I would think the scientific dictionary would trump a regular dictionary.
Report from Speaker's office on Va. E cig ban
- Thread starter Storyspinr
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I would think the scientific dictionary would trump a regular dictionary.
I would think a science dictionary would do so, too, but it sounds like he has lawyers involved (you know what that means...total confusion). He said they decided a cigarette "of any kind" includes e cigs because, well, they're called "cigarettes". I told him that didn't mean a Cigarette boat was a cigarette, but I don't think he bought it, lol.
Between Webster's definition of "smoke" and their attitude a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette, we have an uphill pull on this one. I'm going to use the official government definition of a cigarette (rolled tobacco) as a response to their definition.
The law was poorly written and I pointed out to him it was written before any legislators had heard of e cigs. I have no idea what "any kind of cigarette" means, but I suspect was meant to include herbal cigarettes and hookahs. I may have to contact a legislator involved with the bill to understand their intention with that one.
Between Webster's definition of "smoke" and their attitude a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette, we have an uphill pull on this one. I'm going to use the official government definition of a cigarette (rolled tobacco) as a response to their definition.
The law was poorly written and I pointed out to him it was written before any legislators had heard of e cigs. I have no idea what "any kind of cigarette" means, but I suspect was meant to include herbal cigarettes and hookahs. I may have to contact a legislator involved with the bill to understand their intention with that one.
From the Virginia Code: "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.
Merriam-Webster definition of "cigarette": a slender roll of cut tobacco enclosed in paper and meant to be smoked; also : a similar roll of another substance (as marijuana)
An electronic "cigarette" doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "cigarette," as it contains no tobacco and no paper.
An electronic cigarette fits the definition of a Vaporizer: a device for converting water or a medicated liquid into a vapor for inhalation
Can the AG or Health Dept make it's own definition of "smoke" that trumps the actual definition per the ordinance??
Merriam-Webster definition of "cigarette": a slender roll of cut tobacco enclosed in paper and meant to be smoked; also : a similar roll of another substance (as marijuana)
An electronic "cigarette" doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "cigarette," as it contains no tobacco and no paper.
An electronic cigarette fits the definition of a Vaporizer: a device for converting water or a medicated liquid into a vapor for inhalation
Can the AG or Health Dept make it's own definition of "smoke" that trumps the actual definition per the ordinance??
Last edited:
In every definition of cigarette I can find, it contains tobacco. Just because this vaporizer is called a cigarette, doesn't make it a real cigarette.
Yes, the Virginia code is very clear on how it defines "smoke" and "smoking."
It does not define "cigarette" beyond specifying it by name, so, it seems to assume the generally accepted definition for cigarette, which is tobacco rolled in paper.
E-cigs are not cigarettes and therefore, are not considered smoking, per the law.
Virginia defines "cigarette" in several places in it's code. Here it is:
"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains (i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; (ii) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (iii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition. The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own" tobacco, which means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes. For purposes of this definition of "cigarette," 0.09 ounces of "roll-your-own" tobacco shall constitute one individual "cigarette."
And here are the code cites, all containing this same defintion:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 3.2-4200
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1000
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1031 (this one differs only in that it lacks the last bit about "roll-your-own")
It's hard to imagine that they could get away with arguing that the defintion of "cigarette" should be any different for purposes of this recently amended smoking ban (the previous one being in effect since 1990), absent specific re-definition in this particular section of the code, than it is for all other sections of the code.
"Cigarette" means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains (i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; (ii) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (iii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition. The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own" tobacco, which means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes. For purposes of this definition of "cigarette," 0.09 ounces of "roll-your-own" tobacco shall constitute one individual "cigarette."
And here are the code cites, all containing this same defintion:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 3.2-4200
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1000
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1031 (this one differs only in that it lacks the last bit about "roll-your-own")
It's hard to imagine that they could get away with arguing that the defintion of "cigarette" should be any different for purposes of this recently amended smoking ban (the previous one being in effect since 1990), absent specific re-definition in this particular section of the code, than it is for all other sections of the code.
Last edited:
If the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to bow to Webster's Dictionary, why did the legislators take such pain-staking efforts to include definitions of "cigarettes," "smoke," etc. in the text of the law itself? I think it is a bit cheaky for the Department of Health--a state agency--to use definitions that differ from those included in the law itself.
Anyway, I like the idea of asking the (new) Attorney General for a ruling in one month's time. . .
Anyway, I like the idea of asking the (new) Attorney General for a ruling in one month's time. . .
Exactly - they can't. I'd like to see them try to prosecute anyone for using an e-cigarette where smoking is prohibited - they'd most certainly LOSE!
The AG and Health Department can't just arbitrarily change the definition stated in the law!
Great find, Yolanda!
I highlighted a key word - "and" so they can't say, "well, it contains nicotine." It has to contain nicotine and meet the other criteria - not "or."
The language in the bill they are relying upon is "cigarette OF ANY KIND". He said the e cig "looks like a cigarette, feels like a cigarette, therefore it is a cigarette". He also admitted he hadn't actually seen one. I told him the term "cigarette" was nothing more than a marketing tool since the potential customers were all smokers, and that it is also more appropriately called a personal vaporizer. He insisted the ONE website they viewed showed a white cigarette with an orange light and a tan filter tip, so it looked like a cigarette and therefore - according to their attorneys - meets the definition of "any kind of cigarette".
One of the things I'm going to include in the package is the official description of a cigarette as shown by the U.S. Government at smokefree.gov (the same definition listed by Kristin from Webster's, which I also have copied).
However, yvilla's find is priceless. I knew there was a more definitive description of cigarettes in the Virginia code, but just hadn't had time to look for it. Yvilla saved me the effort and it theoretically should be very difficult for them to deny it. However, their own website has a write-up on secondhand smoke and asthma, and defines SHS as "from burning tobacco products" - I mentioned that to him, yet he seemed unimpressed, even though it is their own definition of "smoke".
We'll just have to see if everything I throw at him will have an impact.
Emails from vapers may also help, but keep them polite and professional. He'll pay more attention.
One of the things I'm going to include in the package is the official description of a cigarette as shown by the U.S. Government at smokefree.gov (the same definition listed by Kristin from Webster's, which I also have copied).
However, yvilla's find is priceless. I knew there was a more definitive description of cigarettes in the Virginia code, but just hadn't had time to look for it. Yvilla saved me the effort and it theoretically should be very difficult for them to deny it. However, their own website has a write-up on secondhand smoke and asthma, and defines SHS as "from burning tobacco products" - I mentioned that to him, yet he seemed unimpressed, even though it is their own definition of "smoke".
We'll just have to see if everything I throw at him will have an impact.
Emails from vapers may also help, but keep them polite and professional. He'll pay more attention.
A "cigarette of any kind," but it still has to be a cigarette. E-cigs do not meet the State of Virginia's definition of a cigarette - it doesn't matter what anyone "thinks." According to the State of Virginia's definition of a cigarette, e-cigs are NOT cigarettes, regardless of how they look, feel or are named.
I can start selling pens painted white and tan, with an orange eraser and call them "pen cigarettes" and even though it looks and feels like a cigarette, it still wouldn't be considered a cigarette PER THE LAW.
Besides, have you ever seen a Janty stick?
It doesn't look or feel ANYTHING like a cigarette!
I can start selling pens painted white and tan, with an orange eraser and call them "pen cigarettes" and even though it looks and feels like a cigarette, it still wouldn't be considered a cigarette PER THE LAW.
Besides, have you ever seen a Janty stick?
It doesn't look or feel ANYTHING like a cigarette!
Last edited:
You should send him that photo and ask how that meets his definition of a cigarette!?
My response in public to "is that one of those electric cigarette thingies?" has now changed from emphatic explanation to:
"That's what some people call them."
If asked to explain I'm happy to do so, calling it a vaporizer.
I think I will just start calling it my "inhaler". After all, the stick looks nothing like a cig as mentioned above. I'm usually stealthy about it anyway, because at any distance it looks like I'm smoking, regardless of what's in my hand.
Actually I quite like the term "inhaler".
"That's what some people call them."
If asked to explain I'm happy to do so, calling it a vaporizer.
I think I will just start calling it my "inhaler". After all, the stick looks nothing like a cig as mentioned above. I'm usually stealthy about it anyway, because at any distance it looks like I'm smoking, regardless of what's in my hand.
Actually I quite like the term "inhaler".
After taking time to thoroughly read the definition of "cigarette" contained in Virginia Code 3.2-4200 (as posted by Yvilla), I can see them attempting to construe it as applying to the e cig. It refers to "nicotine that is burned or HEATED" and a cigarette is described in clause (ii) as containing tobacco IN ANY FORM which because of its "packaging or labeling", is likely to be offered to consumers as a cigarette. However, where I think that gets shot down is the very last part of clause (ii), which states "...as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition". Clause (i) defines a cigarette specifically as a "roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco".
Read it again - there is one key word:
"contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains..."
It can't JUST contian nicotine and be burned or heated, it also MUST contain tobacco, because of the "AND" in the sentence. If it said "or" that would be different, but it doesn't.
"contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains..."
It can't JUST contian nicotine and be burned or heated, it also MUST contain tobacco, because of the "AND" in the sentence. If it said "or" that would be different, but it doesn't.
Last edited:
Kristin, I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, we're dealing with lawyers and government types who are bending over backward to include the e cig in the ban and reasoning with them is difficult at best. I can envision them claiming "tobacco in any form" includes nicotine extracted from tobacco, as ridiculous as that is.
I also read clause (ii) again and the reference to (i) occurs at the end of clause (iii), not (ii) [Following all this so far? Confusing, isn't it?]. However, reference to the clause (i) definition of a cigarette as rolled tobacco later in the body of the paragraph indicates to me that is the primary definition.
I also read clause (ii) again and the reference to (i) occurs at the end of clause (iii), not (ii) [Following all this so far? Confusing, isn't it?]. However, reference to the clause (i) definition of a cigarette as rolled tobacco later in the body of the paragraph indicates to me that is the primary definition.
I have already done so. I corresponded several times with my Delegate, Dave Albo, and I copied him and Sen. Cuccinelli (Attorney General Elect) on the email that I sent to Hagy. (See #14 in this thread).
In yesterday's snail mail I received a copy of the letter that Del. Albo sent to Dr. Karen Remley (Hagy's boss). It reads in part, "Electronic cigarettes are not burned or lighted and are smokeless, so why are banned when they originally not included in the bill?"
Vocalek, that's VERY encouraging. I've been spending so much time tracking down definitions, Virginia codes, and information to refute their claims, I haven't had a chance to contact either my Delegate or Senator; both voted against the ban, so I'm hopeful they'll support us, too. I'll be particularly eager to see if you get a response from Cuccinelli because, once he becomes Attorney General, he can wipe out their "ban" by simply declaring the law does not apply to e cigs.
I believe Dr. Nitzkin, who has come to our support in other states, may be sending a letter to Hagy, as well. I sent him an email asking for his help and he responded by asking for the contact information.
I believe Dr. Nitzkin, who has come to our support in other states, may be sending a letter to Hagy, as well. I sent him an email asking for his help and he responded by asking for the contact information.
In the city of VA Beach Vaporizers are banned from sale and are considered drug paraphenalia. Careful who you say that to if you are in VA Beach.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
