Springfield (MO) City Council amends smoking ban 9-0 to remove e-cigarette usage ban (and other things)

[Bill Godshall]

http://www.news-leader.com/article/...st-for-Him?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

I couldn't locate previous discussion threads on Springfield's smoking ban (that included an e-cig usage ban) that was approved by voters last year. So I created this thread.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Right after the meeting where Springfield City Council amended the smoking ban, the mayor resigned (for unrelated reasons).
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120508/NEWS06/305080051/Springfield-mayor-O-Neal-resigns

 

[Bill Godshall]

Another news clip and story about Springfield amending its smoking ban to remove the e-cig usage ban
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=642552

There's also a copy of the amendment on that website.

 

[JustJulie]

Frustrated by the City Council's failure to institute a smoking ban, some Springfield voters managed to get enough signatures on a petition to have the issue voted on in 2011 by the citizens of Springfield. The ballot initiative did not make it at all clear that e-cigarettes would be included in a smoking ban. When the issue passed, Springfield residents found themselves with one of the strictest smoking bans in the state.

Live Free Springfield (which fought the smoking ban) decided to avail itself of the same petition initiative to get the smoking ban repealed, and it gained enough signatures to ensure that the smoking issue will be once again considered by Springfield voters in June of this year. In an effort to stave off the possibility of the smoking ban being completely repealed, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and One Air Alliance all offered a "compromise" that would have removed e-cigarettes from the smoking ban, would have allowed smoking in tobacco shops, and would have allowed smoking in private clubs so long as no employees were present.

Here's some of the background on the Springfield smoking ban and e-cigarette issue: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...mo-compromise-e-cigs-offered-ala-aha-acs.html

Live Free Springfield rejected the compromise, and the matter is still going to be decided by the voters in June. It appears that the City Council's recent action to soften the smoking ban by exempting e-cigarettes, tobacco shops, and private clubs is an effort to make it less likely that voters will vote to repeal the smoking ban.

What I personally find interesting about all of this is the stance of the ACS, ALA, and AHA in regards to e-cigarettes, discussed in more detail in the thread cited above. These organizations have historically been quite anti e-cigarette, and one cannot help but wonder whether this reflects a softening in that position.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Julie wrote:

What I personally find interesting about all of this is the stance of the ACS, ALA, and AHA in regards to e-cigarettes, discussed in more detail in the thread cited above. These organizations have historically been quite anti e-cigarette, and one cannot help but wonder whether this reflects a softening in that position.

When I worked at the ACS from 1987-89, all local and state affiliates of ACS, AHA and ALA had far more autonomy to determine their own policies on legislative advocacy.

But over the past twenty five years, the ACS, AHA and ALA have gone through multiple reorganizations, which has resulted in the elimination of most local affiliates, most state affiliates, and the autonomy of those local and state affiliates to determine their own policies.

Now, all three of these organizations are top down, with virtually all policies being made by their national office (which is closely affiliated with CTFK). As such, regional and state affiliates of these three organizations do pretty much what their national office tells them.

In 1997/98, I and others convinced many state affiliates of ACS and AHA to buck their national office's policy that endorsed the so-called Global Tobacco Settlement and that urged Congress to enact it into law. We defeated that proposed legislation in the US Senate in 1998.

Since then, its been much more difficult to convince a state or regional office of ACS, AHA, ALA to take a position that is inconsistent with their national office's position.

But it appears that our advocacy in support of e-cigarettes has convinced some/many state affiliates of ACS, AHA, ALA to at least remain silent about and/or take no action against e-cigs. For example, here in PA I'm not aware that ACS, AHA, ALA (or the PA Health Department) have criticized e-cigarettes or advocated legislation to regulate the sale or use of the products.

I'm curious if the MO ACS, AHA, ALA had to get approval from their national offices before sending that compromise letter to Springfield City Council members, or if they just did it on their own (which I consider to have been a wise decision).

 

[Eric A. Blair]

Frustrated by the City Council's failure to institute a smoking ban, some Springfield voters managed to get enough signatures on a petition to have the issue voted on in 2011 by the citizens of Springfield. The ballot initiative did not make it at all clear that e-cigarettes would be included in a smoking ban. When the issue passed, Springfield residents found themselves with one of the strictest smoking bans in the state.

Live Free Springfield (which fought the smoking ban) decided to avail itself of the same petition initiative to get the smoking ban repealed, and it gained enough signatures to ensure that the smoking issue will be once again considered by Springfield voters in June of this year. In an effort to stave off the possibility of the smoking ban being completely repealed, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and One Air Alliance all offered a "compromise" that would have removed e-cigarettes from the smoking ban, would have allowed smoking in tobacco shops, and would have allowed smoking in private clubs so long as no employees were present.

Here's some of the background on the Springfield smoking ban and e-cigarette issue: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...mo-compromise-e-cigs-offered-ala-aha-acs.html

Live Free Springfield rejected the compromise, and the matter is still going to be decided by the voters in June. It appears that the City Council's recent action to soften the smoking ban by exempting e-cigarettes, tobacco shops, and private clubs is an effort to make it less likely that voters will vote to repeal the smoking ban.

What I personally find interesting about all of this is the stance of the ACS, ALA, and AHA in regards to e-cigarettes, discussed in more detail in the thread cited above. These organizations have historically been quite anti e-cigarette, and one cannot help but wonder whether this reflects a softening in that position.

Reading the letter from the alphabet soup Big PhRma front groups ACS, ALA it appears that they only agreed to the ecig concession because it would give stage actors a chance to use fake cigarettes in a performance. I'm not sure this means that they are ok with ecigs in their model boilerplate legislation.

 

[Eric A. Blair]

"The removal of current language pertaining to e-cigarettes, which also allows theater groups additional options for on-stage performances."

--from the email by front groups for nicotine gum and lozenge peddlers