Legal definition of smoking?

[chrisl317]

I tried, I really, really tried - to find out what the legal definition of smoking in the U.S. was. I couldn't. I found all sorts of laws restricting it or against it in certain instances, but nothing actually defining what is was.
What I did find was the definition of what smoking is -

smoking, inhalation and exhalation of the fumes of burning tobacco tobacco, name for any plant of the genus Nicotiana of the Solanaceae family ( nightshade family) and for the product manufactured from the leaf and used in cigars and cigarettes , snuff , and pipe and chewing tobacco.
..... Click the link for more information. in cigars and cigarettes cigar and cigarette, tubular rolls of tobacco designed for smoking . Cigars consist of filler leaves held together by binder leaves and covered with a wrapper leaf, which is rolled spirally around the binder.
..... Click the link for more information. and pipes.

So I have to ask. Why are there people paranoid about vaping? It clearly is not smoking.
Any lawyers (real lawyers, not wannabe's) out there care to explain this to me? The only catch I can see, is nicotine can be labeled as tobacco because it's a product manufactured from the tobacco leaf. However, this is a vocabulary definition, not a legal one.

 

[jeffakamax]

The ILLINOIS CODE STATUTES defines it as:
"Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying, smoking, burning, inhaling, or exhaling of any kind of lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, hookah, weed, herbs, or any other lighted smoking equipment.

 

[breakfastchef]

It may be that the common assumption is that if it burns it is smoking, so no specific legal description has ever been necessary. To confuse you further, Johnson Creek Smoke Juice has introduced reformullated liquids without using any tobacco, yet the concotions do contain nicotine.

 

[chrisl317]

It would seem Illinois by the term "lighted" would indicate combustion, the chemical reaction between oxygen, a combustible material and heat? I'm just trying to get a handle on terminology and semantics, much like trying to understand marketing phrases.

 

[TiggerST67]

I can tell you that the law in Arkansas defines it as it pertains to the Clean Air Act ( aka the no more smoking in public act) as the burning of leaf involving ignition or combustion. It was in legal-speak, and much more wordy, but that was the bottom line of the law. In neighboring states, the law seems to be the same, despite small variations in wording. I could not find any terms or descriptions that would include bans on vaping in the law. I have also had no problems vaping in public places, (restaurants, stores, etc.) probably since before vaping in a new place I make the point of talking to someone there first and explaining what it is and how it works. (That is usually followed by "where did you get it?")

 

[jlvaughn75]

I can tell you that the law in Arkansas defines it as it pertains to the Clean Air Act ( aka the no more smoking in public act) as the burning of leaf involving ignition or combustion. It was in legal-speak, and much more wordy, but that was the bottom line of the law. In neighboring states, the law seems to be the same, despite small variations in wording. I could not find any terms or descriptions that would include bans on vaping in the law. I have also had no problems vaping in public places, (restaurants, stores, etc.) probably since before vaping in a new place I make the point of talking to someone there first and explaining what it is and how it works. (That is usually followed by "where did you get it?")

thanks for the clarification there Tigger as a fellow Arkie
I wasnt sure myself?

 

[yvilla]

Each state or locality with an existing "smoking" ban has its own legislation creating it. Each one may have its own particular wording, but they all target burning, combustion, "lighted" etc. The use of the ecig, as there is no burning/combustion, violates none of them.

The only exception to that is the recently passed, but not yet signed into law, legislation in Suffolk County, NY. In order to ban the use of ecigs in public places, they had to change the wording of their smoking ban to specifically include ecigs (not very artfully though, more about this I will not say out loud ).

It is to be hoped that the inane, inaccurate in its assumptions and downright stupid local legislation in Suffolk County will not be signed into law. And that if it is, it will fall after either judicial challenge or further public pressure.

 

[BlueMoods]

I also live in Ar, near the Texas border. In the Wal mart in Ashdown, I can vape, manager agreed that it was not smoking and therefore was allowed. In Texarkana on the Arkansas side Wal mart, the manager said that it was still tobacco product fumes, so was smoking and not allowed, even odderless tobacco would be prohibited in the store so, vaping is the same, it's smoking. In the Texarkana Wal Mart, it's fine IF you cover or disable the LED so other customers don't think it's lit. So when it comes to private property, it's up to the owner or manager - ask first.

 

[davidzx]

The only catch I can see, is nicotine can be labeled as tobacco because it's a product manufactured from the tobacco leaf.

Correct, that is the "general" argument behind the possible classification of eCigs as tobacco products. BUT, here's the catch ...

As a supplier there's two types of pure nicotine base we work with for our eLiquids - Natural Nicotine and Synthetic Nicotine.

Natural Nicotine is extracted from the tobacco plant. eLiquids/eCigs that contain juice made from Natural Nicotine - are of course, a byproduct of the tobacco plant.

Synthetic Nicotine has nothing to do with the tobacco plant. Synthetic nicotine is made synthetically in a laboratory and therefore is NOT a byproduct of the tobacco plant.

Its technical, but its a cognizant point that if we rule out Natural Nicotine -- all electronic cigarettes and related counterparts would contain NO byproducts of tobacco or any chemical ties therewith.

 

[CJsKee]

It's my understanding that synthetic nicotine is prohibitively expensive...if it was used in e-liquids, no one would be able to afford it.

 

[Shotline]

To get to your point, I would say that, for my part, I am "paranoid" as you put it about vaping in public because of appearance. Although vaping is not smoking, it looks very similar. And to someone not familiar with it, it might as well be smoking. As we are currently on what I would consider thin ice, it would not be wise to alarm or intrude on those who look down on smoking. These are the people we need to convince that it is not smoking, is not harmful to anyone and is the best alternative for those who would otherwise smoke. So to put it in their face when they know nothing about it would be to turn them away from our side. So, until there is more publicity about ecigs in the general public, discretion is our ally. We cannot rush and put vaping in the face of non-smokers.

We must be cautious and careful in our PV usage.

 

[PowerofParanoia]

To get to your point, I would say that, for my part, I am "paranoid" as you put it about vaping in public because of appearance. Although vaping is not smoking, it looks very similar. And to someone not familiar with it, it might as well be smoking. As we are currently on what I would consider thin ice, it would not be wise to alarm or intrude on those who look down on smoking. These are the people we need to convince that it is not smoking, is not harmful to anyone and is the best alternative for those who would otherwise smoke. So to put it in their face when they know nothing about it would be to turn them away from our side. So, until there is more publicity about ecigs in the general public, discretion is our ally. We cannot rush and put vaping in the face of non-smokers.

We must be cautious and careful in our PV usage.

Wise words.

 

[AmyB66]

Our health insurance states tobacco user, not smoker so it is getting even trickier. I called my benefits rep, waiting to hear back and just made a different post in regards to it. It isn't just about public use and all it takes it using a different term to replace another.

I guess from a legal standpoint it can be argued that I am a tobacco user even though I consider myself a nonsmoker. I think at one point this was done because they also wanted to charge people who used chewing tobacco.

I do agree with Shotline, I do not vape inside public places, I feel that vapers who wish to push the issue are just asking for a fight with those who like to push the nonsmoking issues. The extremists on both sides could make it a no win situation for the majority.

 

[jtcaseyjr]

To get to your point, I would say that, for my part, I am "paranoid" as you put it about vaping in public because of appearance. Although vaping is not smoking, it looks very similar. And to someone not familiar with it, it might as well be smoking. As we are currently on what I would consider thin ice, it would not be wise to alarm or intrude on those who look down on smoking. These are the people we need to convince that it is not smoking, is not harmful to anyone and is the best alternative for those who would otherwise smoke. So to put it in their face when they know nothing about it would be to turn them away from our side. So, until there is more publicity about ecigs in the general public, discretion is our ally. We cannot rush and put vaping in the face of non-smokers.

We must be cautious and careful in our PV usage.

I agree with all this! That said the bigger problem we face is the information that IS getting to the general public is BAD information or FDA rants about how E-cigs are bad. We will never get the General public on our side if we don't start getting the right information out there.

 

[Unperson]

With regard to the term "smoking", the e-cig (PV, NI) playing field is a minefield that many of us are guilty of creating. For both suppliers and buyers/users, it has been necessary to form a tight relationship with analog tobacco products to ensure that people can easily find products that they initially have no perspective on. That is why they are referred to as "electronic cigarettes" instead of a more accurate (and less negative) term such as "personal vaporizer" or "nicotine inhaler". Truth be told, these devices are not cigarettes and we should avoid any terms that connect them to analog tobacco.

The term "smoking" is an obvious reference to smoke produced by combustion. In our case, there is no smoke because nothing is burning. While many do use the correct term "vaping", it is easy to fall back on the word "smoking" because many have a history with analog tobacco and using familiar terminology is easier than adopting new verbiage.

There is also a dark cloud (pardon the pun) over the use of words such as vapor, vaporizer, vaping,etc.. Prior to becoming an alternative to analog tobacco, there was an underground movement of herbology smokers that was using vaporizing devices (the early technology that evolved into current nicotine vaporizers) for the purpose of taking in the primary illegal component without the smoke. As a result of the negative connection to the term vaporizer, attempts were made to use the term "nicotine inhaler" so as to create a separation from the illicit use of this technology.

Personally, I believe how we word things is crucial. If we (the individuals trying to get this technology accepted) use words such as smoking and cigarette, then we shouldn't be surprised when outsiders want to throw us in the pit with analog tobacco users. They pulled the trigger, but we loaded the chamber.

I always try to be mindful of my phrasing when discussing my new hobby. The following is a list of terms I use as opposed to what is commonly used:

- Vaping, not smoking.

- PV or Personal Vaporizer, not cigarette or nicotine inhaler. Even though nicotine inhaler is accurate, many hear the word nicotine and instantly narrow down to cigarette.

- PV Liquid or PV Fluid, not E-Liquid/Fluid, N-Liquid/Fluid, or Juice. Juice is the worst. It sounds like an item geared towards children.

- "Taking a pull" or "Drawing" instead of "taking a drag" or "inhaling".

As I wrote, I try to watch my wording, but I still slip up or make exceptions (see my signiture graphic) but it is usually when I know it is a safe arena (such as these forums). When dealing with newcomers or outsiders, I always try to create a strong separation from analog tobacco. I can't speak for everyone, but maybe we should all try to shake off the stigma of big tobacco by minding our words.

 

[D103]

Very Good post Unperson, I agree with you, words are very important and creating reasonable distance (from traditional smoking) is equally important. Smoking has been so completely and successfully demonized in the world I really believe we will never see that public perception shift, at least not in our lifetime. One huge problem we have is that this technology is so incredibly novel and effective it looks, feels and acts like real smoke and so I believe there is always going to be a significant portion of the public who will never care about facts, harm reduction, "safer than smoking", lives saved, etc. To quite a few people it will always look like that "disgusting smoking" and so vaping is bad also. Our true hope, I believe, lies in the courts and even if we prevail there, there will continue to be constant assaults on the truth and attempts at marginalizing, demonizing and banning vaping just like smoking.

 

[Marcutio311]

I just got in trouble at school recently for vaping, and have been fighting the board about it, cuz it does not fall under smoking like in the code book, I even asked my lawyer for help. They dont know what to say when I drill them with facts and ask them questions so they just say, we wont allow it, but until its in the book in print Im good, hopefully if my lawyer can nail this lol.

 

[Marcutio311]

So I won, their putting it in the handbook that these are ok. Put down a win for pvs and staying healthy!!!

 

[Briachas]

This is how Kentucky is planning to do away with E-Cigs in their bill.

(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

 

[KimberlyM]

It's my understanding that synthetic nicotine is prohibitively expensive...if it was used in e-liquids, no one would be able to afford it.

If the FDA gets away with regulation we may not be able to affors it either.