# New York Court Rules that Vaping Is Not Smoking



## Alex (22/2/16)

*New York Court Rules that Vaping Is Not Smoking*

It was bound to come down to a judge’s ruling eventually, but we didn’t know it would happen this soon. In New York, a judge just ruled that vaping is not smoking and the two words cannot be used interchangeably. New York currently bans smoking in most public areas, but according to the judge that doesn’t mean vaping is automatically banned as well.

After a vaper was cited for using his device on a subway platform, he challenged the issue in court. In “People vs. Thomas”, the judge said that New York law defines smoking as “the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco”. However, the court said that this definition excluded vapor devices.

“An electronic cigarette neither burns nor contains tobacco,” the court noted. “Instead, the use of such a device, which is commonly referred to as ‘vaping,’ involves the inhalation of vaporized e-cigarette liquid consisting of water, nicotine, a base of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin and occasionally, flavoring.”

During the case, the state argued that the ban on vaping should be understood and there was no need for a specific prohibition on vapor devices because “the courts of New York have yet to make a determination as to whether electronic cigarettes are to be viewed any differently under these sections than tobacco cigarettes.”

However, the judge ruled that this argument was invalid. After all, vapor devices just do not match up with the state’s current definition of “smoking” and cannot be treated as tobacco products if they contain no tobacco.

In New York City, leaders have specifically included bans on vaping under the Smoke Free Air Act. However, statewide laws are yet to follow suit. Last summer, the state considered a bill to add restrictions against using vapor devices in public places, but the bill died in the Senate.

Now that a judge has formally ruled that vaping does not equate to smoking, we will likely see a statewide scramble to redefine smoking or tack on additional language to smoking prohibitions to insure that vaping is also restricted. For now, we can all pause and celebrate this small victory from one New York judge that fortunately had enough common sense to stop this ridiculous charge in its tracks.

Source: http://www.churnmag.com/news/new-yo...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Reactions: Like 3 | Winner 9 | Thanks 1


----------



## Alex (22/2/16)

Here's a link to the actual ruling.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2016/2016-ny-slip-op-26033.html


----------



## Stosta (22/2/16)

That's a step in the right direction! Hopefully it doesn't mean that law-makers will push vaping into a "smoking" category. Thanks @Alex

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Waine (22/2/16)

Very nice! Another positive for vapers across the globe. Edit: Thanks to Alex for keeping us up to date with vape hate material. I appreciate this reading material...

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Neal (22/2/16)

Good news indeed. Another excellent post @Alex, thank you, I find all your research worth taking the time to read, whether positive to vaping or not. Would suggest all other members on forum also take the time to keep up with what is happening, more than a good chance legislation and rulings from overseas could affect vaping on our side of world. Let's hope they take their lead from UK.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Duffie12 (22/2/16)

Don't mean to be a party pooper or anything but this ruling doesn't actually mean much other than in the court's eyes the current definition of smoking does not include vaping. In other words the ruling is about semantics not about whether vaping is perceived as better or worse.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Stosta (22/2/16)

Duffie12 said:


> Don't mean to be a party pooper or anything but this ruling doesn't actually mean much other than in the court's eyes the current definition of smoking does not include vaping. In other words the ruling is about semantics not about whether vaping is perceived as better or worse.


Yes, but a recognition that it is not the same thing as smoking in the eyes of the law is still +1 for vaping surely?

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Duffie12 (22/2/16)

Stosta said:


> Yes, but a recognition that it is not the same thing as smoking in the eyes of the law is still +1 for vaping surely?


Every bit counts!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DaveH (22/2/16)

Let me give you the other side of the coin.
Smoking is not illegal, now they can make vaping illegal without touching smoking.
Always two sides to the coin. Sorry to be a 'party pooper'.

Dave


----------

