St. Paul MN: ECigs Excluded from Latest Ban

[jamie]

A new St. Paul ordinance banning "imitation tobacco products and novelty lighters" specifically mentions and excludes ecigs. I presume, but don't know, that this is because Ruyan America is headquartered in Minneapolis. Unfortunately that won't help folks who like beef jerky or convenient storage tins.

Section 295.02 of the Saint Paul Legislative code

Sec. 295.02. Definitions.

(1) "Imitation tobacco Product" means either: any edible non-tobacco product designed to resemble a tobacco product; or any non-edible non-tobacco product designed to resemble a tobacco product that is intended to be used by children as a toy.
Examples of imitation tobacco products include, but are not limited to, candy or chocolate cigarettes, bubble gum cigars, shredded bubble gum resembling spit tobacco, and shredded beef jerky in containers resembling snuff tins. An electronic cigarette is not an imitation tobacco product.

 

[TropicalBob]

Amazing. Talk about influence! It has to be Ruyan's impact on those who wrote this law. A ban on bubble gum cigars but, hey, those 36mg vapor-puffing fake cigs with glowing tips are not an imitation of a tobacco product.

Excuse me. What are they then?

And some thought the FDA position whimsical ...

 

[Austintatious]

WOW did they really just ban a specific type of plastic container? WTF

 

[Austintatious]

Haha wow I wonder if Big League Chew will have to repackage their gun since it is the same as long leaf tobacco chew packaging...

This is what you get America... Turn to government for all your problems and reap what you sow.

 

[OutWest]

WOW did they really just ban a specific type of plastic container? WTF

from the sounds of it, pretty much, yeah. They could argue that squares of gum in a round container fall under the ban since the squares are similar in shape to square pouches of snuss and the round container similar to the tin it comes in. They could even argue that the round breathmints in the round container fall under the ban.

 

[Steampunk]

Soooooooo.....this is good news and bad news. Can I see the glass half full on this?

 

[Smo]

O_O

Seriously. This is out of control. I could never live in the Country of Freedom.

 

[OldBiker]

Smo, any of us that live in the US that: Ride Motorcycles, 4-wheelers, Jet Skis, or Hunt/Fish, and yes, smoke know this isn't really the country of freedom. There seems to be a group of people in this country whose goal is to find people enjoying themselves and make them stop. Even if they're not hurting anyone or anything else.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Soooooooo.....this is good news and bad news. Can I see the glass half full on this?

It's both.

It's great for the ecig because it is being singled out in a written law in a positive way. This is really the first legislation that even mentions the electronic cigarette by name here in the states.

It's bad because it is just so ridiculous that the US is banning so many things! Sure, we don't want our kids to pick up smoking or chewing or drinking or cussing... but shouldn't we be able to teach our kids our own set of values and hope that they listen to us? If parents could teach their kids these things, then kids wouldn't buy these products and then the companies who manufacture and package their products to look like this stuff would have to adapt, instead of being forced. So sad.

 

[yvilla]

Excuse me. What are they then?

And some thought the FDA position whimsical ...

Sorry Bob, but I don't see it as whimsical at all.

If you look carefully at the ordinance's definition, they are prohibiting any non-tobacco product "designed to resemble a tobacco product that is intended to be used by children as a toy".

It's pretty clear to me that electronic cigarettes are not intended to be used as a toy, and I'm grateful some law-making body was intelligent enough to realize that!

 

[thatguyjeff]

Yeah... let's not take this out of context here folks.

In a nutshell - the City of St. Paul doesn't want any more candy cigarettes, gum cigars, big league chew, etc. sold any longer. This has nothing to do with e-cigs except to say that e-cigs are mentioned only to exclude them from the category of candy cigarettes.

Now, you may or may not agree with making it illegal to sell candy cigs. But this really has nothing to do with the e-cig.

Edit to add: It's not even law yet. City Council hasn't voted. Story Here: http://www.twincities.com/ci_12051352

 

[TropicalBob]

Good, I can still hand out "It's a Boy" bubble gum cigars then to my adult friends?

Why does any citizen need this kind of law? By what stretch of the imagination are candy cigarettes a societal problem to be addressed by ordinances? This is beyond ridiculous, Yvilla, and I don't think "for the children" is any better served in this unnecessary law than it is by those who hurl it at us in denouncing e-cigs.

 

[thatguyjeff]

Doh! Wait, I read somewhere else now that the vote on this was yesterday, and it passed I guess. So whether this is a law now (very recently) or not, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

So yeah, don't listen to me so much. Day late, dollar short.

 

[yvilla]

Bob, I understand and agree with your latest point completely, and did not post in support of the ordinance.

I only posted to clear up the apparent misreading of the ordinance, as exemplified by your "what are they then?".

 

[Savantster]

Amazing. Talk about influence! It has to be Ruyan's impact on those who wrote this law. A ban on bubble gum cigars but, hey, those 36mg vapor-puffing fake cigs with glowing tips are not an imitation of a tobacco product.

Excuse me. What are they then?

And some thought the FDA position whimsical ...

This is directed at preventing children from being acclimated toward smoking products by getting them to use "look alike" packaging as children in a way that is fun and "tasty".

This isn't about stopping tobacco, but about stopping tobacco from trying to acclimate children.

At least, that's my take on it; and since e-cigs are not "marketed towards children in an attempt to desensitize them to tobacco products in their later years", it makes sense to _not_ include them.

 

[Savantster]

Haha wow I wonder if Big League Chew will have to repackage their gun since it is the same as long leaf tobacco chew packaging...

This is what you get America... Turn to government for all your problems and reap what you sow.

Yes, having our government block poison peddlers from lying to children and conditioning them to believe that those poisons are "good" is suck a bad thing for government to do.

When the public is simply too stupid to survive on their own, someone has to feed them and wipe the drool off their chin.

This is what you get when you let the people who kill for profits set the rules. If they are that brazen and willing to show poor judgment, then the PUBLIC, via their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, tell the brutalizes that they are finished.

 

[Savantster]

It's both.
but shouldn't we be able to teach our kids our own set of values and hope that they listen to us?

shouldn't we, as concerned citizens, tell those that would try to trick our children into life long habits of deadly poisons that we don't need the extra work of raising our kids so the precious few can reap profits from killing them? Isn't raising kids hard enough without someone constantly whispering in their ear that "bad is good" and "ignore what you know, go with what we suggest, buy this"?

So sad.

indeed.

 

[Savantster]

By what stretch of the imagination are candy cigarettes a societal problem to be addressed by ordinances?

see my post on how we have a right to tell profit mongers they can't lie to our children during their most impressionable age..

 

[Savantster]

"Why does any citizen need this kind of law?"

because it protects the masses from those that would do them harm for profit.

Our children are precious, and as a SPECIES, we should not allow ANYONE to "market to kids". Their brains are able to handle the load, aren't equipped to make "sound decisions", and that's exactly what "for profit" types are PREYING on.

I find it amusing that people are railing against suppliers that are causing our issue with the FDA, then turning around and asking why we should tell suppliers what they can and can't do to our children. I would think that we, as a specific demographic, are seeing _exactly_ how suppliers care about short term gains and selling product, not about being responsible "citizens".

maybe because companies aren't citizens.. but "for profit vehicles" that have no conscience and little accountability to the law.

 

[TropicalBob]

This is directed at preventing children from being acclimated toward smoking products by getting them to use "look alike" packaging as children in a way that is fun and "tasty".

These are not Big Tobacco products being banned. These are the "pretend" products most of us probably played with once upon a time. Jimmy Cagney as the mob boss with a bubble gum cigar, etc. You are wanting to demonize the tobacco industry through these products.

Great, I'll blow Smarties through a straw. Ban the straw, why don't you.

This is unneeded micro-meddling of the first rank. Hard to believe taxpayer dollars paid lawyers to study this dire social need, then draft an ordinance and use more money in a meeting to consider it. I guess all the problems with victims have been resolved.

Save The Children! Gimme a break.