I disagree. Because the word cigarette is included in the generic name of the product does not make it a real cigarette, any more than a bubble-gum cigar is a real cigar. It contains no tobacco. Dr. Remley also ignored the word lighted in the law, which I am pretty sure means that citizen is not in violation of the law until he sets his tobacco product on fire in one of the banned locations.. Finally, scientifically speaking, there is a world of difference between smoke and vapor.
If directly inhaling the vapor has resulted in improvements in my health, I find it impossible to believe that the small amount of vapor that I exhale could present a health hazard to bystanders. In fact, Health New Zealand has categorically stated that the vapor is harmless inhaled or exhaled.
I have taken steps to improve my own health. I am not endangering the health of anyone else. I require the continued use of my device to remain a former smoker. Why should I be punished when I use my device? Why should I have to go outside into the elements to a designated smoking area and forced by VDH policy to be exposed to second-hand smoke?
If you agree that the legislature never intended for smoke-free alternatives to be included in the smoking ban, would you please direct Dr. Remley to remove the entry on the smoking bans FAQ page (
http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/breatheeasy/faqs.htm) that reads:
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
Thank you for your support.