I am suing NYC over the Bloomberg vaping ban
- Thread starter 6pointprime
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It will be made available once it has been submitted. Things are going well with the legal fund so far (thanks to everyone who has donated!), so I anticipate it will be filed next week or the week after.
I don't think so. This lawsuit is not about Audrey Silk suing NYC, it is a challenge to Bloomberg, that's how people see it. "Another Bloomberg Ban Being Challenged" sells papers, people click that link, etc. Writers know this.
People love seeing egg on Bloomberg's face, and we aim to please.
1) Yes, procedure/law was violated. This lawsuit does not allege that they have lack of authority to enact a vaping ban. They just did it the wrong (illegal) way by cutting and pasting "ecigs" into the existing Smoke Free Air Act.
2) No idea, great question, I'll ask.
Yup, you got it. If they want to do this, they need to draft a law that is specifically about ecigs.
If it comes to that, it's because we won the lawsuit (and the appeal, which NYC would of course do). Then they have to reintroduce it to the NYC Council - that is a looooong ways away.
By that time vaping will be even bigger and we will have more public support - and this time they have to do it without Bloomberg.
I think we have a great chance here.
I discussed the Chicago situation with an attorney friend of mine. It turns out that the Illinois State Constitution has a similar provision ("one subject per law/ordinance") and that the Chicago ordinance, which is basically just an amendment to the existing anti-smoking ordinance, could be overturned and the City Council then have to write a brand-new ordinance to repress vaping.
His strong advice was to hold off until vapers make a strong enough case, via the media and whatever, that vaping is a public health measure and not something to be suppressed. Otherwise, all Chicagoans would wind up with is an iron-clad vaping repression ordinance and thus be worse off than with what we have now.
Just reporting what I've found out.
His strong advice was to hold off until vapers make a strong enough case, via the media and whatever, that vaping is a public health measure and not something to be suppressed. Otherwise, all Chicagoans would wind up with is an iron-clad vaping repression ordinance and thus be worse off than with what we have now.
Just reporting what I've found out.
Excellent, that is very useful information thanks much for that. Maybe NYC and Chicago can lead the way in getting these usage bans overturned. I suspect many cities and municipalities have a similar "one law/one subject" rule.
From Audrey:
No, enforcement doesn't stop until settled. Unless the judge, by his own volition, decides that is the proper course of action -- to order the city to delay the enactment date -- it's not what we have asked in the legal papers. First, I'd be shocked if a judge did that and, second, that's why we don't ask in a case like this. It's not like a matter of life or death that is so serious it should be delayed until settled. And it's not a good way to start out with the judge -- asking for something "silly."
"Settled" as I repeated from you above, in this question means THIS initial lawsuit. So yes, if we win this initial round then it's as good as having the ban overturned. No enforcement. Theoretically speaking a judge can always, again by his own volition or maybe even a plea by the defendant, stay his ruling until after an appeal (meaning the law stays in effect until the appeal is settled) but I don't see that happening. Neither our NYS Parks win nor Bloomberg's soda ban when it was overturned have been treated to that and both those cases are in appeal mode (we're waiting for Parks to file and the soda ban is currently in court under a second appeal).
No, enforcement doesn't stop until settled. Unless the judge, by his own volition, decides that is the proper course of action -- to order the city to delay the enactment date -- it's not what we have asked in the legal papers. First, I'd be shocked if a judge did that and, second, that's why we don't ask in a case like this. It's not like a matter of life or death that is so serious it should be delayed until settled. And it's not a good way to start out with the judge -- asking for something "silly."
"Settled" as I repeated from you above, in this question means THIS initial lawsuit. So yes, if we win this initial round then it's as good as having the ban overturned. No enforcement. Theoretically speaking a judge can always, again by his own volition or maybe even a plea by the defendant, stay his ruling until after an appeal (meaning the law stays in effect until the appeal is settled) but I don't see that happening. Neither our NYS Parks win nor Bloomberg's soda ban when it was overturned have been treated to that and both those cases are in appeal mode (we're waiting for Parks to file and the soda ban is currently in court under a second appeal).
The advantage they may have in NYC is that there is a lot of noise being created about the ordinance and the fact that this was something pushed through by Bloomberg and his assassins in the last hour of his empire. He's gone as well as some of his henchpersons. It might be possible that, if it's overturned, the current administration may not have the stomach for a new battle. It would be good for NYC and the other cities.
Boom! You got it, that's exactly the idea.
And on the off chance that they do have the stomach for another fight, we will drag them through hell.
Donated. It's a little scary, I think, after reading this thread. Maybe time to pray.
You know what they say "there ain't no atheists in a fox hole."
Just found the Summons and Complaint, dated 3/25/14, together in a pdf file:
http://nycclash.com/E-CIG_Lawsuit_NYC-SummonsAndComplaint.pdf
http://nycclash.com/E-CIG_Lawsuit_NYC-SummonsAndComplaint.pdf
Lawsuit filed against NYC over the Bloomberg vaping ban:
Smokers' Rights Group Files Suit to Stop NYC Electronic Cigarette (E-Cig) Ban
http://nycclash.com/E-CIG_Lawsuit_NYC-SummonsAndComplaint.pdf
Smokers' Rights Group Files Suit to Stop NYC Electronic Cigarette (E-Cig) Ban
http://nycclash.com/E-CIG_Lawsuit_NYC-SummonsAndComplaint.pdf
Physically located in NYC, but CLASH takes on activism nation-wide.
Just a question for those more involved in this, but, considering they added e-cigs to an existing law that in itself was a single issue, if a judge now finds that they improperly added e-cigs to the law, wouldn't the entire law be tossed out because it now contains two different subjects?
I could see ANTZ heads exploding all over New York if that would be the case.
I could see ANTZ heads exploding all over New York if that would be the case.
My guess is that existing law remains intact. Just the new parts are dropped.
NYC is a test case. If they win there's a good chance that other extensions of the clean air acts can be challenged much easier. It appears the crux of the situation is whether than can add on to an existing law just because they want to.
If they don't want to 'renormalize' smoking, then ban cig-alikes, not ecigs (kinda like candy cigs).
NYC is a test case. If they win there's a good chance that other extensions of the clean air acts can be challenged much easier. It appears the crux of the situation is whether than can add on to an existing law just because they want to.
If they don't want to 'renormalize' smoking, then ban cig-alikes, not ecigs (kinda like candy cigs).
Last edited:
As I read the complaint, that's precisely what plaintiffs are asking, in that they allege the entire law, not just the latest amendments, has been rendered unconstitutional:
(Would love to have been a fly on the wall when that summons was served on the NYC Council...)
This lawsuit does not challenge the entire law (The Smoke Free Air Act), only that the change that included e-cigs be removed.
I understand that, I'm just thinking if the right Judge is sitting on this considering the law is now contaminated (lack of better word) that the Judge could deem the entire law void until totally rewritten? I know it's a hope and a prayer but I've seen it happen before, just depends on the Judge.
For instance and I have to be careful here. I know of a case where a fellow was charged with 200lbs of X. When he got to court he told the Judge he'd be willing to plead guilty if he was charged with what he had and that was over 400lbs not 200lbs. Sure enough the Judge ordered the evidence paperwork and over 200lbs had disappeared, Judge threw the whole thing out.
- Status
