good news on the future of vaping in WI

[electrowoman]

I spoke with state senator Glenn Grothman today and he PROMISED that he would introduce either a rules change OR a piece of legislation to explicitly protect the e-cigs in WI from being banned under the smoking ban. And I'll say this for Glenn, he does keep his promises! I don't want to post some of the other stuff he said, because I know SFW lurks on this forum--but I was VERY optimistic when our conversation concluded!

In the interest of providing some constituent support, however, it would be GREAT if folks could email him about this! Something like Dear Senator Grothman, please help thousands of us in WI who have quit smoking using the e-cigarette....blah blah blah, etc etc etc. In fact, if you want to send him links to all the great info you've got stored, that would be great. The more info he has, the better able he will be to do this. He always likes to have information and data to rely on when making his move!

Here's his contact info:

Wisconsin State Legislature

 

[electrowoman]

OH, and it's OK if you don't live in his senate district. Heck, my senator is John Erpenbach, so I "adopted" Glenn. And he's in senate leadership now. So if you live in WI, please contact him. Thanks!!

 

[MlrGrl]

Can I adopt him, too? I'm stuck with Chris Larson

Thanks for the heads up & I'll start working on something over the weekend!

 

[electrowoman]

Can I adopt him, too? I'm stuck with Chris Larson

Thanks for the heads up & I'll start working on something over the weekend!

yes, he's up for adoption by everyone! your senator is as useless as mine. actually, MINE is useless, yours is a menace. Chris Larson lights a candle in the darkness for Wisconsin commuters - Milwaukee Commuter | Examiner.com

 

[C-kool Dad '09]

OH, and it's OK if you don't live in his senate district. Heck, my senator is John Erpenbach, so I "adopted" Glenn. And he's in senate leadership now. So if you live in WI, please contact him. Thanks!!

OK - will do

 

[electrowoman]

he asked for "sample language". anyone know of any states that have already done this? i'll email bill godshall, too.

 

[C-kool Dad '09]

This sounds like something Kristin would know.

 

[kristin]

As far as I know, no state has legislation which protects e-cigarettes from smoking bans. The closest I can think of is Virginia's Attorney General ruled that e-cigarettes are not included in the ban because the state definition of smoking did not consider vapor as "smoke."

Here is his ruling:

Applicable Law and Discussion
Section 15.2-2824(A) prohibits smoking in a variety of locations, including elevators, public
school buses, and the interior of public elementary, intermediate and secondary schools.

Section 15.2-2825(A) forbids smoking in restaurants.

Finally, § 15.2-2820 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.”

First, an e-cigarette does not involve the “inhaling, or exhaling of smoke.” Smoke is defined as
“the gaseous products of burning carbonaceous materials made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon.”1

To be sure, one definition of smoke is “fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.”2 That, however, is not the way the term smoke is commonly understood.3 Statutes should be construed under their “ordinary and plain meaning.”4 Water vapor containing traces of particulate matter, such as water evaporating from a tea kettle, is not ordinarily understood to be “smoke.” An ecigarette does not function in manner of a traditional cigarette because it functions electrically5 rather than via combustion of a material such as tobacco.

Therefore, the vapor emitted by an e-cigarette would not fall within the definition of “smoke” or “smoking” in § 15.2-2820. Second, an e-cigarette is battery powered and is not “lighted” as that term is commonly understood.6 No flame is involved in its operation.

Conclusion
Using an e-cigarette does not fall under the definition “smoke” or “smoking” for purposes of § 15.2-2820.

So, depending upon our state statutes and the definition of "smoke, "tobacco product" and/or "smoking" the same language could be used in Wisconsin.

The document is a part of CASAA's Legislative Packet (http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf) which he may also find helpful. It's in PDF format, so can easily be emailed.

He may have a better chance at getting it passed if he defines them as smokeless tobacco products and encourages banning sales to minors as other tobacco products are currently regulated.

If this passes, it would be a great coup for e-cigarettes. Legislation such as this would be something CASAA could point to as an example of responsible legislation rather than trying to ban them altogether and including them in smoking bans.