Friday, 5 April 2013

E-Cig Use To Be Banned Everywhere in California

Turn back! Run away!
If you thought California couldn't get any more absurd, you perhaps haven't seen Senate Bill SB 648 yet.

Written by politicians so stupid there should be a law to prevent them reproducing, it proposes that e-cigs should face the same restrictions as the already hysterical ones pertaining to tobacco. Here is the base clause.
The Legislature finds and declares that the use of electronic cigarettes [...] is a hazard to the health of the general public. Any reference in this chapter to, or any prohibition of, the smoking of tobacco shall also be construed to refer to the use of electronic cigarettes.
Yes. They really are saying that e-cig vapour is - according to them - a proven danger to others. Passive vaping, in other words. There is not a jot of scientific evidence behind this, of course - nor will there ever be - but California has declared it anyway.

With that underpinning the whole sorry document, it then goes on to detail where use of e-cigs will be prohibited by law. And it's just about everywhere.
The Legislature finds and declares that regulation of smoking in the workplace is a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes [...] in all enclosed places of employment in this state, as covered by this section, thereby eliminating the need of local governments to enact workplace smoking restrictions within their respective jurisdictions.
That's a comprehensive indoor smoking ban, to you and me, but for e-cigs.
Every railroad corporation, passenger stage corporation, passenger air carrier, and street railroad corporation providing departures originating in this state shall prohibit the smoking of any tobacco product, including an electronic cigarette, in the passenger seating area of every passenger car, passenger stage, aircraft, or other vehicle.
And that's an order, transport providers, whether you already have a policy, or are comfortable with e-cigs or not. Complete with a fine of up to $500.

The bill even goes so far as to encourage property owners to enforce e-cig bans on their rental tenants, including in outdoor areas.
A landlord of a residential dwelling unit, or his or her agent, may prohibit the smoking of a cigarette, an electronic cigarette, or other tobacco product on the property or in any building or portion of the building, including any dwelling unit, other interior or exterior area, or the premises on which it is located, in accordance with this article.
All this goes up for a vote on April 17th.

By now, I'm sure you know what I'm going to say next. Yep, it's not about health. Never has been.

UPDATE: If you are in the US, you can object to the proposals by using resources provided by CASAA at this link.


24 comments:

Diesel said...

"prohibit the smoking of any tobacco product, including an electronic cigarette"



That implies that this law only applies if the e-cig contains nicotine. If you use e-juice with 0% nicotine, you're fine, and they can't touch you.


Then if you use one WITH nicotine, they have to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that your steam is in fact a tobacco product.

Steve Wintersgill said...

Equally, Diesel, even if they were to prove your juice contained nicotine, there would be a further onus to prove that it was derived from tobacco rather than any of the other multitude of plant based sources.


That said, I fully expect the lunatics to pass this through with very little objection - it's what they do best.

JonathanBagley said...

Half of Hollywood seems to be puffing away on them. It's unlikely to be passed.

moonrakin said...

biiig, long, windy sigh pffffff


Let's hope that the vapers fight back - there's plenty of scope for variations on the vapour inhaler - could be an amusing way to torment the gits?

Carl V. Phillips said...

Keep in mind when looking at anti-THR proposals on the left side of the Atlantic things are a bit different because in the US we have fairly responsive local governments and an effective network of consumers who are mobilized to fight these measures. See our (CASAA's) call to action about this one: http://blog.casaa.org/2013/03/call-to-action-california-e-cigarette.html We have been successful in fighting back almost every similar proposal in the country. The California government, unfortunately, might be less likely to respond to the popular will, so this one is a little scary. For US readers, please read the CTA and join the effort to stop it.

SadButMadLad said...

I really do think that anti lot haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Do they really seriously think that vaping generates the same smells (one of the main things that the public mention when they don't like cigs) and that vapour stays around like smoke does. I really think they do. Because otherwise they would realise how stupid the law is because they won't be able to catch anyone except blatant users of e-cigs. Any vapourer can hide the vapours they breath out so that it just about imperceptible. And there is no smell to draw attention either.


I suspect they are like North Koreans - indulging in group-think. They believe their own hype so much they ignore reality.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I don't think they're going to be bothered looking into the mechanics of e-cigs. They have deemed them on a par with tobacco products, end of.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I hope you're correct, but I don't think California cares much for anyone or anything but their hysterical dogma.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Thanks for adding the link, I hadn't seen that. I saw the Senate Bill on the mad mechanic's blog.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I've noticed there are two kinds of approach from anti-smokers regarding e-cigs. A considered one by (mostly) the more modern tobacco controller. This is like ASH's stance, where they agree they are safer but urge cauton and want medical regulation but certainly don't want them banned as they see positive outcomes.


Then there are the other type who are (overwhelmingly) the older type of anti. These people have spent years installing the mythical threat of passive smoke into the public's belief system. It's always been an absurd idea, but they managed it by just repeating the same lie over and over again. They knew it wasn't true, and still do, but just kept on lying, producing bent studies, and pestering governments until the lie was accepted.


It is this type of tobacco controller - the ones who were successful the last time they made up stuff which was known to be patently untrue - who now think doing the same with e-cigs will eventually work. All they need is a bovine public, and just reading online comment sections show that there are already plenty of suckers who not only believe that a whiff of an e-cig is dangerous, but have actually reported symptoms!

Hopefully the more rational employees in the tobacco control industry - many of whom enthusiastically support e-cigs - will eventually ease the brainless dinosaurs out.

Mr A said...

The unfortunate thing for them is that e-cigs by their very nature are almost impossible to control. I'm not a vaper but I did use one on a 20 hour flight to Singapore last year. Of course, Emirates had a ban on e-cigs. But did that stop me? No, of course not. If you ban smoking, an illicit fag is hard to get away with. But with an e-cig? No tell-tale sound of a match lighting. No smell. The vapour doesn't hang in the air like smoke and is gone within a second. So basically I vaped for the duration of the flight and by simply scuttling down in my seat a bit, I got away with it - I didn't even have to go to the toilet. So how do they expect to get away with these restrictions in housing units and (non-open-plan) offices if you can vape away in a tightly-packed pressurised tube, without hassle, for 20 hours? Idiots.

Paul Daniel Kendrick said...

A landlord is never going to know if a tenant is using an ecig on their property. Why pass a law that can not possibly be enforced?

Henry Wyatt said...

Electronic cigarettes are not as dangerous as tobacco products are, don't know why they are imposing bans on these.

Smoking said...

Very interesting post..Thanks for sharing :)

Smokeless Cigarette

Austin Jackson said...

It is totally useless to enforce such kind of law, you can't tell if a person is smoking an electronic cigarette at home unless you see it.

top e cigs 2013 said...

The new electronic cigarette is already a very popular item.
Because of this, many different types have been created. This can be great
because it offers many different options for all different types of people.
best e cig 2013

Art Faucett said...

kardashian uses them on her Vag, to give that half breed a head start.

robert rossh said...

Your
articles don’t beat around the bushes exact t to the point.
http://esmokersclub.com/contact-us/

unknown said...

Don't see why they would prohibit smoking an e cig ANYWERE , people may turn back to the old fashion cigarette :( pointless .
anyone thinking about getting an e cig try www.qsmoking.net for details

Andrew Michaels said...

According to my research, E-cigarettes do not contain any nicotinem. So, I guess it is safe.

middy said...

thanks for share........

Best E Cigarette Store said...

I don't know why people want to ban e cigarette after knowing its so many benefits over tobacco cigarette. I think people don't want to be healthy while smoking. According to me government of California should think over this topic and than need to take decision because any little mistake can cause big problems.

bob9875 said...

good post..

Muhammad Ali said...

Oh really why is that electronic cigarette are harmful like smoky cigarettes?