Kentucky Vapors Beware of Major Vape Ban

[rcVapro]

KENTUCKY: Statewide bill proposed to ban smoking AND vaping

17) “Smoke” or “smoking” means:
(a) The carrying, smoking, burning, inhaling, or exhaling of any kind of heated or lighted cigar, cigarette, hookah, lighted pipe, plant material intended for inhalation, or any other lighted smoking equipment;
(b) The use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form; and
(c) The use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in Section 3

11RS HB193

We need vapors who are in these local districts to contact these representatives. Do not just sit by and allow the anti-smoking freaks blindly add vaping to every anti-smoking bill.

 

[jj2]

Bump.......................

 

[rcVapro]

No Kentuckians on this forum??

 

[Para]

Local Kentucky Ordinance

RICHMOND, Ky. -- A central Kentucky city is mulling a proposal to take its smoking ban a step further by prohibiting electronic cigarettes.

The proposal by the Madison County Board of Health has drawn varied reactions, with some supporting the measure and some saying it goes too far.

 

[SmokinPony]

I'll be moving to Louisville with my fiancee next month. This is concerning to me, but I really don't give a **** what they declare legal/illegal, I'm not going to quit and I'll pay whatever fines they throw at me. Is this just an indoor ban, or is it an across the board even in your own home type of thing?

 

[VapnJeff]

The article linked above mentions someone named Jack Taylor. He's one of the guys causing the stink and saying it's better to err on the side of safety. Well, it's not his place to decide what I vape, what you vape, or what you drive or what you eat. All things I'd imagine a jerk like that would feel obligated to decide for you. I've been looking at the city of Richmond KY's web site. City of Richmond - City of Richmond

Here's a link to the email address of all of the elected officials. Please send them an email with your thoughts on the matter as I'm about to do. If you feel the same as I do, in that the path of the Political "do gooder" is similar to the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".... then please email these people and let them know what you think and what your experiences have been:

Richmond Elected Officials:

Thanks,
Jeffrey

 

[rcVapro]

I feel it is very important for all of us vapors to continue keeping a close watch on our elected officials; who support our wishes during the campaign and attempt to legislate law that in is their own best interests! This will continue to happen unless we hold them to their promises; problem is... vaping and e-cigs are new and were not part of any campaign promises that I am aware of... so we need to educate them on the benefits of vaping and what it truly is... cause it is NOT SMOKING and it seems as though it is just easier for them to add e-cigs/vaping to any smoking bill that comes along. Very frustrating!

 

[Vocalek]

According to this story, the sponsor doesn't think it stands a good chance of passing this year.

Rally held to push for statewide smoking ban

 

[dspin]

Way too many communists in this country anymore deciding whats good for us. Glad I'm as old as I am, be dead before the final downfall of the Great USA. Everything is being taken from us step by step.

 

[ChipHead]

More:
Edit: Sorry, already posted.

 

[Zal42]

I've seen this langauge rhetoric a number of times before, and I have to say that of all the reasons to ban vaping, this is the one that angers me the most.

The whole rationale for smoking bans is to reduce shs exposure. By that I mean, the reason smoking bans are legally justified is that you are endangering innocent bystanders with your carcinogenic smoke, and they need to be protected from that. (I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.)

So how in the world can they suddenly change it up and say that you can't engage in an activity that poses no shs risk if the reason you're doing it is to avoid the ban? If someone does that, then the ban worked and innocent bystanders are being protected. It doesn't matter what the motive of the ex-smokers is.

Bah.

 

[Vocalek]

I've seen this langauge rhetoric a number of times before, and I have to say that of all the reasons to ban vaping, this is the one that angers me the most.

The whole rationale for smoking bans is to reduce shs exposure. By that I mean, the reason smoking bans are legally justified is that you are endangering innocent bystanders with your carcinogenic smoke, and they need to be protected from that. (I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.)

So how in the world can they suddenly change it up and say that you can't engage in an activity that poses no shs risk if the reason you're doing it is to avoid the ban? If someone does that, then the ban worked and innocent bystanders are being protected. It doesn't matter what the motive of the ex-smokers is.

Bah.

Whenever you see that language you know that one of the Alphabet Soup lobbyists supplied model legislation for the writing of the bill. See this: Model Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking in Outdoor Places of Employment and Public Places - no-smoke.org

C. "E-cigarette" means any electronic oral device, such as one composed of a heating element, battery, and/or electronic circuit, which provides a vapor of nicotine or any other substances, and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking. The term shall include any such device, whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, or under any other product name or descriptor.

O. "Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, in any manner or in any form. "Smoking" also includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article.

 

[Vocalek]

Here is the page that describes how to contact the ANR: Contact Us - no-smoke.org

Your feedback is important to us. Please contact us if you have questions about protecting your right to breathe smokefree air,

As someone who became a non-smoker on March 27, 2009, I find the attitude expressed in the model legislation authored the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights to be bigoted and at odds with the mission of the organization. Their model legislation denies my rights by forcing me to go where there is smoke because I chose to stop smoking by using a method they did not approve. Would I need to stand outside all day long if I was wearing a patch or chewing nicotine gum--or using a Nicotrol inhaler?

Of course, I am sure they see themselves as perfectly reasonable--but that's because their logic is based on fantasy. In their make-believe world, vapor is the same thing as smoke. E-cigarettes are a tool of the devil evil tobacco companies. The only people who use the devices are those clods who refuse to stop smoking. So it is perfectly fine to treat e-cigarette users like dirt because in their eyes we are still dirty, filthy smokers who deserve to be punished. Therefore, wanting to use an e-cigarette indoors is just a way of defying the rules that were created (for our own damn good) by our betters.