KENTUCKY: Statwide Bill Proposed to Ban Smoking and Vaping

[RooksGambit]

Here's the link to the KY Legislature page.

HB 193/LM (BR 417) - S. Westrom, D. Watkins
AN ACT prohibiting smoking in all public places and places of employment.[...]
Jan 6-introduced in House

And the bill itself, which includes:

(17) "Smoke" or "smoking" means:
(a) The carrying, smoking, burning, inhaling, or exhaling of any kind of heated or lighted cigar, cigarette, hookah, lighted pipe, plant material intended for inhalation, or any other lighted smoking equipment;
(b) The use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form; and
(c) The use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in Section 3 of this Act; [...]

Not precisely a News story, but something an observant vaper found last night. I didn't see this posted in any of the relevent sections at a glance. Thanks to Tom09.

 

[Vocalek]

Regarding 17(c): This is utter nonsense. The Kentucky legislature is pretending that they know better than you do what your motives are. To these narcissists, it is obvious that the only reason you could have for using an "oral smoking device" is to defy them. You couldn't possibly have any other motive.

And item 17(c) fully explains why they included 17(b). It has nothing to do with clean air. It has nothing to do with health. It has to do with their egos. "How dare you defy me!"

The fact that they included article 17(c) tells us where this came from. The propaganda being spewed by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and Campaign for tobacco-free Kids has been urging the passage of legislation including e-cigarettes in smoking bans and has specifially mentioned the idea that they are used for the purpose of circumventing bans on indoor smoking.

 

[Vocalek]

The sponsors:

Representative Susan Westrom (D)

House District 79
Fayette (part)
Mailing Address
PO Box 22778
Lexington KY 40522
Frankfort Address(es)
702 Capitol Ave
Annex Room 352
Frankfort KY 40601
Phone Number(s)
Annex: (502) 564-8100 Ext. 740
Work: (859) 266-7581
Email Address(es)
Annex: Susan.Westrom@lrc.ky.gov

Representative David Watkins (D)

House District 11
Henderson (part)
Mailing Address
5600 Timberlane Drive
Henderson KY 42420
Frankfort Address(es)
702 Capitol Ave
Annex Room 429H
Frankfort KY 40601
Phone Number(s)
Home: (270) 826-0952
Home: (270) 826-3338 (fax)
Annex: (502) 564-8100 Ext. 700
Email Address(es)
Annex: David.Watkins@lrc.ky.gov

 

[Zapp and Roger]

Thanks for gathering those links.

 

[MoonRose]

Grrrr ... I've got half a mind to pay a visit to Mr. David Watkins (he only lives about 30 minutes from me) and let him have an ear full about why I use an e-cig ... and it's not to circumvent stupid smoking laws either. E-cigs are literally saving my life, I'm now off of both my B/P meds now that I'm no longer smoking tobacco cigarettes.

 

[jj2]

Come Monday, it's time to hit the phones. And, yes, the phones, emails are being ignored.

 

[toriL]

The thing is that all of these groups mentioned above as well as our Govt. are so used to pushing smokers around and dictating what smokers may and may not do, that now they believe they can lengthen their reach & dictate even to those who are no longer "Smokers"...

Smokers feel guilty about being smokers and know it is unhealthy and a poor life choice, therefor they don't fight for their rights and have effectively given them up to these anti smoking groups and local, State, and Federal Governments who want to dictate the conditions by which smokers may smoke all the while continuing to tax smokers beyond belief. What can smokers do but abide by the rules and laws? Surely smokers won't fight for their right to kill themselves and possibly others, even most smokers know what they are doing to themselves is harmful, so we/they just do as we are ordered to do and pay what we are legally bound to pay.

Now they want to extend their controls & regulations & taxation beyond tobacco smokers to vapers. They expect us to behave as the guilt ridden smokers we were... but we aren't smokers now and that's what they don't get.

I have no guilt about vaping like I did about smoking and have no desire to sit by and watch them slowly take away my freedom to vape.

grrrrrrr.... it makes me soooo angry!

 

[Petrodus]

The thing is that all of these groups mentioned above as well as our Govt. are so used to pushing smokers around and dictating what smokers may and may not do.....

Excellent summary!

 

[Petrodus]

Banned: Welcome to Nanny State Nation

 

[RooksGambit]

toriL, we're a tobacco product now. Our plight is exactly the same as the smokers. I don't like smoke anymore, either, but I know that second hand is next to harmless to me. That and we're, all of us, in the same boat.

The phones is a good idea, I'll be calling on Monday as well. I'm working on gathering all the relevent documents from the various vapers resources out there, to snail and e-mail to those folks. Thanks to Vocalek for all the contact info.

 

[toriL]

toriL, we're a tobacco product now. Our plight is exactly the same as the smokers. I don't like smoke anymore, either, but I know that second hand is next to harmless to me. That and we're, all of us, in the same boat.

yes, nicotine comes from tobacco and the FDA is supposed to treat ecigs as they do regular cigs. I was more talking about as people, smokers are not likely to stand up against bans and such because everyone realizes smoking is dangerous to self and others. Vaping is different and speaking for myself only I can say I don't have the shame and guilt about vaping that I did about smoking and so therefor I WILL stand up for my rights, which as a smoker I couldn't do or justify.

 

[RooksGambit]

I never felt guilt from being a smoker, honestly. Smoking's bad for the smoker, absolutely. I've not seen a single scientific study that actually shows second hand smoke is harmful to anyone. Those professionals who conducted the OSHA study on SHS found the notion to be laughable after running their numbers. And OSHA is an organization I actually trust. Funny how when they were tapped to do the study that no one actually used it. Because it demonstrated the oposite of those results that were desired.

You "know" smoking is bad for those around you for the same reason that non-vapers will "know" that vaping is bad for them if they're around it. Because people and agencies in positions of power are telling them lies to forward an agenda. Just like they've lied to you about SHS all these years.

My point being. We have an opportunity to stop vapers being denormalized like the smokers before it starts, and this is a good step in that direction. The problem, of course, is telling our State governing body that yes, we do know more about this than you do, and we find no reason to ban their use in public, now would you kindly .... out? And then doing so in a diplomatic manner. I'm glad you've left your smoker's guilt behind and plan on contributing to the fight, though! At the local level is where we can be the most influential and every body helps.

 

[kristin]

toriL, we're a tobacco product now. Our plight is exactly the same as the smokers.

the FDA is supposed to treat ecigs as they do regular cigs.

Two VERY important things to remember:

1. E-cigs have NOT been officially catagorized as tobacco products YET.

2. "Tobacco product" does not mean "cigarette." All cigarettes are tobacco products but not all tobacco products are cigarettes. There are a lot of tobacco products and many of them are smokeless and low-risk. There is absolutely no reason for e-cigarettes to be treated as high-risk tobacco products. So don't assume that when e-cigarettes ARE classified as tobacco products that they will be treated like cigarettes. Other smokeless tobacco users do not recieve the same treatment as smokers and neither should e-cigarette users - that is the goal.

 

[RooksGambit]

On point 1, you are absolutely correct. The Federal Court simply stated that that's how they should be regulated. They technically haven't been classified yet. I put the cart before the horse on that one.

On point 2: They already are being treated like cigarettes. Just look at the recent bans. And treating them like other non-cigarette tobacco products isn't necessarily an umbrella of protection either. The university campus here in my town has a full blown tobacco ban. Including snus, chew, disolvables and PVs. The oral products are literally impossible to enforce, but PVs are a different matter. It's easy enough to tell when someone is using one.

This is the problem we're going to have now. PVs are going to get lumped in with cigarettes at every opportunity.

You haven't posted at any of the other forums I check regularly, Kristin. It's good to see you're still around.

 

[kristin]

On point 1, you are absolutely correct. The Federal Court simply stated that that's how they should be regulated. They technically haven't been classified yet. I put the cart before the horse on that one.

On point 2: They already are being treated like cigarettes. Just look at the recent bans. And treating them like other non-cigarette tobacco products isn't necessarily an umbrella of protection either. The university campus here in my town has a full blown tobacco ban. Including snus, chew, disolvables and PVs. The oral products are literally impossible to enforce, but PVs are a different matter. It's easy enough to tell when someone is using one.

This is the problem we're going to have now. PVs are going to get lumped in with cigarettes at every opportunity.

You haven't posted at any of the other forums I check regularly, Kristin. It's good to see you're still around.

Yep - that is why I said it's the goal to not have them treated the same as cigarettes. That's the goal of harm reduction advocacy - both for e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Never said the fight was over - just trying to get vapers to see that not all is lost - yet. We have many battles ahead. But at least as a tobacco product, the FDA can't ban them outright while we fight for reduced harm classification. We must keep our eye on the prize and not become resigned to being ostracized again. To do that is to truly lose.

Good to see you too, Rooks!

 

[TandT]

I'm encouraged by the proposed ban because it will mean that more smokers might be motivated to try e-cigs. At the same time, I'm discouraged by the prospect that vapers would lose the freedom to vape in public. But, the main thing is that vaping becomes officially regulated under tobacco legislation someday, so that it can't be totally banned. We'll just have to deal with restrictions on vaping like smokers have to deal with restrictions on tobacco...but that sure beats an outright ban!

 

[MrsAngelD]

This is laughable coming from a state who uses tobacco as a Major income.

 

[Vocalek]

This topic is also being discussed in the Bluegrass Vapers social forum. I was asked to provide some guidance on how to fight the ban. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing-vaping-ban-bill-introduced-jan-6-a-2.html

 

[Phreaker]

Grrrr ... I've got half a mind to pay a visit to Mr. David Watkins (he only lives about 30 minutes from me) and let him have an ear full about why I use an e-cig ... and it's not to circumvent stupid smoking laws either. E-cigs are literally saving my life, I'm now off of both my B/P meds now that I'm no longer smoking tobacco cigarettes.

You should! I've emailed both of them. Thank you RooksGambit and Vocalek

 

[Bustastew]

Boy cot KFC fried chicken!