Advice please

[skrymir]

I work for the municipality where I live and they have a bylaw that prohibits smoking on their property; inside or outside. I am now being told that this regulation extends to my ecigarette based on the definition of smoke/smoking in the bylaw even though the definition and regulation was never written with the intent banning ecigarette use.

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

I would like any constructuve advice in combating this determination. I am ready to for a fight but need the right ammunition.

 

[windxrunner]

I'm confused, it sounds like you're saying you work in a government building that is trying to ban e-cigarette use on the property, yes? If this is the case, take the issue to someone higher than you that can make decisions and explain that they cannot prevent you from doing something if it is legal and there is no rule prohibiting it. Unfortunately, you can't really win, as all they need to do is change the rules to include e-cigarettes.

 

[Rixsta]

Place of work ?

 

[skrymir]

I work for the City of xxxxxx. I work out of a small building that houses about 40 people.

6 people smoke and me and one other person vape.

Prior to 2012 you could smoke on the property as long as you were 9m (30ft) from an entrance. But in 2012 they amended a bylaw that made it illegal to smoke on any city property be it a park, office building property, garbage dump, open air parking lot, or sewage treatment plant. At that time the definition of "smoking" was limited to lit tobacco products but later that year they expanded the definition to the one I showed in my original post with the intent of banning water pipes (houkas) and similar devices from city properties. And there it sat until earlier this year when they released a statement that said ecigarettes are not allowed stating the existing bylaw "effectively" prohibits ecigarettes use.

Now since we are a small workplace that is out of the way and not readily accessed by members of the public my bosses haven't nit picked and as long as the smoker's picked up their butts and no one was standing near the doors smoking on the property was "actively ignored" and no one was made to walk out to the curb to smoke/vape.

But now that has changed and I want to challenge the rule and just looking for some ways to approach the inevitable fight. I am unionized so I will have support but they won't help unless I have some teeth to go with the argument.

 

[IMFire3605]

I'd check the Regulations and such subforum here, the CASAA website, and other such activism websites for Tobacco Harm Reduction. Being that Canada has some pretty strict regulations and laws regarding nicotine in general, part of the health regulations of your country, this could be a pretty large Mount Everest to climb without the money and lobbying to get the gauntlet loosened. But there would be the first places to look for documentation and such, and I am going to tag @Ryedan , they might know more regarding Canada laws and such to help you better.

 

[Bunnykiller]

do 0nic juice... there is no "tobacco" product in the fluid... and you are producing vapor... not smoke. Hey, they made the rules... but give it time tho, they will change the words to include vaping too....

 

[Boden]

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

I see no mention of inhaling an aerosol.

I'm assuming asthma inhalers have not been banned.

Are fog machines banned from use on city property?

 

[Boden]

If they go for the "tobacco product" ploy, ask them if caffeine containing soda is a coffee bean product.

 

[bluecat]

You will be in for a tough one. Unfortunately you are at the mercy of the employer. Arm with some CASAA information and let the HR department know that you are reducing the harm to yourself, your employees and to the community. It may also be harmless when certified studies are actually done. Unfortunately the local municipalities rely on state funding as well which in turn gets funding from the federal government. Sad sad times ahead as the feds are squeezing everyone into "compliance" "my way or the highway" "screw the constitution" "that is not how I interpret it" ideals.

I have some friends that work in the tax department of a few municipalities. The rules put on them are draconian. I take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours for lunch. They have 30 minutes and that is that. I realize taxpayer funds and all is the driving force.

 

[sparkky1]

How much value do you put on your job (career) ? I think before the end of 2015 Edmonton City Council is looking to place a bylaw to ban smoking in outdoor public spaces owned by the city and I could only imagine their gunning for e-cigs as well.

 

[bluecat]

If they go for the "tobacco product" ploy, ask them if caffeine containing soda is a coffee bean product.

It doesn't matter. The definition they give "“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance" clearly states non-tobacco substance.

If one vaped caffiene infused eliquid it would follow under their definition.

 

[Boden]

It doesn't matter. The definition they give "“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance" clearly states non-tobacco substance.

If one vaped caffiene infused eliquid it would follow under their definition.

They define "smoking" as inhaling anything but dry air?

 

[bluecat]

They define "smoking" as inhaling anything but dry air?

More or less from their definition. As long as it is from a piece of equipment. One cannot carry a lighted cigar/cig/whatever either. If they inhale dry air from a piece of equipment designed to heat it.. it would qualify as well. "Non-Tobacco" is everything not tobacco related, a catch all. edit... medical inhalers of course would not qualify because there is a medical need for such. I guess one could get a medical need for a vape device, but then we as vapers go down the medical path again.

It is a pretty thorough definition that covers many bases. Carrying a burning stick would qualify as well. I guess one could technically put their device on the ground then walk over to it, bend down, take a few puffs and walk away and come back when needed. The issue woudl be one would need to carry it there first. Maybe one could roll the device in? Technically one would not be carrying it.

 

[WharfRat1976]

I work for the municipality where I live and they have a bylaw that prohibits smoking on their property; inside or outside. I am now being told that this regulation extends to my ecigarette based on the definition of smoke/smoking in the bylaw even though the definition and regulation was never written with the intent banning ecigarette use.

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

I would like any constructuve advice in combating this determination. I am ready to for a fight but need the right ammunition.

Advice: you cannot fight City Hall

 

[edyle]

I work for the municipality where I live and they have a bylaw that prohibits smoking on their property; inside or outside. I am now being told that this regulation extends to my ecigarette based on the definition of smoke/smoking in the bylaw even though the definition and regulation was never written with the intent banning ecigarette use.

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

I would like any constructuve advice in combating this determination. I am ready to for a fight but need the right ammunition.

For one thing stop telling them it's an ecigarette.
Tell them it's a fog device.

 

[Boden]

More or less from their definition. As long as it is from a piece of equipment. One cannot carry a lighted cigar/cig/whatever either. If they inhale dry air from a piece of equipment designed to heat it.. it would qualify as well. "Non-Tobacco" is everything not tobacco related, a catch all. edit... medical inhalers of course would not qualify because there is a medical need for such. I guess one could get a medical need for a vape device, but then we as vapers go down the medical path again.

It is a pretty thorough definition that covers many bases. Carrying a burning stick would qualify as well. I guess one could technically put their device on the ground then walk over to it, bend down, take a few puffs and walk away and come back when needed. The issue woudl be one would need to carry it there first. Maybe one could roll the device in? Technically one would not be carrying it.

So fog machines are banned... Huh

 

[Ryedan]

I work for the municipality where I live and they have a bylaw that prohibits smoking on their property; inside or outside. I am now being told that this regulation extends to my ecigarette based on the definition of smoke/smoking in the bylaw even though the definition and regulation was never written with the intent banning ecigarette use.

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

I would like any constructuve advice in combating this determination. I am ready to for a fight but need the right ammunition.

It doesn't matter where in Canada you are, any employer has the right to make and enforce any rules for activities on their property as long as they are legal, not racist, sexist, unconstitutional, etc.

Ontario passed bill 45 in May this year. It makes vaping prohibited anywhere smoking is prohibited. What is much worse is the part about vape shops not being able to display or promote e-cigs. Depending on how that is interpreted it could pretty much force all vape shops in the province out of businesses. I think some other provinces have done similar.

All you can really do is try to educate whoever counts at city hall. This post has some good links to studies and info about vaping. CASSA also has a very good list of studies, info and more.

Best of luck with it and let us know how it goes

 

[skrymir]

thanks for the replies everyone I've been busy

It doesn't matter where in Canada you are, any employer has the right to make and enforce any rules for activities on their property as long as they are legal, not racist, sexist, unconstitutional, etc.

Ontario passed bill 45 in May this year. It makes vaping prohibited anywhere smoking is prohibited. What is much worse is the part about vape shops not being able to display or promote e-cigs. Depending on how that is interpreted it could pretty much force all vape shops in the province out of businesses. I think some other provinces have done similar.

All you can really do is try to educate whoever counts at city hall. This post has some good links to studies and info about vaping. CASSA also has a very good list of studies, info and more.

Best of luck with it and let us know how it goes

Thanks! I know they can set their rules however they like.... one of my main points when I go forward is that the restrictions and vaping are implemented through the Public Health department of the City I work for whose statement on the regulations is "The City of XXXXX's smoke-free regulations are part of a strategy that is designed to protect children and non-smokers from second-hand smoke, while reducing smoking rates." One of my main points is going to be that extending the restriction to e-cigarettes does not further that mission statement. First, there are no harmful effects from 2nd hand vape, and second that treating e-cigarettes as cigarettes gives the public and smokers a misleading message about e-cigarettes and that that can deter someone from trying a resource (vaping) that could get them off cigarettes (keep smoking rates up instead of reducing smoking rates).



On the subject of Bill 54 I have been peppering MPPs with emails for a few months now and there is an argument that I have been toying with bringing forward (could apply to my situation at work too) that relates to the CCRF, but I'm not sure how it would be received so I'd like some feedback before I do.

I would assert that Bill 45 violates section 7 of charter (Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice).


Follow the logic (again this is for Bill 45):

• We know that cigarettes kill 1 out of every 2 long term smokers
• E-cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes by a large margin and could save a long term smokers life if they witched to e-cigarettes
  
• There are many long term smokers that are either unable or unwilling to quit using conventional methods for smoking cessation
  
• E-cigarettes offer these smokers the most viable, less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes

Point 1

• The restrictions on tobacco and smoking in the Smoke Free Ontario Act are not only to protect non-smokers from second had smoke but to also deter smokers from continuing to smoke
• Bill 45 makes e-cigarettes analogous with tobacco cigarettes in the Smoke Free Ontario Act
• By making e-cigarettes analogous with tobacco cigarettes it will deter smokers from switching to e-cigarettes
• A smoker that would have switched to e-cigarettes had they not been deterred will have a lower quality of life a and shorter life expectancy as a result of Bill 45

Point 2

• Brick and Mortar E-cigarettes stores provide the first point of contact for most smokers looking to switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes
• Brick and Mortar E-cigarette stores provide the main source of supplies for many people who have switched to e-cigarettes and offer support to novice e-cigarette users who are having trouble with their e-cigarette equipment
• The restrictions on displaying and promotion of e-cigarettes in E-cigarette stores through Bill 45 will likely put all of these stores across Ontario out of business
• Without these E-cigarette stores many smokers who are ready to switch to e-cigarettes will remain using tobacco cigarettes and many people who have switched to e-cigarettes will return to tobacco cigarettes because they cannot get supplies or support for their e-cigarettes.
• These individuals will have a lower quality of life a and shorter life expectancy as a result of Bill 45

Conclusion

• The reduced quality of life and reduced life expectancy for individuals negatively affected by Bill 45 is a direct violation of their Section 7 rights.

Sorry for the awkward wording.... am I crazy in my line of thinking?

 

[edyle]

I think you should just focus on the "smoke" aspect.

use the kiss priniciple.

The definition as follows:

“smoke” or “smoking” includes the carrying of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated smoking equipment used to smoke any tobacco or non-tobacco substance;

the dry herb type systems can aptly be called electical cigarettes, but the systems we use which boil liquid to produce a fog or mist, do not operate by producing any smoke at all.

 

[skrymir]

I think you should just focus on the "smoke" aspect.

use the kiss priniciple.



the dry herb type systems can aptly be called electical cigarettes, but the systems we use which boil liquid to produce a fog or mist, do not operate by producing any smoke at all.

I agree that if it were a discipline issue or fighting a fine I would fight the wording of the definition but that doesn't stop them from just rewording in the definition so that it specifically includes e cigarettes.

If I'm going to do this I have to convince those who write the rules that prohibiting vaping like smoking isn't the right thing today.