Alexandria (Louisiana) council unanimously enacts smokefree law, includes e-cigarette usage.

[Bill Godshall]

Alexandria council unanimously bans smoking in city bars | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com

Last month, CASAA posted a Call to Action for Alexandria at
CASAA.org=
because the proposed ordinance at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60074605/Alexandria-LA-Proposed-Smoke-Free-Ordinance
also banned e-cigarette usage.

Presumably, the council removed e-cigarettes from the proposed ordinance.

 

[Vocalek]

The story said they passed an amended version, but does not specify what they amended.

 

[Placebo Effect]

The woman I've e-mailed with from the council office said she never heard e-cigarettes get brought up. She'll have the approved ordinance for me tomorrow.

 

[Jacinda222]

I found this amended ordinance: http://www.cityofalexandriala.com/sites/default/files/docs/Smoke_Free_Ordinance_2011.pdf

If this is what was passed, then I think we're okay. No specific mention of e-cigs that I could see.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Great find Jacinda. I corrected my original posting on this thread.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I am stumped as to how and when this happened. The strike-outs you see in the ordinance as passed represent the 10 amendments that were passed the night this was voted on.

Perhaps this went through a committee process or something.

 

[Thulium]

I found this amended ordinance: http://www.cityofalexandriala.com/sites/default/files/docs/Smoke_Free_Ordinance_2011.pdf

If this is what was passed, then I think we're okay. No specific mention of e-cigs that I could see.

Here's the definition of smoking from the amended ordinance

"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. 'Smoking' also includes the use of any oral smoking device for the
purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article

Cutting out the parts that refer to smoking products, "Smoking means inhaling, exhaling...or carrying any...heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, in any manner or in any form."

Are e-cigarettes a "heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation"?? Although I think they meant it that way, e-cigarettes don't actually heat any tobacco or plant products in any manner or in any form, do they?

 

[Placebo Effect]

Here's the definition of smoking from the amended ordinance


Cutting out the parts that refer to smoking products, "Smoking means inhaling, exhaling...or carrying any...heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, in any manner or in any form."

Are e-cigarettes a "heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation"?? Although I think they meant it that way, e-cigarettes don't actually heat any tobacco or plant products in any manner or in any form, do they?

Courts typically defer to traditional definitions when interpreting legislation in which words are not defined. Couple that with the fact that the City Council defined them separately in the first draft of the ordinance and it becomes very doubtful the city could prevail in court.

Bill will know this, but I assume that the phrase "heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation" has been in smoke-free laws for longer than e-cigarettes have been around.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The phrase "heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation" (and variations of that phrase) were included in some smokefree workplace laws to prohibit usage of Premier, Eclipse, Advance and several other products that were developed and marketed by cigarette companies in the late 1980's and 1990's, and that heated tobacco instead of burning it.

Since hookah/shisha tobacco is also heated instead of burned, similar phrases have been included in some recently enacted smokefree workplace laws to ban hookah bars.

But since e-cigarettes emit no smoke, they couldn't be considered an "oral smoking device".

While its possible that Alexandria officials could argue that e-cigarettes are a "heated plant product intended for inhalation", if challenged in court, they'd need to provide evidence that nicotine was actually in the e-cigarette (whose usage was cited as violating the ordinance).

So unless the city confiscates the e-cigarette in question, conducts a laboratory test to determine that it contains nicotine, and also convinces a judge that the e-cigarette heated the nicotine, it appears that the city would not win in court.

Also, e-cigarette users in Alexandria could just claim that they used e-cigarettes to quit smoking and remain smokefree (and that it wasn't their intent to "circumventing the prohibition of smoking". It would be difficult for the city to convince a court that only reason a person used an e-cigarette was "for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking", especially if the e-cigarette user claimed otherwise.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Its official, the Alexandria (LA) smokefree workplace law does NOT apply to e-cigarette usage.

Violations of Alexandria's smoking ban to draw $100 fine for first offense | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com

Electronic cigarettes will be allowed. The e-cigarettes produce a smoke-like mist that simulates smoking without the harmful effects. A provision banning e-cigarettes, which originally had been pitched over the summer, was removed from the final ordinance adopted by the city.

 

[Vap0rJay]

Its official, the Alexandria (LA) smokefree workplace law does NOT apply to e-cigarette usage.

Violations of Alexandria's smoking ban to draw $100 fine for first offense | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com

Do we know who is admitting as in who we can quote is stating matter of fact: "The e-cigarettes produce a smoke-like mist that simulates smoking without the harmful effects." Because being able to quote a lawmaker or health official stating that would be awesome

 

[DC2]

Do we know who is admitting as in who we can quote is stating matter of fact: "The e-cigarettes produce a smoke-like mist that simulates smoking without the harmful effects." Because being able to quote a lawmaker or health official stating that would be awesome

It's called a "growing body of evidence" in ANTZ-speak.

 

[rothenbj]

The ordinance bans smoking in all enclosed places of employment "without exception," as well as within 25 feet of entrances and windows of those buildings, city property and outdoor playgrounds. Smoking also is forbidden in all outdoor arenas, stadiums and amphitheaters, as well as all outdoor places of employment.

emphasis mine.

Now I haven't read the ordinance, but depending on the wording, that could be a complete ban anywhere other than the privacy of your home. Your driving down the road minding your own business on a nice spring day. A police officer gets behind you with his lights flashing. You pull over, he comes up to your window and writes you a ticket for "smoking in his place of employment".

Far fetched? Perhaps, but I got stopped in a Georgia town some years ago on such a day for "speeding". I didn't even believe it till I went back and in a about 100 yards, they had signs every 200 feet or so dropping the speed limit about 10mph each sign. You couldn't take your foot off the gas and drifted down to the speed limit drop, you needed to brake down to the change. Anyway, the first thing out of the officers mouth was, "put that cigarette out" and he wasn't nice about it. If they had a law as this one is described, he could have nailed all three of us for smoking in "his place of employment", the town of Podunk, GA.

 

[DC2]

...the town of Podunk, GA.

Is it me, or are Virginia and Georgia hotbeds of ANTZ movements?
I guess you can add New York to that, but that is to be expected I suppose.

 

[rothenbj]

Is it me, or are Virginia and Georgia hotbeds of ANTZ movements?
I guess you can add New York to that, but that is to be expected I suppose.

I own a house in the bible belt in VA. The people around there seem awfully nice. However, my life experiences in GA have not given me a favorable opinion of that part of the country. I have stories that date back to the late 60's. I think part of it comes from me residing north of the Mason-Dixon line.

 

[Vocalek]

Is it me, or are Virginia and Georgia hotbeds of ANTZ movements?
I guess you can add New York to that, but that is to be expected I suppose.

Virginia? Where did that come from?

So far, we have no problem with ANTZ in Virginia. (Knock on wood!) Maybe you are confused about the city name, Alexandria? There is one in VA, but it was the one in LA that proposed the smoking ban.

 

[DC2]

Virginia? Where did that come from?

Don't know, thought I heard it somewhere, but it appears it was just me.

 

[rothenbj]

Virginia? Where did that come from?

So far, we have no problem with ANTZ in Virginia. (Knock on wood!) Maybe you are confused about the city name, Alexandria? There is one in VA, but it was the one in LA that proposed the smoking ban.

In my home in VA I've had no problem with ANTZ, but snakes seem to be an issue. I keep getting these snake skins in the enclosed breezway. Perhaps they're killing the ANTZ, could they be marketable?

 

[Vocalek]

Don't know, thought I heard it somewhere, but it appears it was just me.

I can't tell you the number of times that I have started a question with "Is it just me..." and have heard the answer, "Yes, it's just you."

 

[Placebo Effect]

This makes me feel good about what I do.

Smokers feel 'beat on' by city of Alexandria's coming ban | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com

The ordinance passed on Oct. 4 has sparked some new interest in e-cigarettes, Bailey said. These products produce a water vapor rather than tobacco smoke, allowing smokers to use them in areas where officials have banned traditional cigarettes.

"There's been a ton of renewed interest in that product," Bailey said. "That is directly related to the smoking ban."