Hayward CA, to define Vape as “Smoke” Ban usage in Parks, add Fees & Inspections, New Regs, Goal to CLOSE Vape shops. Urgency Ordinance Meeting 1/14/

[Jman8]

when the apparent or usual purpose of the combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts

Where humans are present, the apparent purpose will always be inhalation of vapor (due to vaporization). It would seem implausible to conclude otherwise.

No apologies from me on nitpicking on this as I think it deserves such clever criticism. If I am anywhere on this planet, and vaporization is occurring, and it is not absolutely necessary, then there is no apparent reason for it to occur as it could reasonably impact my safety/health. Therefore this (legally defined) smoke ought to be avoided at all costs, or banned, for smoke inhalation into lungs will most certainly pose harm. To not connect the idea that human-made vaporization, of any sort, would lead to definite inhalation by humans otherwise present and exposed to that vapor, would be a misguided / ignorant purpose. The apparent purpose would be inhalation by other humans and those humans would be inhaling "smoke."

If you'd like, I could provide links which note the harm that occurs to humans based on vapor smoke inhalation.

 

[cmknight]

So, if I pour my 30 ml bottle of 18mg/ml Liqua Mint flavoured juice into a kettle of water and boil it, my kettle is producing smoke? Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Uma]

Any news yet?

 

[tombaker]

Any news yet?

The 45 Day moratorium passed, that fellow Alt234 attended (by my memory of his city), and represented very well, spoke about the benefits to real people, his tone was correct, not being accusatory, just talked about real folks. There were some people who spoke about their experiences, and older woman who has lung issues entirely separate from smoking, conveyed how here daughter switched to E-Cigs, how it benefited her daughter, and how she can use them around her, without effecting her chronic asthma.

A Vendor of a local shop explained how his shop was showcased by the town in various examples as a model business bringing people to the downtown and restaurants there. How his business has been written up in the paper 6 times. How he was asked to come in to Natural Gas company, possibly the utility itself, in order to convert all employees over to E-Cigs. As you don't want smokers around natural gas. He said that was 100% successful.

City council said it was concerned about the lack of information, which that Store owner said he had provided over and over again, and was concerned it was still not being read. He also said he knew it was clear it was going to get vote in that day, but made a request to not ban vaping inside of is store. I think he was thinking 5 moves ahead on a chess board.

As expected it passed 7 to 0 vote. The council members thought the 45 days was not a big deal because it did not effect any current businesses, and it would be something that was only 45 days. I honestly think the older woman in her 60s, talking on behalf of her smoking adult daughter was the big impact, she had no dog in the hunt, and was clearly honest, the council kinda melted a bit for her IMO. The got all frozen.

There was a lets get religion sermon by one guy at the start, hard to watch him. Also hard to watch the under 18 year old kids who were part of the under 18 bust a business, operation by the police. Not that what they were doing in the under 18 checks. (Which the e-Cig store guy defy-ed them to show his store had any problems, he clearly was clean) Not that the worked with the police on alcohol and cigarettes......just that they 3 of them, addressed the City Council as giving there opinion. Thought it was out of whack, as it was children preaching on what Adults can do. Really reversed.

So yeah they punted until more evidence can come in. Which is the angle they are working it. Prove the negative. I will likely use this as a case study, because this is the model. Need to see about Chicago before that. Chicago vote was the 15th, heard on 13th.

 

[Uma]

Thanks for the write up update.
There was a teen in the Hollywood meeting I think it was, that could have passed easily for 19-22. He was an anti through & through. I know big Pharma is paying kids to test their Chantix, I can't help but wonder if they are being paid to witness against vaping. Call me suspicious, but, well, ...
Even so, hopefully the city will make money fining the offenders, instead of caving in to the NWO common good crapiolie they're all being fed on a daily basis.