Massachusetts bill would ban e-cig sales to minors AND ban e-cigarette use wherever smoking is banned

[Placebo Effect]

The Boston Herald, apparently in their quest to not get web hits, chose to focus on the minor issue in their headline.

Mass. bill would ban e-cigarette sales to minors | Boston Herald

Proposed bill (don't know bill number): Massachusetts Bill to Ban E-Cigarette Use in Public + Ban Sales to Minors

The bill would NOT tax e-cigarettes, e-cigarette liquid, or e-cigarette cartridges.

Glass is half full: If this bill passes, we'll no longer have to deal with every tiny town in Massachusetts trying to ban e-cigarette use in public.

Glass is half empty: If this bill passes, the local Boards of Health may look to implement MORE regulation, i.e., a flavor ban or a use ban in e-cigarette stores.

 

[dragonlover]

Would this equate to a total indoor use ban?


EMBARGOED UNTIL 8/13/13 at 10:00 A.M.SECTION 7. Section 22 of chapter 270 of the General Laws is hereby further amended by 97 adding the following subsection:-98(p) The provisions within this section pertaining to smoking shall also apply to use of e-99cigarettes.

 

[szot]

I missed the part about use in public by adults over 21, but clearly see the sales to minors section throughout this unnumbered embargoed bill...

 

[BillyRayBob]

Would this equate to a total indoor use ban?


EMBARGOED UNTIL 8/13/13 at 10:00 A.M.SECTION 7. Section 22 of chapter 270 of the General Laws is hereby further amended by 97 adding the following subsection:-98(p) The provisions within this section pertaining to smoking shall also apply to use of e-99cigarettes.

No, not really a total ban.
Here is the section and chapter in question:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter270/Section22

If you go down to section (c) beginning with "(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), smoking may be permitted in the following places and circumstances:" that is a list of places vaping would be permitted.

What they are doing is equating vaping and smoking entirely. Anywhere tobacco may be consumed, vaping can be done. Anywhere tobacco cannot be consumed, vaping cannot be done.

My hope would be that they are open to education on what vaping actually is, and interested in making this a useful law.
For instance, from the existing law:
(9) A tobacco farmer, leaf dealer, manufacturer, importer, exporter, or wholesale distributor of tobacco products, may permit smoking in the workplace for the sole purpose of testing said tobacco for quality assurance purposes; if the smoking is necessary to conduct the test.

I believe they should extend that to vape shops, separately, and not require a vape shop to have a tobacco license which is just completely ludicrous considering the whole point of vaping is breaking an addiction to tobacco.

I also think they need to distinguish between a "Smoking bar," and a "Vaping bar." Fundamental misunderstanding of addiction and triggers to legally bind vapers to smoking bars. Might as well make it law that AA meetings can only happen in liquor stores.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Good ideas Billy Ray. We'll keep them in mind.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

The Boston Herald, apparently in their quest to not get web hits, chose to focus on the minor issue in their headline.

Mass. bill would ban e-cigarette sales to minors | Boston Herald

Proposed bill (don't know bill number): Massachusetts Bill to Ban E-Cigarette Use in Public + Ban Sales to Minors

The bill would NOT tax e-cigarettes, e-cigarette liquid, or e-cigarette cartridges.

Glass is half full: If this bill passes, we'll no longer have to deal with every tiny town in Massachusetts trying to ban e-cigarette use in public.

Glass is half empty: If this bill passes, the local Boards of Health may look to implement MORE regulation, i.e., a flavor ban or a use ban in e-cigarette stores.

Ever hear of the "camel's nose under the edge of the tent?"
The Camel's Nose In The Tent !

It starts off "for the chiiiiiiildren, next thing you know...they CONTROL the cup!

 

[machinestatic]

No, not really a total ban.
Here is the section and chapter in question:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter270/Section22

If you go down to section (c) beginning with "(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), smoking may be permitted in the following places and circumstances:" that is a list of places vaping would be permitted.

What they are doing is equating vaping and smoking entirely. Anywhere tobacco may be consumed, vaping can be done. Anywhere tobacco cannot be consumed, vaping cannot be done.

My hope would be that they are open to education on what vaping actually is, and interested in making this a useful law.
For instance, from the existing law:
(9) A tobacco farmer, leaf dealer, manufacturer, importer, exporter, or wholesale distributor of tobacco products, may permit smoking in the workplace for the sole purpose of testing said tobacco for quality assurance purposes; if the smoking is necessary to conduct the test.

I believe they should extend that to vape shops, separately, and not require a vape shop to have a tobacco license which is just completely ludicrous considering the whole point of vaping is breaking an addiction to tobacco.

I also think they need to distinguish between a "Smoking bar," and a "Vaping bar." Fundamental misunderstanding of addiction and triggers to legally bind vapers to smoking bars. Might as well make it law that AA meetings can only happen in liquor stores.

Hey Billy Ray - since it's 2:30 in the morning I'm exhausted and my reading comprehension skills are failing me. Would the changes to these laws affect smoking/vaping in public outdoor areas?

I'm one of the rare people who would not be overly offended by only being able to vape where people are allowed to smoke cigarettes. (Hell, it's better than a ban, right?) I personally prefer to only vape away from shoppers, children, people eating, etc. anyway out of courtesy. However, what I WOULD be angry about is if this smoking/vaping location-specific ban will in fact affect places like, say, the sidewalk, street corners, standing outside of a restaurant or office building, etc.

Can you please point out if vaping in those locations is in jeopardy or not? Thank you sir.

 

[BillyRayBob]

Hey Billy Ray - since it's 2:30 in the morning I'm exhausted and my reading comprehension skills are failing me. Would the changes to these laws affect smoking/vaping in public outdoor areas?

I'm one of the rare people who would not be overly offended by only being able to vape where people are allowed to smoke cigarettes. (Hell, it's better than a ban, right?) I personally prefer to only vape away from shoppers, children, people eating, etc. anyway out of courtesy. However, what I WOULD be angry about is if this smoking/vaping location-specific ban will in fact affect places like, say, the sidewalk, street corners, standing outside of a restaurant or office building, etc.

Can you please point out if vaping in those locations is in jeopardy or not? Thank you sir.

Hi Machinestatic,
As far as I can understand, we're in the clear on your concerns.

They're defining an "outdoor space" as:
“Outdoor space”, an outdoor area, open to the air at all times and cannot be enclosed by a wall or side covering.
A street corner, a sidewalk, I would think a park bench comfortably secluded, standing in front of the ocean, sitting on a mountain top, etc.... free to vape.

More particular is this part:
"(e) If the outdoor space has a structure capable of being enclosed by walls or covers, regardless of the materials or the removable nature of the walls or covers, the space will be considered enclosed, when the walls or covers are in place. All outdoor spaces shall be physically separated from an enclosed work space. If doors, windows, sliding or folding windows or doors or other fenestrations form any part of the border to the outdoor space, the openings shall be closed to prevent the migration of smoke into the enclosed work space. If the windows, sliding or folding windows or doors or other fenestrations are opened or otherwise do not prevent the migration of smoke into the work space, the outdoor space shall be considered an extension of the enclosed work space and subject to this section. "

This part: If the outdoor space has a structure capable of being enclosed by walls or covers, regardless of the materials or the removable nature of the walls or covers, the space will be considered enclosed, when the walls or covers are in place.
is interesting to me as there is a new Panera Bread nearby with an outdoor patio. It has a few wooden boards head-high with slats in the them that delineate the patio but they're not solid. These can be considered "walls" according to the definition above so no smoking or vaping there, even though it is outside and not strictly enclosed.

I think the rule of thumb outside restaurants/offices etc. is pretty much:
If the vapor (or smoke) can get inside the building through an open window, door, vent, etc. then we need to move a bit further out.
Vaping away outside your bosses' closed window would not be advised, but also would not be illegal.

 

[BillyRayBob]

Good ideas Billy Ray. We'll keep them in mind.

Thanks Placebo Effect. If I may be so bold, can I point out one or two other things? My apologies ahead of time if there's something I've completely misunderstood!

1) The first change they make regarding students in school. They add nicotine delivery products to what is considered an infraction (makes sense), but they don't update the second part that deals with how to address the infraction. "mandatory education classes on the hazards of tobacco use. " I would add "and nicotine delivery products."
If a student is caught vaping behind the gym, and gets a lecture about tobacco... the lecturer is going to look like an ill-informed old fuddy duddy and stands no chance of reaching the student. It would just seem more balanced to me.

2) They update 307C, which I think expands Board of Health jurisdiction to cover vaping? Makes sense. But they're not updating consumer protections in 307B and 307? Similar to the change above, I would like to see them expand their interest beyond only the punitive.

3) The new definitions in Chapter 270, section 6. Makes sense to update them, but... "or release on vaporization of any liquid or solid." This device sold at Newegg.com releases on vaporization of a solid I believe. However, is it really meant to be covered by this definition? There are many other styles of this device that would suddenly be equated (at least legally) with an e-cigarette.
This definition appears again on line 95 of this updated bill.

4) Line 43 of this bill defining a "retailer." Retail establishment has been updated. Retail tobacco store has been updated. However, the definition of a retailer has not been updated. I think this would mean that any indemnity afforded a tobacco retailer would in fact not extend to a nicotine delivery product retailer? Again, sorry if I'm missing something!

Thanks

ps. I keep referring to "they" and "them." You referred to "we." If it turns out that "they" are "you" then please know I mean no offense in anything I say. I really appreciate the opportunity to see the inner workings of this whole process. Completely new territory for me, and fascinating.

 

[szot]

Hi Machinestatic,
As far as I can understand, we're in the clear on your concerns.

They're defining an "outdoor space" as:
“Outdoor space”, an outdoor area, open to the air at all times and cannot be enclosed by a wall or side covering.
A street corner, a sidewalk, I would think a park bench comfortably secluded, standing in front of the ocean, sitting on a mountain top, etc.... free to vape.

More particular is this part:
"(e) If the outdoor space has a structure capable of being enclosed by walls or covers, regardless of the materials or the removable nature of the walls or covers, the space will be considered enclosed, when the walls or covers are in place. All outdoor spaces shall be physically separated from an enclosed work space. If doors, windows, sliding or folding windows or doors or other fenestrations form any part of the border to the outdoor space, the openings shall be closed to prevent the migration of smoke into the enclosed work space. If the windows, sliding or folding windows or doors or other fenestrations are opened or otherwise do not prevent the migration of smoke into the work space, the outdoor space shall be considered an extension of the enclosed work space and subject to this section. "

This part: If the outdoor space has a structure capable of being enclosed by walls or covers, regardless of the materials or the removable nature of the walls or covers, the space will be considered enclosed, when the walls or covers are in place.
is interesting to me as there is a new Panera Bread nearby with an outdoor patio. It has a few wooden boards head-high with slats in the them that delineate the patio but they're not solid. These can be considered "walls" according to the definition above so no smoking or vaping there, even though it is outside and not strictly enclosed.

I think the rule of thumb outside restaurants/offices etc. is pretty much:
If the vapor (or smoke) can get inside the building through an open window, door, vent, etc. then we need to move a bit further out.
Vaping away outside your bosses' closed window would not be advised, but also would not be illegal.

I believe they are referring to like what all the Hooters resturants in Florida have...large plastic that drops down to form a type of "wall" on cold days that then turns the outdoor open area patio into an enclosed room..in Mass, this is the same as already what many resturants and places have in place now for customers to use outdoors to smoke cigs in inclement weather....this type of temp wall can be interpreted very loosely in many ways..

Embargoes are usually arranged in advance as "gentlemen's agreements." However, sometimes publicists will send embargoed press releases to newsrooms unsolicited in hopes that they will respect the embargo date without having first agreed to do so — the phrase "For Immediate Release" often found at the top of press releases indicates that the information in the release is not embargoed..

This is not even a bill but just a thought and "possible" future proposal of a bill....and will take least a year or so to come to fruit if it even ever does, so lets not jump the gun here and cause panic....there will be much time, many congressional hearings and sub committees and people will have a chance to voice their opinions about this if it even ever becomes a real proposed bill....basically it sounds very similar to the same legislation currently being considered in California..

 

[Traveling1]

This is the person who is attempting to refine the current law: Sanchez Releases Legislation Addressing E-Cigarettes, Other Tobacco Products | Jeffrey Sánchez

I am as bewildered as the next person as to the lack of logic. By extension, is this a pretext to check all student's gum to be sure it's not Nicorette? Is there any basis in fact to justify outlawing the use of vaping due a negative impact on health?

 

[szot]

Another release by the Boston Herald today....vote NO on poll question #4

State bill would tamp down e-cigs | Boston Herald

Puffing electronic cigarettes would be illegal in most public places across the Bay State — including restaurants and bars — under a Beacon Hill bill rolled out yesterday, but critics argued there’s no evidence that second-hand vapor causes health problems and predicted the increasingly popular devices could be pols’ next tax target.

State Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Jamaica Plain), the chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, said the main goal of his bill is to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes — battery-powered devices that look like cigarettes, contain nicotine and produce water vapor — to minors under age 18.

“Not very many people know about it, but kids are finding out really quickly,” said Sanchez.

“And that’s what this bill is about. How do we keep electronic cigarettes out of the hands of kids?”

But the bill goes further by banning the distribution of free samples of e-cigarettes and prohibiting using them anyplace it’s illegal to smoke traditional cigarettes, including bars, restaurants and workplaces.

“There’s very little research on these products,” said Margaret Reid of the Boston Public Health Commission, which passed a citywide ban in 2011. “They’re totally unregulated.”

Some 42 Bay State communities have banned using e-cigarettes in public places, according to the state’s Department of Public Health.

But Michael Siegel, a Boston University public health professor who has testified in favor of smoking bans in public places, said similar prohibitions on e-cigarettes are premature.

“Right now, we simply don’t have scientific evidence showing second-hand exposure to vapor in electronic cigarettes is harmful,” said Siegel.

“In fact, there’s quite a bit of scientific evidence that shows it’s unlikely that it causes any substantial health effects for bystanders.”

Siegel compared it to banning grills in restaurants just because cooking fumes contain carcinogens.

“We don’t want to indiscriminately start banning everything out of pure speculation,” said Siegel. “We really want to make sure public health continues to be science-based.”

E-cigarette sales nationwide topped $500 million last year and are expected to reach $1 billion this year. State Rep. Keiko Orrall (R-Lakeville) predicted it’s only a matter of time before Bay State pols take a cut of the revenues.

“The tax issue isn’t a concern right now,” she said, “but definitely it’ll be something that’s looked at in the future.”
Chris Cassidy / Boston Herald


The strange part of this is that I never heard of Boston nor any 42 cities in Mass banning Ecigs use ever...until this article... I thought Canton Mass was trying to become the first in Mass or even the US...

 

[Gaspar74]

Im a M....... or so as we are often referred to and Im not surprised that Ma would try and do this. They just added a dollar tax to ciggarettes two weeks ago! One more reason to stay analog free but its only a matter of time before E cigs are taxed massively or outright banned!

 

[szot]

Mass is a very liberal state and personally I never see this bill ever being passed in its entirety.....maybe the sales to minors could pass, but not for use by adults in public places...

 

[BillyRayBob]

Siegel compared it to banning grills in restaurants just because cooking fumes contain carcinogens.

“We don’t want to indiscriminately start banning everything out of pure speculation,” said Siegel. “We really want to make sure public health continues to be science-based.”

Thanks for posting that. Need more people like this to be part of the discussion.

edit:
Some 42 Bay State communities have banned using e-cigarettes in public places, according to the state’s Department of Public Health.
It must be 42 communities of evildoers within the 95 corridor
Sorry, I just couldn't resist...

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

under 18 restriction I'm cool with...anything else is just totalitarian horse hockey!

 

[szot]

edit:
Some 42 Bay State communities have banned using e-cigarettes in public places, according to the state’s Department of Public Health.
It must be 42 communities of evildoers within the 95 corridor
Sorry, I just couldn't resist...

see I told ya that Eastern mass is a mess...hahahahaha..all that air pollution from cars and overcrowding has twisted their heads...lmao...

 

[Brewlady]

The strange part of this is that I never heard of Boston nor any 42 cities in Mass banning Ecigs use ever...until this article... I thought Canton Mass was trying to become the first in Mass or even the US...

Amherst, Boston, Northampton, Saugus, South Hadley...are a few of the places where the boards of health have voted to ban the use of e-cigs where smoking is banned. They vote to change their regulations, it gets passed, and within weeks no one remembers. Before I found out that Northampton had banned e-cigs, I vaped (with the bartenders' blessings) at more than one establishment. South Hadley included e-cigs before I even started vaping, and Amherst just recently voted on this but I didn't know about it until it had been decided.

Canton intended to prohibit e-cigs from being sold to adults. They reconsidered that, and agreed to change the regulation to allow sales to those 21 and over. They did, however, decide to totally ban the sale of other low risk options like dissolvables and snus. These are legal products intended for adults, but the board of health basically seemed to say that since they weren't even aware of these new products until an ANTZ from Harvard brought some samples in for them to look at, they must be intended for children.

 

[szot]

TY...South Hadley has a ban?..I vape there all the time inside a few places at around the commons neat Mt Holyoke and other South Hadley resturants and pubs....nobody has ever said 1 word to me...and I believe CJ's Ecigs in Chicopee just applied for or received a permit to sell Ecigs in South Hadley..weird he would ask for a permit if they have a no smoking Ecig ban...Northampton, nothing there surprises me, they even took away public benches so homeless couldn't sit on them....and Amherst , I vape openly everywhere with no problems..

would be nice to see the Canton Board of Health new rules...someone said Eliquids and cartridges (whatever that is technically to the board) were banned there...so I presume they are saying NO convenience stores can sell disposeable Ecigs there..

 

[Brewlady]

TY...South Hadley has a ban?

Section G in this document:

http://www.southhadley.org/Pages/SouthHadleyMA_Health/forms/enicregs

The "good" thing is that section B states:

This regulation is promulgated pursuant to the authority granted to the South Hadley
Board of Health by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, Section 31 that "Boards of Health may
make reasonable health regulations"

Eventually there will be enough evidence to say that this regulation is not reasonable. Until then, vape on. These "bans' are passed, and then ignored. If someone were to complain, then you might not be able to vape. Personally in a bar full of adults, I think it's "reasonable" to use a product that doesn't harm bystanders. But my idea of reasonable and someone else's may be different.