I think it might be time for someone in Utah to introduce a PV that looks like a loaded gun!
Utah planning to add use of eCigs to definition of smoking
- Thread starter ThatJoeGuy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, despite all efforts, the Committee voted it on to the full Senate.
CASAA Call to Action page has been updated.
Utah Call to Action
CASAA Call to Action page has been updated.
Utah Call to Action
And then maybe you should let some of the Utah legislators try it out!I think it might be time for someone in Utah to introduce a PV that looks like a loaded gun!
Got this out about 5am this morning (EST).
Dear Senator:
As one who works with and educates smokers on a daily basis, I strongly urge you to OPPOSE HB 245 S3 "Amendment to Definition of Smoking in Utah Indoor Clean Air Act" http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0245s03.pdf because it would falsely redefine "smoking" to include the use of smokefree electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), and because it would unjustifiably ban the use of these nonpolluting lifesaving products in every private workplace in Utah.
Personally, I smoked 2-3 packs of cigarettes for 28 years. I used NRT products repeatedly over the years. They failed me. Now, I know that rather than failure on my part, it is the products, when used as directed by an inveterate smoker, that failed. Not the other way around as I was lead to believe for the last 2 decades. After discovering the electronic cigarette, I haven't smoked, or desired to smoke, a single cigarette. That's been over a year now that I have used vapor instead of smoke.
I work now to educate smokers on all of the risks associated with smoking as well as all of the risks associated with non-smoking options.
The single largest demographic of people I work with are over the age of 50 that have smoked since childhood. They are experiencing the health damage of smoking. This damage is anything from shortness of breath, to COPD, to emphysema, to lung cancer. Every single one has tried NRT and/or "cold turkey" quitting repeatedly. Like me, NRT failed every one of them.. All that chose to try the electronic cigarette, have dramatically decreased their smoking or have stopped smoking altogether. The latter is by far the largest portion of the group. Of those that have switched to an electronic cigarette completely, all have experience increased lung function, improved health as reported by them and their healthcare providers.
Many that have chosen to use an electronic cigarette have done so for non-health-related reasons: don't like the smell, the high cash outlay for cigarettes, being "a smoker," the inconvenience of not smoking at work, etc. Whatever their initial reason for using an electronic cigarette, many have stopped smoking completely. Some in this group have "quit by accident." They simply began to chose vapor over smoke more and more until they are no longer burning tobacco and subjecting themselves to the +5300 chemicals in tobacco smoke. For those that continue to smoke, isn't it far better for them to smoke 2 cigarettes a day rather than 20 cigarettes a day?
I would ask you to think of a smoker (if you know one). Chances are, the following is true:
- They stink
- Their skin has an unhealthy hue
- If longtime smoker, they have leathery, prematurely aging skin
- They have difficulty breathing at times
- They know the health risks
- They may have serious health problems most likely caused by their smoking
- They are unhappy about being "a smoker"
- Family members and friends are worried about them being "a smoker"
I would ask you to think of a "vaper" (if you know one). Chances are, the following is true:
- They do not stink
- Their skin has a healthy hue
- If longtime "vaper," they drink a lot of water, thus eliminating signs of additional premature aging
- They have no difficulty breathing
- They know the health risks
- They have no health problems associated with their "vaping"
- They are more physically active now
- They are happy about being a "non-smoker" / "vaper"
- Family members and friends are thrilled about their becoming a "non-smoker" / "vaper"
None of the hundreds of smokers I know that have switched to an electronic cigarette have experienced any negative effects.
Lastly, consider this:
- When using an NRT nicotine inhaler, the user does exhale. Therefore, logically, these devices must be included in any legislation that is based on possible risks from the exhaled breath of a nicotine user.
- Does it really matter why someone chooses to not smoke? Whether the reason be religious, health concerns, odor, or "getting around a smoking ban," the fact that they are not smoking still remains. Isn't that the ultimate goal?
- Any legislative writ that deems the moon is made out of Swiss cheese will not change the fact that it is made of rock. The same is true of vapor: Vapor is NOT Smoke anymore so than the thick air in a sauna is smoke.
- A ban on electronic cigarettes is unenforceable. Every military general and school teacher knows that the best way to lose credibility and authority is to create a rule that cannot be enforced.
Again, please OPPOSE HB 245 S3 and don't discourage your people from choosing Life, whatever the basis for their choice!
Always,
Lorie
Thanks for everything you do, Bill!!! ...Always
Thank you so much, Dave!
...musta done something right, 'cause well, it is, and it is.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
The Deseret News article
Senate panel advances bill banning huka, e-cigarettes in public places | Deseret News
Senate panel advances bill banning huka, e-cigarettes in public places | Deseret News
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Last week, the Utah Senate approved the 2nd reading of legislation (H 245) to ban e-cigarette use in public places, Senator Waddoups exaggerates risks and fails to acknowledge products' benefits for smokers.
Senate - 2012 General Legislative Session Day 38 Part 2 (beginning at 15 minutes into recording)
The bill is now facing a third reading (i.e. a vote to approve the bill and send it to the governor), which could occur this week.
CASAA has issued a Call To Action urging Utah Senate to reject bill (HB 245) to ban e-cigarette use in public places at
CASAA.org
Although the bill appears likely to be approved by the Utah Senate, that might change if more folks (especially those in Utah) urge the Senators to reject it.
Senate - 2012 General Legislative Session Day 38 Part 2 (beginning at 15 minutes into recording)
The bill is now facing a third reading (i.e. a vote to approve the bill and send it to the governor), which could occur this week.
CASAA has issued a Call To Action urging Utah Senate to reject bill (HB 245) to ban e-cigarette use in public places at
CASAA.org
Although the bill appears likely to be approved by the Utah Senate, that might change if more folks (especially those in Utah) urge the Senators to reject it.
Last edited:
This might be our last chance! Please, if you live in Utah, contact our Senators TODAY and ask them not to pass this bill!
Utah Call to Action
Utah Call to Action
I have sent emails all three rounds, but haven't been able to go because of work. I should be able to go this time though. Work is...ummm...no longer an issue.
Waddoups has a reputation for being a prohibitionist. He proposed a law in 2009 which would have created a huge block for serving alcohol in restaurants and bars. Jon Huntsman was very much opposed to those types of laws and wanted to loosen restrictions. I do not know the end result of Waddoups meddling---I just wish Huntsman was still the Governor of Utah.
Is there a valid and consistent legal definition for the term e-cigarette?
I am going to try to quit using that term. I don't use an e-cigarette.
An e-cigarette would electrically burn tobacco. My PV doesn't do that. I use a personal vaporizer.
An e-cigarette is an electronic cigarette. It looks and tastes like a cigarette (you listening, Blu?)
As far as I'm concerned, any rule against e-cigarettes doesn't apply to me unless there is a legal definition that defines an e-cigarette as any device used to vaporize and inhale a solution containing nicotine.
I've never seen such a definition. Does it exist?
If it exists in that way, then 0 nic PV's wouldn't be covered.
Would nicotine inhalers be banned as well? If not, why not? Because they aren't electric?
Are they prepared to outlaw or ban the vaporization and inhalation of ANY substance?
If we are ever to have public acceptance of personal vaporizers, we need to uncouple them from the term "cigarette" and all the negative connotations it implies. I would even be in favor of changing the name of this site.
I am going to try to quit using that term. I don't use an e-cigarette.
An e-cigarette would electrically burn tobacco. My PV doesn't do that. I use a personal vaporizer.
An e-cigarette is an electronic cigarette. It looks and tastes like a cigarette (you listening, Blu?)
As far as I'm concerned, any rule against e-cigarettes doesn't apply to me unless there is a legal definition that defines an e-cigarette as any device used to vaporize and inhale a solution containing nicotine.
I've never seen such a definition. Does it exist?
If it exists in that way, then 0 nic PV's wouldn't be covered.
Would nicotine inhalers be banned as well? If not, why not? Because they aren't electric?
Are they prepared to outlaw or ban the vaporization and inhalation of ANY substance?
If we are ever to have public acceptance of personal vaporizers, we need to uncouple them from the term "cigarette" and all the negative connotations it implies. I would even be in favor of changing the name of this site.
Here's the definition of an e-cigarette in the Utah bill:
Pretty much echoes your definition...
Pretty much echoes your definition...
Will the Governor consider a veto for this bill? From what I have read about Waddoups,he is on a rampage on anything he opposes--alcohol,smoking,ecigs,etc. He seems to have a great deal of power and uses it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
