Utah planning to add use of eCigs to definition of smoking

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by ThatJoeGuy, Jan 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. ThatJoeGuy

    ThatJoeGuy Resting In Peace

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    St. George, UT USA
  2. Placebo Effect

    Placebo Effect Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    This is a bill to add hookah AND e-cigarettes to the state's definition of smoking.

    Utah residents should call their rep and ask that a separate bill be introduced that would solely ban hookah.
     
  3. LibertariaNate

    LibertariaNate Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Utah
    Interesting bit from the bill:

    (4) "Smoking" means: <snipped for brevity>
    (d) using an oral smoking device intended to circumvent the prohibition of smoking in this chapter.

    (Emphasis mine)

    Many people I have spoken with re: e-cigs feel this is the reason myself and others started using one. Not true in my case, but with various companies using that as a selling point, I can see why others might feel that way.

    Honestly though, it's silly to think we wouldn't eventually get to this point. If it looks like smoking, it must be smoking. I've never smoked in a public building and have never felt the need to vape in one either.
     
  4. ThatJoeGuy

    ThatJoeGuy Resting In Peace

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    St. George, UT USA
    I happen to live in an apartment building that was recently purchased by the local state college. As such, my apartment is now officially recognized as a state building. That means that I can't even sit on my own couch, watch TV, and drink a beer. With this legislation, I won't be able to vape in my own home, either.

    Sure, it's fine if I can't vape while walking through WalMart. But this reaches further than that.
     
  5. kristin

    kristin Accessories Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    CASAA Board of Directors - Wisconsin
    On second thought, please do NOT ask them to introduce a separate ban hookah use. We'd be pretty peeved if the hookah folks asked them to ban e-cigarettes and not hookahs. We don't even have the scientific evidence to support asking them to ban hookah use. So, we've decided this wouldn't be the right way to approach it.

    CASAA can fight this the same way we do when they include e-cigarettes in proposed smoking bans and just make our arguments based on the facts about e-cigarettes. If the hookah folks want to make their own case against hookah bans, that's great (we could even work with them) - but we don't have a dog in that fight and shouldn't even discuss hookahs in our correspondence with legislators.
     
  6. kristin

    kristin Accessories Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    CASAA Board of Directors - Wisconsin
    It doesn't matter for what they were "intended" to be used. There is no evidence that e-cigarette vapor poses a health risk to bystanders and the smoking ban was passed to protect the public from smoke, not vapor. They cannot just arbitrarily decide that vapor is the same as smoke because of what it looks like or why it's used. Otherwise, they are setting a precedent that they can forbid anything on the same grounds - "smokeless tobacco lozenges intended to circumvent the prohibition of smoking" (which also market with that selling point) or "nicotine gum intended to circumvent the prohibition of smoking."

    There is absolutely no reason someone shouldn't be able to vape in a bar that allows it or use a hookah in a hookah bar.
     
  7. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Location:
    San Diego
    This would be a devastating action for all Utah vapers.
    And it runs counter to what Wisconsin is trying to do, and what Virginia has already done.

    If the legislaters in Utah can't use some common sense, it is up to us to try and make them.

    That is so full of crap it's hard to fathom.
    It sounds like something the ANTZ came up with.

    So no concern for, or consideration of the health issues involved?
    No concern or consideration for the the real reason MOST people switch to electronic cigarettes?

    No, let's target the small fraction of people who actually might use electronic cigarettes to skirt smoking bans.
    And screw the large majority that is using them to save their lives.

    Makes me want to puke.
     
  8. wfx

    wfx Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Location:
    VA
    yep this is a recurring theme in anti ecig propaganda campaign. "you are only doing it to circumvent the ban so you can get back to smoking". dead wrong. the ignorance behind this argument is staggering. ASK SOMEONE.
     
  9. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Green Lane, Pa
    Glad I read ahead Kristin. I was ready to make the same statement.
     
  10. Vocalek

    Vocalek CASAA Activist ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Springfield, VA
    Perhaps it sounds like something the antis would come up with because that's exactly what it is. Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (hah!) developed model legislation that they have been promoting all over the country.

    http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/modelordinance.pdf

    Section 1002


    See also Sec. 1001. Findings and Intent.
     
  11. Placebo Effect

    Placebo Effect Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    What exactly is an "oral smoking device [used] for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking"? When Alexandria, LA passed its smoking ordinance, they removed all mentions of e-cigarettes, but left in the vague, undefined "oral smoking device..." language.

    Clearly, if you choose not to redefine your city's definition of "smoking" to include e-cigarettes, then e-cigarettes are not "oral smoking devices." But if you do redefine them to include e-cigarettes, what does the "oral smoking device" language add to the ordinance?

    I should stop because this is obviously more thought than ANR has ever put into this issue.

    Edit: Another interesting fact. The chief sponsor of this legislation, Bradley G. Last, sat (and still sits) on the Committee that voted down Paul Ray's bill last year. In fact, Last voted against it.
     
  12. bobdog

    bobdog Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Location:
    nm
    Just to set the record straight since there has been a lot of democrat bashing on this forum, the folks that introduced this bill are not democrats, they are republicans. So stop with the party dividing mumbo-jumbo and stick to the issues. E-Cigs.
     
  13. wfx

    wfx Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Location:
    VA
    pretty diverse group here. i really haven't seen much of that and it's what i was expecting. ecig regulation is a wonderful topic, because political theory doesn't help you. at all.
     
  14. LibertariaNate

    LibertariaNate Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Utah
    I was simply pointing out some of the wording that I found interesting. Nothing more.

    Agreed. The state of Utah is amending their "Clean Air" act to include the hookah language because hookah bars have already been banned. I'm sure this is their attempt at trying to make the ban stick. IIRC, the ban is currently being contested.
     
  15. LibertariaNate

    LibertariaNate Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Utah
    Thanks for resolving an issue that didn't exist in this thread.
     
  16. DaveP

    DaveP PV Master & Musician ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Location:
    Central GA
    Classifying ecigs as tobacco products serves to make ecigs fall into the same vein as cigarettes when it comes to legislation. OTOH, if they had been classified as medical nicotine replacement products, we'd be making appointments with our doctor for a prescription to buy big pharma produced ejuice in a couple of flavors for high prices at the drug store.

    The prescription would probably be only for long enough to help us quit tobacco and might not be renewable on a continuing basis. As difficult as it is to accept the tobacco label on ecigs, it's probably better than a medical designation. My part of a doctor visit comes out to be about $100 a visit until I meet my deductible. I'd hate to have to pay that to get 2 refills on ejuice!

    The thing about legislation is that the government wants everyone to quit anything associated with nicotine use. It's bad for state sponsored health care costs in their view. They don't want us to quit smoking, only to vape for the rest of our lives.
     
  17. ThatJoeGuy

    ThatJoeGuy Resting In Peace

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Location:
    St. George, UT USA
    Just to set the record even more straight, can you point out where, in this thread, Democrats (collectively or individually) were 'bashed'?

    Getting back to the actual topic, both the amendment's author and sponsor have their email addresses on their sites, so I do intend to write them.

    Since the proposed legislation only includes "lighted or heated", I'm guessing that this would not include the FDA-approved nicotine inhalers...but why not? What is the actual aim, here? If the intent is to protect the air within a specified space, as implied by "INDOOR CLEAN AIR ACT", then shouldn't this include those inhalers since the propellant, the carrier, and the residual nicotine would be expelled through exhale? The difference being that eCigs can 'look' like smoking, while an inhaler does not?
     
  18. LibertariaNate

    LibertariaNate Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Utah
    I don't believe the nicotine inhalers are included in this ban. It all comes down (I think) to the visible vapor produced by e-cigs and how similar it looks to cigarette smoke. I sincerely doubt e-cigs would be under nearly as much scrutiny if they weren't as visible. Of course, without the vapor, they wouldn't be nearly as "fun." Who doesn't like blowing vapor rings? ;)
     
  19. kristin

    kristin Accessories Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    CASAA Board of Directors - Wisconsin
    There are a lot more non-smoked "tobacco products" than there are smoked ones and NONE of those are included in smoking bans. But if we let legislation ban something because it's "intended to circumvent" smoking bans, it leaves the door wide open to ban public use of ALL tobacco and nicotine products that they could accuse us of using for the same purpose.

    E-cigarettes are not "smoked," as they do not burn anything nor do they create smoke. E-cigarettes have only 2 things in common with traditional cigarettes - "cigarette" in the name and the user inhales nicotine. that is not enough reason to treat them in the same vein as traditional cigarettes. Consider that root beer is not regulated/legislated the same as alcoholic beverages just because it has "beer" in the name and you drink it.

    The fact is - e-cigarettes are SMOKELESS tobacco and should be treated the same way in public unless they can be shown to be a health hazard to bystanders.
     
  20. Vocalek

    Vocalek CASAA Activist ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Springfield, VA
    I guess this fits just about any thread in the Legislation subforum.

    :offtopic:

    Received from my hubby in today's email:

    The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for the various groups of animals.
    We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish and a Gaggle of geese.

    However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows (as well as their cousins the rooks and ravens),
    an Exaltation of doves and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls.

    Now consider a group of Baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates. And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?

    Believe it or not ....... a Congress!

    I guess that pretty much explains the things that come out of Washington!

    (or any other Congress.)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page