs and the SPMs are referred to as the Participating Manufacturers (PMs). Any tobacco company choosing not to participate in the Master Settlement Agreement is referred to as a Nonparticipating Manufacturer (NPM).
> 
> As an incentive to join the Master Settlement Agreement, the agreement provides that, if an SPM joined within ninety days following the Master Settlement Agreement's "Execution Date," that SPM is exempt ("exempt SPM") from making annual payments to the settling states unless the SPM increases its share of the national cigarette market beyond its 1998 market share, or beyond 125% of that SPM's 1997 market share. If the exempt SPM's market share in a given year increases beyond those relevant historic limits, the MSA requires that the exempt SPM make annual payments to the settling states, similar to those made by the OPMs, but based only upon the SPM's sales representing the exempt SPM's market share increase.



So the nub of it is that any company that increases its market share over what it had in 1997 is subject to payments to state governments.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Strontium (3/7/17)

So california wants to pass legislation for "safe" zones for heroin addicts to shoot up but think the real war is against tasty juice?
This is what happens when you let liberals run amok.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------

