Virginia (mis)interpretation of statute regarding e-cigarettes

[boondongle]

“…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.”

Just FYI, for all the people arguing about this being interpreted against steaming cups of coffee or whatever, you're not reading carefully enough. "Exhaling of smoke from a...cigarette of any kind" is not inclusive of those other things that produce steam.

 

[john doe]

but it says any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco, so that would be tobacco wrapped in paper or plastic or anything not tobacco. this just distinguishes a cigarette from a cigar.

 

[Vocalek]

“…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.”

Just FYI, for all the people arguing about this being interpreted against steaming cups of coffee or whatever, you're not reading carefully enough. "Exhaling of smoke from a...cigarette of any kind" is not inclusive of those other things that produce steam.

Same text, different emphasis:

“…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."

The legislature did not bother to define "lighted" separately. I'm sure they assumed that, in this context, everyone would understand that they were talking about setting tobacco on fire. The word "lighted" was included to make sure nobody would get a ticket for walking around with any unlit tobacco product.

Although I suppose that VDH would want to get cute and insist that the LED on the end of most e-cigs constitutes "lighted". ("See? It's got a light on it, so it's lighted!") So what happens when we use an e-cigarette that doesn't have an LED? Hmmmm....

Likewise, the legislature did not bother to separately define "smoke". After all, what idiot doesn't understand what smoke is? Well, apparently some of those idiots have degrees in science and medicine.

How many people think this is a case of an honest mistake in interpretation?

 

[autumnbreeze]

I live in Springield, VA too! Have you written a letter to Vivian Watts? If so, have you gotten a response? I just wrote her today.

Also, have you vaped in any local restaurants and had any issues?

 

[boondongle]

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying, but nothing you wrote counters my point. There are clearly two clauses in the quoted text, one about carrying lit cigarettes (and others) and one about exhaling smoke from cigarettes (and others). My point about this was that it says nothing at all about fajitas or cups of coffee or anything else that might be found in a restaurant and give off steam.

Same text, different emphasis:

“…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."

The legislature did not bother to define "lighted" separately. I'm sure they assumed that, in this context, everyone would understand that they were talking about setting tobacco on fire. The word "lighted" was included to make sure nobody would get a ticket for walking around with any unlit tobacco product.

Although I suppose that VDH would want to get cute and insist that the LED on the end of most e-cigs constitutes "lighted". ("See? It's got a light on it, so it's lighted!") So what happens when we use an e-cigarette that doesn't have an LED? Hmmmm....

Likewise, the legislature did not bother to separately define "smoke". After all, what idiot doesn't understand what smoke is? Well, apparently some of those idiots have degrees in science and medicine.

How many people think this is a case of an honest mistake in interpretation?

 

[Vocalek]

I live in Springield, VA too! Have you written a letter to Vivian Watts? If so, have you gotten a response? I just wrote her today.

Also, have you vaped in any local restaurants and had any issues?

I have been working with my delegate, Dave Albo.

Several people in my bowling league are using their e-cigarettes with no complaints from management or fellow bowlers. One of my team-mates is allergic to cigarette smoke and she thinks my using the e-cigarette is a wonderful thing.

 

[Katmar]

I have been working with my delegate, Dave Albo.

Several people in my bowling league are using their e-cigarettes with no complaints from management or fellow bowlers. One of my team-mates is allergic to cigarette smoke and she thinks my using the e-cigarette is a wonderful thing.

That is a nice little good news story. Kudos to your team mate!!
Love those open minds.

 

[autumnbreeze]

I have been working with my delegate, Dave Albo.

I don't know why I assumed that you'd have the same delegate. Sorry. But it is great that the people in the bowling alley don't mind the ecigs.

 

[Storyspinr]

Boondongle, what led to discussions about steaming cups of coffee was the Health Dept. finding one definition of "smoke" as including "vapor" created by heat acting on liquid. Scientifically, that's bunk; smoke can only be caused by combustion. But they found that definition and cherrypicked it as another reason to include e cigs in the ban.

Autumnbreeze, you are doing exactly what we need to be done - contact your Delegate (and state Senator if you think it will help). The more voices they hear, the better.

Vocalek, actually Hagy DID point out in our phone conversation that e cigs were "lighted". We know, of course, lawmakers meant "burning", but because they didn't specifically write that, VDH decided it could also mean an LED. They have used every trick in their book to find a way to include e cigs. Hagy keeps implying the law needs to be rewritten in such a way they know "lighted" means burning, "cigarette" means containing tobacco, and "smoke" means secondhand smoke produced by burning tobacco. Personally, I think they're just using semantics as an excuse to include e cigs. Only an idiot would truly believe what they are saying (well, come to think of it...).

 

[boondongle]

Boondongle, what led to discussions about steaming cups of coffee was the Health Dept. finding one definition of "smoke" as including "vapor" created by heat acting on liquid. Scientifically, that's bunk; smoke can only be caused by combustion. But they found that definition and cherrypicked it as another reason to include e cigs in the ban.

That's fine, but if we grant that definition of smoke, simply for the sake of argument, it still doesn't show anything against coffee or other things that steam. The wording is about cigarettes that emit smoke/vapor. So to claim that it would apply to grills, coffee, etc. is just inaccurate. I'm not arguing that the definition of smoke is a good one, just that comments like these miss the point, because the language of the law is about cigarettes, not anything that emits steam/smoke.

Well, using the definition he is binding himself to, he needs to go in and shut down most every restaurant kitchen in his state, as well as some older heating units...

... "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture" would then have to include a person's 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.

If his definition of smoke is heat acting on moisture to provide vapor shouldn't we worry about getting in trouble if we order a steaming plate of fajhitas, or even breathe outside in the winter. Both of those are examples of heat acting on moisture to make something that looks like smoke , but isn't, just like vapor form our PV isn't smoke.

Therfore, when the restaurant is grilling hamburgrs inn the kitchen the "smoke" generated from the moisture in the hamburger on the grill is considered dangerous to the restaurant patrons?

These are bad arguments to make, because the law isn't about anything that smokes, it's about cigarettes, pipes, etc.

 

[Vocalek]

Vocalek, actually Hagy DID point out in our phone conversation that e cigs were "lighted". We know, of course, lawmakers meant "burning", but because they didn't specifically write that, VDH decided it could also mean an LED. They have used every trick in their book to find a way to include e cigs. Hagy keeps implying the law needs to be rewritten in such a way they know "lighted" means burning, "cigarette" means containing tobacco, and "smoke" means secondhand smoke produced by burning tobacco. Personally, I think they're just using semantics as an excuse to include e cigs. Only an idiot would truly believe what they are saying (well, come to think of it...).

Cute! Well, all I'd have to do is order the manual battery with no LED for my 510 and if they tried to ticket me, point to the end of it and say, "See? It's not lighted."

If Hagy is hinting the law needs to be changed, it could be that he wants to see us try that move so that the antis can pull off a counter-move. They could rewrite the exclusion bill we introduce so that it specifically includes e-cigs.

As written, the law does not now include e-digs and there are not enough similarities between it and the real thing to require a specific exclusion.

A teddy bear is not a real bear. It's a stuffed toy shaped like a bear. A chocolate cigar is not a real cigar. It's a piece of candy shaped like a cigar. An e-cigarette is not a "kind of cigarette." It is a mechanical device shaped like a cigarette. And anyone with a college degree in science or medicine who does not understand that there is a world of difference between vapor and smoke deserves to have their degree revoked.

What we need is someone with the power to slap down the VDH and tell them they don't get to rewrite the law via semantic games.

 

[yvilla]

As written, the law does not now include e-digs and there are not enough similarities between it and the real thing to require a specific exclusion.

A teddy bear is not a real bear. It's a stuffed toy shaped like a bear. A chocolate cigar is not a real cigar. It's a piece of candy shaped like a cigar. An e-cigarette is not a "kind of cigarette." It is a mechanical device shaped like a cigarette. And anyone with a college degree in science or medicine who does not understand that there is a world of difference between vapor and smoke deserves to have their degree revoked.

What we need is someone with the power to slap down the VDH and tell them they don't get to rewrite the law via semantic games.

Absolutely!

And you know that "any" kind of cigarette phrase they are also playing semantic games with? Given that ALL public smoking bans are concerned with protecting citizens from exposure to smoke from burning organic matter, I'm virtually certain the reason the Virginia legislators used that phrase "any" kind of cigarette (and did not limit the ban to the "roll of tobacco" that is otherwise the legal definition of cigarette in Virginia), was to include non-tobacco or "herbal" cigarettes. Such products are readily available, and of course tobacco or no, "it's the smoke, stupid" that causes the harm!

 

[Storyspinr]

Yvilla, I pointed out to Hagy they no doubt meant herbal cigarettes. Didn't have much impact on him. The law says "any kind of cigarette", they saw a website where the e cig was called a cigarette and looked like a cigarette, therefore it was a cigarette. I pointed out my looks more like a fountain pen. He didn't care much about that, either.

Vocalek, you're exactly right about changing the law. Bringing it up again could open a whole can of worms, which is why my legislator was against attempting to amend it. I haven't heard back from them on their promise to contact the AG. I haven't pushed it yet, because I wanted them to wait until Cuccinelli took over. They said a ruling could take 6 to 8 weeks, so they might have sent the letter a couple of weeks ago and I won't hear anything until they get a response. I do know VDH talked to their "counsel" at the AG's office when Mims was acting AG, and he deferred to their decision. Let's hope Cuccinelli replaced that particular counsel, or helps him understand the difference between a real cigarette and an e cig.

 

[Vocalek]

Absolutely!

And you know that "any" kind of cigarette phrase they are also playing semantic games with? Given that ALL public smoking bans are concerned with protecting citizens from exposure to smoke from burning organic matter, I'm virtually certain the reason the Virginia legislators used that phrase "any" kind of cigarette (and did not limit the ban to the "roll of tobacco" that is otherwise the legal definition of cigarette in Virginia), was to include non-tobacco or "herbal" cigarettes. Such products are readily available, and of course tobacco or no, "it's the smoke, stupid" that causes the harm!

How about buttons (and signs, if we get to go picketing) that read:

It's the smoke, stupid.

 

[ctourtelot]

YouTube - Smoking Lettuce: Auto Tune the News #5

had to do it

 

[ctourtelot]

Any word yet from the new AG?

 

[Storyspinr]

No word yet from the new AG. My Delegate's office said it would take 6 to 8 weeks to get a ruling (assuming they've sent the letter).

 

[ALC]

I live in Ohio and e-cigs are still pretty foreign here as of yet. I did get a phone call from our local congressman who said he would personally meet with anyone in our area to discuss any issues that we would like him to take to DC. I can't wait!!!!! I'll post the run around I encounter with this issue, which I am sure is going to be the same deal that Virginia is going through. I am going to keep trying to push the fact that a lighter is not required to work the device. That gives me an idea, what about a statement from the State Fire Marshall? If they can't explain the concept of how fire works, then no one can.

By the way I love the idea of taking the LED light off the end, brilliant. I haven't encountered a ticket situation yet, but if it arises I'll post it. They do give tickets here for smoking within 100 feet of any establishment or dwelling other than your home. I think I will try it outside the airport because they actually have the smoking patrol.

Don't give up and keep at it.

 

[gsc4077]

no cigarettes of any kind? but thats the only type of bubblegum that i chew!

*EDIT* (again)
Does this mean fog machines are included in the ban?
Can't wait for the lobbying to remove them from clubs lol
they're pretty much just XXXL Janty Sticks

 

[LuvMyPV]

I've sent an email to my local delegate, which is a start. I'm also told that there will be a protest here in VA in March.

Autumn Breeze - please let us know more about this alleged March protest. I would like very much to be a part of that.

Annie