New York Suffolk County Bans E-Cig Public Use

[TropicalBob]

The phrase "vaping is smoking" is not my conclusion at all. I say exactly the opposite. That phrase sums up what Suffolk County wrote into law. The law concludes that vapers are no better than smokers and must leave public places to vape.

I do not agree with anyone who thinks e-cigs are tobacco products. That stretch of the imagination has been ridiculous since it was first trotted out as some kind of ploy to avoid FDA regulations. vaping is a clean, and I believe safe, way to obtain nicotine without the myriad carcinogens addicts get by inhaling combusted tobacco.

Here's what vaping is: It is recreational use of nicotine, absent long-term commitment to quit. And what's wrong with that? Caffeine is a kissing cousin to nicotine, and it's used for its energizing effects in all kinds of food products. Nicotine both stimulates and relaxes, much as caffeine does. I will never quit either "drug".

It does not seem, to me, that the FDA must of necessity brand all recreational uses of nicotine as NRT, but that appears to be the only route the agency will accept. We're not NRT because our goal is not to quit an addiction we enjoy -- and with some health benefits, I might add.

Suffolk County made a mistake when it concluded "vaping is smoking." Maybe that error will be corrected before the measure becomes law.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Father Luke,

That picture of the bird is beautiful. Looks awfully doctored to me though.

OK,

- Brother Nate

 

[kristin]

The phrase "vaping is smoking" is not my conclusion at all. I say exactly the opposite. That phrase sums up what Suffolk County wrote into law. The law concludes that vapers are no better than smokers and must leave public places to vape.

Suffolk County made a mistake when it concluded "vaping is smoking." Maybe that error will be corrected before the measure becomes law.

Personally, I'm leaning farther away from calling them vaporizers, too. I've already tried to stop calling them cigarettes - "E" or otherwise. I think "vaporizer" and "vaping" sounds scary and weird to people. I'm leaning towards "inhaler" because it sounds less threatening and implies something taken in, rather than exhaled out - or the "second-hand vapor" that people fear.

 

[Momof3]

I also say nicotine inhaler when out and about. I only use PV, e-cig, etc. for ease of typing on the forum. I use the Prodigy mostly now which looks nothing like a cigarette, electric or otherwise.

 

[killdozerd11]

In California some towns have ordinances against smoking in public period
Loma Linda is one home of the world redound hospital

Kaiser hospitals have banned smoking on there property period so all smokers have to go off the property to the public street to take a smoke break

Some of the employees that vape do so on the property but keep a very low profile
while doing it

 

[yvilla]

I do not agree with anyone who thinks e-cigs are tobacco products. That stretch of the imagination has been ridiculous since it was first trotted out as some kind of ploy to avoid FDA regulations. Vaping is a clean, and I believe safe, way to obtain nicotine without the myriad carcinogens addicts get by inhaling combusted tobacco.

But T Bob, "tobacco product" does not necessarily equal "smoking" either. Snus are a tobacco product. Dissolvables are tobacco products. And they are a clean, and I believe safe, way to obtain nicotine without the myriad carcinogens addicts get by inhaling combusted tobacco.

Here's what vaping is: It is recreational use of nicotine, absent long-term commitment to quit. And what's wrong with that? Caffeine is a kissing cousin to nicotine, and it's used for its energizing effects in all kinds of food products. Nicotine both stimulates and relaxes, much as caffeine does. I will never quit either "drug".

Yes! That is what vaping is! But equally, that is what using snus or Stonewalls is! And they are tobacco products. Why the heck not ecigs? (I know, I know, you are going to say it's only the nicotine, no actual tobacco - but the law says a tobacco product is anything derived from tobacco, and my nicotine liquid is derived from tobacco!)

It does not seem, to me, that the FDA must of necessity brand all recreational uses of nicotine as NRT, but that appears to be the only route the agency will accept. We're not NRT because our goal is not to quit an addiction we enjoy -- and with some health benefits, I might add.

Here is where we disagree: Just as the FDA knows darn well that smoking cigarettes is the recreational use of a drug, but it cannot ban it for all the historical and political reasons laid out in FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., the new tobacco legislation that has given it the power to regulate all tobacco products can certainly be interpreted, as a matter of law, to require it to place ecigs in the category of "tobacco products" that, while not involving combustion, are sufficiently the functional equivalent of smoking so as to be exempt from Chapter V drug regulation, and to be appropriately regulated under Chapter IX as a "modified risk" product.

All it takes is for someone like Judge Leon to decide.

Suffolk County made a mistake when it concluded "vaping is smoking." Maybe that error will be corrected before the measure becomes law.

Yes!!

 

[SLDS181]

Personally, I'm leaning farther away from calling them vaporizers, too. I've already tried to stop calling them cigarettes - "E" or otherwise. I think "vaporizer" and "vaping" sounds scary and weird to people. I'm leaning towards "inhaler" because it sounds less threatening and implies something taken in, rather than exhaled out - or the "second-hand vapor" that people fear.

I don't worry about it.

I have yet to see a single negative reaction, from anyone. Smokers I've met like it because they can quit. Non-smokers with significant others that smoke like it because they can get their SO to quit. Non-smokers and anti-smoking people without a smoker in their life like it because that means less smoking while walking around. I've been using whatever word they refer to it as - "Smokeless cigarette", "electronic cigarette", etc.

 

[TropicalBob]

Yvilla, I so hope you are right. Everything you state is correct about tobacco-derived nicotine as the core ingredient of our product, and nicotine is the reason we use it. In that way, e-cigs are a tobacco derivative. Unfortunately, the FDA's route is that we are firstly a drug product and secondly a tobacco product.

They regulate e-smoking by either route.

But I hope you're right. I have no desire whatsoever to quit my e-smoking. Or my snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff and pipe tobacco!

 

[sund79]

That "protecting innocent people" comment he uses in defending the bill is really aggrevating me. I dont know if i can even read anymore on this topic right now! I dont know a single smoker or non smoker that has had anything other than good things to say about them..
those i know that vape on non smoking campuses (me included, but i work with one other person in a room all night and dont hide it) have been being sneaky about it cause no one wants to have to stop due to other people's ignorance.

I also agree with the comment on the name or what to call them.. vaporizers and "vapers" does sound weird. Have a "vape"..I'm "vaping".. I dont know.. inhaler is good.. but it doesnt seem quite right either. Maybe we should find something really cute-sy to call them, like, cloud blowers or something.. hehe. Hey guys, check out my new penstyle cloud blower... Lets go puff some clouds... I got a new kind of liquid cloud today..

Ok. I am tired tonight.

 

[malyden]

I know we can call them our personal fog machines yea I know it's late and I'm tired

 

[sund79]

I am really to tired to be working tonight..
because i've decided I like "cloud puffers" better than cloud blowers..

 

[Technocrat]

As a person who has been fighting against the Phoney War on Drugs since before I had hair on my schmekle, I find this (almost) amusing.

Let me give you some tips from 'Dark Side'.

How does the law define e-cigarettes? If it is too strict, then anything can be considered a vaporizer like breath fresheners, vicks vapor rub, nasal sprays, and throat sprays. Too broad, and the law can be attacked because it bans too many common things.

If the definition of e-cigarettes is too narrow then you can easily circumvent it by changing the shape or layout of your vaporizer. It could be as simple as slapping a sticker on your e-cig that says 'breath freshener'.

How is it going to be enforced? If a group of people are sitting in a bar and they each have, a pen, a twissler, a lolipop, and a whistle in their mouths can you really say they are vaping? Maybe they just have a peculiar oral fixation. I was recently thinking of putting a PV inside a 5 hour energy bottle, and if anybody sees an exhaled mist after you take a 'sip' you can just say it was from the carbonation.

I could go on all night on how to conduct your life when the government says you are a criminal, while you hurt absolutely no one, but I guess I'll save that for a blog.

 

[TropicalBob]

These ruses really don't address the ultimate problem that bans will cause. You can snort ....... in a restaurant if you're sneaky enough. The problem is that if a tight ban is placed on sale and importation of e-cigs and e-liquid, the practice will not grow, and, in fact, will whither and die since new users won't have access to supplies.

We present e-smokers can carry on for awhile, especially if we've stockpiled supplies. But without new product, there will be no expansion of our base. As a fractional minority, we'll be an easy target for further restrictions. Everything topples if sale and importation are criminalized.

 

[Roober]

Thought you all might be interested, got a response to my email:

August 28, 2009
Dear Constituent:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding proposed legislation to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in Suffolk County. The concerns of all constituents are of the utmost importance to me. It may interest you to know that the proposed ban that would prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in public buildings has been modified and is now directed toward the sale and use of electronic cigarettes to and by minors. Given this significant change in the proposal, I am looking at the bill in a more favorable light. However, you may rest assured I will bear your thoughts in mind if and when this legislation should reach my desk.

I hope this information helps clarify my position on this issue. Please feel free to contact my office in the future if I may be of assistance.


Sincerely,

Steve Levy

County Executive



SL:lg




This makes me very hopeful.

 

[eplanet]

Roober,

I have seen this before...it seems promising, however it is just a form letter....

 

[Roober]

damn Well, maybe we still have hope. If theres people to email or write, or petitions to sign, let us know. I'll do everything I can to help

 

[eplanet]

This legislation was modified...the original version was an outright ban...If you need a link on the suffolk county situation, let me know...or just search the forum...

 

[warp1900]

Reason,science and truth are the only things we have on our sides.
To agree with Tropical Bob if the manufacturers of e-liquid or devices or both had just done what they should have done in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue right now.
Had they even done half of what I've seen the re-sellers in The U.K. have to do just to sell their devices and liquid and carts things might not be this way.
So it's all of us who get to pay for this now.

Reason?, Science?, Truth?

Are we even in the same planet raven?

It doesn't matter what or how you do it now, before or in the future, this has nothing to do with what you think it is.

They will NEVER allow e-cigs to be freely commercialized, sold and used because drug and tobacco corporations would loose BBB billions of dollars.

I think it is great that our fellow vapers worked hard at trying this, but it was very naive from their part to even consider taking the time to do it. Maybe now, they will understand how this world functions, (it is not only this country).

Sign all you want, make calls, petitions, anything, the results will be the same.

If anyone wants to change anything, start by throwing out all the old farts in congress and the house, they have been there way too long. How come we never think about why they are allowed to be there indefenitely?
So the president can be there for 8 years max and they get a free pass...? hmmmm.

It doesn't matter how much we want to put the cart before the horse.

(Or the cart before the atomizer)



^^^^

 

[TropicalBob]

How helpful was that to the Suffolk County cause, Warp? At least you cleared your feeble mind of what's troubling you. And, hey, way to slap down all those who made efforts on behalf of e-smoking. Attaboy. You put them in their place. What a fool that Spikey was, and her fellow vapers. Me, too, for sending her material to use in the fight.

They just don't know how things work, do they? They don't understand, do they? You do.

Sure.

Go find another cause, will you, cause this one doesn't need you and posts like that one.

 

[Philly]

I don't understand this. Suppose some holier than thou group decided to ban drinking coffee indoors in their town. Wouldn't they be told that it was unconstitutional? Can you just ban anything in this country?