Can the good people of virginia get a little help?

[Mac]

This goes out to all CASAA officials.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo.../53135-attention-all-va-lawyers-who-vape.html

Can you guys help us here? I do not have the resources to hire a lawyer. Nor will I be taken seriously if I contact them personally as I work in the industry. I implore the CASAA board to get involved with this and help us.

 

[yvilla]

Mac, I can't respond for CASAA without consulting with the other members of the board of directors, but I wanted to let you know I am going to bring this to their attention.

I am also following your original thread on this issue closely, and am happy to see some of the responses you've gotten so far. I agree with bogiediver that Gary Hagy at the VA Dept. of Health appears to be the person to start with. I also agree completely that the VA smoking ban, as found on the government website, clearly does NOT define "smoking" in such a way as to to permit ecigarettes to be included in its prohibition against use in public places.

 

[Mac]

Mac, I can't respond for CASAA without consulting with the other members of the board of directors, but I wanted to let you know I am going to bring this to their attention.

I am also following your original thread on this issue closely, and am happy to see some of the responses you've gotten so far. I agree with bogiediver that Gary Hagy at the VA Dept. of Health appears to be the person to start with. I also agree completely that the VA smoking ban, as found on the governement website, clearly does NOT define "smoking" in such a way as to to permit ecigarettes to be included in its prohibition against use in public places.

Thank you for your response. I wish I had the money to actually hire a lawyer but I am not the company owner just an employee. There are several larger suppliers that already have council and frankly I am surprised that no one else is making any noise about this. I can understand the logic behind restricting smoking in certain public areas. (I still think it is absurd to restrict it in bars but that is a whole other issue) But there is no way that the exhaled vapor from an e-cig could cause harm to bystanders. I have seen it everyday for months now. Unless a person is right up in your face there is no way they could inhale the vapor before it evaporates. It just isn't possible. I am starting to feel like we are the subject to a massive witch hunt. Frankly I am getting fed up. The double standards regarding e-cigs need to come to an end. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of bullies rewriting the law through an FAQ. It is illegal and idiotic. I only hope that the other CASAA members agree and are able to do something to call more attention to this issue.

 

[skydragon]

It seems like any time a person or group asks nicely, nothing is ever done. I honestly think we are going to have start raising he** like all the other "minority" groups. That seems to be the only thing that gets anyone's attention.

 

[Slickstick]

It seems like any time a person or group asks nicely, nothing is ever done. I honestly think we are going to have start raising he** like all the other "minority" groups. That seems to be the only thing that gets anyone's attention.

I suggested this in another thread and is was quickly shot down.

 

[jj2]

I hope that CASAA takes this on!!!

 

[skydragon]

I suggested this in another thread and is was quickly shot down.

See, that is the problem. We have become so complacent we think forwarding e-mails and saying pretty please will accomplice something. It doesn't. Hasn't for a long time and it won't now. The only thing that works anymore is if you start raising your voice and "demanding" to be heard.

Otherwise, sit back and wait thinking surely they will come to their senses or ask pretty please don't take these away from us. Then kiss it good-bye.

 

[Webby]

I had a very interesting conversation will Bill Goodshall the other day on this issue. one angle discussed was an effort to persuade the writers of these bills and laws to remove e-cigs and other harm reduction methods from their smoke free ordinances.

Perhaps appealing to them for compromises (the main goal of these laws are to protect the public’s health from second hand smoke, correct?) in exchange for our support may come off better than having our efforts drowned out as a “smokers rights” argument.

 

[skydragon]

I had a very interesting conversation will Bill Goodshall the other day on this issue. one angle discussed was an effort to persuade the writers of these bills and laws to remove e-cigs and other harm reduction methods from their smoke free ordinances.

Perhaps appealing to them for compromises (the main goal of these laws are to protect the public’s health from second hand smoke, correct?) in exchange for our support may come off better than having our efforts drowned out as a “smokers rights” argument.

Hi Webby,
Could you expound on that a little? How many more compromises can we make? Support for what and in what fashion? Thanks.

 

[Mac]

I had a very interesting conversation will Bill Goodshall the other day on this issue. one angle discussed was an effort to persuade the writers of these bills and laws to remove e-cigs and other harm reduction methods from their smoke free ordinances.

Perhaps appealing to them for compromises (the main goal of these laws are to protect the public’s health from second hand smoke, correct?) in exchange for our support may come off better than having our efforts drowned out as a “smokers rights” argument.

But there is nothing in the actual ordinance about e-cigs. I am not asking you to help us fight the ban at all. I am asking you to help us stop an individual from taking the law into his own hands and banning e-cigs without going through the proper channels. What is the point of having a society structured with laws if those laws can be rewritten every time an FAQ gets put up on a government website? Not only is it illegal. It is a slap in the face of every parent who had a son or daughter die fighting for our country and the ideals it holds.

 

[Webby]

Mac,

This is one argument at the core of the SE/Njoy lawsuit. Not that the FDA didn't have the right to do what they did - but that they exceeded that right and didn't go through the correct channels and procedures. I think once Judge Leon's decision comes down it may provide the legal fodder to strike down many of the loose cannon efforts you describe.

Public perception is still the key at this point. Educating the masses as to what e-cigs actually ARE will do far more good than heated debates between spokesmen and local lawmakers over what is right. You are very correct in saying that these folks are interpreting public wants in their own vacuums. A politician's stance is subject to the political winds of their constituancy.

THAT is where the most good can be done (at this point.)

 

[skydragon]

Mac,

This is one argument at the core of the SE/Njoy lawsuit. Not that the FDA didn't have the right to do what they did - but that they exceeded that right and didn't go through the correct channels and procedures. I think once Judge Leon's decision comes down it may provide the legal fodder to strike down many of the loose cannon efforts you describe.

Public perception is still the key at this point. Educating the masses as to what e-cigs actually ARE will do far more good than heated debates between spokesmen and local lawmakers over what is right. You are very correct in saying that these folks are interpreting public wants in their own vacuums. A politician's stance is subject to the political winds of their constituancy.

THAT is where the most good can be done (at this point.)

You are right when you say a politician's stance is subject to the political winds of their constistuancy.

But therein lies the problem. The constituancy they hear, are the ones who make the most noise and march in the streets. Now do I want to march in the streets? He** no, it's Wisconsin and it's winter. Would I? YES, because I am sick and tired of our government overstepping their bounds but as I said, they don't listen unless you force them to.

I also agree that the general public needs educating but it is difficult to get them to listen also and if they are not smokers, they just don't care. Point blank couldn't care less. They are getting what they want. They don't care about us. Give them the choice of us ignoring the smoking bans or let us have our e-cigs and they may pay attention.

Let us also not forget that their stance also sways towards whomever puts the most money in their pockets.

 

[Mac]

I was under the impression that this was exactly the sort of thing CASSA was created for. If you guys aren't interested in this I must ask. What is the purpose of your organization? What actions is your organization taking to further that agenda? Frankly I am disappointed by the lack of interest. I made a similar plea to the ECA but honestly I don't expect a response. I don't see that they have done much for helping any individual situation and are basically an over hyped PR/Lobbyist firm with e-cig sellers as their sole client. I really hoped that you guys were gonna pick up their slack. I guess I was wrong? =(

 

[ladyraj]

I had a very interesting conversation will Bill Goodshall the other day on this issue. one angle discussed was an effort to persuade the writers of these bills and laws to remove e-cigs and other harm reduction methods from their smoke free ordinances.

Perhaps appealing to them for compromises (the main goal of these laws are to protect the public’s health from second hand smoke, correct?) in exchange for our support may come off better than having our efforts drowned out as a “smokers rights” argument.

But, Mr Bill is losing ground on this issue in many arenas. Be careful which side of the fence you end up on. Harm reduction is popular with some but in no way represents the "majority" of people.

I spent years singing the mantra of pretty-please...doesn't work. Exemptions via ballot majority vote apparently didn't work either.

Mr Bill loves his smokeless tobacco and calling dissenters to his logic "zealots". I respect his efforts and energy but he has accrued many enemies even in his own anti-smoking group.

Compromising is how all of these bans became law, smokers acquiessed, personally speaking...I will not be bending over once again.

 

[ladyraj]

This goes out to all CASAA officials.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo.../53135-attention-all-va-lawyers-who-vape.html

Can you guys help us here? I do not have the resources to hire a lawyer. Nor will I be taken seriously if I contact them personally as I work in the industry. I implore the CASAA board to get involved with this and help us.

Your job DEPENDS on the terminology of what the DoH writes so you're vetted to make a case.

Something I've been thinking of...not fleshed out, but perhaps this avenue:

Mac, smokers are a protected class in Virginia along with 28 other states in regards to hiring and employment issues.
American Lung Association

G. Smoking Protection Laws
Regrettably, 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of smoker protection legislation that prohibits some or all employers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees based on their use of tobacco products. The American Lung Association does not support elevating smokers to a protected class.
Other States targeted for lobbying:

American Lung Association
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902
My comment: if your employment depends on PVs use in a specific area then you may as a citizen ask for protection of your employment. I's a spin and a longshot...but how much will you work if the DoH adds PV terminology?

Ebactment of the ban regarding PVs will close your kiosk correct?. Therefore they are hindering your ability for gainful employment.

It's strange logic but what say you?

 

[Vocalek]

Mac: Your request for help has not been turned down. Yvilla merely responded (quite properly) that she could not take action without consulting with the rest of the board. She has brought it forward for discussion. Stay tuned for further developments.

Meanwhile, I have written to my State Delegate, Dave Albo, for help. I wrote to him about electronic cigarettes several months ago when he asked consituents what was on their mind. He wrote back and congratulated me for quitting smoking.

Dear Dave:

I need your help. On December 1, 2009, an amendment to the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act went into effect. 15.2-2820

An employee at the Virginia Department of Health has taken it upon himself to revise the law to include "electronic cigarettes". I found this on the new FAQ page about the ban.

Restaurants and smoking in Virginia FAQS

Are electronic cigarettes banned under the new law?
Electronic cigarettes are considered cigarettes and are banned in the same locations affected by the new law.

In the Definitions section of the new law, "Smoking" is defined as follows:

"Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or holding of any lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting, inhaling, or exhaling of smoke from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind.

Did the Virginia Legislature intend to outlaw anything that does not produce smoke? If the words "cigarette of any kind" are allowed to be applied to anything that remotely looks like a cigarette, then mint-flavored candy cigarettes are also banned, as are bubble-gum cigars, and prescription Nicotrol inhalers.

The term "electronic cigarette" is a figurative description, not a literal definition. Some of them resemble cigarettes, but not all of them do. They do not contain tobacco. Nothing is burned. They are not "lighted". They do not produce smoke.

The devices vaporize a small amount nicotine in a suspension of propylene glycol--the same chemical that is used to produce artificial fog in dance clubs and theatre productions. Most of the vapor is absorbed in the upper airways of the user. If any vapor at all is exhaled, it is a minute amount that dissipates quite quickly.

I am attaching a report on the extensive testing of the Ruyan e-cigarette cartridges conducted by Health New Zealand which states that the exhaled mist does not contain anything that is harmful to bystanders (see page 20).

The VDH employee responsible for this expansion of the Virginia Code is identified as follows:

Who at VDH can be contacted for additional information?
Gary Hagy, gary.hagy@vdh.virginia.gov
(804) 864-7455

As I have told you previously, I smoked tobacco cigarettes for 45 years. In March, I was able to totally substitute the e-cigarette for all of my tobacco cigarettes and my health has improved dramatically. I have been showing mine to every smoker I see. The ban on indoor smoking is a wonderful opportunity to convert more tobacco smokers to this cleaner method of taking care of their nicotine needs—but not if these, too, are banned.


Can you help?

 

[skydragon]

But, Mr Bill is losing ground on this issue in many arenas. Be careful which side of the fence you end up on. Harm reduction is popular with some but in no way represents the "majority" of people.

I spent years singing the mantra of pretty-please...doesn't work. Exemptions via ballot majority vote apparently didn't work either.

Mr Bill loves his smokeless tobacco and calling dissenters to his logic "zealots". I respect his efforts and energy but he has accrued many enemies even in his own anti-smoking group.

Compromising is how all of these bans became law, smokers acquiessed, personally speaking...I will not be bending over once again.

I am with you. Compromising is exactly how these bans became law. We can not afford to be complacent about e-cigs. Even if a case is won in regards to proving the smoking ban does not include e-cigs, they will just rewrite it to make sure it does. It would be a very short lived victory. Anyone who thinks the continuation of compromises, begging or even logic will work, is deluding themselves.

 

[skydragon]

Your job DEPENDS on the terminology of what the DoH writes so you're vetted to make a case.

Something I've been thinking of...not fleshed out, but perhaps this avenue:

Mac, smokers are a protected class in Virginia along with 28 other states in regards to hiring and employment issues.
American Lung Association

G. Smoking Protection Laws
Regrettably, 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of smoker protection legislation that prohibits some or all employers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees based on their use of tobacco products. The American Lung Association does not support elevating smokers to a protected class.
Other States targeted for lobbying:

American Lung Association
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902
My comment: if your employment depends on PVs use in a specific area then you may as a citizen ask for protection of your employment. I's a spin and a longshot...but how much will you work if the DoH adds PV terminology?

Ebactment of the ban regarding PVs will close your kiosk correct?. Therefore they are hindering your ability for gainful employment.

It's strange logic but what say you?

I rather like your "strange" logic. Those are the types of cases that often win.

 

[Mac]

Mac: Your request for help has not been turned down. Yvilla merely responded (quite properly) that she could not take action without consulting with the rest of the board. She has brought it forward for discussion. Stay tuned for further developments.

Meanwhile, I have written to my State Delegate, Dave Albo, for help. I wrote to him about electronic cigarettes several months ago when he asked consituents what was on their mind. He wrote back and congratulated me for quitting smoking.

I was kinda going off webby's response more then hers. Somehow I thought he was the leader and was saying that CASAA's resources would better be used for public awareness. If I misunderstood I apologize. I am so upset right now. I don't understand how individuals can spread misinformation on a government website and essentially rewrite our laws skirting due process. I am horrified by this.

 

[Mac]

Your job DEPENDS on the terminology of what the DoH writes so you're vetted to make a case.

Something I've been thinking of...not fleshed out, but perhaps this avenue:

Mac, smokers are a protected class in Virginia along with 28 other states in regards to hiring and employment issues.
American Lung Association

G. Smoking Protection Laws
Regrettably, 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of smoker protection legislation that prohibits some or all employers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees based on their use of tobacco products. The American Lung Association does not support elevating smokers to a protected class.
Other States targeted for lobbying:

American Lung Association
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902
My comment: if your employment depends on PVs use in a specific area then you may as a citizen ask for protection of your employment. I's a spin and a longshot...but how much will you work if the DoH adds PV terminology?

Ebactment of the ban regarding PVs will close your kiosk correct?. Therefore they are hindering your ability for gainful employment.

It's strange logic but what say you?

I considered this as well. As it stands (and I now have reassurance from a lawyer) that FAQ is NOT legally binding. It is an opinion. The letter of the law is clear. However. If the verbiage changed. Or enforcement action were taken our kiosk would be a target. We would be allowed to remain open but could not allow our customers to sample the product before buying. Esentially making us a web business with mall rent. Yes. This would put us out of business fairly quickly. We have a strong customer base buying cartridges but it won't be enough to survive without adding new customers. Especially considering how much money we lose due to warranty replacements. We give away a few thousand dollars worth of replacements monthly. I am going to foward that VA code to the lawyer advising me and see what she thinks.