Is your kiosk in Virginia Beach proper, and if so does this mean you are out of a job?
Report from Speaker's office on Va. E cig ban
- Thread starter Storyspinr
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
An e-cigarette is not a vaporizer. It's a cute catch phrase for them, but hardly accurate. Since it is virtually impossible for an e-cigarette to do what a vaporizer does. (you can't add your own plant matter) I would say no. e-cigarettes dont really fit into any category but their own. I have been against calling them pv's from the start.
On the other hand if the health department starts attempting to cite us for doing demos it could be a problem. If I am cited I can then take this fight to court and I am confident we would win. But that is problematic in and of itself. I need to be there every day to keep things running smoothly. My free time is limited. I have been advised that the FAQ is not legally binding by more then one attorney now, so I will operate based on that. The ban has been in effect since the first. I am assuming that if the FAQ was legit they would have cited us by now. I will keep you guys posted.
On the other hand if the health department starts attempting to cite us for doing demos it could be a problem. If I am cited I can then take this fight to court and I am confident we would win. But that is problematic in and of itself. I need to be there every day to keep things running smoothly. My free time is limited. I have been advised that the FAQ is not legally binding by more then one attorney now, so I will operate based on that. The ban has been in effect since the first. I am assuming that if the FAQ was legit they would have cited us by now. I will keep you guys posted.
Sure they can... they work for the gov't.
Actually.. an e-cigarette IS a vaporizer... but it is a LIQUID vaporizer... and cannot tolerate solids, which should exempt it from that law I think. I would have to read it.
True! It absolutely IS a vaporizer - despite the cute name the manufacturers came up for it.
Main Entry: cig·a·rette
Variant(s): also cig·a·ret \ˌsi-gə-ˈret, ˈsi-gə-ˌ\
Function: noun
Etymology: French cigarette, diminutive of cigare cigar, from Spanish cigarro
Date: 1835
: a slender roll of cut tobacco enclosed in paper and meant to be smoked; also : a similar roll of another substance (as marijuana)
________________________________________________________________
Main Entry: va·por·iz·er
Pronunciation: \ˈvā-pə-ˌrī-zər\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1846
: one that vaporizes: as a : atomizer b : a device for converting water or a medicated liquid into a vapor for inhalation
Which definition describes our device??
Last edited:
You can't put plant matter in it. It is not drug paraphenalia. I am getting really sick of defending my right to come to work everyday.
You guys are on your own. The more atention I call to myself the more3 the chips seem to stack against me. It is not drug paraphenalia and does not violate smoking ordinances. E-cigs belong in a class of their own. I am done posting here.
Mac, the definition of a vaporizer does not say it HAS to have plant matter in it. That is a definition of THAT type of vaporizer.
By it fitting the definition of a LIQUID vaporizer, it EXCLUDES e-cigs from being tobacco and banned in Virginia and helps your cause. I don't know where you are getting the idea that this is against you??
If you look up the definition of vaporizer, it does NOT say it has plant matter in it. I don't know where you get that definition, other than a popular term for that device in those circles.
The REAL definition of "vaporizer" is on your side and helps your cause.
Before weed vaporizers, there were ROOM vaporizers, to help add humidity to rooms for dry sinuses.
And here is a twist I didn't notice mentioned anywhere.
I based this on a reply I got today from Gary Hagy, the VA contact for the FAQ:
He referred to Websters definition of 'smoke'- the one he highlighted was:
3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.
Here is what I'm about to reply with:
And "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture" would then have to include a persons exhaled breath in a cold environment - vapor resulting from the action of one's body heat on the moisture in their lungs. Therefore, any environment that has people working in a refrigerator or freezer; or an unheated environment in winter; or anywhere else cold enough to create vapor from the people's breath, would have to be closed since people would not be able to 'smoke' in those environments.
Doubt I'll get a further reply, but...
Below are my original email, his reply and my further response for anyone who wants to read it.
Respectfully,
-bogie
*********************************************************
ORIGINAL EMAIL:
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 4:20 PM
To: Hagy, Gary (VDH)
Subject: Smoking Ban
Your contact information was offered at the end of a FAQ regarding the Dec 1 subject matter.
My question is regarding this point in the FAQ:
*****
"Are electronic cigarettes banned under the new law?
Electronic cigarettes are considered cigarettes and are banned in the same locations affected by the new law."
*****
In light of the definition contained within the law:
*****
§ 15.2-2820. Definitions.
"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."
*****
Nowhere in the full text of the law is the term "electronic" used - at all; let alone to define an "electronic cigarette" to be "considered cigarettes". If I missed this, I would appreciate having it pointed out to me.
There is simply no basis to conclude electronic cigarettes fall under the provisions of this law.
- an electronic cigarette is not "lighted"
- smoke is the result of combustion
---- an electronic cigarette has no combustion; therefore no smoke
- "electronic cigarette" is a term chosen to be used for one of many variations of personal vaporizing devices that only vaporize liquid into vapor similar to steam.
The FAQ comment should be removed and retracted.
*********************************************************
HIS REPLY RECEIVED TODAY:
Subject: RE: Smoking Ban
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:19:33 -0500
From: Gary.Hagy@vdh.virginia.gov
As you point out in your Email the Indoor Clean Air Act defines smoke or smoking as:
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.
This is very broad definition, particularly the language regarding cigarettes.
When the user puffs on an e-cigarette, he or she inhales a vapor that contains nicotine and then exhales a portion of the vapor. Websters dictionary defines smoke as 1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension of particles in a gas 2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : smudge 3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.
Based on the broad definition that includes the terminology cigarette of any kind and seeing no language that exempted electronic cigarettes, it is the Departments interpretation that electronic cigarettes are included within the statutory definition of cigarette.
Gary L. Hagy
Director, Division of Food and Environmental Services
Phone: 804-864-7455
Blackberry: 804-840-5415
*********************************************************
MY REPLY TODAY
Thanks for getting back to me...
However, I hope the department is ready for legal challenges.
The definition you reproduced below repeatedly refers to 'lighted', which simply does not happen with an electronic cigarette.
'Cigarette' as defined in VA codes: (bold emphasis mine)
"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."
In all portions of this definition (because of the 'and' statement) a 'cigarette' must contain tobacco. An electronic cigarette does not. I don't see how you can have differing definitions for this application.
LIS > Code of Virginia > 3.2-4200
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1000
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1031
The scientific definition of smoke is burning of organic material, resulting in carbon particulates and ash being suspended in the air. It's a real stretch to say 'vapor' is smoke.
Not all electronic cigarettes contain nicotine (mine does not); besides, nicotine is not specifically part of the law.
And "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture" would then have to include a persons exhaled breath in a cold environment - vapor resulting from the action of one's body heat on the moisture in their lungs. Therefore, any environment that has people working in a refrigerator or freezer; or an unheated environment in winter; or anywhere else cold enough to create vapor from the people's breath, would have to be closed since people would not be able to 'smoke' in those environments.
I do hope common sense will prevail in the enforcement of this regulation - which, for what it was actually intended to do - prevent tobacco burning indoors - I wholeheartedly support.
*********************************************************
I based this on a reply I got today from Gary Hagy, the VA contact for the FAQ:
He referred to Websters definition of 'smoke'- the one he highlighted was:
3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.
Here is what I'm about to reply with:
And "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture" would then have to include a persons exhaled breath in a cold environment - vapor resulting from the action of one's body heat on the moisture in their lungs. Therefore, any environment that has people working in a refrigerator or freezer; or an unheated environment in winter; or anywhere else cold enough to create vapor from the people's breath, would have to be closed since people would not be able to 'smoke' in those environments.
Doubt I'll get a further reply, but...
Below are my original email, his reply and my further response for anyone who wants to read it.
Respectfully,
-bogie
*********************************************************
ORIGINAL EMAIL:
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 4:20 PM
To: Hagy, Gary (VDH)
Subject: Smoking Ban
Your contact information was offered at the end of a FAQ regarding the Dec 1 subject matter.
My question is regarding this point in the FAQ:
*****
"Are electronic cigarettes banned under the new law?
Electronic cigarettes are considered cigarettes and are banned in the same locations affected by the new law."
*****
In light of the definition contained within the law:
*****
§ 15.2-2820. Definitions.
"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."
*****
Nowhere in the full text of the law is the term "electronic" used - at all; let alone to define an "electronic cigarette" to be "considered cigarettes". If I missed this, I would appreciate having it pointed out to me.
There is simply no basis to conclude electronic cigarettes fall under the provisions of this law.
- an electronic cigarette is not "lighted"
- smoke is the result of combustion
---- an electronic cigarette has no combustion; therefore no smoke
- "electronic cigarette" is a term chosen to be used for one of many variations of personal vaporizing devices that only vaporize liquid into vapor similar to steam.
The FAQ comment should be removed and retracted.
*********************************************************
HIS REPLY RECEIVED TODAY:
Subject: RE: Smoking Ban
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:19:33 -0500
From: Gary.Hagy@vdh.virginia.gov
As you point out in your Email the Indoor Clean Air Act defines smoke or smoking as:
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.
This is very broad definition, particularly the language regarding cigarettes.
When the user puffs on an e-cigarette, he or she inhales a vapor that contains nicotine and then exhales a portion of the vapor. Websters dictionary defines smoke as 1 a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon b : a suspension of particles in a gas 2 a : a mass or column of smoke b : smudge 3 : fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.
Based on the broad definition that includes the terminology cigarette of any kind and seeing no language that exempted electronic cigarettes, it is the Departments interpretation that electronic cigarettes are included within the statutory definition of cigarette.
Gary L. Hagy
Director, Division of Food and Environmental Services
Phone: 804-864-7455
Blackberry: 804-840-5415
*********************************************************
MY REPLY TODAY
Thanks for getting back to me...
However, I hope the department is ready for legal challenges.
The definition you reproduced below repeatedly refers to 'lighted', which simply does not happen with an electronic cigarette.
'Cigarette' as defined in VA codes: (bold emphasis mine)
"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."
In all portions of this definition (because of the 'and' statement) a 'cigarette' must contain tobacco. An electronic cigarette does not. I don't see how you can have differing definitions for this application.
LIS > Code of Virginia > 3.2-4200
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1000
LIS > Code of Virginia > 58.1-1031
The scientific definition of smoke is burning of organic material, resulting in carbon particulates and ash being suspended in the air. It's a real stretch to say 'vapor' is smoke.
Not all electronic cigarettes contain nicotine (mine does not); besides, nicotine is not specifically part of the law.
And "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture" would then have to include a persons exhaled breath in a cold environment - vapor resulting from the action of one's body heat on the moisture in their lungs. Therefore, any environment that has people working in a refrigerator or freezer; or an unheated environment in winter; or anywhere else cold enough to create vapor from the people's breath, would have to be closed since people would not be able to 'smoke' in those environments.
I do hope common sense will prevail in the enforcement of this regulation - which, for what it was actually intended to do - prevent tobacco burning indoors - I wholeheartedly support.
*********************************************************
Bogiediver, if you check entries on this thread dated 12/14, you will see Kristin and I had quite a "discussion" about Hagy's use of the Webster definition, although I don't believe the precise wording was used - what he wrote you is exactly what he told me in our phone conversation. I find their "smoke" definition so out of the scientific realm, I emailed Webster asking for the source of that definition. As of today (12/17), I have not heard back from them. In checking their definition of "vapor", it includes "diffused matter (as SMOKE or fog) suspended floating in the air and impairing its transparency". Here, they are lumping vapor, fog and smoke all together, which is incorrect scientifically - each has its own chemical components. Smoke MUST result from the combustion of organic material.
I attempted explaining that to Mr. Hagy during our phone conversation, as well as their incorrect definition of a cigarette. Nowhere in any dictionary, including Webster's, or at smokefree.gov with its "official government" definition, does such definition include anything other than containing tobacco. E cigs contain no tobbaco.
I have sent additional information to Mr. Hagy, including links to scientific websites with the correct definitions of "smoke" and "cigarettes". Based on his reply to you, he seems dead set on sticking to the erroneous definitions. He also is not acting alone - there are others involved in the decision including, I believe, the acting Attorney General.
Once the new AG takes over in January, I am hopeful we can request him to issue a ruling and I think there is a real possibility he will be more reasonable. I think the antis are working behind the scenes on this with the Health Dept. (they're really grasping at straws with those definitions); the incoming AG is not an anti and, in fact, voted against the smoking ban as a member of the state Senate.
Also, others are joining in the fight by sending information/letters to Hagy, although at this time I am reluctant to reveal their names without their permission. Plus quite a few from this forum, like you, are letting their opinions be known. If nothing else, perhaps Hagy and others will realize they have awakened a sleeping giant who will not go quietly down to defeat.
I attempted explaining that to Mr. Hagy during our phone conversation, as well as their incorrect definition of a cigarette. Nowhere in any dictionary, including Webster's, or at smokefree.gov with its "official government" definition, does such definition include anything other than containing tobacco. E cigs contain no tobbaco.
I have sent additional information to Mr. Hagy, including links to scientific websites with the correct definitions of "smoke" and "cigarettes". Based on his reply to you, he seems dead set on sticking to the erroneous definitions. He also is not acting alone - there are others involved in the decision including, I believe, the acting Attorney General.
Once the new AG takes over in January, I am hopeful we can request him to issue a ruling and I think there is a real possibility he will be more reasonable. I think the antis are working behind the scenes on this with the Health Dept. (they're really grasping at straws with those definitions); the incoming AG is not an anti and, in fact, voted against the smoking ban as a member of the state Senate.
Also, others are joining in the fight by sending information/letters to Hagy, although at this time I am reluctant to reveal their names without their permission. Plus quite a few from this forum, like you, are letting their opinions be known. If nothing else, perhaps Hagy and others will realize they have awakened a sleeping giant who will not go quietly down to defeat.
Regardless of what Webster's dictionary says, the State of Virginia has it's OWN, LEGAL definition of "cigarette" and "tobacco." A "cigarette of any kind" still means a cigarette as defined by the State of Virginia. The State of Virginia defines a cigarette as containing tobacco.
So, "cigarette of any kind" does NOT include electronic cigarettes, per the State definition of "cigarette." The State of Virginia does NOT consider an electronic cigarette to be a LEGALLY defined cigarette.
He can't just ignore the State's LEGAL definition of "cigarette" in favor of Webster's dictionary! Besides, that's not even Webster's definition of "cigarette" it's the definition of "smoke." And Virginia has a legal definition of "smoke" and "smoking," too - it comes from cigarettes, which, by the legal definition, contain tobacco.
The response Vocalek received from delegate Albo gives every reason for confidence that this nonsense will be shut down in the coming month or so. Fortunately, the state has allowed 90 days for enforcement to begin. Thus, by the time the ticket pads are ready (literally), the state of Virginia will have explained the meaning of "cigarette" to its health department. Or, at least so one hopes.
I just want to thank everyone who is trying to clear up this mess. Most of you don't even live in this some what backwards state. I myself just wanted to make sure that you understand what you are doing is great. HUGS!
Kristin, Hagy claims there were several people involved in the decision including, according to the Speaker's office, the acting Attorney General. Thank goodness he's "acting" and will soon be replaced with someone who appears more reasonable.
I couldn't agree more they are completely and deliberately twisting some definitions and ignoring others. It's obvious no amount of persuasion or proof is going to change this bunch's mind. With a new Governor coming in, and a new AG, maybe we can get some adults involved in the decision making.
KitKat, a lot of people are jumping in to help from several states. They know we can't let this stand; no single state agency should be able to rewrite laws to their own personal agendas, and that is exactly what this is.
I couldn't agree more they are completely and deliberately twisting some definitions and ignoring others. It's obvious no amount of persuasion or proof is going to change this bunch's mind. With a new Governor coming in, and a new AG, maybe we can get some adults involved in the decision making.
KitKat, a lot of people are jumping in to help from several states. They know we can't let this stand; no single state agency should be able to rewrite laws to their own personal agendas, and that is exactly what this is.
If you live in VA, please go to this thread and respond. Thanks!
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...dents-virginia-please-respond.html#post879912
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...dents-virginia-please-respond.html#post879912
I have a question... If my "PV" is not an E-cigg... It doesn't glow and doesn't look like a cigarette, and I use it, but hold it in until the vapor dissapates then exhale? Ummm how am I violating anything? Otherwords, there is nothing they can do for stealth vaporing right?
I live in Va and understand, support, and will help anyway I can against this rediculous FAQ on e-cigs ... but that is the part of the problem, marketing calls them e-cigs and anti's just interpret them as "cigarettes".
So according to this FAQ, a medical inhaler is also banned? Isn't that what the "reply" from the VDH is saying. WFT? I mean when anyone exhales there is "vapor" wether you see it or not. It will take this going to court with the help of some lawyers willing to do it... I mean, if I get a fine, I don't have the time or money to fight it. Lot easier to just pay it... and that is what "they" are counting on.
My local bar/restraunt I go to lunch regular is now closed Mon/Tues because business became so slow. The place is hurting after the ban. I remember friends that would not go there because they allowed smoking... well truth is they aren't the "type" to go there anyways and still don't... and now the place is hurting. Thurs I stopped by to get togo food (I didn't want to hangout and have a beer cause I couldn't "smoke")... They were running out of stuff, said they were trying to get rid of their stores. Sounds like trouble to me.
I live in Va and understand, support, and will help anyway I can against this rediculous FAQ on e-cigs ... but that is the part of the problem, marketing calls them e-cigs and anti's just interpret them as "cigarettes".
So according to this FAQ, a medical inhaler is also banned? Isn't that what the "reply" from the VDH is saying. WFT? I mean when anyone exhales there is "vapor" wether you see it or not. It will take this going to court with the help of some lawyers willing to do it... I mean, if I get a fine, I don't have the time or money to fight it. Lot easier to just pay it... and that is what "they" are counting on.
My local bar/restraunt I go to lunch regular is now closed Mon/Tues because business became so slow. The place is hurting after the ban. I remember friends that would not go there because they allowed smoking... well truth is they aren't the "type" to go there anyways and still don't... and now the place is hurting. Thurs I stopped by to get togo food (I didn't want to hangout and have a beer cause I couldn't "smoke")... They were running out of stuff, said they were trying to get rid of their stores. Sounds like trouble to me.
JollyRogers, that's a shame about the bar/restaurant, but it was to be expected. The antis in the General Assembly refused to allow time for an economic impact statement before voting on the ban, no doubt because they knew it would show the ban will put a lot of places out of business. That's why some restaurants are "smoke at your own risk" and leaving the ashtrays out...many would rather pay the $25 fine than give up their freedom (or give up their customers, in the case of the restaurant owners).
I hope a lawyer is willing to take this to court if all other methods fail. However, there are other avenues still open, although we'll probably have to wait until after January 16 when the new Administration takes over.
I hope a lawyer is willing to take this to court if all other methods fail. However, there are other avenues still open, although we'll probably have to wait until after January 16 when the new Administration takes over.
This doesn't really help anything, but I thought it was funny.....
My hubby - a non-smoker and non-vaper - wants to drop some tobacco into the battery chamber of a penlight, turn it on, and stick it in his mouth and see who in Virginia identifies it as a "lit cigarette!"
According to the interpretations being put forth by the Health Department it seems that his flashlight deal is actually much closer to a "cigarette" than my PV. At least it would contain tobacco!
My hubby - a non-smoker and non-vaper - wants to drop some tobacco into the battery chamber of a penlight, turn it on, and stick it in his mouth and see who in Virginia identifies it as a "lit cigarette!"
According to the interpretations being put forth by the Health Department it seems that his flashlight deal is actually much closer to a "cigarette" than my PV. At least it would contain tobacco!
Guineahill, it depends upon whether the penlight cigarette puts out vapor or smoke. Oh, wait. In Virginia, the terms are interchangeable.
For the latest update on the Health Department's position, please see my post on SmokeyJoe's thread "Virginia (mis)interpretation of statute regarding e cigarettes" under this Campaigning heading.
Hi, I'm new to ecf & haven't posted before, but I live in VA & would like to fight any ban of ecigs here. I do not understand the logic, or lack thereof, of anyone who equates vapor with smoke because it has chemicals in it.
Nebulizers & vaporizers have chemicals in them. I could set one up on any restaurant table & not get kicked out, right?
Every steak house or Cracker Barrel I've ever been in has a fireplace or wood burning grill. These release smoke with chemicals in it, particularly since they have no idea what the trees were sprayed with before they were chopped.
Vaping doesn't paralyze the cilia in our lungs like smoke. The PG is an FDA approved food additive & and FDA approved drug additive so more than half the non-smoking population is probably ingesting it every day in larger quantities than in vapor.
The FSC papers recently required by law for all cigarettes contain the same chemicals as carpet glue & mothballs which is why they're "fire safe". ecigs contain NONE of that.
How can anyone conclude that vaping is the equivalent of smoking, yet not ban these other horrors?
Sorry for the length of this, but if y'all have any other points I can use, please let me know. I'm ready to write to all & sundry.
Nebulizers & vaporizers have chemicals in them. I could set one up on any restaurant table & not get kicked out, right?
Every steak house or Cracker Barrel I've ever been in has a fireplace or wood burning grill. These release smoke with chemicals in it, particularly since they have no idea what the trees were sprayed with before they were chopped.
Vaping doesn't paralyze the cilia in our lungs like smoke. The PG is an FDA approved food additive & and FDA approved drug additive so more than half the non-smoking population is probably ingesting it every day in larger quantities than in vapor.
The FSC papers recently required by law for all cigarettes contain the same chemicals as carpet glue & mothballs which is why they're "fire safe". ecigs contain NONE of that.
How can anyone conclude that vaping is the equivalent of smoking, yet not ban these other horrors?
Sorry for the length of this, but if y'all have any other points I can use, please let me know. I'm ready to write to all & sundry.
Pipedream, you're exactly right about fireplaces and grills. Research has shown fireplaces, wood stoves, even candles, emit many of the same toxic chemicals as secondhand smoke as a natural occurence of combustion. Candle smoke can even cause asthma attacks in susceptible people.
The other thing I've run into while discussing the e cig ban with aides to politicians is a complete lack of knowledge about nicotine. When I discuss the contents of e cig cartridges, the response is always "But they contain nicotine". I must then explain nicotine doesn't cause cancer (they incorrectly assume it is nicotine that presents the health danger in cigarettes) and inform them any time they eat tomatoes or potatoes, they are ingesting nicotine...which is usually met by stunned silence. None of them had any idea nicotine occurs in foods they all eat; it pretty much deflates that argument against e cigs.
Right now we're waiting for a ruling from the Attorney General's office. The new AG won't be sworn in until this Saturday, so I don't know if the member of the House of Delegates has yet written his promised letter requesting the ruling (I should get a copy once it's sent). It will take 6 to 8 weeks to receive a ruling...a long wait, but if the ruling goes in our favor, it will be worth the wait. If it goes against us, we have other alternatives to consider.
The other thing I've run into while discussing the e cig ban with aides to politicians is a complete lack of knowledge about nicotine. When I discuss the contents of e cig cartridges, the response is always "But they contain nicotine". I must then explain nicotine doesn't cause cancer (they incorrectly assume it is nicotine that presents the health danger in cigarettes) and inform them any time they eat tomatoes or potatoes, they are ingesting nicotine...which is usually met by stunned silence. None of them had any idea nicotine occurs in foods they all eat; it pretty much deflates that argument against e cigs.
Right now we're waiting for a ruling from the Attorney General's office. The new AG won't be sworn in until this Saturday, so I don't know if the member of the House of Delegates has yet written his promised letter requesting the ruling (I should get a copy once it's sent). It will take 6 to 8 weeks to receive a ruling...a long wait, but if the ruling goes in our favor, it will be worth the wait. If it goes against us, we have other alternatives to consider.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
