Proposed amendment to ban e-cigs in carry-on luggage
- Thread starter NoFumus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If only there were a 'Love' button for that post!
I held him hostage in my kitchen and made him listen!
It may have helped, because I did do the call to actions for Maine, and the taxes haven't passed yet. Hopefully he really listened to my story and saw how innocent vaping really is, and passed it on.
My God, lawmakers are dolts. Got this CASAA alert also. Senator Richard Blumenthal of CT, wants to ban "battery operated smoking devices" on flights. NOT smoking, Dick! Uh, is this because planes have fallen from the sky because batteries are in your carry on? Leaving your CELL PHONE and LAPTOP home, Senator Bluming DickMenthol?
http://cqrcengage.com/casaa/app/wri...h7irQR7DeEHUGZQc90-Kk3aFpwZGn0tXM4iZwbss&lp=0
This is what I wrote to my two Michigan Senators. I do not agree with CASAA's "talking point" about threatening that ex-smokers will return to smoking. I am convinced that they WANT that, for the tax revenues, and this might ENCOURAGE them to support this amendment.
Feel free to write your own, alter mine, or whatever as you please. But please contact your two U.S. State Senators.
Dear Senator _____________
I am writing today to ask you to oppose SA3547, proposed by Sen. R. Blumenthal of Ct. I am a constituent of yours living in ___________, __.
Banning of battery operated Tobacco Harm Reduction vaping products in carry on luggage is a law seeking to address a problem that does not exist. Have these devices harmed anyone or posed any danger to a flight? Do we need laws just for the sake of laws?
My wife, myself, and my adult son have all been smoke free for 4 years, thanks to Electronic cigarettes, and have reduced our nicotine to the equivalent of 2 cigs a day, and no tar or other chemicals!
If the issue is a danger from batteries on a flight, then shouldn't cell phones, laptops, hand held video games, etc. also be banned? Do you want to be among the lawmakers who helped usher in that kind of thinking? Are you willing to leave YOUR laptop and cell phone behind?
There are currently very inexpensive flashlight ends, that will screw onto these portable battery cases, effectively making them flashlights and allowing users to easily skirt this law. It will have no effect on transporting this equipment, it will only serve to further make MORE Americans, scofflaws. To generate more distaste for government intrusion in our lives. With no effect whatsoever. It is a silly proposal that addresses no known problem.
I urge you to oppose this ridiculous amendment, and help get our lawmakers back on track to addressing REAL concerns of Americans.
Thank you and best regards,
http://cqrcengage.com/casaa/app/wri...h7irQR7DeEHUGZQc90-Kk3aFpwZGn0tXM4iZwbss&lp=0
This is what I wrote to my two Michigan Senators. I do not agree with CASAA's "talking point" about threatening that ex-smokers will return to smoking. I am convinced that they WANT that, for the tax revenues, and this might ENCOURAGE them to support this amendment.
Feel free to write your own, alter mine, or whatever as you please. But please contact your two U.S. State Senators.
Dear Senator _____________
I am writing today to ask you to oppose SA3547, proposed by Sen. R. Blumenthal of Ct. I am a constituent of yours living in ___________, __.
Banning of battery operated Tobacco Harm Reduction vaping products in carry on luggage is a law seeking to address a problem that does not exist. Have these devices harmed anyone or posed any danger to a flight? Do we need laws just for the sake of laws?
My wife, myself, and my adult son have all been smoke free for 4 years, thanks to Electronic cigarettes, and have reduced our nicotine to the equivalent of 2 cigs a day, and no tar or other chemicals!
If the issue is a danger from batteries on a flight, then shouldn't cell phones, laptops, hand held video games, etc. also be banned? Do you want to be among the lawmakers who helped usher in that kind of thinking? Are you willing to leave YOUR laptop and cell phone behind?
There are currently very inexpensive flashlight ends, that will screw onto these portable battery cases, effectively making them flashlights and allowing users to easily skirt this law. It will have no effect on transporting this equipment, it will only serve to further make MORE Americans, scofflaws. To generate more distaste for government intrusion in our lives. With no effect whatsoever. It is a silly proposal that addresses no known problem.
I urge you to oppose this ridiculous amendment, and help get our lawmakers back on track to addressing REAL concerns of Americans.
Thank you and best regards,
Last edited:
I use film cans for my atties, they never get a second glance. This one hits me hard, I fly to go diving, and a two week trip coming up in the fall, to Cozumel. I wouldn't even be able to get cigalikes there. Sent the e-mail within minutes of seeing this CTA.
This one is going to hit a lot more than vapers if it passes.
Beautiful! And while we are at it, we may as well honestly remove and isolate the batteries from our cell phones, laptops, etc. I can see it now... "Please arrive at the airport 36 hours before your flight to allow time for Security" "This line brought to you by your U.S. Representatives"
Excellent points, everyone! I was inspired to add this to the CASAA letter:
Presumably, this amendment is being promoted as a safety measure, as there have been a handful of reported incidents involving lithium ion e-cigarette batteries overheating and "exploding." However, there have been many more reported incidents involving laptop and cellphone batteries, which are also lithium ion. In fact, the eight (8) li-ion batteries in my laptop are identical to the single battery in my personal vaporizer. Hundreds of millions of lithium-ion batteries are produced every year, yet failures are quite rare.The batteries in many flashlights are also identical to the battery in my personal vaporizer. for example: http://www.amazon.com/Opti-Flood-Ad...90429&sr=8-10&keywords=flashlight+lithium+ion
Yet there is no talk of banning laptops, cellphones or li-ion powered flashlights on airline flights. Batteries do not know what kind of a device they are in. There is nothing peculiar to electronic cigarettes that makes a battery misbehave or more prone to misuse than in any other device. If any li-ion battery is damaged, put in the wrong charger, exposed to excessive heat, etc., it can pose a danger. If you put an un-sheathed li-ion battery in your pocket with keys and loose change it can short circuit. It doesn't matter whether the battery was a spare e-cigarette battery or a spare flashlight battery. Yet Sen. Blumenthal's focus is exclusively on e-cigarettes. Why? Well, for a long time Sen. Blumenthal has been a vocal critic of anything having to to do with e-cigarettes. In his view, they are pure evil and just as bad if not worse than combustible cigarettes. The millions of people like myself who have quit smoking with them, after all other methods had failed, are dismissed as mere "anecdotes" or Astroturf.
And please note that Sen. Blumenthal's amendment can be interpreted to ban all e-cigarettes, irrespective of whether they even have an actual battery in them, as he has defined "battery-powered electronic smoking device" to include ALL e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers. Under Sen. Blumenthal's amendment, could I remove the battery from my personal vaporizer, put it in a flashlight, and legally carry both onto the plane?
Presumably, this amendment is being promoted as a safety measure, as there have been a handful of reported incidents involving lithium ion e-cigarette batteries overheating and "exploding." However, there have been many more reported incidents involving laptop and cellphone batteries, which are also lithium ion. In fact, the eight (8) li-ion batteries in my laptop are identical to the single battery in my personal vaporizer. Hundreds of millions of lithium-ion batteries are produced every year, yet failures are quite rare.The batteries in many flashlights are also identical to the battery in my personal vaporizer. for example: http://www.amazon.com/Opti-Flood-Ad...90429&sr=8-10&keywords=flashlight+lithium+ion
Yet there is no talk of banning laptops, cellphones or li-ion powered flashlights on airline flights. Batteries do not know what kind of a device they are in. There is nothing peculiar to electronic cigarettes that makes a battery misbehave or more prone to misuse than in any other device. If any li-ion battery is damaged, put in the wrong charger, exposed to excessive heat, etc., it can pose a danger. If you put an un-sheathed li-ion battery in your pocket with keys and loose change it can short circuit. It doesn't matter whether the battery was a spare e-cigarette battery or a spare flashlight battery. Yet Sen. Blumenthal's focus is exclusively on e-cigarettes. Why? Well, for a long time Sen. Blumenthal has been a vocal critic of anything having to to do with e-cigarettes. In his view, they are pure evil and just as bad if not worse than combustible cigarettes. The millions of people like myself who have quit smoking with them, after all other methods had failed, are dismissed as mere "anecdotes" or Astroturf.
And please note that Sen. Blumenthal's amendment can be interpreted to ban all e-cigarettes, irrespective of whether they even have an actual battery in them, as he has defined "battery-powered electronic smoking device" to include ALL e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers. Under Sen. Blumenthal's amendment, could I remove the battery from my personal vaporizer, put it in a flashlight, and legally carry both onto the plane?
Nice letter, bigdancehawk. Would make a "thinking person" think.......but you sent it to a senator's ofc ........and his staff of non thinkers.
Unintended consequences of idiot laws - at the very least, TSA could make sure the batteries are turned off or removed from mods - decreasing considerably any chance of accidents. But if people send their mods/batteries through the mail or UPS ahead of time, which is what I'd do, then the probability of an accident increases.
Hence the law that is intended to increase safety, actually decreases safety.
Hence the law that is intended to increase safety, actually decreases safety.
Because I take infrequent trips to AK and stay 2 wks or more, and because the last time I went they had no B&M in Fairbanks, and because you are only allowed a qt. size bag of liquids, paste, creams, I sent ahead my toiletries and packed my vape gear in my carry on bag for fear of getting stranded over night at one of the connector airports. I have a tendancy to "over pack" and my vaping stuff is no exception!
Good thing I dont fly as it is. But if I do I can GUARANTEE you I will get my vape gear on board lol
That's a fine sentiment, and I admire your spirit.
As long as you're willing to be delayed, and have it taken away.
That's not something most of us want to have to deal with.
Or even have to think about.
The language focuses too specifically on vape products and even mentions nicotine which is an entirely different issue.
The language should focus specifically on lithium ion batteries.
I wrote to one of the michigan senators and said I don't support the ecig airline ban and I hope he doesn't either. I also said I'm a single issue voter until I'm persuaded there will be no interference with smokers switching to vaping.
Didn't know this thread was here (I looked in legislation) so this is a repeat from another:
Sent letters to both my Senators................clerks
BTW, as far as I can tell "PHMSA-2015-0165 Hazardous Materials: Carriage of Battery-Powered Electronic Smoking Devices in Passenger Baggage" which this amendment is aimed at and the language of the proposed amendment would not preclude carry on person or your 1 personal item (i.e. purse, murse, or laptop etc). Still bad legislation but seems workable around without having to get 510 flashlight heads if for some unforeseen reason it got any momentum.
PHMSA-2015-0165 (which restricts in checked baggage) was due to stupid people putting vaporizers that were fully functional and packed such that they ended up continuously firing in checked baggage, one of which burned a 4" hole in the baggage. "These incidents have shown that e-cigarettes can overheat and cause fires when the heating element is accidentally activated or turned on. This danger may be exacerbated by the growing trend of users modifying and rebuilding their reusable e-cigarette devices and swapping components, which may include the use of batteries, heating elements, and electronic components not original to the manufactured e-cigarette."
PHMSA - Final Rules - 80 FR 66817 - IFR
Latest list I could find of battery failures from the FDA:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...carrier_info/media/battery_incident_chart.pdf
Also, perhaps it is time to look beyond the 2 party system. While no one agrees 100% with any party, the last thing in the world anyone in the party I align with most would do is limit my personal freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses.
Sent letters to both my Senators................clerks
BTW, as far as I can tell "PHMSA-2015-0165 Hazardous Materials: Carriage of Battery-Powered Electronic Smoking Devices in Passenger Baggage" which this amendment is aimed at and the language of the proposed amendment would not preclude carry on person or your 1 personal item (i.e. purse, murse, or laptop etc). Still bad legislation but seems workable around without having to get 510 flashlight heads if for some unforeseen reason it got any momentum.
PHMSA-2015-0165 (which restricts in checked baggage) was due to stupid people putting vaporizers that were fully functional and packed such that they ended up continuously firing in checked baggage, one of which burned a 4" hole in the baggage. "These incidents have shown that e-cigarettes can overheat and cause fires when the heating element is accidentally activated or turned on. This danger may be exacerbated by the growing trend of users modifying and rebuilding their reusable e-cigarette devices and swapping components, which may include the use of batteries, heating elements, and electronic components not original to the manufactured e-cigarette."
PHMSA - Final Rules - 80 FR 66817 - IFR
Latest list I could find of battery failures from the FDA:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...carrier_info/media/battery_incident_chart.pdf
Also, perhaps it is time to look beyond the 2 party system. While no one agrees 100% with any party, the last thing in the world anyone in the party I align with most would do is limit my personal freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses.
Here is the current FAA rule
Title 49: Transportation
PART 175—CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT
§175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators
(19) Except as provided in §173.21 of this subchapter, battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, e-hookahs, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) when carried by passengers or crewmembers for personal use must be carried on one's person or in carry-on baggage only. Spare lithium batteries must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch). Each lithium battery must be of a type which meets the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Sub-section 38.3. Recharging of the devices and/or the batteries on board the aircraft is not permitted. Each battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For lithium metal batteries, a lithium content of 2 grams; or
(ii) For lithium ion batteries, a Watt-hour rating of 100 Wh.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Oh, and 173.21?
§173.21 Forbidden materials and packages.
Unless otherwise provided in this subchapter, the offering for transportation or transportation of the following is forbidden:
(c) Electrical devices, such as batteries and battery-powered devices, which are likely to create sparks or generate a dangerous evolution of heat, unless packaged in a manner which precludes such an occurrence.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Oh looky, we already had a law to prevent the stupid people from doing what they did that caused PHMSA-2015-0165 in the first place. Now we need an amendment to a small business tax law that will amend a different law that creates changes in an FAA law because stupid people didn't follow the law in the first place and because some of our lawmakers are hell bent on abolishing a personal freedom?
Title 49: Transportation
PART 175—CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT
§175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators
(19) Except as provided in §173.21 of this subchapter, battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices (e.g., e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes, e-hookahs, personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems) when carried by passengers or crewmembers for personal use must be carried on one's person or in carry-on baggage only. Spare lithium batteries must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch). Each lithium battery must be of a type which meets the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Sub-section 38.3. Recharging of the devices and/or the batteries on board the aircraft is not permitted. Each battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For lithium metal batteries, a lithium content of 2 grams; or
(ii) For lithium ion batteries, a Watt-hour rating of 100 Wh.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Oh, and 173.21?
§173.21 Forbidden materials and packages.
Unless otherwise provided in this subchapter, the offering for transportation or transportation of the following is forbidden:
(c) Electrical devices, such as batteries and battery-powered devices, which are likely to create sparks or generate a dangerous evolution of heat, unless packaged in a manner which precludes such an occurrence.
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Oh looky, we already had a law to prevent the stupid people from doing what they did that caused PHMSA-2015-0165 in the first place. Now we need an amendment to a small business tax law that will amend a different law that creates changes in an FAA law because stupid people didn't follow the law in the first place and because some of our lawmakers are hell bent on abolishing a personal freedom?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Travel and Vaping
The Department Of Transportation Bans E-Cigs in Checked Luggage!
- Locked
