New proposal for Indianapolis smoking ban includes e-cigs (possible January 9th vote!)

[Brew1961]

I thought I would share a reply I recieved from council woman Christine Scales. I can only hope that Mayor Ballard will indeed Veto this Proposal. I've posted this in the Marion County thread as well in case members follow one but no the other. I apologize in advance for the double post.

Dear Mr. Brewer:
I am just today making some progress in answering emails that I have been delinquent in responding to. I apologize for my delay in getting back with you after you took so much time and made such an effort to relate your personal story to me.
By now, you know the result of the vote on the smoking ban. I have seen Mayor Ballard since then, and he has assured me that he still intends to veto the bill.
Sincerely,
Christine Scales
City County Councillor, District 4

Dear Council Member Scales,
I wanted to take a moment of your time to voice my opinions on Proposal 18 initiated by Council member Mansfield. While I do agree with some rules limiting smoking tobacco in this proposal; I do not agree that e-cigarettes or personal vaporizers should be categorized or included as another burning tobacco product.
I was a smoker of more than 35 years prior to November 2010 and tried numerous times to kick this habit. I tried quitting cold-turkey as well as with nicotine gum, lozenges and the patch. Inevitably, I would relapse back to my 1.5 – 2 pack a day habit within days or weeks because I was not satisfying the behavioral addiction while supplying my body with nicotine. On Nov. 6th 2010, I purchased my first e-cigarette and spent numerous hours researching to find the best and safest suppliers for the various components of this technology. On Nov.29th 2010, I had my last cigarette. E-cigarettes helped me reduce my analog cigarette intake from 30-40 a day down to 2-4 a day within a week and my taste buds actual regenerated within 3 weeks of beginning use of this product. This resulted in my last cigarette tasting as repulsive as I remember my first cigarette being when I was just 14. Within weeks, I had reduced the nicotine content of liquid I use in my device and I do not currently vape any tobacco flavoring at all. My e-cigarette either emits a faint smell of pineapple or cinnamon.
My concern in making e-cigarettes part of the indoor smoking ban is that I will now be required to go outside with the smokers to share along with them all of the negative second-hand smokes aspects of a habit I quit 14 months ago. Additionally while my employer couldn’t be happier that I quit smoking and has graciously let myself and about 10 fellow converts vape within our own individual offices, they have said that an indoor smoking ban that includes e-cigarettes would push them to require us to leave the building and in the near future the property to use our personal vaporizers. At every turn it seems that society and governmental bodies want us vapers to continue smoking as it seems that nobody recognizes the benefits of this wonderful technology. The FDA attempted twice to ban this technology and searched long and hard to find anyone who has been harmed since e-cigarettes reached the United States in 2003. They couldn’t find anybody that had been impacted in anyway and believe me they tried for months to find even a single person on any continent. That is a testament to a product that likely has a better track record than aspirin. I am trying to curtail my comments to be specific to this particular Proposal but some of the motivation seems to be a matter of banning something that looks bad but has not recorded any victims in all of the time it has been available for sale in the United States. Please don’t kick me out into the cold with the rest of the smokers to be vilified and demonized for a behavior that is actually saving my life. Please don’t penalize me for trying to be a positive influence with my break from smoking and my switch to e-cigarettes. Please don’t let fear be the guiding principal that lets a truly amazing harm reduction alternative be grouped as another form of smoking. Please let the vapers provide an example of a substitute behavior that may make the job of making smoking obsolete a simple task. Thanks you for your time.

 

[TennDave]

Just had a thought- David Letterman is from Indiana- Does anyone know his email address?

 

[AlmightyGod]

Still waiting on the Veto.

I hope he mentions e-cigs in his reason for the veto...

 

[Bill Godshall]

Your guide to the smoking ban debate
Your guide to the smoking ban debate | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
fails to mention e-cigarettes.

Please note that the statewide smoking ban legislation does not ban the use of e-cigarettes, while the bill approved by Indy/Marion County Council (and now on Mayor Ballard's desk) bans e-cigarette use indoors.

If Ballard veto's the city/county bill, and if the statewide bill is enacted, the Indy/Marion County Council may not consider or approve another bill.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Your guide to the smoking ban debate
Your guide to the smoking ban debate | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
fails to mention e-cigarettes.

Please note that the statewide smoking ban legislation does not ban the use of e-cigarettes, while the bill approved by Indy/Marion County Council (and now on Mayor Ballard's desk) bans e-cigarette use indoors.

If Ballard veto's the city/county bill, and if the statewide bill is enacted, the Indy/Marion County Council may not consider or approve another bill.

It does actually mention 'electronic cigarettes' towards the bottom of the article.

Jon Murray, the writer of that article, was the reason why this article was written -- E-cigarette users cry foul at proposed city ordinance which would ban 'vaping' in public places | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

 

[kristin]

Please don’t kick me out into the cold with the rest of the smokers to be vilified and demonized for a behavior that is actually saving my life. Please don’t penalize me for trying to be a positive influence with my break from smoking and my switch to e-cigarettes.

Just nitpicking on an otherwise great letter, I would recommend that people please NOT use this as an argument for e-cigarettes. The fact that smokers have been unfairly vilified and demonized is why e-cigarette users are finding themselves included in these bans in the first place. Reinforcing the idea that smokers somehow "deserve" to be in that place and suggesting e-cigarette users are somehow "better" alienates smokers who would otherwise be either allies to our cause or possible converts in the future.

Focus instead on this great point made:

Please let the vapers provide an example of a substitute behavior that may make the job of making smoking obsolete a simple task.

A better argument than "throwing us out with the nasty smokers" (IMO) is the huge incentive for smokers to switch if they DIDN'T have to go outside. Smokers who must now go outside but see vapers allowed to stay inside would be more likely to give e-cigarettes a try and a significantly large number who try e-cigarettes for this reason actually find themselves quitting smoking altogether. Another argument, if you have vaped publically (or even if you haven't you can use other vaper's experiences as an example) is how your vaping inside was welcomed by the management/owners, no one confused it with smoking and how many people asked you about your e-cig and got one themselves.

 

[AlmightyGod]

Call Mayor Ballard today 317-327-3601 and ask him to VETO the ban!

 

[AlmightyGod]

The Indy Star says the veto of the e-cig ban will come on Friday!

I'm sure this isn't the end of the war...just another battle...

Ballard spokesman: Veto of smoking ban proposal is coming on Friday | Deep-Fried Politics | The Indianapolis Star | IndyStar.com

 

[Katdarling]

Hip Hip Hooray, AG!!!!!! Post as soon as you know something tomorrow.

Hugs, miss chatting with ya.

 

[TomCatt]

http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/2012/02/10/its-official-ballard-has-vetoed-smoking-ban-proposal/

 

[CES]

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!

(i hope it doesn't include e-cigs the next time it comes around)

 

[Vocalek]

The good news is that he vetoed it.
The bad news is that he didn't mention e-cigarettes at all as a reason.
The more bad news is that @ a vote of 19 to 9 for passage, it looks as if the council can override the veto.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Council's override of smoking-ban veto fails
Council's override of smoking-ban veto fails | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

While 19 council members voted to approve the smoking (and e-cigarette usage) ban, just 16 council members voted to override the mayor's veto (20 votes were required for an override to occur).

If the Indy state legislature approves a proposed smoking ban (that doesn't include e-cigarette use), the Indy council will be unlikely to propose another smoking ban for the city/county.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Evansville (IN) City Council passed (7-2) an ordinance to ban smoking in public places (but it doesn't ban e-cigarette use).
Evansville Passes Smoking ban, But Exempts Casino | Indy's News Center - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis - Live. Local. First.

The ordinance can be downloaded at:
City of Evansville : Home (City)

 

[Bill Godshall]

Indiana Gov urges legislators to enact smokefree workplace legislation (that wouldn't ban the use of e-cigs).
Daniels wants few exemptions in smoking ban

If the IN legislature passes this legislation, Indianapolis (or other local govts) is far less likely to enact an e-cigarette usage ban.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Indiana Senate Public Policy Cmte approves (8-2) smokefree workplace bill (HB 1149, that wouldn't ban e-cigarette use)
Senate panel approves Indiana smoking ban | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com
Indiana Senate panel advances statewide smoking ban | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com
Indiana General Assembly

If the Indiana Senate approves this bill, Gov. Daniels is likely to sign it, which would significantly reduce the liklihood that Indianopolis/Marian County Council members will introduce another ordinance that would ban e-cigarette use (since the state bill bans smoking virtually everywhere the previously proposed Indy ordinance would have done).

I doubt if Indy council members would introduce a stand alone bill just to ban the use of e-cigs.

 

[CES]

thanks for the updates Bill

(fingers crossed)

 

[capt.n.coke]

Yeah thanks Bill. E-cig issues aside for a second, I'm confused about something... I'm reading the bill here House Bill 1149 and is says near the top "Allows smoking in: (1) certain gaming facilities; (2) cigar and hookah bars; (3) fraternal, social, and veterans clubs; (4) tobacco stores; (5) bar and taverns;"

Yet the news stories say that smoking would be banned in bars. What am I missing?

Thanks from a law/gov noob.

-C

 

[Bill Godshall]

The bill contains a lot of exemptions, with the exemption for bars under Sec 5 (9), which basically gives bars another 18 months before smoking is banned.


Sec. 5. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) and subject to section 12 of this chapter, an establishment may allow smoking in the following:
(1) A horse racing facility operated under a permit under IC 4-31-5 and any other permanent structure on land owned or leased by the owner of the facility that is adjacent to the facility.
(2) A riverboat (as defined in IC 4-33-2-17) and any other permanent structure that is:
(A) owned or leased by the owner of the riverboat; and
(B) located on land that is adjacent to:
(i) the dock to which the riverboat is moored; or
(ii) the land on which the riverboat is situated in the case of a riverboat described in IC 4-33-2-17(2).
(3) A facility that operates under a gambling game license under IC 4-35-5 and any other permanent structure on land owned or leased by the owner of the facility that is adjacent to the facility.
(4) A satellite facility licensed under IC 4-31-5.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The gaming area of a facility that operates under a gambling game license issued under IC 4-35-5
(6) An establishment that meets the following requirements:
(A) The establishment was in business and permitted smoking on February 3, 2012.
(B) The establishment prohibits entry by an individual who is less than twenty-one (21) years of age.
(C) The establishment holds a beer, liquor, or wine retailer's permit.
(D) The establishment limits smoking in the establishment to either:
(i) cigar smoking; or
(ii) smoking with a waterpipe or hookah device.
(E) During the preceding calendar year, at least ten percent (10%) of the establishment's annual gross income was from the sale of either:
(i) cigars and the rental of onsite humidors; or
(ii) loose tobacco for use in a waterpipe or hookah device.
(F) The person in charge of the establishment posts in the establishment conspicuous signs that display the message that cigarette smoking is prohibited.
(7) A business that meets the following requirements:
(A) The business was in existence and permitted smoking on February 3, 2012.
(B) The business is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c).
(C) The business:
(i) meets the requirements to be considered a club under IC 7.1-3-20-1; or
(ii) is a fraternal club (as defined in IC 7.1-3-20-7).
(D) The business provides food or alcoholic beverages only to its bona fide members and their guests.
(E) The business, during a meeting of the business's members, voted within the previous two (2) years to remain a smoking business.
(F) The business prohibits entry by an individual who is less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(8) A retail tobacco store used primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories that, before February 3, 2012, meets the following requirements:
(A) The store has a valid tobacco sales certificate issued under IC 7.1-3-18.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) The store prohibits entry by an individual who is less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(C) The sale of products other than tobacco products is merely incidental.
(D) The sale of tobacco products accounts for at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the store's annual gross income.
(E) Food or beverages are not sold for consumption on the premises, and there is not an area set aside for customers to consume food or beverages on the premises.
(9) A bar or tavern:
(A) for which a permittee holds:
(i) a beer retailer's permit under IC 7.1-3-4;
(ii) a liquor retailer's permit under IC 7.1-3-9; or
(iii) a wine retailer's permit under IC 7.1-3-14;
(B) that does not employ an individual who is less than eighteen (18) years of age;
(C) that does not allow an individual who:
(i) is less than twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(ii) is not an employee of the bar or tavern;
to enter any area of the bar or tavern;
(D) that is not located in a business that would otherwise be subject to this chapter; and
(E) that was in business and permitted smoking on February 3, 2012.
This subdivision expires September 15, 2013.
(10) A cigar manufacturing facility that does not offer retail sales.
(b) The owner, operator, manager, or official in charge of an establishment in which smoking is allowed under this section shall post conspicuous signs in the establishment that read "WARNING: Smoking Is Allowed In This Establishment" or other similar language.
(c) This section does not allow smoking in the following enclosed areas of an establishment described in subsection (a):
(1) Any hallway, elevator, or other common area where an individual who is less than eighteen (18) years of age is permitted.
(2) Any room that is intended for use by an individual who is less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(d) An establishment that is listed under subsection (a) and that allows smoking shall provide a verified statement to the
commission that states that the establishment qualifies for the exemption. The commission may require an establishment to provide documentation or additional information concerning the establishment's exemption.

 

[capt.n.coke]

Ah, ok I see what I missed now... "This subdivision expires September 15, 2013." Without this expiration I read it as bars allowing smoking.

Thanks again Bill.