0mg and the law?

[vaporbird]

Do any of the current and proposed regulations recognize than many vapers use 0mg nic solution and so the notion that it is a tobacco product is already obsolete (eggplant nicotine non-withstanding) The other notion that it is a way of administering a drug is also inapplicable.

As a mostly 0mg vaper I'm very curious.

 

[DC2]

I have never seen any legislation (or legislative attempts) that mention 0mg juice in any way.

 

[vaporbird]

Based on the existence of 0mg users alone there is no grounds for regulating the sale of any e-cigarette equipment.

They may have a case for taxing e-juice containing nicotine. But if they tax nic e-just it seems they must tax the patch and the gum and the whole shebang. Seems pretty counterproductive considering there are a few government programs (in NYC at least) that *reduce* the cost of quitting aids for low income people... so, then we slap a tax on it?

 

[Vocalek]

Those who are opposed to your using e-cigarettes don't care that much what's in it. They don't like it because it LOOKS like smoking. The Master Plan calls for the "denormalization" of smokers. Oh, I'm sorry, they say "of smoking" but since it is also part of the Master Plan to paint smokers as addicts with low IQ and little schooling, I say they are really trying to denegrate smokers and drum up public support for abuse of smokers.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Most of the proposed laws/regulation to ban the use of e-cigarettes get around this by inaccurately defining the use of any e-cigarette as "smoking".

But I strongly suspect that if/when the FDA proposes regulations for e-cigarette products, they will only apply to e-cigarette products that contain nicotine (that is derived from tobacco).

 

[MattZuke]

As a mostly 0mg vaper I'm very curious.

If the law was written specifically because of nicotine, and I was ticketed, I'd go into court. If asked "how do we know that's no nicotine", drink the bottle.

 

[vaporbird]

If the law was written specifically because of nicotine, and I was ticketed, I'd go into court. If asked "how do we know that's no nicotine", drink the bottle.

Love it!

But isn't glycerin a ... laxative?

 

[Uncle Willie]

The question as it relates to an e-cig seems irrelevant .. 0 nic or 100% nic .. unless portable testing is available, how can proof be obtained .. ? ? Users of 0 nic would fall into the same category as anyone else with nic ..

If you blow smoke, that's what is looked at ..

 

[Demarko]

The question as it relates to an e-cig seems irrelevant .. 0 nic or 100% nic .. unless portable testing is available, how can proof be obtained .. ? ? Users of 0 nic would fall into the same category as anyone else with nic ..

If you blow smoke, that's what is looked at ..

Isn't it generally up to the government to prove you are doing something wrong, rather than the user to prove they aren't?

 

[Uncle Willie]

Isn't it generally up to the government to prove you are doing something wrong, rather than the user to prove they aren't?

I'm afraid that in this case, where there is smoke will be considered in violation of any ordinance / prohibition .. I don't myself agree, however, that's how it is ..

 

[Demarko]

I'm afraid that in this case, where there is smoke will be considered in violation of any ordinance / prohibition .. I don't myself agree, however, that's how it is ..

I was referring specifically to if the ordinance said nicotine. Though I'm not aware of any off the top of my head. Someone might be using their Wizard Stick in public or something, after all.

 

[rothenbj]

The question as it relates to an e-cig seems irrelevant .. 0 nic or 100% nic .. unless portable testing is available, how can proof be obtained .. ? ? Users of 0 nic would fall into the same category as anyone else with nic ..

If you blow smoke, that's what is looked at ..

And if you're blowing vapor, what are they looking at? I can guarantee you everyone is "smoking" when the temperature gets below freezing if the definition is exhaling something that looks like smoke.

 

[Uncle Willie]

And if you're blowing vapor, what are they looking at? I can guarantee you everyone is "smoking" when the temperature gets below freezing if the definition is exhaling something that looks like smoke.

If you are moving a device and puffing on it, that pretty much says it all .. and we're talking about prohibited areas ..

 

[Vap0rJay]

If you are moving a device and puffing on it, that pretty much says it all .. and we're talking about prohibited areas ..

So I'm outside in the winter and move a device known as a straw up my my mouth and puff on it -- and blow out vapor (cuz its cold) I'm "smoking" ??

 

[rothenbj]

If you are moving a device and puffing on it, that pretty much says it all .. and we're talking about prohibited areas ..

Need I advise you that more of the earth's surface is growing into a "prohibited area" as each day passes? If you think the current expansion of the no smoking area has ended, I've got a bridge to sell you. I once owned a property on a mile road that had 12, maybe 15 homes along it. There was a road and, as roads are normally designated, an "ultimate right-away".

They decided to start developing that area so they wanted to expand the road from two lanes to four and came up with plans that included non only expanding the road into the "ultimate right-away" but past it AND, building in a new "ultimate right-away". Oh, I forgot to mention, they wanted to use an act established for commercial/industrial development to assess the existing property owners for the "improvements" the proposed. That township meeting had me walking out with a migraine headache and, for the first time in my life, an understanding of why some individuals make the news by walking into a meeting and opening fire.

We as the existing residence hired a lawyer to fight their use of the ACT to assess us for the improvements and I individually fought the township on the positioning of the road, improvements to my driveway so that I could actually exit my home with safety and the extension of the "ultimate right-away". The township backed down on the assessment and I got 90% of what I wanted because I said NO.

Somewhere along the line, common sense needs to replace denormalization and the only way it's going to happen is if someone stands up and say NO.

We as a community of existing residence

 

[DC2]

When they started trying to ban smoking in parks it was time to stand up and say NO.
Or maybe it was aleady past time to stand up and say NO.

Regardless, from now on, I'm saying not only NO, but HELL NO.
The madness has to stop.

 

[daveesl]

One of the previous posters has it correct. Society desires to paint all "cigarette" users as low IQ, uneducated, slugs. Yet the idea of a "professional" puffing on a cigar or pipe is OK. Why else would pipe-cut tobacco be taxed at a rate that is approximately 10% of the cigarette-cut rate?

I was a cigarette smoker for 40+ years and now use the e-cig. Unfortunately I guess I do not fall into their categorization. I hold two undergraduate degrees, three graduate degrees, one being a terminal degree. During my degree runs I earned a "B" in only one course, in everything else I earned "A". I taught at the university level for a number of years, I have been a consultant for the National Science Foundation as well as numerous corporations. So I guess their model is a failed premise.

My biggest complaint with the entire "government is protecting us from ourselves" bandwagon is that if you want to look at something that is truly harmful to society, why are people not up-in-arms over alcohol? How many women or children have been beaten or murdered due to the husband/boyfriend having too many cigarettes (regardless of form)? How many automobile accidents are caused by nicotine intoxication? How many people have been destroyed financially or emotionally due to smoking too much? Now replace the words "cigarettes, nicotine and smoking" with "booze, beer, wine" and I think you'll find a completely different set of answers.

I'm not advocating the prohibition of alcohol, even though I do not drink. What I am saying is that there is such a societal hypocrisy between drinking and smoking it makes me sick. Beyond that is the hypocrisy between smoking cigarettes and smoking other tobacco products. I do not argue that smoking is dangerous, it is, but then eating McDonalds for every meal is equally a health hazard. Living itself is the leading cause of death.

dave

 

[rothenbj]

Well written Dave. There is a much larger preponderance of smoking in the blue collar world. I sometimes wonder how much of a factor that is in the smoking related morbidity and mortality statistics. Smoking is obviously a risk factor for health issues, but there are a lot of others involved in a lot of the jobs and environments that many smokers live and work in.

 

[kristin]

My guess is that they would attempt to include 0mg e-cigarettes in any use laws in the same way they have attempted to include e-cigarettes in smoking laws - they've claimed that due to "enforcement issues," e-cigarettes are included in smoking bans. So, since they cannot tell if an e-cigarette contains nicotine or not, they would try to ban all e-cigarette use where smoking is also prohibited. (CASAA is fighting these proposed use bans, of course!)

As far as taxation, that would probably just apply to products which contain nicotine, as 0mg liquid is really nothing more than food flavoring. However, if they can convince legislators that even 0mg presents a health hazard and deserves a "sin tax" then 0mg could be taxed just the same as liquid with nicotine. Considering how they are now attempting to tax smokeless tobacco (with little or no health risks) the same as cigarettes, the attempted equal taxation of 0mg e-liquid isn't far fetched. Of course, just as we (CASAA) fight unfair taxation of low-risk smokeless tobacco, we would also fight unfair taxation of e-cigarettes!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Demarko wrote

Isn't it generally up to the government to prove you are doing something wrong, rather than the user to prove they aren't?

If you replace the word "wrong" with "unlawful", that is correct.

I'm not aware of any e-cigarette user being fined for violating any of the many different e-cigarette usage bans (and tens of thousands of e-cigarette users in New Jersey violate that state's law on a daily basis).

In fact, very few smokers have ever been cited for violating any of the omnipresent indoor smoking bans because that's not the way the laws are enforced.

Virtually all indoor smoking bans are enforced by issuing warnings (for a first offense) and by issuing a citation (for subsequent violations) to the employer or property manager of the facility where the alleged smoking occurred. Besides, Health Department's don't issue any warnings or citations unless someone reports a violation to the Health Department.

That's the same way they'd enforce e-cigarette usage bans. But I'm still not aware of anyone being issued any warning or a citation for allowing someone to use an e-cigarette in their workplace or in the public place they manage.

I also think that some/many/most e-cigarette usage bans would be struck down by the courts for various reasons if/when a cited property manager pleads not guilty.

If anyone is cited for violating an e-cig usage ban, please urge them to notify me immediately at smokefree@compuserve.com or at 412-351-5800.