Plane ban planned

[Vocalek]

Lawsuit! Win the case, own the airline, name it Vapefreely Air. However, don't charge for luggage.

Great idea. I would then own the airline that called the Feds on the guy who was vaping on their plane---even though he was kind enough to feed them peanuts!

For the sake of keeping a similar sound to the name (or at least the last syllable), the new airline should be named Vapefest Airlines.

 

[GregH]

If they stop allowing Ecigs on flights in the luggage or from being carried onto a plane, they will need to ban anything that uses lithium ion batteries, I would think. That includes laptops, cell phones, tablets, digital cameras, mp3 players, and a host of other devices.

Unless I missed something fundamental, this proposal does not prevent the possession of PVs on flights. It just forbids their use. Naturally, I disagree with their 'reasoning' behind this and won't be too terribly happy. But I will certainly be happier with the former over the latter.

My fear -- and I have stated this before elsewhere -- is that if people continue to skirt any ban by stealth vaping, then the regulation will be changed to disallow their possession. Then where will be be? Shipping our gear ahead to our destinations through private carriers?

 

[Vocalek]

We really need to fight this proposed ban.

The purpose of smoking bans is to improve air quality. Vapor is not smoke and has not been shown to present any danger to bystanders.

What's next? Telling A&W they can't sell root beer because of the liquor laws?

Rolling e-cigarette use into smoking bans is counter-productive. Doing so removes a powerful incentive for smokers to make the switch. Society should be encouraging smokers to switch to products that are not only sell harmful to themselves, but also less harmful to bystanders.

 

[VapPornRules]

I'm just not sure this is the right battle. I mean, vaping does have a smell to it. I mean - you can't burn incense on a plane either. Not for health reasons - its just annoying. I can see someone being annoyed by it if you are sitting next to them.

You could then say "oh will they ban perfume next"? Maybe they should!

There is no good analogy - vaping is unique, and sitting in a plane (a closed tube) is unique as well.

I think insisting on vaping on a plane is a losing battle and would be much further down the road, if ever. I think the first step is winning over the medical associations, then stuff like this may follow.

 

[Darrigaaz]

I'm just not sure this is the right battle. I mean, vaping does have a smell to it. I mean - you can't burn incense on a plane either. Not for health reasons - its just annoying. I can see someone being annoyed by it if you are sitting next to them.

You could then say "oh will they ban perfume next"? Maybe they should!

There is no good analogy - vaping is unique, and sitting in a plane (a closed tube) is unique as well.

I think insisting on vaping on a plane is a losing battle and would be much further down the road, if ever. I think the first step is winning over the medical associations, then stuff like this may follow.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. In my opinion, we should fight every battle we come across to the best of our abilities. When we give them an inch, they take a mile.

 

[rothenbj]

"My fear -- and I have stated this before elsewhere -- is that if people continue to skirt any ban by stealth vaping, then the regulation will be changed to disallow their possession. Then where will be be? Shipping our gear ahead to our destinations through private carriers?"

Greg, do you realize how ridiculous that would be. "We are banning this product on flights because they MAY be harmful, MAY have nicotine in it, MAY be dangerous to others, MAY have batteries that catch fire. We just don't know." For all the money that the ANTZ have spend fighting against PV availability, they could have gotten all the MAYs answered, but I suppose that MAY take the fight out of the dog.

 

[GregH]

Of course I realize how ridiculous that would be. But our government knows no bounds when it comes to ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rothenbj]

Rolling e-cigarette use into smoking bans is counter-productive. Doing so removes a powerful incentive for smokers to make the switch. Society should be encouraging smokers to switch to products that are not only sell harmful to themselves, but also less harmful to bystanders.

Not so, when you look at the Big Picture-

See!

 

[Vocalek]

I'm just not sure this is the right battle. I mean, vaping does have a smell to it. I mean - you can't burn incense on a plane either. Not for health reasons - its just annoying. I can see someone being annoyed by it if you are sitting next to them.

You could then say "oh will they ban perfume next"? Maybe they should!

There is no good analogy - vaping is unique, and sitting in a plane (a closed tube) is unique as well.

I think insisting on vaping on a plane is a losing battle and would be much further down the road, if ever. I think the first step is winning over the medical associations, then stuff like this may follow.

Some months ago, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, stated that the regulations already in place against smoking apply to electronic cigarettes. Some airports responded by banning the use of e-cigarettes in the airport. We need to get across the idea that vapor is not smoke. Vapor does not contain the elements that threaten air quality.

We need to start with the DOT. If the DOT wants to institute reasonable regulations to avoid annoyance to other passengers that's fine. If they want to specify that flight crew can ask someone to stop if there are complaints from other passengers about offensive odors or enough vapor to restrict visibility, that's fine.

But La Hood is presenting this as an air quality problem, not an annoyance problem. Their document refers to vapor as "smoke".

It states:

The purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft and the regulatory ban in Part 252 on smoking tobacco products was to improve air quality within the aircraft, reduce the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance aviation safety and passenger comfort.

As "evidence" that e-cigarettes are potentially harmful to the air, they cite studies that found problems with the liquid form. For example, the ever-popular FDA accusation of carcinogens and antifreeze has again reared its ugly head. Totally ignored is that there were no carcinogens, antifreeze, or any other potentially hazardous chemicals found in the Vapor, by the FDA or anyone else. The document points to the leaky cartridges found by the University of California, Riverside as evidence that the vapor is hazardous. The study is quoted, "Contrary to the claims of the manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes being ‘safe,’ in fact nothing is known about the toxicity of the vapors generated by these e-cigarettes.” Electronic cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks, study finds

What I find hideously ironic about that quote is the fact that the lead researcher is a toxicology specialist who could easily have determined whether there is anything toxic in the vapor. Instead, she chose to analyze the construction of the devices instead of the vapor.

The DOT document quotes such "experts" as The American Legacy Foundation, which has not conducted any research whatsoever, and ignores published research by Kahn and Siegel that reviewed the results of 16 studies that "characterized, quite extensively, the components contained in electronic cigarette liquid and vapor using gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GS-MS)."

The DOT document states:

The quantity and toxicity of exhaled vapors have not been studied. Releasing a vapor that may contain harmful substances or respiratory irritants in a confined space, especially to those who are at a higher risk, is contrary to the purpose and intent of the statutory and regulatory ban on smoking aboard aircraft.

The point is that the toxicity of inhaled vapors has been studied (Kahn and Siegel) and found to be innocuous. Is the DOT suggesting that the lungs of e-cigarette users add some unknown toxic element to the vapor before they exhale? If so, wouldn't that toxic element also be present in all their expirations, not just ones containing vapor?

I'm sorry, but we need to speak out against nonsense, wherever we see it being perpetuated. If we fight the ban on planes, even if we don't win it, we will have introduced enough information into the well of public knowledge that we may be able to hold off proposed bans in the airports and on the streets (yes, NYC wants to ban the use even out of doors!).

NOTE: The fragrance of vapor is largely dependent on the flavoring. Unflavored liquid has no odor. Some enterprising vendor would do well to sell an unflavored liquid that produces a very small amount of vapor. This would take care of both the olfactory and the visual annoyance potential. They could even name the flavor DOT.

 

[Vocalek]

DOT has posted the actual Proposed Rule on Regulations.gov.

This is a direct link for where to go to comment: Regulations.gov

To read the 15-page document filed by DOT, go to this page: Regulations.gov

And then click on the PDF button under the "View As" column heading.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Elaine, neither of those links are working for me.

If you save the PDF and e-mail it to me I'll get it on Scribd.

 

[fray]

I don't think we should vape on airplanes anyway. I vape and I don't want someone blowing bobas bounty vapor in my face. It's sad that it has to come to legislation.

We have this entitlement issue that we should be able to vape anywhere because it's safer than cigarette smoke.

This is all childish on both sides.

 

[VapPornRules]

Some months ago, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, stated that the regulations already in place against smoking apply to electronic cigarettes. Some airports responded by banning the use of e-cigarettes in the airport. We need to get across the idea that vapor is not smoke. Vapor does not contain the elements that threaten air quality.

We need to start with the DOT. If the DOT wants to institute reasonable regulations to avoid annoyance to other passengers that's fine. If they want to specify that flight crew can ask someone to stop if there are complaints from other passengers about offensive odors or enough vapor to restrict visibility, that's fine.

But La Hood is presenting this as an air quality problem, not an annoyance problem. Their document refers to vapor as "smoke".

I agree that we need to get across that vapor is not smoke, but NOT that the place to start is with DOT.

LaHood and the DOT have zero incentive or expertise to make this judgement. They will never stick their neck out - what incentive do they have? They will be LAST in the line after the medical community and the FDA.

They are using these arguments only because it saves them headache, not because they have any opinion on things one way or the other.

 

[Vocalek]

I agree that we need to get across that vapor is not smoke, but NOT that the place to start is with DOT.

LaHood and the DOT have zero incentive or expertise to make this judgement. They will never stick their neck out - what incentive do they have? They will be LAST in the line after the medical community and the FDA.

They are using these arguments only because it saves them headache, not because they have any opinion on things one way or the other.

The place to start is everywhere we see nonsense published. If we say nothing here, the concept of "smoking e-cigarettes" will continue to be perpetuated across every airport in America. Many airports no longer have any type of smoking accommodations. In Chicago, smokers must leave the airport and go stand outside in the parking garage. That's where e-cigarette users will end up, as well. The the move is on to make some airports entirely smoke-free, inside and out. Smokers would need to take a bus or a cab and go totally off airport grounds in order to smoke. If e-cigs are redefined as smoking, you would be joining them.

Perhaps you are OK with going 12 or 16 hours without nicotine. For some folks it is sheer torture.

Maybe we can't convince the DOT to change anything, but we won't know until we try. Maybe we can get them at least to reformulate the rule to admit that they are doing it to avoid passenger complaints, rather than insting that vapor pollutes the air. And if vapor really doesn't pollute the air (do you believe it does?), then there should be no problem with passengers using an e-cigarette out of sight of other passengers.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I don't think we should vape on airplanes anyway. I vape and I don't want someone blowing bobas bounty vapor in my face. It's sad that it has to come to legislation.

We have this entitlement issue that we should be able to vape anywhere because it's safer than cigarette smoke.

This is all childish on both sides.

Airliners are free to ban e-cigarettes on their own. Many have. However, under this rule, a passenger who mistakenly uses an e-cigarette in-flight, instead of being told "Please stop using that," will not only be told "Stop," but will also have a federal agent waiting for him when the plane lands to give him a $500 fine (or whatever the amount is). That's the problem.

Here is the copy of the proposed regulation -- DOT-OST-2011-0044-0003

 

[rothenbj]

It constantly amazes me how readily we are willing to accept each small infringement into our rights, accepting lies that promote regulation. Haven't we seen the gradual, ever so slow manipulation as smokers? Give a little here, then a little there, then some more over there. Eventually there's no give room left. If we are going to accept that premise, we might as well be smoking because we're going to all be together in whatever small space they haven't closed off to the rest of civilized society.

You won't be able to vape indoors, outdoor or in your home if it's not privately owned by you (who knows, banks may eventually stipulate in your mortgage that tobacco use is forbidden as a condition of you loan, third hand smoke being a growing body of evidence). There are already places that it's illegal to smoke in your car because you're on public property, that will include vapers unless the ANTZ are stopped.

Boy am I in a bad mood today.

 

[fray]

It constantly amazes me how readily we are willing to accept each small infringement into our rights, accepting lies that promote regulation. Haven't we seen the gradual, ever so slow manipulation as smokers? Give a little here, then a little there, then some more over there. Eventually there's no give room left. If we are going to accept that premise, we might as well be smoking because we're going to all be together in whatever small space they haven't closed off to the rest of civilized society.

You won't be able to vape indoors, outdoor or in your home if it's not privately owned by you (who knows, banks may eventually stipulate in your mortgage that tobacco use is forbidden as a condition of you loan, third hand smoke being a growing body of evidence). There are already places that it's illegal to smoke in your car because you're on public property, that will include vapers unless the ANTZ are stopped.

Boy am I in a bad mood today.

Is it our right to vape on an airplane?

I agree the tools they are using to try to push this regulation are just plain stupid. I think they are using them because "vapor will annoy people on the plane" isn't a great argument so they have to say some shock words like antifreeze and carcinogen to scare (uninformed) people.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Is it our right to vape on an airplane?

I agree the tools they are using to try to push this regulation are just plain stupid. I think they are using them because "vapor will annoy people on the plane" isn't a great argument so they have to say some shock words like antifreeze and carcinogen to scare (uninformed) people.

Again, there is a vast difference between the airliners saying, "E-cigarettes are not allowed and if you disobey, we may ban you from flying on our airliner" and the federal government saying, "E-cigarettes are not allowed and if you disobey we'll have a federal agent waiting for you at the gate with a $500 fine."

 

[DC2]

I agree the tools they are using to try to push this regulation are just plain stupid. I think they are using them because "vapor will annoy people on the plane" isn't a great argument so they have to say some shock words like antifreeze and carcinogen to scare (uninformed) people.

It's a perfectly fine argument, and one that I think almost all of us would respect.

What is not perfectly fine is just standing by idly while they perpetuate the lies and the madness.
They will become another link in a chain of perpertuated lies and misinformation by authorities that others can and will point to.

 

[Vap0rJay]

It constantly amazes me how readily we are willing to accept each small infringement into our rights, accepting lies that promote regulation. Haven't we seen the gradual, ever so slow manipulation as smokers? Give a little here, then a little there, then some more over there. Eventually there's no give room left. If we are going to accept that premise, we might as well be smoking because we're going to all be together in whatever small space they haven't closed off to the rest of civilized society.

You won't be able to vape indoors, outdoor or in your home if it's not privately owned by you (who knows, banks may eventually stipulate in your mortgage that tobacco use is forbidden as a condition of you loan, third hand smoke being a growing body of evidence). There are already places that it's illegal to smoke in your car because you're on public property, that will include vapers unless the ANTZ are stopped.

Boy am I in a bad mood today.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."​

"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow."
​

~Ayn Rand