Smokefree ordinance to be introduced in Boise (ID), don't know if e-cig ban is included
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
OK so here is the latest update on the smoking ban in Boise. I will try to paraphrase to keep the post short.
I spoke today with Mr Park (Communications Director) on the phone. He has stated that there has been a great deal of discussion about how the ban affects eCigarettes and they realize that as it is written can not include eCigarettes. He clearly stated that the easiest thing to do at this point would be to simply put the exclusion for eCigarettes back into the ordinance. But he did state that we would have to wait and see what the Council decided to do at this point and that it would probably be discussed at the Nov 15th council meeting. At that point and time I asked if they had spoken with Mr Blount (Prosecuting Attorney and Author) about his position on being unwilling to prosecute anybody cited for vaping. Mr Park stated that, yes they had discussed this fact with Mr Blount, but there was no direct answer or hint at what became of that conversation, only that they were still discussing what to do about eCigarettes. For A second time I asked if i could make an appointment to sit down and discuss eCigarettes and answer any questions that he may have. Once again I was politely turned down, with another statement of "They are still discussing the options and they will keep me informed." At that point it was obvious that any direct answer was not happening nor was I going to get an appointment to meet with him face to face to enlighten him about the benefits and advantages. So I switched gears and went after a different avenue restating some of the email I sent to the council a week ago. Essentially it was a direct correlation between technology and the future. About how the PC was thought to be a fad, now computer skills are required to get a job. How the internet was at first looked upon a play area for techies and kids, now you have to apply online for almost any job, etc etc. Then explained that history shows us that technology is the future and eCigarettes are the future of smoking. So attempting to hold back the technology by trying to ban it, is like trying to hold back a flood by putting your finger in a cracking dam. In closing I reiterated my desire to meet with him or any member of the council at any time if they have questions or would like to learn more about eCigarettes. Once again another polite and indirect statement of “We are working on it and have to make a decision by the 27th since that was the final voting date. He did specifically say that the easiest would be to put the exclusion back in, instead of rewriting the entire thing. Also he did make a specific comment that “I know that would be what you would like to see, but I can’t say how the council will decide. But we will keep you informed of their decision.”
So in essence, got shot down 3 times with trying to set a meeting.
He clearly understands that the smoking ban is very vague about eCigarettes.
The dates seemed pretty clear and distinct, so its unlikely that they would postpone the vote.
November 15th council meeting was specifically stated by him, so if you can, might want to be there or at least watch it online to know the facts.
Finally he did make a few off comments that could be taken as very good or very bad, “They would have to rewrite the ordinance to include eCigarettes or put the exclusion back in which would be easier.”
So pick apart what you can and any details you want to know please ask while it is still semi fresh in my memory.
I spoke today with Mr Park (Communications Director) on the phone. He has stated that there has been a great deal of discussion about how the ban affects eCigarettes and they realize that as it is written can not include eCigarettes. He clearly stated that the easiest thing to do at this point would be to simply put the exclusion for eCigarettes back into the ordinance. But he did state that we would have to wait and see what the Council decided to do at this point and that it would probably be discussed at the Nov 15th council meeting. At that point and time I asked if they had spoken with Mr Blount (Prosecuting Attorney and Author) about his position on being unwilling to prosecute anybody cited for vaping. Mr Park stated that, yes they had discussed this fact with Mr Blount, but there was no direct answer or hint at what became of that conversation, only that they were still discussing what to do about eCigarettes. For A second time I asked if i could make an appointment to sit down and discuss eCigarettes and answer any questions that he may have. Once again I was politely turned down, with another statement of "They are still discussing the options and they will keep me informed." At that point it was obvious that any direct answer was not happening nor was I going to get an appointment to meet with him face to face to enlighten him about the benefits and advantages. So I switched gears and went after a different avenue restating some of the email I sent to the council a week ago. Essentially it was a direct correlation between technology and the future. About how the PC was thought to be a fad, now computer skills are required to get a job. How the internet was at first looked upon a play area for techies and kids, now you have to apply online for almost any job, etc etc. Then explained that history shows us that technology is the future and eCigarettes are the future of smoking. So attempting to hold back the technology by trying to ban it, is like trying to hold back a flood by putting your finger in a cracking dam. In closing I reiterated my desire to meet with him or any member of the council at any time if they have questions or would like to learn more about eCigarettes. Once again another polite and indirect statement of “We are working on it and have to make a decision by the 27th since that was the final voting date. He did specifically say that the easiest would be to put the exclusion back in, instead of rewriting the entire thing. Also he did make a specific comment that “I know that would be what you would like to see, but I can’t say how the council will decide. But we will keep you informed of their decision.”
So in essence, got shot down 3 times with trying to set a meeting.
He clearly understands that the smoking ban is very vague about eCigarettes.
The dates seemed pretty clear and distinct, so its unlikely that they would postpone the vote.
November 15th council meeting was specifically stated by him, so if you can, might want to be there or at least watch it online to know the facts.
Finally he did make a few off comments that could be taken as very good or very bad, “They would have to rewrite the ordinance to include eCigarettes or put the exclusion back in which would be easier.”
So pick apart what you can and any details you want to know please ask while it is still semi fresh in my memory.
Glad to hear. It'd be nice to cap off 2011 with victories in Boise, Seattle, Alameda, and Augusta.
I don't understand something about this process. They need to read the ordinance 3 times before voting on it, yet they can change it between readings and between the public Q&A meeting and said readings. It seems to keep moving the target and defeat the purposes of such meetings and readings. I still plan on dropping them another email just to address some points that I missed earlier.
Definitely stay in touch with your city council to make sure they don't change their mind yet again, but councilman TJ Thomson told me, "I am working with council to get the exemption back into the ordinance. We will be changing it so that e-cigarettes are not restricted prior to final passage."
I feel the same way Mike, it makes absolutely no sense to me either.
That’s great news Thulium, I have been told that they were working on something, but would never give a definite answer on which direction they were trying to work towards, so that’s awesome news!
I know Mr Park specifically mentioned the 15th meeting so planning on being in the peanut gallery for that one as well as front row for the final vote on the 27th. I completely agree with Thulium, don’t get comfortable yet, keep the pressure on and let them know that Vapers will not sit back and watch.
That’s great news Thulium, I have been told that they were working on something, but would never give a definite answer on which direction they were trying to work towards, so that’s awesome news!
I know Mr Park specifically mentioned the 15th meeting so planning on being in the peanut gallery for that one as well as front row for the final vote on the 27th. I completely agree with Thulium, don’t get comfortable yet, keep the pressure on and let them know that Vapers will not sit back and watch.
What does make sense? We have an open container law on the river when drunk and disorderly already exists! No texting when they can give you inattentive or distracted driving! redundant laws passed multiple times wasting time and tax dollars. Now lets screw around with asinine smoking restrictions change the ordnance after the fact and hope the divide and conquer approach works as well here as it does with raising taxes. Oh wait sorry ill go back to my corner now
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
I'll go to heaven for the weather, and hell for the company!!!
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Thad Marney: TJ, since I am no longer a resident of SE Idaho, I was hesitant to contact you, but I do have friends and family living in Boise so I hope you will pardon me for sharing some thoughts with you about an issue that is very important to me: Although I really appreciate the quote in your profile, as you consider the issue of including/excluding "e-cigarettes", remember that sometimes the answer to the biggest issue IS rather simple if you are willing to change your paradigm and apply a bit of common sense.
At LEAST 99% of the risks and diseases associated with tobacco use can be traced back to the act of lighting something on FIRE and inhaling the SMOKE. Obviously, nothing in existence is completely safe, but ANY alternative that avoids the fire hazard, carbon monoxide, and tar that is created when a cigarette is lit must be so much safer that there is simply no excuse for restricting rather than encouraging something with so much potential to reduce harm to public health. No excuse, that is, unless you have some reason to make sure that smokers continue to buy (generally ineffective) drugs to treat addiction and/or diseases caused or worsened by smoking.
If you have any questions about electronic cigarettes in particular or tobacco harm reduction in general, I am at your service. However, if any organization or person you respresent believes that smoke-free products like e-cigarettes should be restricted, they should be able to answer the following question: "What serious diseases (or harm to bystanders) could POSSIBLY be caused by the use of smoke-free alternatives like battery powered vaporizers marketed as "electronic cigarettes?" To my knowledge, this question remains unanswered by any group suggesting that e-cigarettes may pose serious public health risks.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Thad Marney
Woodburn, OR
Volunteer Board Member, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
TJ Thomson: Thanks, Thad. I appreciate you contacting me. I am working with council to get the exemption back into the ordinance. We will be changing it so that e-cigarettes are not restricted prior to final passage.
TJ
Thad Marney: I am very glad to hear that, TJ. Do you mind if I post this publicly? As I mentioned, if you would like any assistance or have any questions about how products like e-cigarettes can be used to reduce the harms of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke from those who are unable or unwilling to quit, I am at your service.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there is a growing number of now FORMER smokers who are excited and energized about FINALLY finding a way to quit smoking that they can customize to suit their individual tastes and behaviors, but groups that profit or receive donations from pharmaceuticals to treat smoking related disease are powerful and pervasive and we need all the help we can get to spread truthful information about reduced harm alternatives to smoking.
Thank you, again, for your courageous attention to this controversial topic. There is an unprecedented opportunity to be a hero in the fight against the deaths and diseases associated with smoking, but that is a very rich and powerful enemy. The people of Boise are blessed to have statemen willing to examine the issues and make educated and reasonable regulations rather than blindly following the advice of politically motivated lobbyists.
-Thad
TJ Thomson: Hey Thad! Sure, you can share my comments. And, I will be working to assure e-ciggarettes are exempted in the days ahead. Thanks for staying in touch.
At LEAST 99% of the risks and diseases associated with tobacco use can be traced back to the act of lighting something on FIRE and inhaling the SMOKE. Obviously, nothing in existence is completely safe, but ANY alternative that avoids the fire hazard, carbon monoxide, and tar that is created when a cigarette is lit must be so much safer that there is simply no excuse for restricting rather than encouraging something with so much potential to reduce harm to public health. No excuse, that is, unless you have some reason to make sure that smokers continue to buy (generally ineffective) drugs to treat addiction and/or diseases caused or worsened by smoking.
If you have any questions about electronic cigarettes in particular or tobacco harm reduction in general, I am at your service. However, if any organization or person you respresent believes that smoke-free products like e-cigarettes should be restricted, they should be able to answer the following question: "What serious diseases (or harm to bystanders) could POSSIBLY be caused by the use of smoke-free alternatives like battery powered vaporizers marketed as "electronic cigarettes?" To my knowledge, this question remains unanswered by any group suggesting that e-cigarettes may pose serious public health risks.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Thad Marney
Woodburn, OR
Volunteer Board Member, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
TJ Thomson: Thanks, Thad. I appreciate you contacting me. I am working with council to get the exemption back into the ordinance. We will be changing it so that e-cigarettes are not restricted prior to final passage.
TJ
Thad Marney: I am very glad to hear that, TJ. Do you mind if I post this publicly? As I mentioned, if you would like any assistance or have any questions about how products like e-cigarettes can be used to reduce the harms of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke from those who are unable or unwilling to quit, I am at your service.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there is a growing number of now FORMER smokers who are excited and energized about FINALLY finding a way to quit smoking that they can customize to suit their individual tastes and behaviors, but groups that profit or receive donations from pharmaceuticals to treat smoking related disease are powerful and pervasive and we need all the help we can get to spread truthful information about reduced harm alternatives to smoking.
Thank you, again, for your courageous attention to this controversial topic. There is an unprecedented opportunity to be a hero in the fight against the deaths and diseases associated with smoking, but that is a very rich and powerful enemy. The people of Boise are blessed to have statemen willing to examine the issues and make educated and reasonable regulations rather than blindly following the advice of politically motivated lobbyists.
-Thad
TJ Thomson: Hey Thad! Sure, you can share my comments. And, I will be working to assure e-ciggarettes are exempted in the days ahead. Thanks for staying in touch.
I just got a call from Adam Park, the Communications Director at the mayor's office. He said that the mayor and council president are intending to have the exemption for e-cigs put back in the ordinance. He doesn't think there should be any problem with having it done. I'll be checking the city's website before the 11/29 meeting just to be sure but it looks like we may have a win here. The smokers lose big-time but at least not the vapers.
I got one to Mike Hmmm I guese we made an impact since they are calling us LOL
I just got off the phone with Mr. Park the Boise City Director of Communications. He has clearly stated they are editing BOTH the smoking ordinances to EXCLUDE Electronic Cigarettes. He does not see any problem or resistance to getting these exclusions put back into the smoking ban, but did state clearly that until the final reading and vote on Nov 29th, he could not guarantee what any City Council member may do, or say. So I suggest that any and all Vapers please show up for the 29th Council Meeting to show support and to also thank the Mayor and Boise City Council for being one of the first government agencies to welcome Vapers instead of banning them.
Hmmm I guese we made an impact since they are calling us LOL I just got off the phone with Mr. Park the Boise City Director of Communications. He has clearly stated they are editing BOTH the smoking ordinances to EXCLUDE Electronic Cigarettes. He does not see any problem or resistance to getting these exclusions put back into the smoking ban, but did state clearly that until the final reading and vote on Nov 29th, he could not guarantee what any City Council member may do, or say. So I suggest that any and all Vapers please show up for the 29th Council Meeting to show support and to also thank the Mayor and Boise City Council for being one of the first government agencies to welcome Vapers instead of banning them.
Last edited:
Great news. Assuming everything works out as planned, you couldn't have picked a better time to open a store in Boise.
http://www.kboi2.com/news/133743628.html?m=y&smobile=y&c=y&clmob=y
And then this coming out of twin falls I think
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
And then this coming out of twin falls I think
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Good catch Stan!
Starting to dig into the info right now to see what is going on, who is running it, what the times and dates and all that good jazz are. As soon as I can track down any info I will post it here and VF. If anybody gets some solid intel shoot me a line please.
Thanks
Starting to dig into the info right now to see what is going on, who is running it, what the times and dates and all that good jazz are. As soon as I can track down any info I will post it here and VF. If anybody gets some solid intel shoot me a line please.
Thanks
Just got an email from mayor Dave Bieter saying the exemption is back in for the 29th final adoption.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
That is Excelent news Stan! Awesome work and my deepest Thanks to everyone who supported Vaping in Boise!!
It looks like it's official, in black and white. Here are the ordinances for the council agenda on 11/29:
http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/112911/o-32-11.pdf
http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/112911/o-33-11.pdf
"Smoking does not include use of an e-cigarette which creates only a vapor without any smoke."
WOOHOO!!! I'm just glad I'm not a smoker anymore.
http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/112911/o-32-11.pdf
http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/112911/o-33-11.pdf
"Smoking does not include use of an e-cigarette which creates only a vapor without any smoke."
WOOHOO!!! I'm just glad I'm not a smoker anymore.
That is excellent news, Mike! If you can, we could still use you and as many other local vapers and CASAA members to attend the hearing on the 29th to make sure they don't change something at the last moment and to personally thank the council for wisely excluding smoke-free e-cigs in the smoking ban. Be there to make the news and demonstrate e-cigs if anyone has any questions...you might even get an opportunity to give a short (usually 2 minutes) statement, contact board@casaa.org if you need any help.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
