"Health Officials" bust vendors, promoters at NJ Vape Expo

[mcclintock]

^^ I said probably violates the letter of the law. Private clubs could still have non-smokers in them, although I don't know why they'd be members if the didn't like what goes on there. I guess there is a tendency for there to be few smoke-free options when business owners have their choice. OTOH there is an exemption for tobacco retailers, maybe they should have taken that route. My point is, unless the intent of the law was to be twisted into harassing purposes, the intent doesn't apply here. The letter of the law says that, if necessary, you go to court and decide if the intent was violated.

 

[vdrummer]

I live in NJ and actually meant to attend this thing but completely forgot. I guess that shows how interested I am in a vaping Convention. Anyone who lives here knows this is the No Fun State. If its fun you most likely can't do it. The nature of the beast.

That is a fact. NJ is the NoFunState. It is also the TaxYouEvenWhenYouAreDead State as well. One of the few things (though likely to change very soon) is we have is some of the cheapest gas in the country, and some of the nicest countryside once you get out of the NY Metro area.

 

[DC2]

I love it. Most vendors in the ecig biz have claimed they can't afford $120 to test a bottle of their eliquid, but now suddenly everyone can afford an armada of attorneys to bring a lawsuit over a $250 fine they received.

Unreal.

Of course the vendors are not going to join the lawsuit.
I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not that means they can afford to test a bottle of eliquid.

I said it would be better if they would.
And of course it WOULD be better if they would.

I thought that would be obvious, but I suppose "unreal" is a an option as well.


Anyway, I totally agree with Bill Godshall on this...

But this is an excellent opportunity for the vaping industry (i.e. the ones who were issued citations in NJ) to challenge the the 2009 NJ vaping ban in court (by pleading Not Guilty to the citations) arguing that the NJ legislature disingenuously and improperly redefined the word "smoking" to include the use of smokefree vapor products, and to point out that vaping poses none of the risks to the public that secondhand smoke poses.

 

[DC2]

in fact I really feel due to the nature of the steam production this should be r4eserved for the comfort of one sown abode.

With friends like you...

 

[stevegmu]

Where can I get that nicotine water before the FDA shuts them down?

 

[Jman8]

the raise the speed limit defense was hilarious to me as an attorney(retired). that is like something from a cheech and chong movie or Harold and kumar or something. I guess you can just totally .......ize the law and get away with for it for some time but what about morality?

What about it?

there is a speed limit and no smoking signs for a damn good reason. it is for everyone's safety and right not to be harassed. many people do not vape and blowing clouds in a restaurant I personally as a vaper can see as being very offensive.

You can't see how vaping indoors, in say a restaurant, can be done respectfully? If not, I question your sense of morality and integrity (as an attorney).

however in Wisconsin the genius walker did in fact raise it to 80mph "because everyone goes that anyways". these are really the politicians we do not need.

It's 70 in Wisconsin. I am yet to meet someone that dislikes this.

vaping may be harmless to others but many rules have much bigger implications at stake. a wreck at 80mph is a damn shame. not to mention people will now go 95 anyways. that is very dangerous.

Again, it's 70. I, who raised this point earlier, fully acknowledge that people will go 85 under this new raised limit. I would say anything over 77, and you are pushing idea that you may be caught. But driving 71 in a 70 mph zone, would be like taking a single puff from an eCig in a restaurants restroom that has prohibited vaping. IOW, the chances of you ever being caught doing that are between zero and .000001%

I just do not subscribe to a disregard of the law and the rights of others. no matter how frivolous they may seem.

So you always drive at, or under the speed limit? All your life?

in regard to the topic at hand I am sure the law enforcement was within it's jurisdiction. they are not stupid. sure, in the end it was about money for one reason or another. still, it appears they were within their jurisdiction to do so. you vape in there than go down to a returant and vape there. where does it stop? with no laws the society would fall to anarchy.

Pertinent question being asked on this thread (as has already been asked) is where does it stop going the other way. According to how this was enforced and how law is written, it is plausibly illegal to vape in your own home if you have people visiting (members of the public). Really wouldn't matter if it is outdoors, as Act does make note of that.

The order to enforce this law at this time, was stupid. That is obviously going to be disagreed with, but it is obvious the organizers will fight back on this, and unless you are a vaper that lacks integrity, you'd be wise to support the organizers. Doesn't mean you have to think their event was perfectly run or anything that is tangential to quality of the event, but on this fundamental issue that is far more pertinent to politics of vaping in 2015 than FDA deeming, it matters significantly what side of the aisle you fall on.

I am first and fore most a vapor but I have no problem living within the law. it may seem to be a nuisance at times but there is almost always good reasoning behind it.

I could choose any number of historical instances where laws were oppressive, then broken in an "in your face" type way, and now are overturned for the ludicrous nature of the past understandings is plainly seen. Those who did the in your face approach are now deemed courageous heroes.

This law is, in this instance, saying even if you are on private property, having your own private event, and even if you have signed documents from all attendees (includes employees) saying they understand/fully accept what is going on (which is otherwise legal), and even if you have made contact with local health, fire, and related departments.... what trumps all of that is strict enforcement of a law that refers to what we use as "electronic smoking devices."

I honestly question your integrity as attorney to not see how utterly disastrous this sort of law can be when implemented under such scenarios.

you cannot just blow clouds where you please. that is a detriment to others. even if it is not harmful it is bothersome. plus do you really need to go take a puff in the bathroom?

You also don't need to take a puff when you're outdoors. It may not be harmful, but could plausibly be bothersome to others, and as you have no control over wind, you have no way of knowing where it will end up. So, no vaping in your car with windows down, if staying consistent with your rhetoric. Methinks, you'd show up inconsistent with your rhetoric if pushed, even a smidgeon, on this point.

if everyone had just kept this on the down low we would all be fine right now.

What about morality?

 

[Jman8]

I am sorry you guys see it that way. I really do not feel we are under attack. this is a pipe dream. I do feel it was about money as I stated. not in fact the law per se. however I think many people feel they can just do this anywhere because not is not smoking. you can get a ticket for taking your beer outside a bar. those that do so may feel outraged by the punishment for doing so. this is just ridiculous. no one has the right to do whatever they please. where does this end? you don't like someone so you can beat them down? I am sorry I am on the wrong side of this forum but you guys are not being irrational about this.

Where have you been rational about this? You keep pointing to idea that if this is fought against, then no law anywhere makes any sense.

I'd rather look directly at the language of the Act (as I have), make notes of what really doesn't make sense in what is written there (i.e. electronic smoking device) and then weigh that language with what occurred in this specific instance, and how it could plausibly apply to really any private party at anytime, where vaping is occurring. That is rational considerations in light of this issue. I care passionately about the NJ Expo political situation and line that has been drawn in the sand, but I very much recognize this goes beyond NJ and is a wake up call for vaping community.

The electronic smoking device thing is good place to start with scrutiny and demonstration of how irrational this situation is from its inception. Nothing about our devices incorporates / uses smoke or smoking. Defending that designation for the devices we use would take someone that really has no clue on what vaping devices look like, or how they function. If you, as attorney, can present rational case for how that is applicable term to the devices that were used, I'd like to hear it. Instead, I think you or anyone would probably go with, "you know that they meant." Which would be quite interesting in both a court of law and with sense of integrity on the table. That the Act admits there is no known harms associated with vaping / SHV and only alludes to "may be" harmful with "potentially" toxic chemicals after (emphasize after) FDA further evaluates, really does strain credible understandings of what this law is even for. It is for smoking, obviously, and hence just as easy to say the devices that produce vapor, must be smoking devices (which is precisely the language they chose). Then add in the whole allusions to harms of SHS, and implications of harms associated with SHV, and well integrity just left the building. Bye bye integrity. We don't need you anymore, for we just done let emotional hype onto the theatrical stage of "law enforcement."

Then add in the whole aspect of public / private, plus all the exceptions which clearly amount to "who is willing to pay us the most money to ensure that we will not enforce this ridiculous Act on you" and well, there is a hotbed issue for vaping advocates to push against. Hard. Unless, you know, you kinda secretly dig oppression and are comfortable with irrational arguments while keeping integrity as far away as possible.

 

[Jman8]

As someone here has already suggested vaping in a pediatrician's office waiting room (as some kind of mis directed "activism"), most balanced people will begin to distance themselves from this stuff.....it's yet to be seen how many times vaping industry and vapers can shoot themselves in the foot

Who here has suggested vaping in a pediatrician's office waiting room?

I'm fairly sure you can't back this up with a quote, and like most of your ill conceived posts, demonstrates which side of the political aisle you favor. The one where industry is decimated cause you can't bring yourself to doing your own testing on your own liquids, because (sniff sniff), that costs money.

 

[Jman8]

There is absolutely nothing in the NJ Clean Air Act which states private clubs or events are exempt...

Which is why it is ludicrous and why some rules are meant to be broken. Meant to be undone.

 

[stevegmu]

Which is why it is ludicrous and why some rules are meant to be broken. Meant to be undone.

That's what the courts are for...

 

[crxess]

nic_fix,
I would Love to be able to read what you are posting. Every opinion matters and gives incite into how people see the problem.

I just wish you would use Breaks and paragraphs because be the first few lines all I can see is a blur of letters.

I am sorry I am on the wrong side of this forum but you guys are not being irrational about this

I did catch this from a Quote.
You need to re-think your thinking, then proof read what you type.

You Equate an event for Vapors only being RAIDED with Vapors going Smack Down?
Lawyer or no, your thought process is flawed.

Speed limit 70 - Approach highway by on ramp accelerating to EXACTLY 70.
Maintain EXACTLY 70 on entry to the highway.
Heavy traffic and you cannot Merge - Maintain 70, Stay on the Shoulder MAINTAINING 70 to the next off ramp.
Exit and go home.
You do not belong in situations of conflict.

 

[Jman8]

That's what the courts are for...

And before it goes to courts, it takes people breaking the laws that are ludicrous.

If the law is "don't blow vapor directly into people's faces that do not want this," I believe everyone reading this would agree.

If the law is (instead) "don't blow vapor anywhere that is a place someone may be offended by, even if they are not present," then where in reality could one vape? Perhaps you say, your own home. And I'd grant that, but only if a) the windows and doors are fully shut, and b) you never ever vape outdoors on your own property as that may offend someone, even if they are not present.

Everyone present at NJ Expo (including Vitale, based on signed agreement he made) was very accepting of vapor being blown around them. Thus, this really is a situation where based on pics floating around or stories being told to hype up how dangerous SHS might be, is saying "if it might offend people, that are not present, it shouldn't be done there."

 

[stevegmu]

And before it goes to courts, it takes people breaking the laws that are ludicrous.

If the law is "don't blow vapor directly into people's faces that do not want this," I believe everyone reading this would agree.

If the law is (instead) "don't blow vapor anywhere that is a place someone may be offended by, even if they are not present," then where in reality could one vape? Perhaps you say, your own home. And I'd grant that, but only if a) the windows and doors are fully shut, and b) you never ever vape outdoors on your own property as that may offend someone, even if they are not present.

Everyone present at NJ Expo (including Vitale, based on signed agreement he made) was very accepting of vapor being blown around them. Thus, this really is a situation where based on pics floating around or stories being told to hype up how dangerous SHS might be, is saying "if it might offend people, that are not present, it shouldn't be done there."

That's not how intelligent, mature adults do things in today's society...
The organizers tried to circumvent the law in an amateurish way and it backfired...

 

[Jman8]

That's not how intelligent, mature adults do things in today's society...

Sure it is. Just cause you can put these words together doesn't make you a mature, intelligent adult.

The organizers tried to circumvent the law in an amateurish way and it backfired...

They tried to circumvent the law (your words) by getting everyone at a private party, on private property to sign an agreement of membership saying they are fully aware that vaping will be present and that they are okay with being around this, then circumvented the law by contacting / corresponding / getting assurances from local health, fire and other governmental bodies.

So amateurish of them.

 

[stevegmu]

Sure it is. Just cause you can put these words together doesn't make you a mature, intelligent adult.



They tried to circumvent the law (your words) by getting everyone at a private party, on private property to sign an agreement of membership saying they are fully aware that vaping will be present and that they are okay with being around this, then circumvented the law by contacting / corresponding / getting assurances from local health, fire and other governmental bodies.

So amateurish of them.

Can you provide the section of the Clean Air Act which states as long as everyone agrees, the law is void? I don't believe they had a waiver, or it wouldn't have been a gongshow...
I think the whole myth of private clubs being exempt came about when smoking restrictions ramped up. I was in Virginia at the time and there was talk of restaurants and clubs becoming private and charging $1 for a lifetime membership. oddly, that ploy never worked...

 

[crxess]

Can you provide the section of the Clean Air Act which states as long as everyone agrees, the law is void? I don't believe they had a waiver, or it wouldn't have been a gongshow...

If the Act does no specifically mention any type of available one time Waiver then your point is moot.
Per your words the law is the law - even a waiver would be invalid and the Casinos ARE in Violation of the Clean Air Act.

Civil Laws were made to make money. They are all part of the governmental revenue stream.

It is Clear the Letter of the law mattered at the Convention while the Intent of the Law is applied to the Casinos. This is an unjust usage of the law as it is written and reasonable to challenge.

 

[Wow1420]

They tried to circumvent the law (your words) by getting everyone at a private party, on private property to sign an agreement of membership saying they are fully aware that vaping will be present and that they are okay with being around this, then circumvented the law by contacting / corresponding / getting assurances from local health, fire and other governmental bodies.

So amateurish of them.

Why would they go to local officials for a waiver from a State law?

 

[stevegmu]

If the Act does no specifically mention any type of available one time Waiver then your point is moot.
Per your words the law is the law - even a waiver would be invalid and the Casinos ARE in Violation of the Clean Air Act.

Civil Laws were made to make money. They are all part of the governmental revenue stream.

It is Clear the Letter of the law mattered at the Convention while the Intent of the Law is applied to the Casinos. This is an unjust usage of the law as it is written and reasonable to challenge.

There was talk of a waiver in the videos. If no such waiver is possible, they organizers knowingly violated the law, which is worse.....
I'm sure if a poll were taken the vast majority of NJ voters would agree with the law...I'm sure most wouldn't even want the casinos to be exempt...

 

[Mazinny]

Radio interview with Joe Vitale on the subject. From PBusardo's site.

 

[stevegmu]

I found out where they went wrong. The organizers thought they were in New York...

1. Enclosed rooms in food service establishments, bars, catering halls, convention halls, hotel and motel conference rooms, and other such similar facilities during the time such enclosed areas or rooms are being used exclusively for functions where the public is invited for the primary purpose of promoting and sampling tobacco products, and the service of food and drink is incidental to such purpose, provided that the sponsor or organizer gives notice in any promotional material or advertisements that smoking will not be restricted, and prominently posts notice at the entrance of the facility and has provided notice of such function to the appropriate enforcement officer, as defined in subdivision one of section thirteen hundred ninety-nine-t of this article, at least two weeks prior to such function. The enforcement officer shall keep a record of all tobacco sampling events, and such record shall be made available for public inspection. No such facility shall permit smoking under this subdivision for more than two days in any calendar year.

State of New York - Regulation of Smoking in Public and Work Places

Everything they claim they did would be applicable to an event in NY, but not in NJ...