Combating a small issue before it becomes big.

[Turnkeys]

I just became aware of an administrative policy updated for Washington State's Department of Social & Health Services (DSHS) employees that is poorly worded and appears to attempt to ban PVs by implication. The approving author Glen Christopherson, looks like one of those I'd disagree with on most topics. (after reading some background on him.)

The policy defines electronic cigarettes and cites RCW Chapter 70.160 as it's authorizing source. My issue (one of many) is that the policy doesn't mention e-cigarettes after the definition, and the cited RCW dosen't mention them at all. So my interpretation is that it has no teeth.

Before I open up a dialog with this liberal, I thought I'd seek opinions. This isn't my work place, I'm advocating for my girlfriend, the dozen or so vapers in her office, and those in other offices around the state. I view this toothless policy as a dangerous seed and I'd prefer to address it before it grows.

Comments very welcome.

 

[martinc]

God I love my job in the basement of my government-run hospital...

I am no legal expert,but its clearly stated electronic cigarettes,got to be addressed indeed.

Seems like everybody from all lvl of government there is trying to be the 1st to pass a law or help passing one and have its name etched forever in some obscure books.

Keep in mind that thse bureaucrats from their high-rise offices dont/didnt have/had a clue until probably 1 ******* complained to another then up the ladder it went...all misinformed people through and through (and sadly,they probably want to continue to bask in their ignorance)

 

[BGabe]

IMO, they can ban e-cig style batteries. They can ban the sale of liquid nicotine. But, they CAN NOT ban the sale of flashlight batteries (the kinds we use in mods) or boxes to house the batteries. Nor can they ban the sale of kanthal / nichrome and silica wick. Let's not forget PG, VG and food flavorings. I say, let them do it. They be able to ban me from doing it publicly, but I'm still going to do it regardless of what they ban.

 

[Turnkeys]

God I love my job in the basement of my government-run hospital...

I am no legal expert,but its clearly stated electronic cigarettes,got to be addressed indeed.

I hear ya. My boss just sniffs the air and asks me what I'm vaping. But yeah, that's why I wanna nip this now.

IMO, they can ban e-cig style batteries. They can ban the sale of liquid nicotine. But, they CAN NOT ban the sale of flashlight batteries (the kinds we use in mods) or boxes to house the batteries. Nor can they ban the sale of kanthal / nichrome and silica wick. Let's not forget PG, VG and food flavorings. I say, let them do it. They be able to ban me from doing it publicly, but I'm still going to do it regardless of what they ban.

Sure they can ban batteries and liquid nicotine, but why should we allow it? I *could* learn how to extract the nicotine myself, but that's more PITA than I want to endure.

 

[DC2]

I say, let them do it.

What about the thousands of smokers that are dying every week?
Shouldn't they get the opportunity to learn about these life-saving devices?

 

[TennDave]

Our school system quietly put e-cigs under the no-smoking ban that was already in place. Immediately, the signs around the schools changed from "Smoke-Free Zone" to "Tobacco Free Zone." I'm not suppose to use an e-cig on the property at all- not even in my car at the far end of the parking lot. I have to leave school grounds. The reason was "for the children," as usual... I told my principal that having a vaper's area where smoking areas used to be (out of eye sight of kids- behind the cafeteria, near their loading dock) would have been a better idea. She agreed (and is very happy that I quite smoking with e-cigs), but apparently is bound to the rules of the school board and is expected to enforce the "no- tobacco" rule.

 

[BGabe]

What about the thousands of smokers that are dying every week?
Shouldn't they get the opportunity to learn about these life-saving devices?

In the end, it doesn't matter how many times or how many people ask them not to do it. If a politician has already decided in their head what they want, the people have lost their right to make the decision. I'm not saying I like the fact, that's just how America works these days. Its not for the people anymore, its for popularity.

 

[DC2]

In the end, it doesn't matter how many times or how many people ask them not to do it. If a politician has already decided in their head what they want, the people have lost their right to make the decision. I'm not saying I like the fact, that's just how America works these days. Its not for the people anymore, its for popularity.

This is not entirely true though.

When the people make their voices heard, the politicians have no choice but to listen.
The problem is that people don't care enough to make their voices heard.

Either that, or they have taken the attitude that it doesn't matter anyway.
When in fact it does.

As a group, we as vapers with the help of CASAA have changed the minds of many politicians already.
And if we continue growing, and continue fighting, we have a chance.

The minute we give up, we lose.
And when we lose, millions of smokers die.

 

[damitintrblagain]

Our school system quietly put e-cigs under the no-smoking ban that was already in place. Immediately, the signs around the schools changed from "Smoke-Free Zone" to "Tobacco Free Zone." I'm not suppose to use an e-cig on the property at all- not even in my car at the far end of the parking lot. I have to leave school grounds. The reason was "for the children," as usual... I told my principal that having a vaper's area where smoking areas used to be (out of eye sight of kids- behind the cafeteria, near their loading dock) would have been a better idea. She agreed (and is very happy that I quite smoking with e-cigs), but apparently is bound to the rules of the school board and is expected to enforce the "no- tobacco" rule.

These non smokers---I see a knee jerk reaction when they see the smoke! Even though it has been explained to them it is only water vapor, not smoke. They seem annoyed by the smoke, even though they know it is harmless. They appear to believe you have circumvented any objection they may have and undermined their miniscule allotment of power. Thus they try to rid themselves (and everyone else) of the annoyance.

I believe this is similar to public reaction to legalize mJ. It is already approved for medical purposes in many states. This is why I believe it is best left alone. Too many people do not agree. Try not to draw attention to this.

 

[rothenbj]

Our school system quietly put e-cigs under the no-smoking ban that was already in place. Immediately, the signs around the schools changed from "Smoke-Free Zone" to "Tobacco Free Zone." I'm not suppose to use an e-cig on the property at all- not even in my car at the far end of the parking lot. I have to leave school grounds. The reason was "for the children," as usual... I told my principal that having a vaper's area where smoking areas used to be (out of eye sight of kids- behind the cafeteria, near their loading dock) would have been a better idea. She agreed (and is very happy that I quite smoking with e-cigs), but apparently is bound to the rules of the school board and is expected to enforce the "no- tobacco" rule.

Thus the beauty of snus and other smokeless products that are discrete.

 

[Bill Godshall]

turnkeys is correct.

Although the revised DSHS policy (revised July, 1, 2012) now states that e-cigarette use is banned at all DSHS facilities, the 2006 Washington State law (that the revised DSHS policy cites as its Authorizing Source and Purpose) doesn't ban the use of e-cigarettes, but instead has the following defininition:

(1) "Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or smoking of any kind of lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking equipment.
RCW 70.160.020: Definitions.

I don't know the procedure(s) utilized by Washington State agencies to change personnel policies, but human resource directors of most state government agencies don't have the legal authority to change personnel policies on their own.

The folks who would know about this (and what action can be taken against Glen Christopherson) are the stewards and/or heads of labor unions that have collective bargaining agreements with DSHS. I suspect that DSHS Administrative Policy No. 18.65 also violates their collective bargaining agreements.