I got an email back from Steve Levy, Suffolk County!

[kristin]

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN !!!

PUBLIC SAFETY !!!

Can't they come up with new mantra's
I'm getting tired of hearing these

The Politicians / Teachers / Cops / Firemen / Union leaders

God this sh.t is getting old

I'm confused by this?

They don't want it sold to kids - what's so bad about that?

As long as they aren't trying to restrict it's use by adults!

[KevinG]

I'm confused by this?

They don't want it sold to kids - what's so bad about that?

As long as they aren't trying to restrict it's use by adults!

The problem is the extra stuff they slipped under the guise of protecting the children.

The bill basically forces vapers to vape in smoking allowed areas only. For example if you are in a restaurant and want to vape, you need to go outside with the rest of the smokers.

Some of the results of this bill will be:

It makes people think second hand vapor is as bad as second hand smoke
It forces vapers to be around second hand smoke
It forces vapers to be around smoking in general (not much that is more likely to make someone get back on the cigarette bandwagon)

While we all agree the sale of a PV to a minor should be prohibited, slipping in all the smoking in public verbage into the bill makes the bill bad for us.

[SLDS181]

The problem is the extra stuff they slipped under the guise of protecting the children.

The bill basically forces vapers to vape in smoking allowed areas only. For example if you are in a restaurant and want to vape, you need to go outside with the rest of the smokers.

......

Did you read the email? This is precisely what changed. That is apparently not part of the bill now.

[SLDS181]

Hmmm...I didn't read it that way. I read "if and when it actually gets to me" not if they change it to only cover sales to minors.

Thats how I read it to.

[SLDS181]

Hmmm...I didn't read it that way. I read "if and when it actually gets to me" not if they change it to only cover sales to minors.

Thats how I read it too.

[Bitmaster]

I wrote my congress man and hope to get a response soon. i live in oregon

[Spikey]

......

Did you read the email? This is precisely what changed. That is apparently not part of the bill now.

They did NOT say it was not restricted in public buildings anymore or that this specific part had been amended... what they SAID is... that the bill about vaping in public places had been amended (it has... 3 times) AND that is was geared towards restricting sales to and use by children (which it is). SO.. I think this is a sneaky tactic to get people to stop writing letters... I will call and get a copy on Monday... but I tend to believe that if it had been changed since it was voted on... we would have heard by now. We got people. (of course I would love it if I was wrong... but it is highly unlikely)

[TropicalBob]

You are no doubt correct, Spikey.

Surely no one here would object to restricting nicotine use by underage people. That should be law everywhere. The objectionable part of this measure -- the part you fought valiantly over -- is e-smokers being considered no different than a cigarette smoker, getting tossed out into the rain or cold, huddled with second-hand smoke, etc. That's just ... wrong.

We are not smokers. We do not smoke. That is the damning part of that law. And that passed. If changes had been made to that core provision, then surely you, Spikey, would have known by now.

[JustJulie]

The problem with reading these kind of emails is we have a tendency to read it as laymen, and we don't parse out each word.

Sadly, you can't do that when you're dealing with a certain subset of the population . . . government folks and attorneys being the two largest in the subset.

I agree with Spike and TB . . . there has likely been no change since it was passed . . . the spin continues.

[Spikey]

Check out this thead.. page 3 and 4...
Send emails please!!!!! - Page 3 - Vapers Forum

what ninjane is saying is that this legislation legally makes vapers = smokers!!!

Here is the Suffolk County legislation which amends the Suffolk Smoking laws to INCLUDE utilizing an e-cig (\or like device or ecigar or epipe) as part of the definition of smoking! (not sure how we missed this cause we have read it 100 times each... maybe that was added in the last go-round and we were too busy trying to show evidence that vaping was safe).

If we had discussed this at the last hearing before the vote.. we would have had more legislators vote no instead of abstaining. I am SURE of that.

Here is the new Suffolk Legislation (section 4 means vaping will be treated the same as smoking...
http://legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/Resos2009/i1347-09.pdf

And here is the smoking law in Suffolk (which would be altered by the NYS smoking law which I cannot find a copy of)...
http://www.naco.org/Content/ContentG...king/SM007.pdf

which would now apply to vapers... what we need to know is if there is anywhere in the smoking law that says smokers MUST "SMOKE" in "designated smoking areas".. that is enough cause for a class action lawsuit... FORCING vapers to vape in a smoking environment endangers our health based upon nothing.

Help interpret please.. this legal mumbo jumbo makes my head spin...