US DOT falsely claims e-cigs banned on airlines, then says agency plans to issue new regulation later this year

[Bill Godshall]

USA Today: Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes?
Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes?

Bill Mosley, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, says the current ban on smoking on planes applies to e-cigarettes, though it does not explicitly say so.
"There has been some confusion over whether the Department's ban on smoking includes a ban on (the) use of e-cigarettes," he says.
To clear up that confusion, in September 2011, the department proposed an amendment to explicitly ban e-cigarettes. A final rule is expected by the end of this year.

I find it amazing that this lackey reporter didn't point out that Mosley had just contradicted himself, as e-cigarette use on airlines cannot be banned by DOT unless/until the agency issues a final rule to do so.

The article also contains fear mongering claims about e-cigarettes by Stan Glantz.

 

[Bill Godshall]

As some folks may recall, CASAA and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and I submitted comments to the DOT's docket in November 2011 pointing out that the DOT's proposed regulation (to ban e-cig use in airlines) was unlawful.

My comment to DOT
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ents-us-plane-ban-nov-14-a-6.html#post4563461

CEI/CASAA news release
http://cei.org/news-releases/govern...ttes-airplanes-opposed-public-interest-groups

CEI/CASAA comment to DOT
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Sam Kazman - E-Cigarette Ban Comments to DOT.pdf

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that in February 2011 then Secretary of DOT Ray LaHood falsely claimed (in a letter to Sen. Lautenberg) that DOT had banned e-cig use on airlines
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/electronic-cigarettes-ban_n_821828.html

US DOT proposes regulation on 9/15/11 to ban e-cig use in airlines
Regulations.gov
Regulations.gov

 

[Berylanna]

So, now what?

Glantz SOUNDS so reasonable, just the way he uses his voice.

Hot food is dangerous. Not as dangerous as cigarettes, but dangerous. Why can't I find reputable scientists willing to say this, it's an obvious fact, it comes under "the dose makes the poison."

If we try to disagree with the ANTZ definition of dangerous (more than a 0% chance that this could ever slightly, temporarily, harm someone 20 feet away, ever) we sound like polluting wimps, which we are not. So we need to stop trying to disagree, and START accepting their definition of dangerous and point out that Glantz is effectively calling for a ban on all hot food in all restaurants, at the very least.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Every time Glantz and other e-cig prohibitionists generate news stories criticizing e-cigarettes, sales and consumption of the products increase.

 

[Petrodus]

Every time Glantz and other e-cig prohibitionists generate news stories criticizing e-cigarettes,
sales and consumption of the products increase.

 

[jimbol]

As some folks may recall, CASAA and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and I submitted comments to the DOT's docket in November 2011 pointing out that the DOT's proposed regulation (to ban e-cig use in airlines) was unlawful./QUOTE]

DOT my not be able to but I believe most of the airline companies in the U.S. have banned ecigs. At least for now.

 

[Placebo Effect]

As some folks may recall, CASAA and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and I submitted comments to the DOT's docket in November 2011 pointing out that the DOT's proposed regulation (to ban e-cig use in airlines) was unlawful./QUOTE]

DOT my not be able to but I believe most of the airline companies in the U.S. have banned ecigs. At least for now.

Indeed. But it being illegal is the difference between a flight attendant saying, "Sir, you have to turn that off, and if you keep using it you'll be charged with disobeying a flight attendant under the Patriot Act" and "Sir, when you land you'll be given a ticket fining you $3,000 for using your e-cigarette."

 

[Bill Godshall]

It appears that DOT has simply bullied most of the airlines to ban e-cig use on flights, while the agency continues deceiving the public to believe that DOT has banned its use.

Since DOT imposes and enforces many different airline regulations, most airlines are unlikely to stand up to DOT's bullying tactics on this issue (since its not costing the airlines money).

 

[CookingWithGuns]

Indeed. But it being illegal is the difference between a flight attendant saying, "Sir, you have to turn that off, and if you keep using it you'll be charged with disobeying a flight attendant under the Patriot Act" and "Sir, when you land you'll be given a ticket fining you $3,000 for using your e-cigarette."

That is not the difference. Even if legal under the law, if it is against airline rules, you could still be charged an outrageous fine, and if you don't stop you could be charged.

 

[Berylanna]

The DOT has been doing its best to keep people from traveling since 9/11, why should they stop now?

 

[Placebo Effect]

That is not the difference. Even if legal under the law, if it is against airline rules, you could still be charged an outrageous fine, and if you don't stop you could be charged.

Yes, it is. If you currently use an e-cigarette on a plane, but stop when asked, there is nothing they can charge you with that will stick.

 

[szot]

Bottom line is...don't use your ecig on a plane, regardless if a policy or a criminal act..Southwest has it clearly marked at every seat that "ecigarettes are not allowed"...and yes there are OTHER federal laws that REQUIRE you to follow the flight attendants directives and your conduct while on a plane..

 

[Bill Godshall]

Bottom line is .... the federal government should not be lying to the public about laws and/or regulations.

 

[DC2]

Bottom line is .... the federal government should not be lying to the public about laws and/or regulations.

Nicely played, but I'll try to go you one better...

The bottom line is the populace of the United States should not accept a government that would lie to them.
Well, at least not when it is regarding an issue that has nothing to do with national security.

Not that I'm saying that is an acceptable time to lie to us either, but that's a topic that is too big for this forum.

 

[Berylanna]

Bottom line is...don't use your ecig on a plane, regardless if a policy or a criminal act..Southwest has it clearly marked at every seat that "ecigarettes are not allowed"...and yes there are OTHER federal laws that REQUIRE you to follow the flight attendants directives and your conduct while on a plane..

Damn, first Starbucks, now Southwest. My favorite coffee and my favorite airline.

For my info, before any new laws are explicity passed, do the other airlines have these signs up? (Southwest did not have it last October, IIRC)

 

[Linden]

I continue to be confused as to the basis for any ecigarette ban by any governmental agency. Our constitution was founded on the concept of natural laws (rights) as our founders followed the philosophers John Locke and Thomas Paine:
Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights

It can be reasoned that infringing upon the liberty of cigarette smokers in public is lawful because it purportedly infringed upon the first right of others (life).
There is no such infringement with vapor. The government simply CANNOT infringe upon the liberties of the people without due cause...and that cause cannot be simply because somebody is offended by a visual cue. It is incumbent upon the governing body to produce the material evidence to justify such an infringement upon the liberty of citizens. To me, any law governing the use of ecigarettes in public venues is not only premature but unconstitutional.

 

[tokyovapr]

That is not the difference. Even if legal under the law, if it is against airline rules, you could still be charged an outrageous fine, and if you don't stop you could be charged.

Anybody else just vape in the bathroom like me? I just took two 12+ hour international flights, and every hour or two I would go to the bathroom and bring along my kit.

 

[zoiDman]

Yes, it is. If you currently use an e-cigarette on a plane, but stop when asked, there is nothing they can charge you with that will stick.

This to me is a Huge Distinction.