Virginia Smoking Ban includes E-cigs per Dept of Health

[madman3237]

Following Quotes from New Member Forum Thread Newbie with a question. Posted here so all can post replies.

Hi All I have been reading all the posts for about 2 months lots of great info. I put down my analogs 3 weeks ago and never looked back. Today I e-mail the Virginia Dept. of Health about our up coming "smoking ban" and asked if e cigarettes fall under the ban they said they do! How can this be if it's not smoke or tobacco? What can be done? Thanks

"Smoke" or "smoking" means 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.

Bill Tracking - 2009 session > Legislation

So, as I read this, it does not apply to PVs/e-cigs. But I would print this out and politely ask management before vaping. They always have a right to refuse any behavior in their establishment and will be paranoid of fines.

I just received another reply from the VA Dept. of Health and they highlighted "cigarette of any kind." And also included this statement!

"New information indicates the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim. Until we get good third party verification of the "vapor's" safety, we consider an E cigarette as a "cigarette of any kind."

This Stinks. But should have been expected as this is a Big tobacco state and if they are banned, they definitely want us banned.

Help anyone? Ban is effective 12/1/09. No smoking in public places bars, restaurants etc.

 

[DaMulta]

Good thing I only puff on a Nicotine Inhaler

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Well... it has been approved so it is final for now.

However, that said, I would certainly follow up with what they mean by "New information indicates the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim."

It needs to be asked exactly what new information they have. From there, the next step could be determined on how to handle this. If an answer is received, we could then provide them with the relevant information as there are no vapor tests that currently prove the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim. My guess, is they are confusing the "vapor" with the liquid which are not one in the same.

Also...

"Until we get good third party verification of the "vapor's" safety"

What do they consider third party verification? Who would they prefer to do such testing? Do they have any labs for which they would accept any findings and if so, who can participate in the funding of such testing?

All very simple questions for which they should have answers and those answers will be very telling. (or lack of answers as well)

 

[KitKit]

MadMan thanks for moving this thread I can only post in the new members area. Lacey I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure how to or who to go to about this. I read a very good letter here written by- I think Kristin that I would like to copy and forward, Just not sure who to forward it to. I understand people don't want second hand smoke to kill them, but do I still have any rights? Now that I don't smoke my BP is down I feel better, I smell better, my family is very happy with the change and I like it!! Yes I would feel better with more testing on PVs but I don't understand why others think they can tell me what to do! OK the rant is over.

 

[squid509]

wow a public smoking ban in a state that make money on growing tobaco
it a kick in the pants i tell you. when then through that hell in Florida when the pased there public smoking bans.

are they still going to allow smoking at bars? i can respect the fact ppl dont want to be around smoke and i only vape in public in where smoking is allowed.

 

[KitKit]

no smoking in bars that includes AJ Gator come Dec 1 sorry Squid.

 

[angelique510]

I didn't leave Ohio (horrid draconian laws there) and move to Virginia for this!

 

[gooney0]

I feel bad for the restaurant and bar owners of VA. Imagine pouring your life savings into a restaurant and finding its illegal to smoke in your own restaurant.

The economy is down and now they'll loose even more business.

Prisoners get an exception though.

-Gooney0

 

[LaceyUnderall]

MadMan thanks for moving this thread I can only post in the new members area. Lacey I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure how to or who to go to about this. I read a very good letter here written by- I think Kristin that I would like to copy and forward, Just not sure who to forward it to. I understand people don't want second hand smoke to kill them, but do I still have any rights? Now that I don't smoke my BP is down I feel better, I smell better, my family is very happy with the change and I like it!! Yes I would feel better with more testing on PVs but I don't understand why others think they can tell me what to do! OK the rant is over.

Kit - I know it is really frustrating. Smoking bans are horrible on a multitude of levels. Personally, I think they are a good idea and totally backwards. Smokers SHOULD be in certain establishments and not on the streets. It keeps non-smokers from walking through mass crowds of smokers AND keeps cigarette butts in ashtrays where they belong and not on the sidewalks and gutters. It also allows business owners to offer the establishment they so choose to the free market. If the area you service doesn't really smoke, then your business will suffer and you will change your smoking policy.

However, that said: Whoever you have been emailing is a GREAT place to start. Ask them very simple questions. Do not give them study after study nor your opinion. When dealing with people who are making decisions on our behalf it is best to follow this method:

1. Identify who to speak to
2. Identify what that person knows
3. Determine if their efforts are scientifically based or morally based
4. Address issues from #2 with what you know of #3, knowing a little bit about who #1 is. (ie a little background check on who this person is, what types of smoking related legislation they have passed before)

If you need any help, please feel free to PM me. I am more than happy to help you and will!

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I think they should also ban all vehicles that use fossil fuels of any kind. After all, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide is 'not as clean as they claim'
What a load of tosh. One rule for some and another for others.

 

[Vocalek]

Well... it has been approved so it is final for now.

However, that said, I would certainly follow up with what they mean by "New information indicates the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim."

It needs to be asked exactly what new information they have. From there, the next step could be determined on how to handle this. If an answer is received, we could then provide them with the relevant information as there are no vapor tests that currently prove the "vapor" is not as clean as they claim. My guess, is they are confusing the "vapor" with the liquid which are not one in the same.

Also...

"Until we get good third party verification of the "vapor's" safety"

What do they consider third party verification? Who would they prefer to do such testing? Do they have any labs for which they would accept any findings and if so, who can participate in the funding of such testing?

All very simple questions for which they should have answers and those answers will be very telling. (or lack of answers as well)

For what it's worth, I asked MYTHBUSTERS to compare the air quality of tobacco cigarette smoke to vapor (equal # of puffs).

 

[Mac]

Well I can tell you that I do not believe this will hold up in court. But I will know for certain in short order. since if this is true I expect our kiosk will receive a cease and desist order from the health department very soon. If it is a drug delivery device as he fda claims then it is not a tobacco product. You can't just change the law every five minutes to help you persecute the people you don't like. So as soon as we are either shut down or not I will let you guys know what the true status in VA is as opposed to what some Douche at the health department needs to email people in order to feel empowered. Good thing they just extended unemployment eh?

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

For what it's worth, I asked MYTHBUSTERS to compare the air quality of tobacco cigarette smoke to vapor (equal # of puffs).

This is a GREAT idea. I will post this as its own thread so more might do this.

I think Jamie has never smoked and is very much against it. Adam used to smoke, but has guit a long time ago. So don't know how it will be treated. Hope they do it though.

 

[Rob Smallenberg]

The Virginia Code defines "cigarette" in about three different places and these definitions are identical. Interestingly enough, the statutory scheme banning smoking in many indoor places does not define "cigarette" even though § 58.1-1000 which is the definition section of the smoking ban defines "smoke" or "smoking" as "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."

One of those three identical definitions of smoking is § 58.1-1031 which states "'Cigarette' means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains (i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; (ii) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (iii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition. The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own" tobacco, which means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes. For purposes of this definition of 'cigarette,' 0.09 ounces of "roll-your-own" tobacco shall constitute one individual 'cigarette.'"

There is no way this definition is broad enough to include electronic cigarettes.

Robert H. Smallenberg
In-House Counsel
Teamhealthechoice

 

[Menville]

Just in case Texas goes this way , I have been perfecting my stealth vaping. I just got back from Starbucks and inside and there was zero vaper emitted, so as far as anyone could tell I was sucking on my pen, I also used my PV with the black LED. here in Arlington you are not allowed to smoke with in 50 ft of the establishment door, I felt like an undercover agent.

 

[rothenbj]

The Virginia Code defines "cigarette" in about three different places and these definitions are identical. Interestingly enough, the statutory scheme banning smoking in many indoor places does not define "cigarette" even though § 58.1-1000 which is the definition section of the smoking ban defines "smoke" or "smoking" as "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."

One of those three identical definitions of smoking is § 58.1-1031 which states "'Cigarette' means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains (i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; (ii) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (iii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition. The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own" tobacco, which means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes. For purposes of this definition of 'cigarette,' 0.09 ounces of "roll-your-own" tobacco shall constitute one individual 'cigarette.'"

There is no way this definition is broad enough to include electronic cigarettes.

Robert H. Smallenberg
In-House Counsel
Teamhealthechoice

I'd have to agree that there certainly isn't enough definition to include e cigs. They got it close if they would have stuck with "Cigarette' means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use." Once they added the "and", it pretty much eliminates the E-cig.

However, that being said, now I can still vape as long as I'm using 0 Nicotine E liquid. When I need that nicotine hit, just change carts and out the door if they insist.

You know, I live in PA but bought a home in SW Virginia last year figuring this is one area of the country that would be last to go smoke free. Now it's there too. Fortunately, the PA ban has so many holes that a lot of places I frequent still have smoking. Plus those that don't have no problem with vaping so far.

 

[KitKit]

Thanks Rob lets hope the rest of the state understands this!

 

[Oogie]

The Virginia Code defines "cigarette" in about three different places and these definitions are identical. Interestingly enough, the statutory scheme banning smoking in many indoor places does not define "cigarette" even though § 58.1-1000 which is the definition section of the smoking ban defines "smoke" or "smoking" as "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."

One of those three identical definitions of smoking is § 58.1-1031 which states "'Cigarette' means any product that contains nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains (i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; (ii) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (iii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in clause (i) of this definition. The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own" tobacco, which means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes. For purposes of this definition of 'cigarette,' 0.09 ounces of "roll-your-own" tobacco shall constitute one individual 'cigarette.'"

There is no way this definition is broad enough to include electronic cigarettes.

Robert H. Smallenberg
In-House Counsel
Teamhealthechoice

Sir, If you'll pardon my saying so I've rather a question or two. How does the law define lighted? Shouldn't they say ignited if that is what they really mean? Also the law on the pure definition of a cigarette is clear enough that if this ban were to include electronic cigs, personal vaporizer or nicotine inhalers- it would have to be visted and legislated on, correct? But at this time there is nothing "on the books" about this matter directly unless of course I'm utterly wrong. To me this is too ambiguious to really be enforceable.

I know it may seem like splitting frog hairs but it may be the saving grace. Also the specific ban does not mention vapor, it mentions smoke. The definition of a cigarette does not specifically include these devices as mentioned before. Would this be correct?

I may only be one state over, but I visit Virginia a lot when shopping so this kind of affects me too. Sorry if this seems scattered, I've had a lot of interruptions and not enough coffee trying to write this.

 

[Scottbee]

A Virginia resident might want to politely and diplomatically suggest to the Dept. of Health that they have their position run past the State Attorney General. Certainly the applicability of the ban to PV's will be tested early, and it is in their best interest to ensure their legal position to avoid or prepare for litigation. I say this because I believe the AG will not support their position based on the wording of the ban.

I have had great luck using this tactic in my home state.

 

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

For what it's worth, I asked MYTHBUSTERS to compare the air quality of tobacco cigarette smoke to vapor (equal # of puffs).

YEA I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUSTER HIT A E-CIGG!!!!!!!!! Let Jamie explain!!!!