Attention all VA lawyers (who vape)
- Thread starter Mac
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have to respectfully disagree.
Just because people in New Jersey are content to sit back and let the state legislature dictate their habits does not mean the people of Virginia need to do the same thing!
The Virginia state legislature has not banned the use of e-cigarettes. Based on the studies available to date, it has no reason to do so. Most important, individual bureaucrats in state agencies have no authority to pass laws! It would be a mistake to let them get away with this. A ban "in practice" could more easily lead to a ban in fact.
vaping does not involve smoke, fire, smell or mess. Any fool can see that. As long as vaping does not cause harm to anybody else, there is absolutely no reason to ban it. There is also no reason the Nazis at table A cannot be encouraged to mind their own damn business!
In terms of harm reduction efforts, one of the most compelling incentives for people to switch to vaping is that it is allowed everywhere--restaurants, airplanes, etc--cigarette use is forbidden. If you ban the use of e-cigs in one public place, it creates a precedent to ban them everywhere, and the incentive goes up in smoke (literally).
Just because people in New Jersey are content to sit back and let the state legislature dictate their habits does not mean the people of Virginia need to do the same thing!
The Virginia state legislature has not banned the use of e-cigarettes. Based on the studies available to date, it has no reason to do so. Most important, individual bureaucrats in state agencies have no authority to pass laws! It would be a mistake to let them get away with this. A ban "in practice" could more easily lead to a ban in fact.
vaping does not involve smoke, fire, smell or mess. Any fool can see that. As long as vaping does not cause harm to anybody else, there is absolutely no reason to ban it. There is also no reason the Nazis at table A cannot be encouraged to mind their own damn business!
In terms of harm reduction efforts, one of the most compelling incentives for people to switch to vaping is that it is allowed everywhere--restaurants, airplanes, etc--cigarette use is forbidden. If you ban the use of e-cigs in one public place, it creates a precedent to ban them everywhere, and the incentive goes up in smoke (literally).
I have carts like that right now. You blow out little or nothing after you inhale. But still get the effect. They don't sell very well for that very reason. People want to trick themselves into thinking they are smoking. they want to blow out that big cloud of vapor.
Anyway thats not what I am talking about. IN NJ whether right or wrong. Whether I agree or disagreee. They followed due process. That is the difference. This person has taken the law into his own hands.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Fight any ban of E-cigs that they impose on you! E-cigs are not included in the smoking ban!
If you let them take your liberties they will take your freedom, remember, remember the fifth of Novemeber....people should not be afraid of their goverments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Fight any ban of E-cigs that they impose on you! E-cigs are not included in the smoking ban!
If you let them take your liberties they will take your freedom, remember, remember the fifth of Novemeber....people should not be afraid of their goverments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Last edited:
Fair enough: but that should be the choice of the business owner, not dictated by the authorities.
Just as before legislated smoking bans, you had areas marked as 'No smoking' at the discretion of the management of premises.
Legislators had a good argument for banning smoking in public places - one that we just could not successfully fight: the harm to others as a result of second-hand smoke argument. However, that argument just isn't available for e-cigs.
These knee-jerk reactions are borne out of ignorance.
I fully agree that ignorance is rampant among those legislating e-cigs. But your world of yesterday is history now. Businesses that cater to the public must abide by all laws. There is no "discretion" to allow smoking on public premises (defined as anywhere the public visits). If there is at present, it won't last. Consider:
In Florida, several years ago, the first no-smoking prohibition resulted in segregation of smokers and non-smokers. In restaurants. In theaters. We smokers adjusted. After all, we could still smoke somewhere in most places.
Then smoking was banned on premises. No smoking during the movies, not even in the lobby. "Private" clubs like the AmVets, Eagles, etc., said they could allow smoking -- and were slapped with huge fines until they came into full compliance during regular unannounced inspections. There is no smoking. Anywhere inside a place people gather or visit. I was a newspaper reporter during this time and chronicled the changes. Great gnashing of teeth and groaning and ranting. The law withstood a court test. No one smokes anywhere inside now. Not even a jail.
Restaurants set up patios for smokers. In Florida, we're pleasant 95% of the time, so smoking and dining outdoors is enjoyable. But non-smokers complained of smoke where THEY wanted to sit outside. So patios are going non-smoking.
Recently, all public beaches and parks in the area banned all smoking. The local college banned all tobacco use. A student asked about using his e-cig. It was immediately included in the ban. We don't make laws; authorities do. You obey .. or you pay.
In parts of Europe, restaurant owners invested heavily in outdoor heaters so smokers could be comfortable during cold winters. The result? Too much energy being consumed, non-smokers said. And the laws now force smokers so far away from public areas that they can legally stand only in the street!
The move now is to ban all smoking on entire properties, and within a huge distance of the entrances to all stores. Today, the sheriff's department here sent me a press release about 25 teenagers arrested last night outside the local mall for smoking cigarettes. It's not just the sale that's illegal; the product is illegal for them to even have on their possession. They'll all be fined $35 for this first offense, but the word is out loud and clear.
We e-smokers must pick our battles wisely because many losses are going to occur.
In Florida, several years ago, the first no-smoking prohibition resulted in segregation of smokers and non-smokers. In restaurants. In theaters. We smokers adjusted. After all, we could still smoke somewhere in most places.
Then smoking was banned on premises. No smoking during the movies, not even in the lobby. "Private" clubs like the AmVets, Eagles, etc., said they could allow smoking -- and were slapped with huge fines until they came into full compliance during regular unannounced inspections. There is no smoking. Anywhere inside a place people gather or visit. I was a newspaper reporter during this time and chronicled the changes. Great gnashing of teeth and groaning and ranting. The law withstood a court test. No one smokes anywhere inside now. Not even a jail.
Restaurants set up patios for smokers. In Florida, we're pleasant 95% of the time, so smoking and dining outdoors is enjoyable. But non-smokers complained of smoke where THEY wanted to sit outside. So patios are going non-smoking.
Recently, all public beaches and parks in the area banned all smoking. The local college banned all tobacco use. A student asked about using his e-cig. It was immediately included in the ban. We don't make laws; authorities do. You obey .. or you pay.
In parts of Europe, restaurant owners invested heavily in outdoor heaters so smokers could be comfortable during cold winters. The result? Too much energy being consumed, non-smokers said. And the laws now force smokers so far away from public areas that they can legally stand only in the street!
The move now is to ban all smoking on entire properties, and within a huge distance of the entrances to all stores. Today, the sheriff's department here sent me a press release about 25 teenagers arrested last night outside the local mall for smoking cigarettes. It's not just the sale that's illegal; the product is illegal for them to even have on their possession. They'll all be fined $35 for this first offense, but the word is out loud and clear.
We e-smokers must pick our battles wisely because many losses are going to occur.
Last edited:
Thank you, Brits and Scots.
It is a bit ironic that anyone would have to remind us Americans that freedom is a precious commodity we must be ever vigilant to defend.
BTW, November 5 just happens to be the birthday of your Vivien Leigh, who became our Scarlett O'Hara. . .
It is a bit ironic that anyone would have to remind us Americans that freedom is a precious commodity we must be ever vigilant to defend.
BTW, November 5 just happens to be the birthday of your Vivien Leigh, who became our Scarlett O'Hara. . .
TB, authorities may make laws, but not all of those laws are Constitutional or justified based on facts. If citizens feel those laws are unjust and/or unwarranted, they can file lawsuits demanding the laws be repealed or amended (having the money to do so and winning may be another matter, but it CAN be done). Smoking bans are based entirely on the theory that secondhand tobacco smoke is "hazardous" to nonsmokers. According to the limited testing to date, vapor poses no such known hazard and therefore no ban is justified (although I would certainly like to see more scientific test results before it is taken to court; I have no doubt such tests will further prove vapor is relatively harmless).
Your post about Florida is making us reconsider purchasing land down there. I guess they can do without smokers' money, even though we understand they are in serious financial trouble as people leave the state in large numbers. In Virginia, we are fortunate to live under the Dillon Rule, where no locality can make any law more restrictive than state law, so local governments cannot ban smoking beyond what the state law provides.
Your post about Florida is making us reconsider purchasing land down there. I guess they can do without smokers' money, even though we understand they are in serious financial trouble as people leave the state in large numbers. In Virginia, we are fortunate to live under the Dillon Rule, where no locality can make any law more restrictive than state law, so local governments cannot ban smoking beyond what the state law provides.
You appear to have either misread my post, completely misunderstood, or completely ignored the point I was making.
I have started a new thread regarding the response I received from the office of the Speaker of the Virginia House regarding the Virginia ban on e cigs. According to the woman in that office, the Health Dept. had extensive discussions with the Va. Attorney General's office and it was determined (wrongly, I believe!) that e cigs meet the definition of "smoking" and "smoke" according to the AG's office.
Please read that thread, under Campaigning, for more details. We have a chance to change their ruling, but it will take a concerted, intelligent effort with all the evidence we can compile.
Please read that thread, under Campaigning, for more details. We have a chance to change their ruling, but it will take a concerted, intelligent effort with all the evidence we can compile.
Please refer to:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...peakers-office-va-e-cig-ban-2.html#post837370
Post #67
For the reply I received from Gary Hagy, the contact person listed on the VA FAQ.
-bogie
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...peakers-office-va-e-cig-ban-2.html#post837370
Post #67
For the reply I received from Gary Hagy, the contact person listed on the VA FAQ.
-bogie
If you live in VA, please go to this thread and respond. Thanks!
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...dents-virginia-please-respond.html#post879912
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...dents-virginia-please-respond.html#post879912
Yup it's all control. I think the Bloomberg-ish anti's out there look at it this way. They used to smoke, they liked it, they quit, in order to stay quit and deny that they still desire to smoke they start hating smokers and everything to do with them.
ecigs LOOK like smoking, so that's enough for them. I think it burns their behinds worse than actual analogs because they see us vaping and enjoying everything we liked about smoking without any of the harm associated. It's all about control, if I can't have it, no one can (Bloomberg's and the extremist's M.O.)
ecigs LOOK like smoking, so that's enough for them. I think it burns their behinds worse than actual analogs because they see us vaping and enjoying everything we liked about smoking without any of the harm associated. It's all about control, if I can't have it, no one can (Bloomberg's and the extremist's M.O.)
- Status
Similar threads
