Vaping Ban Proposed in Kansas City, MO
- Thread starter bigdancehawk
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Very good points. But a vote is better than politicians just blindly deciding
what is in our best interest. That's all I'm saying. Hopefully the people voting
will surprise you (us). Not sure if this will go to statewide vote or just in K.C.
area. I'm advocating down here in southern part of Ozarks. Keep fighting, don't
go down without a fight.
I don't know whether to cry, or to stock up on ammunition.
I'd probably start by stocking up on vaping supplies, but I've already got that base covered.
The failure to get 100 signatures is truly frightening.
Coming to a state near you soon enough.
Or to the one you live in.
Absolutely. You can't get 100 signatures in K.C. something is
very wrong. Either the wrong people in charge of the petition or
the wrong approach to get signatures or ........ something is
very wrong.
very wrong. Either the wrong people in charge of the petition or
the wrong approach to get signatures or ........ something is
very wrong.
If you read the article linked above, you will see that they had over 200 signatures, but the majority were invalid. How they could possibly be so careless is hard to imagine. I would have been glad to sign it, but they announced they had plenty of signatures already. All they had to do was make sure that the people signing were Kansas City Missouri residents. They could have collected hundreds more signatures simply by signing up people at vape shops. This illustrates how poorly organized we are compared to the opposition.
Yeah I should have said '100 valid signatures'. The signers needed to
be registered voters as well.
I received this response from the mayor:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Ordinance 150963, which will ban the use of e-cigarettes and vapor products in public, enclosed spaces in Kansas City.
Some citizens have asked that I veto this ordinance. While I was not present to vote on this piece of legislation, I do support the intent of the ordinance and the Council’s vote.
It is important to note that Ordinances 150963 is not an outright ban on e-cigarettes. They can still be purchased legally by anyone 21 years of age or older. E-cigarette users can still use these products in their homes and outdoors, much like traditional tobacco products.
There was significant support for this ordinance from a broad range of organizations, businesses and individuals throughout the entire process. And, as always, I and the Council must balance the needs of all of our citizens. In this case, we saw it as a public health issue and acted accordingly.
Again, I appreciate you contacting my office and engaging on this issue.
Sincerely,
Sylvester "Sly" James, Jr.
Of the 13 council members I emailed 2 weeks ago, this is only the second response to date. It's apparent that the council (with one exception) did not make a serious effort to inform itself on the issues and simply bowed to the propaganda and pressure of "a broad range of organizations." Of course, we're quite familiar with what organizations he's talking about.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Ordinance 150963, which will ban the use of e-cigarettes and vapor products in public, enclosed spaces in Kansas City.
Some citizens have asked that I veto this ordinance. While I was not present to vote on this piece of legislation, I do support the intent of the ordinance and the Council’s vote.
It is important to note that Ordinances 150963 is not an outright ban on e-cigarettes. They can still be purchased legally by anyone 21 years of age or older. E-cigarette users can still use these products in their homes and outdoors, much like traditional tobacco products.
There was significant support for this ordinance from a broad range of organizations, businesses and individuals throughout the entire process. And, as always, I and the Council must balance the needs of all of our citizens. In this case, we saw it as a public health issue and acted accordingly.
Again, I appreciate you contacting my office and engaging on this issue.
Sincerely,
Sylvester "Sly" James, Jr.
Of the 13 council members I emailed 2 weeks ago, this is only the second response to date. It's apparent that the council (with one exception) did not make a serious effort to inform itself on the issues and simply bowed to the propaganda and pressure of "a broad range of organizations." Of course, we're quite familiar with what organizations he's talking about.
Sad but true, KC & St Louis are are Democratic strongholds and by the numbers can outvote the whole rest of the state on statewide or nationwide votes.
I would be sending him back a letter with links to every truly scientific study out there and asking that they do the real research to determine it is a public health issue instead of blindly following the organizations that are funded and backed by big organizations that stand to lose money with every smoker that converts to vaping. We did it in Springfield. They included e-cigs in the initial smoking ban here. It took a year or so, but they came around and excluded them eventually from the ban. Course we have a much larger Republican and Independent base down here so the odds were better.
This positively reeks of sabotage.
C'mon, one could gather at least 100 VALID signatures just by soliciting outside a few Price Choppers on a Saturday!
Every single vaper needs to be a registered voter, you guys have an election year coming ,and this year, it matters.
- Status
