.

City Considers Ban on E-Cigs in Bars, Nightclubs, Restaurants

The Arts, Parks, Health, Aging and River Committee unanimously advanced a proposed ordinance that would restrict the use of e-cigarettes in Los Angeles.

The Arts, Parks, Health, Aging and River Committee unanimously advanced a proposed ordinance that would restrict the use of e-cigarettes in Los Angeles. Patch file photo.
The Arts, Parks, Health, Aging and River Committee unanimously advanced a proposed ordinance that would restrict the use of e-cigarettes in Los Angeles. Patch file photo.

The use of e-cigarettes -- often called “vaping” -- would be banned at bars, nightclubs, restaurants and some other public areas under an ordinance approved by a Los Angeles City Council committee today.

The Arts, Parks, Health, Aging and River Committee unanimously advanced an ordinance that prohibits e-cigarette smoking at farmers markets, parks, recreational areas, beaches, indoor workplaces such as bars and nightclubs, outdoor dining areas and other places where tobacco smoking is restricted.

E-cigarettes, battery-powered devices that enable users to inhale a nicotine-laced vapor, have been marketed as smoking-cessation aids, but some city and public health officials say not enough is known about the effects of chemicals contained in the liquids.

The regulation, which now goes to a vote by the full 15-member City Council, was approved despite protests from more than a dozen e-cigarette users, e-cigarette retailers and vapor bar owners.

Representatives of the county Department of Public Health, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the American Lung Association and Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights spoke in support of restricting e-cigarettes.

The committee approved an amendment by its chair, Councilman Mitch O'Farrell, to exempt vaping lounges from the ban. Those would be similar to exceptions made for cigar and hookah lounges.

O'Farrell's amendment also calls for an exemption for film production sets where e-cigarette use would be allowed for “theatrical purposes.”

Councilman Joe Buscaino said while he greatly dislikes tobacco smoking, he does not think e-cigarettes should be regulated in the same way as tobacco smoking, adding that he is looking forward “to continuing this dialogue.”

“It is one thing to seek moral conformity, but another to identify harmful effects that would justify a uniform ban similar to tobacco products,” he said. “Without conclusive evidence that second-hand vapor from e-cigarettes is harmful, I don't believe we should be in such a hurry to put so many restrictions on where adults can use a legal product.”

Councilman Curren Price said supported the amendment, saying it would be “sensitive to the business community.”

Supporters of the regulation said studies have indicated that chemicals considered harmful by the Food and Drug Administration, such as nickel, lead and chromium, have been detected in e-cigarettes.

The FDA, which has yet to complete its own comprehensive study of e-cigarettes despite promising one since 2009, has yet to deem e-cigarettes a proven smoking cessation tool, officials said.

O'Farrell said “limiting their use in public indoor and outdoor areas ... just makes common sense,” given the incomplete information available about the chemicals used in e-cigarettes.

The committee's recommendation came after a series of presentations from officials who warned of the dangers of e-cigarette use and its potential for making smoking seem glamorous or normal again after years of anti-tobacco smoking campaigns.

“Los Angeles is making a critical decision on the health of its residents,” Dr. Jonathan Fielding, the county's public health director, told the committee.

“Until more evidence is available on the safety of e-cigarette use, on its impact on inducing teens to begin smoking and on the potential harm to those who may inhale the second hand vapor from e-cigarettes, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health believes the best approach is a precautionary one,” he said.

The proliferation of e-cigarette use could reverse years of tobacco control and prevention efforts that have resulted in dramatic declines in smoking rates in Los Angeles County, he said.

Officials worried that e-cigarettes would lead to a “re-normalization” of smoking, especially among young people, officials said.

“Peer pressure remains a very, very serious issues amongst our youth,” said Steve Zimmer, a member of the LAUSD board. “I'm very, very concerned e-cigarettes are participating in a re-hipsterization of tobacco.”

Officials said studies indicated e-cigarette use doubled among middle and high school students over a one-year period.

Others were skeptical about the claims made by city and county officials.

Ruben Gonzalez of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce said the “jury's still out” on the dangers of e-cigarettes, and it would be irresponsible to move forward with the proposed regulation.

“We should only be making those decisions when we have the facts and evidence in place,” he said. “I would argue that here, you don't have that. Just because you assert something doesn't make it true.”

--City News Service
La vie en rose February 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM
It amazes me how our elected officials are SO concerned about our health.unfortunately,they forget the real issues and target frivolous concerns(I am thinking,condoms for porn industry, trying to ban the Big Gulp drink in New York).How about the labeling of GMO on our food product: why do people have to vote on this?why don't the city council take a stand on this?are they afraid to take on the big corporations?I say to the city council: go get some real work done.
John hartigan February 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Banning cigarettes indoors was based on solid scientific evidence that second-hand smoke causes harm, There is no science that establishes that the vapor emitted from electronic cigarettes causes harm to bystanders or to the person who is using the product directly. It is hard for anti-smoking activists to feel at ease with e-cigarettes in light of their view that traditional cigarette makers have long downplayed the health dangers of their product. This perception has generated distrust of anything remotely resembling the act of smoking. The city council when out hunting for duck and bagged a sparrow, they say it looked like a duck and walked like a duck...
Fernando lopez February 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM
Ban them....
Norm Bour February 25, 2014 at 02:59 PM
A classic example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I am an Industry Adviser to the Vape industry, write and speak on heir behalf, and believe I understand the Vape Space better than most. The LA council has good INTENTIONS but are misguided about the realities of the "perceived" dangers of e-cigs and vaping. I have many special reports at www.VapeMentorS.com if you want insight.
Barbara Snowberger February 25, 2014 at 03:12 PM
I was asked to go to e-digs 5 years ago by a friend who has severe asthma. Her husband used to be a smoker; he stopped by using e-cigs which didn't bother my friend's asthma, at all. I find it difficult to fathom why, if something does NOT affect a severe asthma sufferer, our elected officials would vote to take away a valuable tool that hasn't proved to be offensive to others with severe breathing problems. "Getting out front" of something you don't know is harmful to others, is as ridiculous as supposing that anyone wearing Google glasses has impaired driving. Why not spend time on our water worries instead of preventing good people from once again being able to fraternize in places where REAL tobacco smoke can actually harm people? As Judge Judy would say: "Put on your listening ears, you morons!"
John Wayne's Honda February 26, 2014 at 04:38 PM
Here's an idea work on something important like our broken roads.
SimpleMist.com February 26, 2014 at 05:17 PM
I think the questions is less about innovation & disruption. I think it's more about the losses in revenue in Federal & State level taxing through Sales & Excise taxes. Since the "Internet" is unregulated or mildly regulated, there is no tax collection therefor losses for the government occur and Budgets turn upside down. The solution isn't really Ban Online Sales to collect tax, claiming "how else can we verify age". It's let's let the laws lead, by creating ways to verify age in this new world economy. Doesn't the Government & Private industry use Online Click Agreements to verify Age, DoB, et al on State Drivers License renewals? Federal Passports? Government Visa's issued? Credit Card Applications? etc...? We know there are solutions, we know there are ways, let's curb the easy way out and focus on aligning our skills, talents and Political offices/leaders to work smarter. Not find loopholes to push their agendas? :)

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »