Washington DC bans e-cig use at many outdoor locations, and elsewhere (but nobody seems to know)

[Bill Godshall]

Following up on my post at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...thin-25-feet-parks-trails-bus-stops-more.html

For reference, go to DC Council and type in B20-0095 to see the bill's history.

On October 1 the DC Council enacted, and on October 17 the DC Mayor signed legislation (B20-0095) that bans all tobacco use (including e-cigarettes) outdoors within 25 feet of bus stops, parks, trails, dog parks, playgrounds and other City owned recreation facilities
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20130801110251.pdf

But note that subsection (8) on page 2 includes "electronic cigarette" in its definition of "tobacco Product".
And directly below subsection (8), (b)(1) changed the word "Smoking" to "Smoking or the use of tobacco products"

The same language of the bill appears on Attachment E (page 20) at
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20130911102604.pdf

But according to Attachment D on pages 14 & 15 at http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20130911102604.pdf (which shows DC's existing smoking ban and how it is amended by the legislation), the next to top line on page 15 clarifies that B20-0095 amends the existing law to replace "Smoking" with "Smoking or the use of tobacco products" at the beginning of the same line in the current law that states "shall be prohibited in the following:" Then all of page 15 delineates where smoking has been banned (which now includes e-cig use).

Although the definition of "Tobacco product" mysteriously does NOT include "electronic cigarettes" at the bottom of page 14 in Attachment D (looks like a typo), "electronic cigarettes" are included in the definition of "Tobacco product" in all other versions of B20-0095, and therefore it appears that e-cig use is now banned at all indoor locations in DC where smoking is banned as well as at many outdoor areas (but not on federal government property, which is not controlled by the DC Council).

Ironically, I don't know if anyone else (except for me and those who read this posting) is aware that e-cig use is now banned in DC workplaces, as none of the news stories about the bill mentioned it (they only said smoking was banned at many outdoor locations) and the bill's description and purpose didn't mention it.

If nobody in DC knows that e-cig use is banned in workplaces, DC employers (including restaurants and bars) aren't likely to ban e-cig use, nobody will file any complaints with the DC Health Dept, and vapers can continue to vape throughout DC.

So it would probably be best if this thread is NOT forwarded to others, as if e-cig prohibitionists find out they'll likely try to generate news stories saying that e-cig use is now banned in DC workplaces.

 

[Ramjet]

Please, remind me again how this nation became so great. Oh ya... land of the free it's coming in ALL directions.

 

[DrMA]

How did they slip this under the radar?

 

[Bill Godshall]

DrMA wrote

How did they slip this under the radar?

There's no "they", and I've posted many notes on ECF (and cited in my weekly THR Update e-mails) exposing details of the bill (beginning in April and throughout the summer), and urging vapers in the DC area to oppose (see below).

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...opose-banning-e-cigarette-use-workplaces.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...thin-25-feet-parks-trails-bus-stops-more.html

While finger pointing isn't helpful, if anyone is to blame for passage of this bill, its the DC area folks who read my notices about the bill (here on ECF and in my e-mails) and chose to take no action. It was so bad that nobody from the DC area even posted a note on any of these three ECF threads about this bill.

 

[Petrodus]

I'm sure the FDA is content to sit back
and watch this "ban happy" country ... do their work for them.

 

[Bill Godshall]

We don't have a "ban happy" country.

Rather we have "ban happy" liberal Democrats (who have sponsored/championed the overwhelming majority of Federal, State and Municipal proposals to ban e-cig sales and restrict e-cig use).

Those who live in Deep Blue Cities and States are at greatest risk of these laws being introduced and being enacted.

 

[Petrodus]

We don't have a "ban happy" country.

Rather we have "ban happy" liberal Democrats (who have sponsored/championed the overwhelming majority of Federal, State and Municipal proposals to ban e-cig sales and restrict e-cig use).

Those who live in Deep Blue Cities and States are at greatest risk of these laws being introduced and being enacted.

How very true !!

 

[Exhaler]

We have a country where the leadershop believes that the beliefs of a very very small cabal should be the regulations and laws that govern all of us. If this means loss of our most basic freedoms and privacy, they don't care. They feel the government, controlled by them (the cabal) knows best and those that disagree will slandered and crushed by their(sic) press and other lobotomized puppets.


Ecigs have nicotine, to many in the socialized medical field will always associate nic with cigarette, cigar and pipe smoking. There probably are some of these same nic haters in the FDA manning battle stations against those who defend ecigs as a way to safer nicotine usage. The nic haters want ZERO nicotine usage, that is their bottom line. These nic haters are well sprinkled throughout the country and are pressing local and state governments to ban ANY nic usage. You will NEVER change these people's thinking. They are like a 2 year old who hates spinach, nothing you will do will get him to eat it. In the 2 year olds case they'll grow up and possibly LIKE spinache. On the other hand the nic haters are nic haters for life and will press their opinions on the rest of us, through laws and regulations, whenever they can.

 

[RosaJ]

What if you vape 0 nicotine? What is their basis to ban electronic cigarettes? Is it the nicotine in the liquid, or the act of vaping?

 

[Exhaler]

What if you vape 0 nicotine? What is their basis to ban electronic cigarettes? Is it the nicotine in the liquid, or the act of vaping?

The law states ecig, no matter what's in it. They are not going to test it or take your word for it being 0 nic. You could be vaping pure water, as long as it's in an ecig, you're screwed.

 

[madqatter]

What is their basis to ban electronic cigarettes?

The gear could not be effectively banned. It would be neither desirable nor enforceable to ban batteries, wires, metal tubes, etc. Neither would it be desirable or enforceable to ban glycerin and food flavorings. The only thing they could hope to effectively touch with regulation is nicotine.

(Fwiw, I am talking about broad bans, not bans within limited spaces.)

 

[Anjaffm]

OMG!
The European Parliament tried the same.. in their new Tobacco Regulation... hiding the e-cig in a small side paragraph.. trying to ban it.. in passing, so to speak.
Well, that little "hiding" plot was discovered. And spread in vapers forums and critical blogs all over Europe.
And it was only due to the efforts of many vapers... petitions.. many e-mails to many Members of European Parliament, that the e-cig became a big subject in the European Parliament debates. And due to those efforts the European Parliament voted - on 8 October 2013 - not to de-facto ban the e-cig (declaring it a medicinal product would have resulted in a de-facto ban).

Our fight in Europe is not over yet - there is still the European Commission to be consulted. And we are still active, believe me...

But this ban is horrible!
Can something still be done?

 

[DrMA]

We don't have a "ban happy" country.

Rather we have "ban happy" liberal Democrats (who have sponsored/championed the overwhelming majority of Federal, State and Municipal proposals to ban e-cig sales and restrict e-cig use).

Those who live in Deep Blue Cities and States are at greatest risk of these laws being introduced and being enacted.

I respectfully disagree. How would you class the conservative republicans in the "ban gay marriage", "ban abortion", "ban Obamacare" wagons if not "ban happy". The US is definitely a "ban happy" country.

In fact, I'd go as far as claiming we live in a "ban happy" world, because it's human nature to reject, ridicule and/or marginalize what they don't understand. There's no escaping the ban bandwagon

 

[Ramjet]

We don't have a "ban happy" country.

Rather we have "ban happy" liberal Democrats (who have sponsored/championed the overwhelming majority of Federal, State and Municipal proposals to ban e-cig sales and restrict e-cig use).

Those who live in Deep Blue Cities and States are at greatest risk of these laws being introduced and being enacted.

May God bless you, your family and friends for saying this, Bill

Sincerely,
Joe

 

[Ramjet]

Minnesota is one of the states you speak of. I live in a suburb of Mpls., but have written letters for Mankato and Duluth when informed of restrictions through CASAA. I sense this is pointless, yet I feel obligated to voice my opinion. What we are able to purchase on line today will no doubt be over, very, very soon.

This problem I feel is a control issue. It is not simply about smoking or ecigs, no, no it's much bigger than that. Soon "they" will want to know everything about you. Non conformity will be punished. Am I being over dramatic? I don't believe so. History has repeated itself. As a matter of fact, Rome had a similar thing going on before they fell. WWII was fought to eliminate a control freak and, how many wars have we fought recently to remove control freaks.

As we try to force others to be like us, we will become the dictator we once despised.

 

[Psyche]

Minnesota is one of the states you speak of. I live in a suburb of Mpls., but have written letters for Mankato and Duluth when informed of restrictions through CASAA. I sense this is pointless, yet I feel obligated to voice my opinion. What we are able to purchase on line today will no doubt be over, very, very soon.

This problem I feel is a control issue. It is not simply about smoking or ecigs, no, no it's much bigger than that. Soon "they" will want to know everything about you. Non conformity will be punished. Am I being over dramatic? I don't believe so. History has repeated itself. As a matter of fact, Rome had a similar thing going on before they fell. WWII was fought to eliminate a control freak and, how many wars have we fought recently to remove control freaks.

As we try to force others to be like us, we will become the dictator we once despised.

I don't believe it's overdramatic Ramjet, I've thought all those things myself. Notice that the Nazi's were very anti-smoking as well.

A pretty good read if you have the time - Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

 

[Ramjet]

I don't believe it's overdramatic Ramjet, I've thought all those things myself. Notice that the Nazi's were very anti-smoking as well.

A pretty good read if you have the time - Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Wow, that's some article I will definitely read. I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Anjaffm]

Notice that the Nazi's were very anti-smoking as well.

Yes they were.
I was born in that country, 15 years after the end of WWII. My grandparents and parents (children) had lived in that dictatorship.
I was raised and educated about the dangers of dictatorship, any dictatorship. I was taught to see the signs and to oppose them. The motto was "Never again".

When I see "ban this", "forbid that" - "for your own good", when I see the many people idly standing by, I am always reminded of pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

source - and explanation

And what is described in that link http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/ is sickening. Especially for a person from Germany. You only need to replace the word "smoking" and "smoker" with another word ... it is the same rhetoric .. the same hate ...

 

[sbdivemaster]

Minnesota is one of the states you speak of. I live in a suburb of Mpls., but have written letters for Mankato and Duluth when informed of restrictions through CASAA. I sense this is pointless, yet I feel obligated to voice my opinion. What we are able to purchase on line today will no doubt be over, very, very soon.

This problem I feel is a control issue. It is not simply about smoking or ecigs, no, no it's much bigger than that. Soon "they" will want to know everything about you. Non conformity will be punished. Am I being over dramatic? I don't believe so. History has repeated itself. As a matter of fact, Rome had a similar thing going on before they fell. WWII was fought to eliminate a control freak and, how many wars have we fought recently to remove control freaks.

As we try to force others to be like us, we will become the dictator we once despised.

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
--Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Bill Godshall]

Upon further review, the DC bill (20-95) that would have banned e-cig use at outdoor parks and in all workplaces was amended at the October DC Council meeting (by an amendment offered on the floor by DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson) that eliminated all references to e-cigs and tobacco use in the bill.
Phil Mendelson’s amendments to smokefree parks bill « Smokefree DC

Smokefree DC (which supported the e-cig usage ban in the bill) wrote about Mendelson's amendment to exempt e-cigs from the bill at
Council chair cuts e-cigarettes out of smokefree parks bill « Smokefree DC
and also provided Mendelson's amendment.

Had Mendelson not offered that amendment, or if DC Council had rejected Mendelson's amendment, the bill would have banned e-cig use in all workplaces and at many outdoor locations in DC.

So vape away in DC.

Please note that another bill in DC would specifically ban e-cig use in workplaces, and a hearing was held last week generating the following article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...beaeec-52ee-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

Several folks have informed me that this latter bill will also be amended to eliminate e-cigs, but I haven't seen any documentation of that.