Question for all those "only vape where I can smoke" people.
- Thread starter Mr. Miyagi
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have to disagree. Common courtesy can't and shouldn't be regulated by the government. Once we regulate "offensive" behavior in public, we are past the threshold of the slippery slope. We have trusted government to protect us from public health threats, and it is now including offensive behavior in bans with little or no scientific research that such behavior is a health threat. I'm not talking only about vaping, but other things like saggy pants bans, etc. When that happens, only the people who have the power win.
"Vape in a cloud.... Vape in a cloud. Ya looks lika fool wid you're head in a cloud." Ferlin Husky~1957
As I don't think my post suggested such regulation, then I observe we are in (strong) agreement.
Well I live in Australia, specially Western Australia where the whole concept of vaping is very poorly understood by the state government and the courts.
It is illegal to sell any of the mods, tanks, coils or any associated device within Western Australia. You also can't sell ejuice containing nicotine any where inside Australia since we class it as a poison which restricts its sale. Flavours, PG and VG for juice with out nicotine are fine.
You can however, import all your equipment from other states and have it sent to you here. For nicotine jucie we need to import from international sources. This used be New Zealand but they too have restricted some of the sales stuff so people are looking to the USA for sources a lot more frequently.
So far the courts ruled that they are "devices that mimic smoking" and are thus subject to the Tobacco Control Act. As a result you are often subjected to many of the restrictions placed on smokers. For example by law here you must be at least 4 meters away from the doorway of any public building (this includes shops, businesses, and alfresco dining areas outside of cafes) if you are smoking. Many places will enforce this on vaping - especially if it makes big clouds and lingers. You can't smoke inside pubs and clubs or other licensed venues nor can you smoke inside a building and so many places will not let you vape inside either.
So while I could try to stealth vape or even just openly vape inside say an airport I would very likely get pulled up on it regardless of whether it is actually harmful or not.
That said you can get away with some things.
If I sat at a bus stop and vaped, it wouldn't be an issue.
Alfresco areas you can also get away with vaping in most places.
Inside buildings is where many places will draw the line.
Other places you can get away with it to a degree providing you're not in an enclosed space and you vapor is not impacting on any one else.
TL;DR: Basically I have little choice in where I can vape where I live due to legal decisions and ignorance of the government.
It is illegal to sell any of the mods, tanks, coils or any associated device within Western Australia. You also can't sell ejuice containing nicotine any where inside Australia since we class it as a poison which restricts its sale. Flavours, PG and VG for juice with out nicotine are fine.
You can however, import all your equipment from other states and have it sent to you here. For nicotine jucie we need to import from international sources. This used be New Zealand but they too have restricted some of the sales stuff so people are looking to the USA for sources a lot more frequently.
So far the courts ruled that they are "devices that mimic smoking" and are thus subject to the Tobacco Control Act. As a result you are often subjected to many of the restrictions placed on smokers. For example by law here you must be at least 4 meters away from the doorway of any public building (this includes shops, businesses, and alfresco dining areas outside of cafes) if you are smoking. Many places will enforce this on vaping - especially if it makes big clouds and lingers. You can't smoke inside pubs and clubs or other licensed venues nor can you smoke inside a building and so many places will not let you vape inside either.
So while I could try to stealth vape or even just openly vape inside say an airport I would very likely get pulled up on it regardless of whether it is actually harmful or not.
That said you can get away with some things.
If I sat at a bus stop and vaped, it wouldn't be an issue.
Alfresco areas you can also get away with vaping in most places.
Inside buildings is where many places will draw the line.
Other places you can get away with it to a degree providing you're not in an enclosed space and you vapor is not impacting on any one else.
TL;DR: Basically I have little choice in where I can vape where I live due to legal decisions and ignorance of the government.
I could be totally confused as it has been awhile -at least 10 years since I devoured everything I could about tobacco/nicotine in the failed attempt to support restaurants/bars /coffee shops having the right to permit tobacco but did not Monsanto or some such perhaps BP attempt to genetically manipulate tobacco plants in order to grow some sort of anti smoke vaccine (as if we need another vaccine) perhaps I need to do more looking but I find myself quite enthralled with the comments presented by the ecf people
are you familiar with a person named Vincent van Heerden the reason I ask is because of a link that showed up on a thread I was reading directing me to Electronic Cigarettes and Vaping - EcigAlternative.com and by exploring I tapped the upper right and donations/assistance was requested to assist with financial costs of a law suit - I almost studied journalism instead of nursing and I sometimes have a terrible curiosity about an issue anyway I would be delighted to know if this info was in fact truth or an effort to collect some cash for business expenses etc
thanks
Carolyn
Oh his case is very much real. In fact you can read the outcome from his court case here: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2014WASC0127/$FILE/2014WASC0127.pdf
The main summary is found in:
Part 87 - "In my view, the evidence to which I have referred supports the conclusion that the items were designed to resemble a tobacco product because they were intended to be used to inhale vapour in a manner very similar to the inhalation of tobacco smoke when using a cigarette. That the items were designed to resemble a cigarette in this way can be discerned from the description given to the products by the manufacturer (as electronic cigarettes), from the manner in which the items are used (both having regard to the manufacturer's user manual, to the admissions made by Mr Van Heerden and having regard to the website pages) and from the appearance of electronic cigarettes, such as the items, during use (particularly the conveyance of the electronic cigarette to the user's mouth using their hand, the inhalation and exhalation of the vapour, and the fact that the vapour is reminiscent of the smoke from a cigarette)."
And:
Part 88 - "Having regard to the proper construction of s 106, on the evidence before the learned Magistrate, and in view of the admissions which were made, the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt."
Section 106 of the Tobacco Control Act covers what is defined as "other products" and is effectively applied to any tobacco product that is not found within traditional definitions of cigars/cigarettes, chewing, snus and so on, as a measure to prevent the sale of tobacco products to children.
Unfortunately the model he was selling is this model here: http://www.elektronikus-cigaretta.hu/fotky804/fotos/_vyrn_5Newest_design_mini_e_cigarettes_510_T.jpg
So it's hard to argue around the fact it looks similar to a cigarette at present. What he has been trying to argue is that there at no point does it use tobacco or tobacco products thus shouldn't be treated as a tobacco product.
His lawyers believe that can appeal is due to the comments made by the magistrate, the fact they were denied the ability to cross examine certain witnesses, and the fact that entire case was based on the appearance of the product not its actual use.
Had he sold any other style of device I think he would have been alright but because he picked that model and only that model it makes it hard. The court ruling and the Department of Health were however quite vague about whether selling other models such as say a subohm tank + battery were considered in this same category. So to be on the safe side other vendors just pulled everything until clearer definitions can be put in place to guide people on what they can and can't sell.
How successful will he be on appeal? Well it could honestly go either way. The reason he asks for help with money is because he has lost most of the income he had made from his business under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Federal) and the Criminal Property Confiscation Act (State). Which basically means that the police can take money or property from you that is believed to made by or purchased using funds from criminal enterprise.
Last edited:
Dear sweet God the world has gone completely nuts but I thank you greatly for this information it helps me to better grasp the complete absurdity of the laws regarding this situation and I suspect the judge or tribunal will be hassled tremendously by the powers that be to not give a foothold to ecigs -what a disgrace.
I notice he had a tootle puffer rig not a Cloud chaser rig. Would he call cloud chasing abusing ecigs?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
