Alberta bill 33

[Kagey K]

This may be the worst thing that happens to the Alberta and ecig community since everything.

It essentially says that using tobacco, or water pipes or any other warmer with tobacco byproducts are prohibited in even your own car if there is a minor with you, and if they classify it right then all our beloved flavours will be unavailable under the act and we can only get tobacco flavours going forward.

They are essentially trying to cut off the decisions of the Canadian Govt and ban ecigs for themselves in ab under this law. This is not right and something needs to be done about this.

As as a long time smoker that quit it is not right to take my ability to quit from me.

We have to do everything we can to stop these amendments from going through.

 

[Talyon]

I suggest posting a list of mps coucillers etc, to email etc for those to lazy to,look up, also possibly get CAVR aware if they aren't already think I spelled that right.

I'll look up this bill and pass it along to them via facebook etc.

 

[Talyon]

Ps. Ontario has had a law for several years now prohibiting smoking in a car with a minor, not sure on exact legislation wording at moment.

 

[Battlelance]

Tobacco Reduction in Alberta – Alberta Health

So basically you can't give cigarettes to minors, you can't use a hookah in a park and you can't smoke in a car with your children. Sounds pretty good, IMO.

 

[retired1]

Yet, like all politicians everywhere, they word it so badly that it's open to interpretation. "Tobacco like" throws it wide open.

 

[Wolffy]

Yet, like all politicians everywhere, they word it so badly that it's open to interpretation. "Tobacco like" throws it wide open.

You nailed it! I've emailed my MLA as well as 3 others pointing at evidence that ecigs are a safer alternative to smoking. Bill 33.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-033.pdf

This part is basically legalese for 'screw ecigs too!'

2
(d) by adding the following after clause (i):
(i.1) “smoke a tobacco-like product” means to smoke, hold or
otherwise have control over
a lit or heated tobacco-like
product;
(e) by adding the following after clause (j):
(j.1) “tobacco-like product” mean
s, subject to the regulations,
a product, other than a tobacco product, composed in
whole or in part of
(i) plants or plant products, or any extract of them, or
(ii) other substances prescribed by regulation;
4
Section 3 is amended
(a) by striking out
“smoke”
and substituting
“smoke a
tobacco product or to
bacco-like product”;


Egic safer than tobacco studies...

ECTA Informational Publications/Studies/Articles/Videos

 

[Battlelance]

Since eliquid isn't a "tobacco like" product, you should be fine.

The only concern might be "(i) plants or plant products, or any extract of them, or ", since technically the nicotine in eliquid is extracted from tobacco leaves. However, I suspect they're referring to extracts of other "plant products" if you catch my meaning.

Then again, since plants like potato, eggplant, and tomatoes contain nicotine, I suppose the argument could be made that your eliquid contains eggplant extract...

 

[Wolffy]

Since eliquid isn't a "tobacco like" product, you should be fine.

The only concern might be "(i) plants or plant products, or any extract of them, or ", since technically the nicotine in eliquid is extracted from tobacco leaves. However, I suspect they're referring to extracts of other "plant products" if you catch my meaning.

Then again, since plants like potato, eggplant, and tomatoes contain nicotine, I suppose the argument could be made that your eliquid contains eggplant extract...

To a driven politician (who uses the broom closet as a parking space) the word 'like' can be applied anywhere they choose, for example: "A Radio Flyer wagon is 'like' an automobile in that it has 1)passenger capacity, 2) four wheels, 3) steering." Don't kid your self e liquid is 'like' tobacco in that it contains nicotine and is 'heated' to release the nicotine.

With almost $0.9 billion dollars a year in tobacco taxes at stake you can bet on what is coming next.

 

[retired1]

Since eliquid isn't a "tobacco like" product, you should be fine.

The only concern might be "(i) plants or plant products, or any extract of them, or ", since technically the nicotine in eliquid is extracted from tobacco leaves. However, I suspect they're referring to extracts of other "plant products" if you catch my meaning.

Then again, since plants like potato, eggplant, and tomatoes contain nicotine, I suppose the argument could be made that your eliquid contains eggplant extract...

By definition for many states, eliquid has already been classified as a "tobacco" product due to the nicotine content. It's not that far of a stretch for that classification to be made to eliquid here as well. In fact, I'm sure if we dug far enough into the bowels of HC mumbo jumbo, we'd find that they, too, apply the tobacco monicker to eliquid.

 

[Wolffy]

By definition for many states, eliquid has already been classified as a "tobacco" product due to the nicotine content. It's not that far of a stretch for that classification to be made to eliquid here as well. In fact, I'm sure if we dug far enough into the bowels of HC mumbo jumbo, we'd find that they, too, apply the tobacco monicker to eliquid.

HC isn't quite there yet. What Does The Law Say? | A Canadian Guide to Electronic Cigarettes and Related Canadian Law

Rest assured that Alberta is ecigs Normandy if we are to take a foot hold to legitimize ecigs in Canada. Right now – E-juice with nicotine is a liquid chemical mixture sold for recreational use by consumers. It also meets the definition of a consumer chemical product, according to the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001. HC doesn't cover it and the RCMP do not cover it either within Canada. Import and export is another can of worms.

If you want the truth, follow the money! I've been saying this for years and with the draconian tobacco taxes on the line it's going to be one hell of a battle for both sides. Unfortunately the Government can change the rules as they see fit. Note the changing of the definition of 'tobacco' proposed in Bill 33.

Get loud, get public, educated and encourage others to contact their Alberta MLA's so they are not under the impression that 6 Albertans have found ecigs to be an effective, viable, safer, alternative to tobacco products. If you have people you know encouraged by your tobacco reduction since using ecigs, ask them to contact their MLA and mention your progress/success using ecigs. Remember Bill 33 is an amendment to the TOBACCO REDUCTION ACT. Ecigs tend to reduce tobacco use for many people.

Remember, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Bill 33 wants to step on some good things as well as bad. We have to collectively try to preserve the good.

 

[Kagey K]

You nailed it! I've emailed my MLA as well as 3 others pointing at evidence that ecigs are a safer alternative to smoking. Bill 33.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-033.pdf

This part is basically legalese for 'screw ecigs too!'

2
(d) by adding the following after clause (i):
(i.1) “smoke a tobacco-like product” means to smoke, hold or
otherwise have control over
a lit or heated tobacco-like
product;
(e) by adding the following after clause (j):
(j.1) “tobacco-like product” mean
s, subject to the regulations,
a product, other than a tobacco product, composed in
whole or in part of
(i) plants or plant products, or any extract of them, or
(ii) other substances prescribed by regulation;
4
Section 3 is amended
(a) by striking out
“smoke”
and substituting
“smoke a
tobacco product or to
bacco-like product”;


Egic safer than tobacco studies...

ECTA Informational Publications/Studies/Articles/Videos

thank you for bringing out the part in legalise that I was trying to find last night. They want to ban all flavours if tobacco including menthol, which has been a part of the smoking flavours forever.

How do I as a ecig user prove that the nicotine in my ecig is synthetic and not derived from a tobacco plant? The wording is to wholly include ecigarettes in this ban, they don't even try to disguise it. If it contains any part of the plant and is warmed up by an outside source it is banned.

they do not consider that we switched to not have to breathe the second hand smoke as we vale in the smoking areas. We will be forced to stand outside with them and gain second hand access to the arsenic and every other chemical to satisfy our nicotine cravings. Then we will not even be able to commute if we have someone under 18 in the car with us using any sort of nicotine therapy.

This is nanny state gone a bit too far. I am in my personal property and not interfering with anyone else's health. I can accept some of the smoking by laws and such, but now when government gets into my bought and paid for property I get a bit upset. Especially when I am trying to make better choices and they want to take those choices away.

 

[Talyon]

thank you for bringing out the part in legalise that I was trying to find last night. They want to ban all flavours if tobacco including menthol, which has been a part of the smoking flavours forever.

How do I as a ecig user prove that the nicotine in my ecig is synthetic and not derived from a tobacco plant? The wording is to wholly include ecigarettes in this ban, they don't even try to disguise it. If it contains any part of the plant and is warmed up by an outside source it is banned.

they do not consider that we switched to not have to breathe the second hand smoke as we vale in the smoking areas. We will be forced to stand outside with them and gain second hand access to the arsenic and every other chemical to satisfy our nicotine cravings. Then we will not even be able to commute if we have someone under 18 in the car with us using any sort of nicotine therapy.

This is nanny state gone a bit too far. I am in my personal property and not interfering with anyone else's health. I can accept some of the smoking by laws and such, but now when government gets into my bought and paid for property I get a bit upset. Especially when I am trying to make better choices and they want to take those choices away.

Agree with you wholeheartedly, but we do have a legal voice when it comes to being forced to be clumped in the smoking area, not an easy battle but a fight we can win.

 

[Battlelance]

How do I as a ecig user prove that the nicotine in my ecig is synthetic and not derived from a tobacco plant? The wording is to wholly include ecigarettes in this ban, they don't even try to disguise it. If it contains any part of the plant and is warmed up by an outside source it is banned.

You won't, because it's not. Synthetic nicotine has been dabbled in, but is not cost effective to produce. Even big pharma uses extracted nicotine processed to USP.

The way this legislation reads, I believe it was written with drug use in mind, not e-cigarettes. Especially considering the prevalence of drug use in Alberta. But as was said before in this thread, I suppose it can be open to interpretation.

 

[Toronnah]

Where this becomes a difficult fight is the word "safer" as it relates to consuming around children in a confined space.

"Safer" is not "safe"

If a study can be found that shows zero negative impact on children then it can be won. If not, the public wil support this legislation.

 

[Talyon]

Where this becomes a difficult fight is the word "safer" as it relates to consuming around children in a confined space.

"Safer" is not "safe"

If a study can be found that shows zero negative impact on children then it can be won. If not, the public wil support this legislation.

CASAA study........

Only if the legislaters allow this type,of info to reach the public, and not the usual propaganda crap.

However money well almost always win over safety, all depends on the lies etc.

 

[Kagey K]

CASAA study........

Only if the legislaters allow this type,of info to reach the public, and not the usual propaganda crap.

However money well almost always win over safety, all depends on the lies etc.

There have been many studies done and they all show the same thing that was linked to. As far as second hand vapor is concerned there is no risk and everyone is inhaling similar fumes to everyday oxygen. The problem is the powers that be are trying to circumvent the studies and trying to lump everything together into 1 group of similar evils.

No doubt the money will win, but if ecigarettes get caught in the crossfire they will be forever interrupted by this 1 decision. It is not fair nor judicial to see that this is the way it might end.

Edit: or we can sit back and say it's all good, while our rights get taken away from us. If Alberta pioneers it it's not long until other provinces follow. So there is that.

 

[Wolffy]

The information is out there if you are willing to read...
ECTA Informational Publications/Studies/Articles/Videos

I just love this quote found in the link above...

“On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that could be more unhealthy to breathe air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping."

The study the above quote comes from... (very enlightening read)
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

Using Bill 33's logic, wouldn't it stand to reason that raising a child in a large city amounts to child abuse? Does that mean that all children should have to be raised in a rural environment until the age of 18?

 

[Concat]

Prohibiting the smoking of tobacco-like products in the same locations where the smoking of tobacco products is prohibited.
Generally speaking, tobacco-like products are products, other than tobacco products, composed of plants or plant products.

We aren't SMOKING anything, so we're fine. They can't change the definition of smoking, so they'd need to rethink their language for this to affect us.

Also, I don't think a Provincial Tobacco legislation can legislate the use of a prescription drug, which is what nicotine is. If Health Canada actually classified it as a tobacco product, it might be different.

 

[Wolffy]

We aren't SMOKING anything, so we're fine. They can't change the definition of smoking, so they'd need to rethink their language for this to affect us.

Also, I don't think a Provincial Tobacco legislation can legislate the use of a prescription drug, which is what nicotine is. If Health Canada actually classified it as a tobacco product, it might be different.

You didn't read the first post on page 2 did you? Bill 33 is the Tobacco Reduction Amendment Act and they are indeed changing the definition of "smoke" and changing "tobacco" to "tobacco like". Please also note the legalese "(i.1) “smoke a tobacco-like product” means to smoke, hold or otherwise have control over a lit or heated tobacco-like product; "

You may wish to edit the last paragraph of your post because I won't even go there.

 

[Concat]

Well damn, it's certainly a catch all... What does a "heated tobacco-like product" even mean exactly? At what point is something considered "heated"? A nicotine patch on my arm is heated too. It certainly is during winter...

How exactly are law enforcement going to be able to tell if my ecig has nicotine in it or not? Under these definitions, nic-free ecigs cannot be classified as a tobacco-like product.

Wasn't the first PV an ultrasonic vaporizer? That is, no heat? So to them, the vapor from a coil is somehow different than the vapor from an ultrasonic vaporizer?

Surely this also applies to incense as well. And what about Glade plug-ins? Those are heated, and surely contain extracts as well. Glade plug-in = tobacco-like product?

Hookah bars will be no more. Who goes to a hookah bar unless you want to puff on a hookah?

All this, and yet you'll still be able to go to an Indian Casino and smoke a thousand cigarettes? And they can continue selling them for a pittance?