Brownsville,Texas ecig ban

[Luisa]

Brownsville,Texas has proposed a new stricter smoking ban and has included ecigs in the ban. The portion concerning ecigs is as follows:

Smoking means inhaling,exhaling,burning or carrying any lighted or HEATED cigar,cigarette,or pipe in any manner or form. Final voting is July 17. The ordinance number is 2012-1556.

I plan to to go to the meeting,but desperately need Brownsville vapors to join me. I do not live in Brownsville so I will not be as effective as Brownsville voters. Infact,probably not effective at all. To swell the numbers,Harlingen,Weslaco,McAllen,and South Padre Island vapors or any other RGV city would be helpful in showing support and perhaps signing up to speak. There are well over a million people in the 60 miles between Brownsville and McAllen,so surely there are some vapors that would be willing to attend the commission meeting and speak and/or write letters.

PLEASE CONTACT ME SO THAT WE MIGHT WORK TOGETHER.

 

[Luisa]

brownsville,texas has proposed a new stricter smoking ban and has included ecigs in the ban. The portion concerning ecigs is as follows:

Smoking means inhaling,exhaling,burning or carrying any lighted or heated cigar,cigarette,or pipe in any manner or form. Final voting is july 17. The ordinance number is 2012-1556.

I plan to to go to the meeting,but desperately need brownsville vapors to join me. I do not live in brownsville so i will not be as effective as brownsville voters. Infact,probably not effective at all. To swell the numbers,harlingen,weslaco,mcallen,and south padre island vapors or any other rgv city would be helpful in showing support and perhaps signing up to speak. There are well over a million people in the 60 miles between brownsville and mcallen,so surely there are some vapors that would be willing to attend the commission meeting and speak and/or write letters.

Please contact me so that we might work together.

bump bump bump

 

[Placebo Effect]

Bill Godshall can confirm, but I would not worry one bit about the definition saying "heated." References to items being "heated" in bans on "smoking" probably started after R.J. Reynolds created a huge stink by test marketing Eclipse Cigarettes in the 90s. And then there was butane powered tobacco products like the Ploom that are covered under "heated" more than Eclipse.

If Brownsville currently has a law banning smoking in non-controversial places like supermarkets and schools, this may be the definition that was used in that law.

I've monitored smoking ban legislation for the past 2 years, and every time I've seen a definition like the one you've posted, I've considered it to be a standard smoking ban.

 

[kristin]

That's my interpretation of it, as well, Luisa. We've seen that language before and it was only an issue if they specifically mentioned electronic cigarettes or if some health department tried to use the "lighted/heated" in the definition to ban e-cigarette use. But this defines smoking as using a "cigar, cigarette or pipe" and not "electronic cigarette." The common definition of "cigarette" is tobacco rolled in paper and the commonly accepted definition of "lighted" is "burning." E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco and are not burning, so their own definition would exclude e-cigarettes.

After looking at the actual proposal, I don't see anywhere where they'd redefined "cigarette," "lighted" or "smoking."

 

[Luisa]

That's my interpretation of it, as well, Luisa. We've seen that language before and it was only an issue if they specifically mentioned electronic cigarettes or if some health department tried to use the "lighted/heated" in the definition to ban e-cigarette use. But this defines smoking as using a "cigar, cigarette or pipe" and not "electronic cigarette." The common definition of "cigarette" is tobacco rolled in paper and the commonly accepted definition of "lighted" is "burning." E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco and are not burning, so their own definition would exclude e-cigarettes.

After looking at the actual proposal, I don't see anywhere where they'd redefined "cigarette," "lighted" or "smoking."

Thank you Kristin and Placebo,but you do not know Brownsville. They have been banning everything from use of plastic bags in department stores and grocery stores to considering taxes on soft drinks. The kicker in this is the word HEATED. They are using this in the definition of smoking along with burning. They specify burning or heated in the definition. This is the way they intend to enforce it. You have to understand the corruption in that town. At this time,a District Judge is waiting sentencing for taking payment in exchange for favorable rulings. Numerous attorneys have been convicted or are awaiting trial for paying off this Judge. That is just a normal day in Brownsville. You can buy anything in that city--including justice.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Luisa, if you bring this matter to their attention, they're not going to remove the word "heated," because then they'd be legalizing the use of butane-powered products like the Ploom. In fact, it's far more likely that they'll add e-cigarettes to the definition of smoking.

Regardless of whether it's a corrupt town, don't rock the boat unless you have news articles specifically saying that they intend the definition to cover e-cigarettes.

 

[kristin]

Luisa, that doesn't change the fact that the "lighted or heated" product must be a cigar, cigarette or pipe to be covered under the ordinance. Electronic cigarettes may have the word "cigarette" in their name, but that doesn't legally make them a "cigarette" (usually defined as tobacco leaves rolled in paper) anymore than a "cigarette lighter" could be considered a "cigarette" for this ban. If they tried to include e-cigarettes in the ban as currently worded, it could easily be challenged like we did in Virginia.

But, as Greg points out, if you challenge them as its worded now, you may just end up encouraging them to do a re-write to have it read "Smoking means inhaling,exhaling,burning or carrying any lighted or HEATED cigar, cigarette, pipe or electronic cigarette in any manner or form." That would be bad.

 

[Luisa]

Luisa, that doesn't change the fact that the "lighted or heated" product must be a cigar, cigarette or pipe to be covered under the ordinance. Electronic cigarettes may have the word "cigarette" in their name, but that doesn't legally make them a "cigarette" (usually defined as tobacco leaves rolled in paper) anymore than a "cigarette lighter" could be considered a "cigarette" for this ban. If they tried to include e-cigarettes in the ban as currently worded, it could easily be challenged like we did in Virginia.

But, as Greg points out, if you challenge them as its worded now, you may just end up encouraging them to do a re-write to have it read "Smoking means inhaling,exhaling,burning or carrying any lighted or HEATED cigar, cigarette, pipe or electronic cigarette in any manner or form." That would be bad.

Kristen,this is a local ordinance. It would have to be challenged in the District Court in Brownsville. We are certainly not going to get a favorable ruling there. The corruption is a way of life. You might get a favorable ruling if one of the "compadres" of the Court wants a favorable ruling. The cost of going to court would be prohibitive. By the way the Public Health Department at University of Texas,Brownsville is pushing this stricter smoking ban ordinance as is the City Health Department Director. I am attempting to visit with the councilman/councilwoman who voted against this expanded version of the existing ban. Certainly I will find out the intentions of the ordinance before I pursue it further. I need help from vapors in Brownsville should attending the July 17 meeting be necessary.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Luisa, I would strongly caution you not to get involved, aside from, at most, asking the councilman who voted against the measure to let you know if the council proposes specifically *ADDING* to the definition of "smoking" so that it includes e-cigarettes.

This is a common definition that has likely been used in hundreds of definitions without ever presenting any significant issues for e-cigarette users.

 

[yvilla]

Please see my post on this in the Campaigning subforum, where I explain why I agree with Placebo Effect, based on the defintion of "cigarette" for purposes of Texas Law.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...7-brownsville-texas-ecig-ban.html#post6599933

 

[kristin]

Good to see you around more again, Yolanda.

Luisa, that's now TWO lawyers/e-cig advocates, who have been involved in more than a few attempted e-cigarette use bans, telling you not to open this can of worms. I'd trust their advice.

 

[Luisa]

Good to see you around more again, Yolanda.

Luisa, that's now TWO lawyers/e-cig advocates, who have been involved in more than a few attempted e-cigarette use bans, telling you not to open this can of worms. I'd trust their advice.

Of course I trust their advice and your advice. I just know how Brownsville works. Just think politics in Mexico. The corruption in the Courts would not have been investigated if the Feds had not entered the picture. Then throw in an activist Public Health Department at the UT satellite University at Brownsville. You have an interesting mix. Politically,it is like the Chicago machine with a Mexico twist.

 

[yvilla]

Luisa, not only is it the legal explanation I gave in your other thread, but it is also the fact those who DO intend to include ecigs in proposed public use bans most certainly do know how to word it!

In every single case that we've faced - and this is going all the way back to 2009 and New Jersey and then on to all the other battles against a whole bunch of local and state proposed bans (many of them won by us, I might add) - the use of ecigs has been specifically and expressly included in the various definitions of "smoking", and "ecigs" have themselves been defined as well (to varying degrees of accuracy or absurdity however).

As Placebo has said already, the use of the term "heated" simply does not connote an attempt to reach ecigs, much less a successful one, and can be found in innumerable existing smoking bans - many enacted well before ecigs were on anyone's radar at all.

So it appears clear to me that this ordinance does not even attempt to include ecigs, and you appear to be reading something into it that is not there in the first place.

 

[kristin]

Good point, Yolanda. If they really intended to include e-cigs, they simply could have slipped the words "and electronic cigarettes" into the ordinance. That's what everyone else has done and no one even noticed except us.

That's why it IS good that you are watching any changes being made to local smoking ordinances, Luisa. We need more people to be doing that, because too many e-cig bans have slipped in under the radar that way! But in every one of those cases, they've specifically added "electronic cigarettes" to the language. That's because they've received the model ordinances from the ANTZ and they just copy it.

Keep up the good work watching your area and alerting us - your vigilance is a great example for CASAA Regional Reps to follow!

 

[Bill Godshall]

I agree with Yvilla's analysis of the proposed smoking ban in Brownsville (i.e. it won't ban e-cigarette use).

The reason why many smokefree workplace ordinances now include the term "heated" in the definition of "smoking" is because ANR added that term to its "model smokefree ordinances" about 15 years ago after Reynolds and PM began developing and briefly marketed Eclipse and Premier heated tobacco products that looked like a cigarette, but as then CEO of Reynolds claimed "they taste like ....".

 

[Vocalek]

Luisa:

Here is my take on it.

Right now, there is a 0% chance that anyone will be arrested/ticketed for use of an e-cigarette indoors.

If the law is passed with the word "heated" in it, and someone is arrested/ticketed for use of an e-cigarette, it will be relatively easy to get the charge dismissed because e-cigarettes are not specifically named in the law.

If you bring this to the attention of lawmakers, there's a chance of at least 50% that someone will say, "Hey, e-cigarettes! We should outlaw those too!"

If the law is passed with e-cigarettes specified and someone is arrested/ticketed for use of an e-cigarette, there will be zero (or close to zero) % chance of getting the charge dismissed.

 

[mwplefty]

I agree with Yvilla's analysis of the proposed smoking ban in Brownsville (i.e. it won't ban e-cigarette use).

The reason why many smokefree workplace ordinances now include the term "heated" in the definition of "smoking" is because ANR added that term to its "model smokefree ordinances" about 15 years ago after Reynolds and PM began developing and briefly marketed Eclipse and Premier heated tobacco products that looked like a cigarette, but as then CEO of Reynolds claimed "they taste like ....".

So the lawmakers really expect people to still possess 15 year old heated tobacco products?

 

[yvilla]

So the lawmakers really expect people to still possess 15 year old heated tobacco products?

No. All it shows is just how ignorantly many of them go about their job.

The truth is that ANR first modified its "model smokefree ordinance" - to expressly include electronic cigarettes - quite some time ago (I believe I first posted about it back in 2009). Its current version can be found here (caution, as it will make you sick): Drafting Your Law - no-smoke.org

The Brownsville legislators apparently just haven't kept up.

 

[Bill Godshall]

In states where the ACS/AHA/ALA coalition is run by a real public health advocate, newly proposed ordinances and state legislation to ban smoking are unlikely to include a ban on e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.

In states where the ACS/AHA/ALA coalition is run by an abstinence-only tobacco/nicotine prohibitionist, newly proposed local ordinances and state legislation to ban smoking are more likely to ban the use of e-cigarettes (and/or smokeless tobacco products).

Although we've been properly focussing on ordinances and state legislation that would ban e-cigarette use, there are many states where no legislation has been introduced to ban the use of e-cigs.

And although nobody who works for ACS/AHA/ALA will publicly support e-cigarettes (for fear of being fired), we've been convincing more folks at those organizations to not publicly oppose e-cigarettes.