Vaping where smoking is not prohibited

[Freckle]

All I did to that other guy is exactly what he asked for someone to do. He said look up the definition. He was wrong. He continued. Yes at that point I pushed harder but it is one of the underlying topics I and other have tried to address. We are not smoking. What we exhale has not been shown to be dangerous. With how persistent he was being the only way to drive this home was respond with persistence.

Your apology is accepted. Now, the question I most wanted to start at was, do you think the Canton bill has a legal leg in regards to vaping considering the bill clearly states it is meant to keep tobacco out of the hands of children?

ETA - He did come across as a troll so I guess it was mean to just turn him over to someone who loves to torment trolls.

The canton bill I am not up to date on, I will have to read it. I will say this though, anything that effects any nicotine product or delivery device we are lucky it is even out there for our freedom to use. The wording on the definition of "tobacco product" by the FDA is in such away that it does include ecigarette in it. In other words we are right now at the mercy of the FDA, and that is a law that has been passed.

 

[Freckle]

ROFL, I wasn't up to date on the Canton bill, but I was calling it MA bill. YES they have every leg to stand on, as long as the FDA backs them up!

 

[Penn]

I don't see how (in a properly functioning government, but we are falling further and further from that). The bill has a clear stated purpose to keep tobacco out of the hands of children. I have seen nothing indicating e-cigarettes have an effect on that. Thus the earlier statement about "protect the children".

Historically there have been many misdeeds done on both government and sociological scale under the guise of "for the children". This is one. They are trying to ban e-cigs under false pretenses. If CASAA is effective they will drive that point home.

 

[Freckle]

Hope for the people in Canton that Cassa is able to knock it out. Though people of canton may not be a huge smoking area because of the taxes, they can't raise taxes on ecigs to deter people, so they do an outright ban, and use the "children" as an excuse. Best fight for that area, is education on ecigs. My opinion of course. It wouldn't shock me if they get it passed. Ignorance is a dangerous thing!

 

[Butters78]

The pink stars are falling in lines!

 

[DC2]

In a essence you are a smoker.

This is the essence of fail, and you need to take a physics class.

 

[DC2]

You broke the habit of smoking cigarettes. Not the act of.

You sound like you're fresh from a good brainwashing at Whyquit.com.

 

[DC2]

Derogatory why don't you look at yourself and your save the children comment. You don't understand respect? You want to badger someone else over the definition of smoking, but let me ask you have you recently looked up the definition of respect???

Just to make sure I understand...

Are you saying that we should respect the opinion of a person who thinks vaping is smoking?
I'm just wondering if this is one of those things where we are supposed to respect an opinion, even if it is wrong.

Because if that is the definition of showing respect, count me out.

 

[DC2]

The canton bill I am not up to date on, I will have to read it. I will say this though, anything that effects any nicotine product or delivery device we are lucky it is even out there for our freedom to use. The wording on the definition of "tobacco product" by the FDA is in such away that it does include ecigarette in it. In other words we are right now at the mercy of the FDA, and that is a law that has been passed.

This is incorrect. Electronic cigarettes are not yet tobacco products.
It is expected, however, that they will be once the FDA issues their regulations.

 

[polingpower]

WOW this got real boring quick...

 

[Freckle]

This is incorrect. Electronic cigarettes are not yet tobacco products.
It is expected, however, that they will be once the FDA issues their regulations.

You are wrong, please go look up the definition. I posted it earlier.

 

[Freckle]

The wording is there, the definition, yes ecigs fall into the definition. Since 2009 there has been a law about face to face sales of tobacco product. In other words FDA has us, it is only a matter of time till they enforce it. The only exception to the FDAs regulation is if it is medical aide, as in nrt. While that doesn't apply here cause we fought those terms early on. At that time, they had us. They have always had us.


what do you think will happen to places like ECF when they finally enforce the laws of internet sales? ECF is paid for by vendors, vendors that generate most of their sales online, that do not have brick and mortars.


Telling you they have us when ever they want us. we would be fools to think otherwise.

 

[Freckle]

Here is this also, in 2010 ecigs were added to the definition. The definition then was changed that all products or delivery devices that were derived from tobacco that did not fall under the therapeutic definition would fall under the definition of tobacco product.


this link is an echo of an earlier link. pdf file 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), hope that link works, if not just Google "627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010)".

 

[Glen Snyder]

I think that Canton, MA has the legal legs to stand on. Municipalities may at their discretion enact ordinances as prescribed by their form of municipal government as long as they don't violate State or Federal laws in doing so. A legal challenge is likely useless in cases like this IMHO. The only effective way to fight it is in the court of public opinion. Without a strong display of public opposition the ordinance will likely pass.

I live in a City that has so many ordinances you couldn't believe it until you've seen it. Some are completely ridiculous to most reasonable people. So much so that one of our more popular nick names is Cape Communism. Up until 3 years ago you couldn't legally park a pick up truck in your driveway and you still can't have any vehicle with commercial advertising (signage or contractors licensed decal) on it on your property for more than 4 hours by the letter of the law.

Public input is what changed the pick up truck issue, not any legal maneuver or court challenge. Everyone that went down that road lost. This is why I stressed in the other thread the need for public opinion to be on our side. It's the only hope, we don't stand a chance 'fighting' for our rights in court.

The court already decided the FDA has jurisdiction to regulate e-cigs as a tobacco product. In the end they will regulate as they are directed by elected officials. That's the way governments work, the FDA serves at the elected officials pleasure.

So go ahead and p%^& off all the non smokers you can with in your face vaping. Just don't be surprised when their voices fall on the other side of the fence.

 

[sonicdsl]

The shameful bickering and arguing needs to stop. ECF is not the place for that. You want to do that? Go to another forum.

This thread has too much garbage to clean up, and therefore is now closed.