No Vaping in Virginia in Public Places

[KitKit]

Below is copy of an e-mail respone I received from the VA Dept. of Health! I sent the following:

The way I read the ban it is for tobacco products and this is not a tobacco product and doesn't produce "smoke" just a vapor.

The Reply:
"Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or holding of any lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting, inhaling, or exhaling of smoke from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind.

New information indicates the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim. Until we get good third party verification of the "vapor's" safety, we consider an E cigarette as a "cigarette of any kind."

Great I quit smoking and now this!

 

[fonosmoak]

I don't know,
Seems to me laws have to contain unambiguous language or they are unenforceable...

Still, one might be subject to irrecoverable loss when sited for breaking an ambiguous law...

It says "lighted" over and over again, this seems to suggest they really mean "ignited"

Is it a purposely ambiguous choice of words??

If so isn't that unethical?

Clearly there's no way you could be seen to violate this law unless of course you ask them if vaping is ok...

Don't ask, just read the law and vape away...

PVs are clearly not a kind of cigarette by definition.

words matter, they failed to use the right ones in this case...

Ben Franklin said, " if you think a law is unfair, break it, and have your say in court.

That's the Democratic thing to do...

 

[Kavey]

I don't know,
Seems to me laws have to contain unambiguous language or they are unenforceable...

Still, one might be subject to irrecoverable loss when sited for breaking an ambiguous law...

It says "lighted" over and over again, this seems to suggest they really mean "ignited"

Is it a purposely ambiguous choice of words??

If so isn't that unethical?

Clearly there's no way you could be seen to violate this law unless of course you ask them if vaping is ok...

Don't ask, just read the law and vape away...

PVs are clearly not a kind cigarette by definition.

words matter, they failed to use the right ones in this case...

Ben Franklin said, " if you think a law is unfair, break it, and have your say in court.

That's the Democratic thing to do...

The best thing I can think of is to ask a question.
Do you want to be the one they make an example of? I sure dont.

And if these arent "ignited" what exactly does the atomizer do? Lubricate the fluid into vaporizing?

 

[fonosmoak]

It's up to you,

If you do not wish to participate in our democracy then go ahead and cower in your closet...

Ignite, atomize, vaporize, all have definitions too ...look them up.

Best Regards
fo

 

[jj2]

I vape in non-smoking area, but do it discreetly.
I hate the fact that some places I have to use the restroom, but it’s better than going into the smoking area or outside if the weather is bad.
It’s not the rough on me because I don’t work and generally just hang around my friends and family and they’ve already accepted the fact that I vape.

 

[squid509]

where did you get that mail from. i would like to know more since i live in VaBeach
so far i only vaped in puplic at AJ gators but that is a sports bar that has ash trays at evey table and no one even lifted an eye brow at my black 510 w/ blue LED im planing to go the the NorVa tomarrow and vape there ill let you know what hapends

 

[kristin]

You don't have a "cigarette." You have a personal vaporizer. Tell them that "electronic cigarette" is a slang term.

Personally, I think it'd be great to get a ticket to fight in court. Who says it's a cigarette? The Deptartment of Health? Tell them to PROVE IT! They have to pass a law defining an electronic cigarette first. "Electronic cigarette" is an industry reference term, not a legal term/definition. If it were referred to as a PV, they couldn't call it a cigarette.

I'd love to see a court of law rule that it's a cigarette - think of the legal ramifications!! Think of the FDA lawsuit! If the FDA calls it a "drug delivery device" then it's NOT a cigarette. They can't have it both ways!

 

[SKORN]

My PV is NOT a cigarette.

 

[Jim Davis]

People have to get away from the term "Electronic Cigarette" I use a box mod while traveling, and when they say "You can't smoke here", I hold it up so they can see it and say "It's not a cigarette, it's a vaporizer" They all say OK, and walk away. My regular e-cig batteries are used on the job, and in regular smoking areas.

 

[KitKit]

What is the best way to go about fighting this- it takes effect Dec. 1, 2009. Is it too late? Who should I write to? The Dept of Health has said what it thinks.

 

[fonosmoak]

What is the best way to go about fighting this- it takes effect Dec. 1, 2009. Is it too late? Who should I write to? The Dept of Health has said what it thinks.

do you have a copy of the law?

I assume this mail you received is just an underling's summation?

I'd venture we'd not have to do anything if your posted reply was the actual law itself..

regards
fo

My PV doesn't have a light either...

Don't see how I could light it in public and magically commit a crime...?

(save set it on fire, and then yeah, I can see the harm)

Virgina is for lovers, and I love to vape
regards
fo

 

[sherid]

I don't know,
Seems to me laws have to contain unambiguous language or they are unenforceable...

Still, one might be subject to irrecoverable loss when sited for breaking an ambiguous law...

It says "lighted" over and over again, this seems to suggest they really mean "ignited"

Is it a purposely ambiguous choice of words??

If so isn't that unethical?

Clearly there's no way you could be seen to violate this law unless of course you ask them if vaping is ok...

Don't ask, just read the law and vape away...

PVs are clearly not a kind of cigarette by definition.

words matter, they failed to use the right ones in this case...

Ben Franklin said, " if you think a law is unfair, break it, and have your say in court.

That's the Democratic thing to do...

It would be worth a trip to court for someone with a good lawyer. Break apart the language of the law and demonstrate that vaping is not smoking by definition in the law.

 

[KonaNeil]

You don't have a "cigarette." You have a personal vaporizer. Tell them that "electronic cigarette" is a slang term....

Kristen, I like your mind and I agree with most of what you say here. However, I disagree with your use of the term "personal vaporizer" because this term has been co-opted by the marijuana subculture. For this reason, I prefer personal or portable nebulizer.

Then again, under the pending California law which I recall defines e-cig devices as drugs, a California resident might be better off if our favorite device was considered to be for ingestion of marijuana since this drug is potentially available legally to a significant portion of that state's population;-)

 

[Jim Davis]

Another thought I just had. I tend to stay away from the vapor issue. Most of us will say or write, "It doesn't produce smoke, it's vapor." Forget about the "vapor" aspect. You just say "It doesn't produce smoke." and leave it at that. These people are getting too much information that they can twist around in their favor.

 

[Eric in AK]

Cover the LED with black tape. It won't be "lighted".

The atomizer doesn't burn anything. It's a heating element that heats the liquid until a vapor forms. Nothing is burned in the process. There is no by-product of combustion.

If it's a state statute, you can look up the legislative history and see what floor debate took place during the deliberative process preceding the vote. If there was a bill sponsor, the sponsor often will introduce remarks into the record to indicate the purpose of the legislation.

Where I live, the public can submit questions of interpretation of statutes to the attorney general for a formal opinion. The opinion doesn't have the weight of law, but it's persuasive guidance for law enforcement.

Finally, consider contacting your local chapter of the ACLU. I don't care if you're "liberal" or "conservative", the ACLU seeks to protect the rights of all, not just the disadvantaged. Without seeing the statute, I have to think, based on the correspondence you received, that there might be constitutional issues based on the imprecision of the language.

If it were me I'd vape wherever it's not likely to offend anyone, but I wouldn't vape where smoking is prohibited. That's my personal policy, because I believe the vapor probably contains some nicotine, and I have no right to subject anyone else to second-hand vapor. I have no way of knowing the sensitivity of others to nicotine. I can find plenty of places to vape. I don't need to create confrontations merely for my own convenience. Just my opinion...sorry if it conflicts with anyone else's.

 

[KonaNeil]

Another thought I just had. I tend to stay away from the vapor issue. Most of us will say or write, "It doesn't produce smoke, it's vapor." Forget about the "vapor" aspect. You just say "It doesn't produce smoke." and leave it at that. These people are getting too much information that they can twist around in their favor.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't that people think they're seeing smoke. You're telling them that they're wrong could give them a chance to ratchet up their anger.

I have to admit that I'm speaking from imagination as I haven't seen anyone react in any way to my vaping in public except for a little curiosity on my one visit to our town's one (illegally) smoke allowing bar.

 

[Valkerie]

I just got two new kits in the mail. They both say:

Electronic Vaporizer​

The old kits say e-cigarette.

 

[gooney0]

I'm out of the loop here. Is VA banning smoking in public places?

What does "Public places" mean? Does this really mean a parking lot or a sidewalk? Or does it mean publicly owned buildings?

I hate to be the hand of doom here, but there isn't a particularly good reason to ban smoking outdoors in the first place. Second hand smoke concerns are simply stupid outdoors.

Just think how many "deadly toxins" come out a car. People have even used car exhaust as a method of suicide.

The real issue is the "pet peeve" of smoking. Many people find smoking "gross" and don't want to see people something they find unpleasant or foolish. The fact that a PV puts out vapor instead of smoke means very little to them. Their intent is to punish and change you to be like them.

These people do not reason, nor do they have any sense of fair play. They believe they are making America a better place and forcing you to improve your life.

I'm not seeing any outrage here that they are banning smoking. I'd hate to think none of us care since "we don't smoke." If that is true why should anyone else care about "vapors?"

Politics has come down to "looking out for #1." Best of luck with the ACLU.

-Gooney0

 

[squid509]

i went was living in florida when they passed there public smoking ban in short it ban smoking in plases that already did not allow you to smoke lite at the movie, airports where it got tricke was it alowed smoking in bars but they defined it as a restaurant who mande less then 20% of there total profit from food sail. but i dont know what the new law says in virginia

 

[Oogie]

"Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or holding of any lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting, inhaling or exhaling of smoke from a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind"

Pardon me but the law is being specific, just have to find it in between the lines. Emphasis is mine of course, but it is specific to SMOKE, not vapor. To create smoke one needs a fire which those who vape do not need. Just because it says light repeatedly, it doesn't say vapor anywhere and therefore can not imply ambiguiously. So, one might have to cover the LED at the end but you're still within the law then. That is of course unless there is a thing with the FDA or a more specific law.

Just my two cents.