Where there is smoke, there must be…law.
In the wake of Culver City’s ban on smoking inside multi-unit housing, comes now the first attempt to regulate the sale e-cigarettes.
At the next City Council meeting, Monday, July 27, in Council Chambers, the first e-cigarette ordinance will be introduced, at the behest of Councilman Jim Clarke, freshly returned from vacation. It will require a tobacco retailer to obtain a license to sell the electronic cigarettes.
“We need to enact an ordinance,” Mr. Clarke said, “because there is a big prohibition against selling cigarettes to minors (under 18).
“But it is not enforceable because nobody in the state enforces it.”
Mr. Clarke is seeking “an ordinance with teeth in it in case there is a store near a school that is selling e-cigarettes.”
Two Council members said they have no idea how many smokeless smokers live in Culver City or buy their e-cigarettes here.
“Here is another gap that is important,” Mr. Clarke said. “There is no prohibition against treating e-cigarettes the same as regular cigarettes regarding where you can smoke.
“In theory, I can go into a movie theatre, light up an e-cigarette and puff on the thing. “Or I could do that at a Council meeting, or go into a school and do it, and there is no prohibition about it.”
The lack of regulatory control is “sort of ridiculous,” Mr. Clarke said.
The second-term Councilman revealed an additional motivation.
Seizing control of the transactional portion of the hometown e-cigarette industry “goes along with what (colleague Meghan Sahli-Wells) has been saying about making Culver City a great place for kids.
“This is one way to achieve that goal,” said Mr. Clarke.
3 Comments on “A Proposed Law That May Go Up in Smoke”
First of all cigarettes cannot be sold to minors by enforcement of laws that brings harsh penalties. Not sure if the article writer errored here, or if in fact the council member my this incorrect statements.
This has nothing to do with “kids safety”, but all to do with greed. As more and more smokers kick their habits by using vapor products, sales tax and permit revenue from tobacco are being lost.
What you see being exhaled from the mouth is not smoke. It is not harmful to humans or the enviroment. It is a vapor produced by heating vegetable oil (soybean if not mistaken). It does not produce an offensive stench or display stained teeth, when you shake hands with a vapee.
It does not produce butt’s in front of your business entrance, empty packs on the ground, or ashes blown into your open car window at the stoplight. It’s vapor has never harmed a child or adult, nor have I ever witnessed a child in possession of a vaping device.
There is no fire here folks!
The alarm is being sounded by city fat-cats, that smell a buck. How is collecting revenue by forcing vape shops to buy permits to sell vegetable oil, being heated up and inhaled as a healthy alternative to smoking, actually going to “save our children”?
On the contrary, you’d think that the city would be proactive in promoting the usage of vaping products, and welcoming more retailers into the community. To encourage the healthier alternative to it’s resident smokers, with the goal of boasting a smoke-free city.
If the councilmen TRULY cared about your children, FRACKING in Culver City would have ended a long, long time ago.
This is not about protecting your kids… It’s about greed.
Hate to burst your bubble but the jury is still out on the safety of e-cigarettes. Take this medical article in the NEJM as an example
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069?query=featured_home&&
Major tobacco companies are joining the popularity of e-cigarettes and are definitely targeting young people with their products. Use by middle school and high school aged kids is growing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-ecigarettes-cdc-data-idUSKBN0N723O20150416
As a former long term cigarette smoker, I must agree that I prefer someone in near proximity to be vaping rather than smoking a cigarette. However, I seriously don’t want to be in a movie theatre or restaurant and have someone next to me vaping.
The same rules and regulations should apply. Nicotine is nicotine.
Fellow resident, where are the dead, addicted or ill children due to the sales of vaping products you wish to tax retailers in order to protect?
Where are the dead, addicted or ill adults due to the sales of vaping products, you wish to tax retailers in order to protect?
Show me victims, or damage caused by vapor, and I will applaud the penalty ordinance.
You are yelling fire! before the smoke. (pun not intended)
If you are under 18, the local vape shop will deny your entry.
If you are under 18, the local smoke shop will deny your entry.
The study you site without question has merit, thought it failed to attribute any illness or deaths caused by e-cigs, it certainly displayed a potential for possible affects over a life-time of usage. The study is useful for e-cig manufacturer’s to note, and improve upon during it’s infancy.
I would like to add that the majority of vape users prefer “VG” vegetable glycol, over “PG” propolyne glycol based vape juices, due it’s quality vapor production and flavor. VG is made from soybean, though a viable candidate it was omitted from the study you site. Perhaps PG will become a thing of the past, as higher profits are realized through the concentrated production of VG products.
I must agree with you that certain close quartered public spaces, should be respected. Though it poses no harm, others may take offense to the violation of their personal breathing space. Similar to that of the moviegoer in the next seat, who got carried away with the “Old Spice”.
I believe it to be a matter of mutual respect, and perhaps policy enforcement by the establishment, for which will occur regardless of the collection of revenue from the vape retailer as it’s implied solution.
Fracking, affordable housing and homelessness, are issues that Culver City resident family’s have continually voiced as pressing. The well-being of residents and their children, would be better served if the Council members stay focused on their constituents concerns.
Dragging an invisible monster onto the playground, in order to justify strong-arming a few extra bucks in revenue from small business owners in Culver City, is an embarrassing low-blow to the integrity of our municipality.