Santa Maria considering e-cigarette ban

March 3, 2014

E-Cig-Ban-Considered-By-NYC-Authorities-300x216The Central Coast may have a new trend-setting city in the implementation of smoking restrictions.

On Tuesday, the Santa Maria City Council will consider adopting an e-cigarette ban. The city has already banned smoking in most public places, but the restrictions do not apply to e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices which simulate tobacco smoking. The devises generally uses a heating element that vaporizes a liquid solution. Some of the solutions contain a mixture of nicotine and flavorings, while others solutions release a flavored vapor without nicotine.

While touted as a way to reduce cigarette smoking, the risks of utilizing e-cigarettes are uncertain. Concerns over possible side effects and users developing nicotine additions have resulted in the ongoing debate over regulation.

Santa Maria City staff is asking the council Tuesday to amend its municipal code to include lighting e-cigarettes as a form of smoking.

The San Luis Obispo City Council, which historically leads the way with smoking bans, voiced support last month for making the same change to its municipal code. On Feb. 4, the San Luis Obispo council unanimously directed its staff to place an e-cigarette ban on a future agenda.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is an act of political stupidity that will certainly lead to unnecessary premature death and suffering. E-cigs do not involve combustion, and thus are not smoking. They also don’t contain the smoke related carcinogens. This isn’t about protecting others from second hand smoke. The issue is obviously not about nicotine, since they are not going after the patch, gum, snus, chewing tobacco, or all the other alternative forms of nicotine delivery.

This is simply about nanny statist cradle to grave control and greedy tax revenue. Phillip Morris must love the leaders of this “All American City.” If electronic cigarettes are working for people to cut back or quit smoking, and many testify that they are, and they are saving people money (100s to 1000s each year), and they feel better, and they don’t have a stinky lingering odor (pleasant even), and people of free will make a personal choice, then why the political intrusion?

Why aren’t we happy for them? We need protection from the politicians, the busy bodies, the puritans, and the prohibitionists, not the e-smokers. Your 32 oz. sodas are next. Tanning after that. Raw milk. Rare or medium-rare cooked meats. Candy? Pop Tarts? Cereal? At what point are we better off if they do nothing and let things pan out it will?