Respond to at least one other post from the perspective of the prosecutor, in a response of no more than 500 words. Respond directly to the argument(s) posted by your classmate, employing arguments based on the rules of statutory construction we have learned in Prep Week and in this weekly module. I have to respond to the post underneath and attached acting as the prosecutor:

“Week 2 Discussion: E-cigarettes and Smoking Ordinances.
River City has a very outdated smoking ordinance that prohibits smoking in certain public areas. The ordinance defines smoking as: “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.”
Nowhere in the ordinance does it mention electronic cigarettes. Granted, they probably were not a thing in 1998 when this now very dated ordinance was put into place, but that should not be the fault of Mr. Vapor. An electronic cigarette does not heat up, it does not require to be lit and, and it does not qualify as a tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation.
E-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is found in tobacco, however, but they do not contain tobacco itself. That would be like saying all oil is gasoline when it is really just a component. And while secondhand smoke from cigarettes can be extremely harmful with its very many chemicals, it has only been proven that vapor from e-cigarettes is a “little” harmful with low doses of toxins that can affect the airways through prolonged exposure.
Even Ginsburg’s dissent in Competitive Enter. Inst. V. United States DOT, 863 F.3d 911 claims that the definition of smoking could be stretched to fit e-cigarettes, only if one squints hard enough, and that we cannot just tally definitions from the dictionary, because ambiguity is part of statutory context. However, in the Rule of Lenity, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the issue in favor of the defendant, as a last resort.
I believe in this case Mr. Vapor’s ticket should be dismissed as the ordinance clearly does not include e-cigarettes in its definition of smoking.”

Response As Prosecutor