Sure seems like they're opening themselves up to legal challenges all over the place, doesn't it?
Springfield MO Proposes Adding E-Cigarettes to Smoking Prohibitions
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Tom, I have looked at it. It’s on page 51 of 90 pages! Activating an e-cig or electronic device used to heat tobacco or other plant substances in a sneaky way also defining as smoking for the smoking ban. Who is going to read this?
Unbelievable!!!!!
How to screw up democratic rights. The freedom to choose?
It seems to become the freedom to fool people.
Vocalek, I hope you are right, but if nicotine is a substance of the tobacco plant it will be a difficult discussion.
Demarko, you earlier mentioned the need for (a) legal fund(s). I think that should be very wise. Legal action is needed here!
Unbelievable!!!!!
How to screw up democratic rights. The freedom to choose?
It seems to become the freedom to fool people.
Vocalek, I hope you are right, but if nicotine is a substance of the tobacco plant it will be a difficult discussion.
Demarko, you earlier mentioned the need for (a) legal fund(s). I think that should be very wise. Legal action is needed here!
The ploom heats tobacco. https://ploom.worldsecuresystems.co...tmctr=ploom tobacco&__utmv=-&__utmk=232561183
(You need to verify that you are 18 or over to enter.)
Nicotine is not tobacco. The nicotine in our devices is extracted from tobacco. The Federal Tobacco Act tried to cover its bases with defining a tobacco product as a product that is made of or "derived from" tobacco. It was on that basis of that definition that Judge Leon recommended that the FDA regulate e-cigarettes that do not make health claims.
I have to agree that some legal action is going to be needed to stop the insidious sneakiness of the antis who slip in ecigarette use bans hoping nobody will notice. IMHO if they put text on the ballot for voters, it needs to accurately describe what the voters are voting for or against.
(You need to verify that you are 18 or over to enter.)
Nicotine is not tobacco. The nicotine in our devices is extracted from tobacco. The Federal Tobacco Act tried to cover its bases with defining a tobacco product as a product that is made of or "derived from" tobacco. It was on that basis of that definition that Judge Leon recommended that the FDA regulate e-cigarettes that do not make health claims.
I have to agree that some legal action is going to be needed to stop the insidious sneakiness of the antis who slip in ecigarette use bans hoping nobody will notice. IMHO if they put text on the ballot for voters, it needs to accurately describe what the voters are voting for or against.
Many attournies general, and legal professors, etc have determined that by no legal definition is using a PV "smoking" and yet they include it as a sub-paragraph somewhere.
A solid reason to challenge this definition is: People in MO now have to pay higher insurance premiums if they get caught using a PV. They are, by definition, "smoking" ? How long until almost every state has some stupid little clause like this, somewhere, that lets insurance companies get away with charging higher rates on a technicality?
Yeah, I just got an Ego and I love it, but that problem is, my employer is afraid he'll get into trouble if he allows me to use it in the work place- meaning I have to go outside in the winter and for what? I have no clue. It makes no sense. There is no tobacco, no smoke, not even a flame. It doesn't even smog up or stink up the place. This ban which includes e-cigs makes no sense to me and even my 22 y.o. son said I could contest this, esp if I avoided the words "smoke" and "cigarette", because it is actually like a vaporizer and not a cigarette. It doesn't even affect his asthma and being sent outside in the middle of winter makes me wonder why I gave up smoking, except I got pneumonia for the first time in my life last February, after smoking for 27 years. I really don't want it again, but at the same time, I'm rather happy with my Ego, despite missing some things about real cigarettes. I don't like being cold, yet because of this silly ban, I'm still being sent outside and I'm not even sure why. If it weren't for the fact he'd pay a higher fine than I would, if I were caught, I'd try to find a way around this, but I'm not sure how. I'm not even sure if he understands what an e-cig is and I don't know if he would listen if I tried to explain it.
The way to find a way around it is to provide facts to the decision makers.
Contact CASAA and they will help you with that.
That is one reason they exist.
On the other hand, if it doesn't work, then you need to learn stealth vaping.
It's not hard, and we all have to resort to it sometimes.
If you want more information on stealth vaping, post a new thread in the General Smoking forum.
You'll get plenty of help and advice.
Sorry to necro this, but I live in Springfield and I am tired of having to stealth vape at work and worry about getting in trouble and having to go outside in the friged cold and stand around the smoking urn with everyone else all while the people who chew get to stay inside worry free and spit that crap into clear bottles where I have to stare at it. I really dont understand why they included e-cigs in the ban. I want to fight the inclusion of e-cigs on the Springfield ban. Any tips on how to get it done?
-Leo
-Leo
I stealth vape at work too, because I refuse to go outside into the cold. I worry about getting caught a little, but someone would have to invade my personal privacy to do it. I would love to fight it also, just so I don't have to hide to vape, but I'm not sure how. Even my boss thinks the ban is dumb, so even if I did get caught, I don't think my employer would be too hard on me. I don't know what the problem is that they included them in the ban, because the vapor doesn't linger in the air and there's very little smell or at least I haven't met anyone who is offended by it as they walked past me in warmer weather. I'd be vaping almost all day at work, if not for the ban or maybe I'd vape less at home, instead of almost constantly if the ban were removed. It's really stupid.
Yes. Get organized.
1. You can contact a local attorney to see whether the fact that e-cigarettes were included in the law passed by voters was not specified on the ballot or even included in news stories violates any type of state law. I would think that the sponsors of such bills should be responsible to fully inform the voters of the impact of passing the bill.
2. Work to get legislation enacted that would specify that vapor is not smoke, and use of an electronic vaporizing device is excluded from the smoking ban.
This page lists the city council members. City of Springfield, MO: City Council - Index
The best way to approach this would be to track down one or more people that live in each district and ask them to set up an appointment to meet in person with their own area representative on the council.
Talking points:
- During the appointment, describe the beneficial effects that switching has had for you.
- Point out that the public was never informed that smoke-free electronic cigarettes were included in the proposal on the ballot.
- Explain the effect that the passage of Council Bill No. 2011-012 has had on you (e.g., negative impact on productivity)
- Present model legislation to rectify the situation and ask your council rep to sponsor it.
Suggested wording (modeled on existing ordinance) http://www.springfieldmo.gov/clerk/ordinances/ORD5927.pdf
-------------------------
Section 1000. Title
This Article shall be known as the Springfield Smokefree Air Act of 2012.
Section 1001. Findings and Intent
Be it ordained by the people of the city of Springfield, Missouri, as follows:
The purpose of smoke-free ordinances is to protect the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
Smoke is created by the burning of organic materials. Smoke contains many harmful elements, including tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous gasses, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion.
The act of smoking involves setting fire to a product that contains tobacco and inhaling and exhaling the smoke that is produced by this combustion. The detrimental health effects of smoking are well-documented.
During the past few years, over a million US smokers have successfully replaced smoked tobacco cigarettes with the use of an electronic device that produces a mist or vapor. These electronic devices are popularly known as electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes; however they are also available in the shape of a cigar or pipe, and some do not resemble tobacco products at all.
Articles published in scientific journals have reported success rates that range from 22% to 77% for extinguishing the habit of tobacco smoking. Consumers are also reporting improvements in their health, commensurate with having stopped inhaling smoke. These articles include the following:
R Polosa, P Caponnetto, J B Morjaria, G Papale, D Campagna, C Russo: Effect of an Electronic Nicotine Delivery Device (e-Cigarette) on Smoking Reduction and Cessation: A Prospective 6-Month Pilot Study. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:786.
Siegel MB, Tanwar KL, Wood KS. Electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation tool: Results from an Online Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011 Apr; 40(4):472-5.
Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x.
Siegel MB, Tanwar KL, Wood KS. Electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation tool: Results from an Online Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011 Apr; 40(4):472-5.
Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x.
The electronic cigarette has not been shown to harm bystanders. All scientific evidence shown to date has demonstrated that the electronic cigarette to have as much risk as other smokeless nicotine products.
Kahn and Siegel reviewed existing evidence on e-cigarette safety and efficacy. Their report states, A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.
Khan Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication 9 December 2010; doi: 10.1057/jphp.2010.41.
Many smokers decide to try an electronic cigarette when they observe the devices being used in areas where smoking is prohibited. Thus, treating the use of a smoke-free electronic cigarette as if it were just as hazardous as smoking removes a powerful incentive for continuing smokers to switch to a product that would greatly improve their health.
Citizens adopted Ordinance 5927 by initiative on April 5, 2011, without being fully informed. Electronic cigarettes were not mentioned in the text of the ballot presented to the people on April 5, 2011. No mention was made in press releases that the proposed initiative would ban the use of a electronic cigarette replacement products.
Accordingly, the City of Springfield, MO finds and declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to amend Ordinance 5927, initiative adopted by the vote of the people April 5, 2011, as follows.
Section 1002. Amendment to Ordinance 5927
In Section 1002. Definitions, item N, of Ordinance 5927, delete the text that reads as follows:
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.
Insert the following text as a replacement for the deleted text:
Smoking does not include holding, or inhaling or exhaling vapor or a vaporized solution from an electronic device that does not contain tobacco.
Sec. 1003. Effective Date
This Article shall be effective sixty (60) days from and after the date of its adoption.
--------------
NOTE: I am not an attorney nor am I a legislator. I suggest that the above draft be edited by someone who has expertise in wording local ordinances in Missouri. When the wording is finalized, distribute copies to all the vapers that will be meeting in person with their city council rep. That way, everyone will be on the same page (so to speak).
Silly Shortmind (Billy Long) is my rep. and I really do not want to deal with him. He's a proverbial spot, who I did not vote for and do not like. He ticks me off with every email response he sends out to petitions/emails sent to him. He doesn't care as long as he gets his way and women are submissive. Did I mention I do not like him?
Can you find a man willing to meet with him, asking him to sponsor the amendment?
Don't bother. Due to the way the law was passed, there must be unanimous consent to amend the smoking ban. Last month the Springfield government met to discuss various amendments, and all were pulled because one nanny didn't want any changes whatsoever.
One change was to eliminate the ban on e-cigarettes, but only for theatrical performances. Even that was too much.
Live Free Springfield is a group that is trying to collect signatures to get a ballot initiative to eliminate the smoking ban. If that passed, e-cigs would of course become legal again.
I suspect that you mis-spelled the word in bold font.
Should that "a" be an "i"?
Should that "a" be an "i"?
That would be nice, Vocalek. Not sure who currently, but maybe my older son, who has asthma and prefers I vape than smoke, because he doesn't bother his asthma. He also likes not having the smell around, as well as the smog. So even though he doesn't vape, he sees many advantages to it and even help me get my first eGo, after reading up on e-cigs and judging for himself that they are healthier than real cigs. Thus, he'd be a good advocate, even though he doesn't smoke or vape.
I don't know. He's not at all political, but if it means his mother's health... I had pneumonia for the first time in my life last Feb. and neither one of us want me to have it again. That's one of the reasons I decided I needed to find an alternative and I am not going outside if I don't have to... thus why I sneak to a place inside where I won't be seen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
