California Governor Jerry Brown signed the End of Life Option Act in October, permitting medically assisted suicide, but the legislation could not take effect until 90 days after the special legislative session in which it was passed ended. The session ended on March 10th, so the bill is set to go into effect on June 9th. Here are some more details about the Act:
As written, the law requires two doctors to agree, before prescribing the drugs, that a patient has six months or less to live. Patients must be able to swallow the medication themselves and must affirm in writing, 48 hours before taking the medication, that they will do so.
California is the fifth state to permit this option at the end of life. It joins Vermont, Oregon, Washington and Montana.
The California legislature has also raised the age required to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21. The governor has not yet indicated whether he will sign the legislation. Hawaii previously raised the minimum smoking age to 21 in early January:
A week ago, the California Assembly approved the measure, which — in addition to raising the age limit — regulates electronic cigarettes the same as tobacco products, expands smoke-free areas, increases smoking bans and allows counties to levy higher taxes on cigarettes than the 87-cent per pack state tax. According to NPR member station KQED, the Assembly's vote came a few days after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors increased the age to buy tobacco products to 21.
The vaping legislation reportedly does not affect legalized medical cannabis. From the bill:
(d) (1) "Tobacco product" means any of the following:
[...] (B) An electronic device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an electronic cigarette, cigar, pipe, or hookah.
(C) Any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product, whether or not sold separately.
[...] (b) Every person under 18 years of age who purchases, receives, or possesses any tobacco, cigarette, or cigarette papers, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking of tobacco, tobacco products, or any controlled substance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of seventy-five dollars ($75) or 30 hours of community service work.
[...] SEC. 28. This act does not affect any laws or regulations regarding medical cannabis.
That means teens (or even 12-year-olds) with a doctor's recommendation can use medical cannabis, but not tobacco. However, it seems to me that the language describing "tobacco products" would still prevent an 18-to-20 year-olds from purchasing any kind of vaporizer, even if they intended to use it solely for legal medical (or illegal recreational) cannabis.
Related Stories
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has published a report including the number of individuals known to have taken their lives under California's end of life bill. The law requires the CDPH to provide annual reports about the effects of the law. 111 people have died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs from June 9th, 2016 to December 31st, 2016 (subsequent reports will cover full calendar years):
The law — which allows terminally ill adults to obtain life-ending drugs from their doctors — took effect on June 9, 2016. Between then and the end of the year, 191 people received prescriptions under the act and 111 people died after taking prescribed aid-in-dying drugs, according to a report released Tuesday by the California Department of Public Health.
In that time period, a total of 258 people began the end-of-life process under the law, which requires patients to make two verbal requests to their doctors at least 15 days apart.
Previously: California Legislature Approves Bill Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide - UK Reject Similar Law
California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
The US officially raises the tobacco buying age to 21
A new law in the United States that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21 is now in effect, according to the US Food and Drug Administration.
Last week, President Donald Trump signed the new minimum age into law as part of a sweeping spending bill. On Friday, the FDA noted on its website that "it is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product -- including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes -- to anyone under 21. FDA will provide additional details on this issue as they become available."
The increased age restriction for tobacco purchases is one of several provisions outside of the spending measures themselves attached to the broader $1.4 trillion spending agreement.
Also at ABC.
Previously: California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
California's Legal Smoking Age Set to Rise to 21
Tobacco Roundup
U.S. Surgeon General Decries Teenage Vaping
Oregon Becomes the Fifth State to Raise the Tobacco Age Limit to 21
San Francisco Bans E-Cigarette Sales
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 12 2016, @07:48AM
Lesson 1
Stop trying to make sense on politicians' mind, it's a waste of time.
Better waste it with funnier activities, like positive trolling SoylentNews (see below). That is, if you can; if not, pure trolling may be as rewarding as the positive one.
Lesson 2
Even if the subscriptions targets were met in the previous rounds, don't expect a SN advertising free experience.
From time to time, submitters may break the implicit "no ads" community rule and (for whatever reasons) will link to pages for specific products; editors are humans too, they are entitled to their spare/weekend time, so the editors themselves may miss such links
The best you can do is to suggest alternative links to neural sources [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:35AM
I wanted to link to something specific that wasn't an e-cig, and I linked to a review site.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:57AM
No worries, I didn't infer any intention.
A suggestion: next time try to add a "DIY" at the search terms; it'll make it nerdier (especially if it's about something potentially prohibited but otherwise of uncertain legal status).
Like herb vapourizer diy [google.com] or shroom diy [google.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:13AM
"An electronic device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids"
So, like a humidifier? Or aromatic oils, heated over a candle? From a simple reading of the legislation, these are now illegal.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:26AM
Puffers/inhalers/nebulizers [wikipedia.org] are legal though, as they deliver aerosols (or dry powders) not vaporized liquids.
Way to go, guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:46AM
Read the end of the sentence. "to the person inhaling from the device…" I trust the courts to interepret that properly, as in things you directly inhale from, not indirectly like you would from a candle or a humifier. Also, it wouldn't make them illegal in any case, just illegal to sell to kids.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday March 12 2016, @09:17AM
trust the courts to interepret that properly
Neither is any good to entrust courts with ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @09:37AM
But requiring death in 6 or less months as a requirement is way too stringent. It's also ridiculous, doctors are not clairvoyants. Also, it's hard enough to find one sane doctor let alone two! I don't understand why I am not allowed to control my own destiny, after all suicide is not a crime. Yes there will be abuse, like everything else in life but that is unavoidable.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 12 2016, @10:43AM
I don't understand why I am not allowed to control my own destiny, after all suicide is not a crime.
The key is in the term, "assisted suicide". That means, you're no longer doing it yourself, but also enlisting a medical professional whose usual job is to keep you alive. This provides liability protection to the professional so that they don't get sued or indicted for murder, negligent homicide, etc. And if you have more than six months to live, then there's a good chance that you don't need the assistance of a medical professional to kill yourself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by darkfeline on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:48PM
I think the Hippocratic Oath should be changed to "increasing the quality of life of the patient" instead of "keep that bitch breathing as long as possible".
Actually, the Oath already covers that, doesn't it?
> I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If a fellow man is in pain, has very low treatment prospects and wishes to die, I believe that a doctor is OBLIGATED to help.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday March 13 2016, @02:34AM
I don't need a doctor. Why can't I legally import ready to use kit from abroad?
As per amateur suicides, they just have too low success rate and way too high level of suffering.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @09:39AM
My take on this is a few "vapers" used the twist in the law regarding cigs vs. e-cigs to stink up the place.
They would force people to confront them to ask them to cut it out.
It often does not bode well to ask a smoker to cut out a smoke. Some get quite adamant about it.
So, a lot of people asked their Congressmen instead.
Laws got changed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 12 2016, @11:07AM
That means teens (or even 12-year-olds) with a doctor's recommendation can use medical cannabis, but not tobacco.
Yes. And? What's your point?
I'm not aware that tobacco has been shown to have any effect on chronic, agonising pain.
In other news, kids are allowed to ride bikes but can't get married. What is the world coming to?!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday March 12 2016, @05:33PM
He/She/Shim is saying that kids aren't allowed to smoke, except they are allowed to smoke, just not smoke smoke that is illegal to smoke because its not smoke, it's smoke.
Oh... and "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:51PM
Smoking is not the only way to take medical cannabis. In fact, I very much doubt that a doctor would prescribe medical cannabis via burning smoke to a kid, excepting the overwhelmingly poor decisions of the kid's parent.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday March 12 2016, @11:18AM
As written, the law requires two doctors to agree, before prescribing the drugs, that a patient has six months or less to live. Patients must be able to swallow the medication themselves and must affirm in writing, 48 hours before taking the medication, that they will do so.
Ah well that's good. 6 years of misery, well you'll have to live with that. But 6 months of misery, ok then you can get help. Unless your misery includes so little control over your own faculties that you can't even write or swallow. If it's that bad, then you have to live with it. But if you are only facing a short amount of minimal suffering, then you can get help. Good thing we have legislatures tell us what doctors should be doing.
The six months limit was probably added because "well there could be a medical breakthrough that cures a completely nonfunctional digestive system", or "well maybe after six months you'll feel better about having no control over any part of your body but your face". These are actual instances of the arguments put forward by opponents of end of life choice (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpQvnRNgYns [youtube.com] for example).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday March 12 2016, @11:29AM
Why not just raise the age of adulthood to 21 and be done with it? You can't drink and now you can't smoke before 21, so why let them vote or join the military? If they can't understand the consequences of those actions, how can they make other major decisions?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday March 12 2016, @12:04PM
(statistical) Studies show drinking and smoking will ruin one's heath and stunt the development of under-21.
On the other side, voting and military help build a character. Army in particular will strengthen a youngster, both physically [wikipedia.org] and morally [wikipedia.org]
Yeah... I think... yeah.
Say ain't so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday March 13 2016, @02:41AM
I have a better idea - no smoking, drinking or drugs until retirement.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday March 12 2016, @09:11PM
"You're old enough to kill, but not for voting"
I didn't believe that line when I first heard it. But from what Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] tells me, things changed since '64.
As did the song - McGuire now apparently sings "old enough to kill / just started voting".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @01:31PM
Is there any standing to challenge raising the limit to 21? Is it discrimination to ban a group of adults from doing something based on age alone?
It doesn't even seem that there are any laws preventing smoking around pregnant women.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday March 12 2016, @04:27PM
it is baffling that the general drinking age limit is 21 in the US. But I did some digging and discovered that the "fear" was that drink/driving would occur more often.
This is of course weak, and now especially so, in this age of internet car hailing...
But since we can all be drafted when we turn 18 (and if you are male you HAVE to register for the draft), why hasn't this been overturned?
Oh, and if you are wondering how these laws were implemented against states rights (e.g. Louisiana couldn't care less about the drinking age), the federal govt used ROAD maintenance money as the stick!!
That's right, pure extortion.
You might also think that activity was a one time deal? Nope. It was used a few years back to ram through a host of cell-phone laws...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @10:14PM
The facade of registration still exists but no USAian has actually been conscripted since 1975.
All of the USAian agents of Imperialism for 2 generations have been voluntary cannon fodder.
The day USA.gov makes military service mandatory again will be the last day of broad acceptance of USA's perpetual-war-is-normal mentality.[1]
The Internet makes it way easier to become informed and to organize resistance than passing out handbills and other such 20th-Century methods.
[1] There's a ST:TOS episode that speaks to the warfare-is-just-business-as-usual thing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @05:43PM
If someone has a terminal condition why not allow them the option of trying an experimental treatment or any treatment they wish to try. It seems the FDA attempts to ban all sorts of potential treatments because they are untested and not approved and hence could be dangerous but if the patient is going to die anyways why not give them the opportunity, if they wish of course, to try anything they want and lift any prohibition that may exist due to not being FDA approved. Then doctors can document the results and, with time, perhaps medical progress can be made.
It also seems ridiculous if some potential treatment exists but is too expensive to try due to patents. If anything it would help a pharmaceutical company allow the treatment to be tried at a lower price because if it works now the pharmaceutical company has some possible evidence that their drug might cure certain terminal conditions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @06:44PM
Pharmaceutical companies also worry that giving drugs to patients that are about to die will ruin the efficacy numbers for their drugs and add to the list of adverse events.
Bans on non-approved treatments (not including off-label use) protect patients from snake oil salesmen that would prey on them and their families.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @07:16PM
"Pharmaceutical companies also worry that giving drugs to patients that are about to die will ruin the efficacy numbers for their drugs and add to the list of adverse events."
Not if the drug is being tried under experimental conditions. The efficacy rate correlates with conditions. If someone tried a stomach ache medicine for a headache and it doesn't work that wouldn't affect the efficacy rate the drug has on stomach aches.
"Bans on non-approved treatments (not including off-label use) protect patients from snake oil salesmen that would prey on them and their families."
That should be left to the patient and families to decide. Perhaps they could pass a law that says payment can only be requested if the patient lives and the law can set reasonable statutory price limits to deter people taking the off chance that someone who was going to live anyways will get paid a ton of money for a treatment that did nothing (ie: someone offers a bogus treatment to ten patients. One lives by chance. The person who gave the treatment receives a huge payoff. The law should deter this). Instead the law seems fixed on making prices higher through limiting treatment options to those that are expensive and patented.
Just look at how expensive ultrasound devices still are in the U.S. and this is ancient technology. The price of medicine is ridiculous and the government is responsible for this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @07:20PM
errr . someone who was going to live anyways will pay a ton of money for a treatment that did nothing *
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 12 2016, @08:33PM
I've been dying for this law to pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13 2016, @05:03AM
I need to signup before the post election rush.