Virginia (mis)interpretation of statute regarding e-cigarettes

[TropicalBob]

Why should users fund a study that largely profits corporations, Kristin? Among e-cig makers, only Ruyan has attempted to do what needed to be done. Its reward? Its products were copied and cheapened by unscrupulous competitors interested only in the greatest profit per unit.

This study will be considered biased if done by users, or makers. So the ideal here would be for a university research center to undertake the task. Isn't there one out there that is respected and interested in the overall health improvement possible for smokers making a switch to vaping?

You are surely right about this impacting USE, rather than sales.

 

[M & M]

Why should users fund a study that largely profits corporations, Kristin? Among e-cig makers, only Ruyan has attempted to do what needed to be done. Its reward? Its products were copied and cheapened by unscrupulous competitors interested only in the greatest profit per unit.

This study will be considered biased if done by users, or makers. So the ideal here would be for a university research center to undertake the task. Isn't there one out there that is respected and interested in the overall health improvement possible for smokers making a switch to vaping?

You are surely right about this impacting USE, rather than sales.

You are just so smart---and right.

 

[MVP]

I believe oil on a burner would be a combustion reaction not vaporization. Completely unrelated.

Although I could be wrong.


Also it depends on what is in the oil, the temperature of the combustion and how much oxygen is available. In theory oil is purely hydrocarbon, so if it is burnt completely, water and carbon dioxide are the only products.

 

[oldlady]

Sorry, but the way I see it, this guy Hagy has clearly overstepped his bounds and is simply too arrogant and/or self-important to admit it.

Of course, citizens can ask the (new) Attorney General for an opinion.

Alternatively, we can simply ignore the FAQ. As I understand it, people are having no problem vaping in VA.

When (and if) a person gets ticketed, it can be taken to the courts. The courts will interpret the LAW. The law clearly says "cigarette." In addition, the law clearly defines "cigarette." A PV/e-cig clearly does not fall into that definition.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Why should users fund a study that largely profits corporations, Kristin? Among e-cig makers, only Ruyan has attempted to do what needed to be done. Its reward? Its products were copied and cheapened by unscrupulous competitors interested only in the greatest profit per unit.

This study will be considered biased if done by users, or makers. So the ideal here would be for a university research center to undertake the task. Isn't there one out there that is respected and interested in the overall health improvement possible for smokers making a switch to vaping?

You are surely right about this impacting USE, rather than sales.

Why not have a non-profit group like VI fund a study that will satisfy the government entities, TBob? Why should we continue to try and force the corporations to 'put up or shut up?'

There isn't a study out there right now for new products that ISN'T being funded by an entity that has a vested interest in having the study done....universities aren't going to fund a study 'for the hell of it,' after all, they need to be compensated for their time and efforts.

Does anyone here realize who the advisors for Vapers International are? I'm sure you all recognize the names:
Dr. Murray Laugesen,
Dr. Joel Nitzkin,
Bill Godshall,
just to name three I can think of off the top of my head.

At least VI has a plan, and is trying (struggling) to move forward with it to do something to try to save vaping in this country. TBob, I respect you, I really do...you were one of the first 'voices of reason' I related to when I joined ECF - but there comes a time when we have to stop complaining that the manufacturers are doing nothing, and do something ourselves.

Thank you...... rant over

 

[IFiddle]

On the topic of studies, I'm probably going to ask some of the department heads at the University of Wisconsin Madison, where I go to school, if it might be feasible to conduct one. Our campus is pretty well known for being a research school, and maybe if I phrase it right I can get someone high up interested in testing. I also know some folks at my alma mater, UW-Eau Claire, which is smaller but known for its chem department, if it might be possible there as well. Just a heads up, though: the process starting with a research proposal all the way through to publishing can take a long, long time. On the order of several years, so don't hold your breath.

Could anyone point me to a post or site that has what studies have been done in a concise format? I'm on vacation 'til the 19th, so I don't want to do any homework if I don't have to .

No promises on a time frame or anything, but I promise I'll get to it sooner than later.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

From the OP: "... 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 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines "smoke" as:
1. The vaporous system made up of small particles of carbonaceous matter in the air, resulting mainly from the burning of organic material, such as wood or coal.
2. A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium.
3. A cloud of fine particles.

Since the law does not limit the meaning of smoke to definition (1), definitions (2) and (3) must be considered to be included. And since definitions (2) and (3) aptly describe the smoke or vapor of an ecig, and an ecig is a tobacco extract vaporizer (i.e., a kind of pipe), then ecigs are clearly covered.

In my opinion, those who fight for the ability to freely vape where smoking is not permitted do the cause of saving the ecig far more harm than good.

 

[Storyspinr]

A member of the Virginia House of Delegates is going to request an official ruling from the incoming Attorney General (since the AG works for the state, a private citizen cannot request such a ruling - it must come from a state official, including legislators). That ruling can take 6 to 8 weeks. I will let you know when it comes down.

 

[AJMoore]

Hey Storyspinr - Hagy's latest reply was sent to me this morning, not 1 hour after my last email to him.

That said, I wouldn't let that put you off. The more emails they receive the better, imho. The idea that they can define "smoke" as fumes from heated moisture from one dictionary interpretation is pretty bizarre - I'll defer to legal experts as to whether this is a valid way of interpreting statute.

SJ

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?

 

[kristin]

Why should users fund a study that largely profits corporations, Kristin? Among e-cig makers, only Ruyan has attempted to do what needed to be done. Its reward? Its products were copied and cheapened by unscrupulous competitors interested only in the greatest profit per unit.

This study will be considered biased if done by users, or makers. So the ideal here would be for a university research center to undertake the task. Isn't there one out there that is respected and interested in the overall health improvement possible for smokers making a switch to vaping?

You are surely right about this impacting USE, rather than sales.

I'm not saying that the corporations shouldn't fund their own studies for FDA approval, Bob. But, surely, being a Vapers International Inc. advisor, you see the advantage it would give advocacy to have additional studies done NOW to counter the bad press and myths and that just having some definitive results so we know for ourselves what we are vaping?

What university gives a damn about e-cigs and will care enough to use their resources for a study - especially before they are FDA approved? It's not going to happen. The VI study is first and foremost for ME, as a user and then for use against the antis bad press.

If it's done by a reputable, independent IRB and follows proper procedures, how can they claim it's biased?

 

[Oliver]

A member of the Virginia House of Delegates is going to request an official ruling from the incoming Attorney General (since the AG works for the state, a private citizen cannot request such a ruling - it must come from a state official, including legislators). That ruling can take 6 to 8 weeks. I will let you know when it comes down.

Nice work Storyspiner, that's excellent work!

Let us know when the official ruling comes....

SJ

 

[Oliver]

In my opinion, those who fight for the ability to freely vape where smoking is not permitted do the cause of saving the ecig far more harm than good.

Let me make the counterargument to that, PhiHalcyon.

Pulblic-place tobacco prohibition has gained currency (rightly, IMO) pricipally because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. The danger to non-smokers (and, indeed, smokers) provides the legitimacy to those laws.

Now, if it's since become something else, perhaps a law that penalises smokers in an effort to make them quit, then let's have that argument. I've never seen it made, and I don't believe it to be a legitimate reason to prohibit public smoking.

You really cannot ban the use of e-cigarettes in public, with any credibilitly, without showing that they cause harm to third parties. This is thin end of the wedge stuff - once we accede to laws (or in this case, interpretations of the law) of this nature, our opponents gain leverage.

Please note that I was quite clear in my original email that if restaurateurs wish to prohibit vaping on their premises, I support fully their right to do so.

SJ

 

[Vocalek]

In my opinion, those who fight for the ability to freely vape where smoking is not permitted do the cause of saving the ecig far more harm than good.

Our best hope of saving the ecig lies in having so many people using it that the noise is tremendous if the powers-that-be try to get rid of it.

During the month before the ban took effect in Virginia, quite a few members of my bowling league saw me using my ecig, and realized that it wasn't a real cigarette and that it did not produce real smoke (making them smarter than folks with science degrees who work for VDH). When they asked me about it and I described what it was and what it did, they wanted to know where to get one.

The immediate draw for them was the fact that they would be able to use it indoors after the ban took effect. For those unfamiliar with the sport, bowling requires wearing special shoes. You cannot wear them outdoors. So if you want to step outside for a smoke break, you need to change your shoes, which eats up a few minutes. Then there is the fact that your team and the opposing team get angry with you if you aren't ready to step up and bowl as soon as it is your turn. The bottom line is that there really isn't time to go outside for a smoke if you are bowling in a league. Open play? Sure, your friends will accommodate you. But on a league, it's in the rules that you don't delay the game.

The antis will scream "those people are only trying to circumvent our sacred smoking ban." And that may be perfectly true -- at first. But now at least half of the folks that I introduced to ecigs have stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Forcing ecigs outside into the smoking zone takes away one of the best enticements for new users.

Now let's talk about "old" users. I am not setting fire to anything. I am not endangering air quality. I am not a potential fire hazard. I am not endangering my health or the health of anyone else. Why should I be punished? I don't want to go outside when it is too cold, too hot, too windy, or rainy. I don't want my clothes to start smelling like smoke again. I don't want to inhale side-stream smoke.

 

[Oliver]

Now let's talk about "old" users. I am not setting fire to anything. I am not endangering air quality. I am not a potential fire hazard. I am not endangering my health or the health of anyone else. Why should I be punished? I don't want to go outside when it is too cold, too hot, too windy, or rainy. I don't want my clothes to start smelling like smoke again. I don't want to inhale side-stream smoke.

Absolutely bang on. Why should you indeed?

 

[JerryRM]

.The antis will scream "those people are only trying to circumvent our sacred smoking ban." And that may be perfectly true -- at first. But now at least half of the folks that I introduced to ecigs have stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Now let's talk about "old" users. I am not setting fire to anything. I am not endangering air quality. I am not a potential fire hazard. I am not endangering my health or the health of anyone else. Why should I be punished? I don't want to go outside when it is too cold, too hot, too windy, or rainy. I don't want my clothes to start smelling like smoke again. I don't want to inhale side-stream smoke.

Well said Elaine. They say that "second hand smoke harms non-smokers and that we have to take it outside". Ok, I won't argue with that.
Then we say "we found a way that doesn't produce smoke or harm non-smokers" and they say "oh,no, you are just trying to circumvent our anti-smoking laws".
Their response shows a bias against anything that resembles smoking, rather than an attempt to protect non-smokers. Very hypocritical in my opinion.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

When the demands of those whose underlying message is "let us have and use our ecigs" gets polluted with the demands of those whose underlying message is "let us mock your anti-smoking laws, and pollute your sacred smoke-free air with our quickly disappearing, smoke-like nicotinated vapors", then the opposition to the former will be increased in direct proportion to the opposition-gain of the latter. For, opposing the former is the easiest way for those who oppose the latter to win.

 

[Vocalek]

I may have this quotation wrong, but it goes someting like this:

I'm sure you believe that what you said is what I heard, but I'm not sure that what I heard is what you meant.

 

[Oliver]

let us mock your anti-smoking laws, and pollute your sacred smoke-free air with our quickly disappearing, smoke-like nicotinated vapors

That's a total mischaracterisation of what anyone is saying. Honestly, I don't believe anyone wants to use their e-cigs indoors because of some need to provoke or have revenge on or mock anti-smokers. Rather, e-cigs represent a beautiful compromise.

"Fine, we won't pollute your air with filthy tobacco smoke, but please don't make us go outside to use our non-polluting, (relatively) clean cigarette alternatives."

It's ridiculous that anyone should want the pendulum swing the other way. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

 

[Oliver]

PhiHalcyon, do you really believe that e-cigs pollute the atmosphere any more than, say, grilling food?

 

[PhiHalcyon]

PhiHalcyon, do you really believe that e-cigs pollute the atmosphere any more than, say, grilling food?

The question is not how harmful do I believe second-hand vapor to be, but how harmful is the demand for public indoor ecig use to the cause of preserving the legal availability of the ecig?

I say that the fight about the suitability and safety of public indoor ecig use can be fought another day; on a day when we are better armed; on a day when we are already enjoying the victory of legal ecig sales. For, as long as we insist on demanding both the legal availability of the ecig, and the public indoor use of ecigs, then the opposition to our cause - like the odds of us losing both - will surely be increased.