What I don't understand is that some there are vapers out there who don't have any nicotine at all in their e-juice. So in reality, this is really a battle between us and the pharmaceutical companies.
Los angeles bans e-cigs
- Thread starter andls
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Someone needs to give an e-cig to that councilman who has smoked for 40 years!!! I have smoked for 15 years and after 3 days vaping, I knew my gross habit was DOA...and thankfully so.
Someone slip one to his wife!
Someone slip one to his wife!
I'm thinking that if a person can afford to defend themselves properly they'd be able to fight the so called charges, in the case of a no nicotine situation, and win. Unfortunately most people can't afford it .
Perhaps there is a legal defense foundation, or we could get together and set one up to try these laws in court. It seems clear to me that big tobacco is trying to clamp down on vaping in order to protect their market share, which gets shreded as soon as somebody picks up a PV.
Win it on what grounds? No nic? I think this law encompasses even that. It's perfectly legal to make stupid laws as long as they do not infringe on your constitutional rights and are enacted by an official legislative body. In L.A's case... it was.
i.e., just because you prove a law is asinine doesn't repeal or nullify it. (If only...
)All moot of course. Even if you learned how to vape nic-free juice out your ...-hole it would still be considered "smoking" even though "smoking" is not what all the ban$ are about. The LA city council are just clueless and unwitting pawns in something much bigger. What's sad is they actually believe they are doing right.
Shoreline, et al, it's hideously expensive to take the appeals process up to the state supreme court level.
The State of Illinois has had basically two Indoor Clean Air acts passed. The first failed to take into account a 1913 decision by the Illinois State Supreme Court which ruled against the City of Zion's anti-smoking ordinance of the time (1913-9136 City of Zion v. Richard Behrens). Dozens of smokers deliberately violated the first Indoor Clean Act's provisions that were unconstitutional and got arrested and fined. They immediately appealed, using the 1913 decision as grounds. So, the Illinois Legislature had to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the bill to conform with that 1913 decision. Those were very cheap to appeal: only about $2,500-3,000 per case.
Now, without such an obvious defense as unconstitutionality, appealing any provision of the current Illinois Indoor Clean Air Act is thought to cost tens of thousands up to more than a hundred thousand dollars to take it to the Illinois State Supreme Court -- and there are still holes in that Act. And no attorney would take on such a case on contingency. Remember, in virtually all cases, you can't recover legal costs from the State. You're on your own in that department. (Would your exchecquer be up for such a whack? Mine wouldn't.)
With regard to prosecuting criminal conduct in the passage of these laws and ordinances, good luck! State Attorneys General are usually reluctant to investigate and prosecute such cases. In Illinois, for instance, the current State Attorney General has not prosecuted any legislator on any level in the state in the eleven years she's been in office. (She did try to have Rod Blagojevich temporarily removed from office after the Feds arrested him, but that was only because Blago and her father -- the Speaker of the Illinois House -- were constantly feuding.) All the criminal politicians -- City of Chicago aldermen, the various county commissioners, the governors -- in Illinois are prosecuted by the Feds on Federal beefs and do their time in various federal slammers. And all those guys violated state laws, too. So, you'd have to interest the Federal Attorney, and they usually have bigger fish to fry -- like governors.
Essentially, when these ordinances pass, there is no recourse.
The only thing you can do, and that's admittedly ineffective, is to boycott. And be sure to tell your prospective vendor why you won't do business with him or her.
And if you live in an affected jurisdiction, vote with your feet and move. That's what we'll be doing, when my wife retires.
The State of Illinois has had basically two Indoor Clean Air acts passed. The first failed to take into account a 1913 decision by the Illinois State Supreme Court which ruled against the City of Zion's anti-smoking ordinance of the time (1913-9136 City of Zion v. Richard Behrens). Dozens of smokers deliberately violated the first Indoor Clean Act's provisions that were unconstitutional and got arrested and fined. They immediately appealed, using the 1913 decision as grounds. So, the Illinois Legislature had to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the bill to conform with that 1913 decision. Those were very cheap to appeal: only about $2,500-3,000 per case.
Now, without such an obvious defense as unconstitutionality, appealing any provision of the current Illinois Indoor Clean Air Act is thought to cost tens of thousands up to more than a hundred thousand dollars to take it to the Illinois State Supreme Court -- and there are still holes in that Act. And no attorney would take on such a case on contingency. Remember, in virtually all cases, you can't recover legal costs from the State. You're on your own in that department. (Would your exchecquer be up for such a whack? Mine wouldn't.)
With regard to prosecuting criminal conduct in the passage of these laws and ordinances, good luck! State Attorneys General are usually reluctant to investigate and prosecute such cases. In Illinois, for instance, the current State Attorney General has not prosecuted any legislator on any level in the state in the eleven years she's been in office. (She did try to have Rod Blagojevich temporarily removed from office after the Feds arrested him, but that was only because Blago and her father -- the Speaker of the Illinois House -- were constantly feuding.) All the criminal politicians -- City of Chicago aldermen, the various county commissioners, the governors -- in Illinois are prosecuted by the Feds on Federal beefs and do their time in various federal slammers. And all those guys violated state laws, too. So, you'd have to interest the Federal Attorney, and they usually have bigger fish to fry -- like governors.
Essentially, when these ordinances pass, there is no recourse.
The only thing you can do, and that's admittedly ineffective, is to boycott. And be sure to tell your prospective vendor why you won't do business with him or her.
And if you live in an affected jurisdiction, vote with your feet and move. That's what we'll be doing, when my wife retires.
Last edited:
Is it legal to carry and dangle an ecig in the park so long as you don't blow them clouds?
I've seen peeps do that w/ an unlit cigar.
I've seen peeps do that w/ an unlit cigar.
When the vast majority of members on ECF won't even take "one minute" and join CASAA, which is FREE, there is no chance that anyone would set up a legal defense fund.
I was very happy to join CASAA, and I would encourage others to at least look at the idea.
Thank goodness that I do not live in Los Angeles. I can only hope that that type of ban never comes to Kentucky.
Couple of photos from the #IMPROOF/Save Vape LA rally today at Pershing Square to protest the ban. There was a pretty good turnout, maybe 150-200 people?
Me with Herbert Gilbert, the man who has the first patent for electronic cigarettes (1965). He spoke - at 82 I think he rallied the crowd better than anyone else.
Here's one of the founders of Craft Vapery, who said he was diagnosed with COPD at the age of 33 after 20 years of 2PAD. He had 70% lung function when he started vaping but regained 20% even though it's supposed to be irreversible. That was a great testimony.
Me with Herbert Gilbert, the man who has the first patent for electronic cigarettes (1965). He spoke - at 82 I think he rallied the crowd better than anyone else.
Here's one of the founders of Craft Vapery, who said he was diagnosed with COPD at the age of 33 after 20 years of 2PAD. He had 70% lung function when he started vaping but regained 20% even though it's supposed to be irreversible. That was a great testimony.
So, you must be independently wealthy... I wish more rich folks would do this, and maybe something would get done.
Andria
And MSG makes your brain decide you're still hungry, even when you're stuffed... consider the rate of obesity (diabetes, heart disease, taking up more than one's allotted space) in America, and MSG is still legal... and they ban e-cigs.
This country is governed by those far too stupid to get any other kind of job.
Andria
Nevermind country... what PLANET are you from? Don't you know, cops can do anything they please??? ANYTHING AT ALL!!! And they do, anything they please, ALL THE TIME!!!
Andria
I'm sure Cali is a beautiful state just one of those I have no desire to ever spend my time or money in.
Couple of photos from the #IMPROOF/Save Vape LA rally today at Pershing Square to protest the ban. There was a pretty good turnout, maybe 150-200 people?
Me with Herbert Gilbert, the man who has the first patent for electronic cigarettes (1965). He spoke - at 82 I think he rallied the crowd better than anyone else.
Here's one of the founders of Craft Vapery, who said he was diagnosed with COPD at the age of 33 after 20 years of 2PAD. He had 70% lung function when he started vaping but regained 20% even though it's supposed to be irreversible. That was a great testimony.
Great pictures, Coelli! Thanks for sharing!
You're so pretty!
part of what bothers me was the unanimous vote. the lack of any disagreement this law shouldn't exist. no dispute, no facts, no studies, no science, makes no sense! clean air act..or is it clear air act they are imposing? what could have sealed the lips of a no vote? disinformation? the answer is no information. the whole thing should have been tabled until they had conclusive proof of harm should any exist. through all the legislation on tobacco, it was never about nicotine. i can't understand why so little is known with certainty after so many years of use. i am utterly sick of the ignorance and ability to pass effective laws that may or might not be harmful without information. parks, beaches are you kidding me? i don't vape in a closed room with my dog. someone tell me why i shouldn't be concerned.
Yup, I agree, and that was expressed at the rally today. I will be writing an email to Garcetti tomorrow. I'm okay with the restaurant ban (honestly even though I vape I don't want to smell anything else in a restaurant when I'm trying to eat - I think an ordinance against too much cologne would be awesome too
) but outside doesn't make any sense, and it should be left up to bars and nightclubs whether they want to allow it.
And again, bipartisan politics does exactly what it's designed to do - get people bickering among themselves while the elected officials go right on doing whatever the 
they want.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks...
they want.Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks...
another short sighted generally spoken law that lacks evidence of harm or benefit. let alone interpretation. what would that info do to bt? it may never appear for that reason. they are just trying to level the playing field as they aren't capturing resales of ecigs they are vested in already. bt has had a lock on my life for too long mostly due to nicotine. and nothing is known. cmon give me a break
- Status
Similar threads
