New York City Bans E-Cigarettes Indoors

The city joins a growing list of places across the U.S. that have imposed similar restrictions

  • Share
  • Read Later
Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images

A woman smoking an e-cigarette

New York’s city council voted Thursday to prohibit use of electronic cigarettes in indoor public areas where smoking regular cigarettes is also banned, CBS New York reports. The five boroughs join the states of Utah, North Dakota and New Jersey, which have already enacted similar bans in bars and restaurants.

The e-cig ban will take effect in four months, and restaurants and other private establishments will have six months to post signage informing customers of the new rules.

Proponents say the battery-powered nicotine inhalers are safer alternatives to regular cigarettes, which contain tobacco and have known health risks. But health authorities, including the World Health Organization, stress that health effects of electronic cigarettes are still unknown, and some studies suggests they could be harmful. Opponents of e-cigarettes also point out that the products are offered in candy-like flavors that are appealing to kids.

The still largely un-regulated U.S. e-cigarette market is expected to exceed $1.7 billion in sales in 2013, and major tobacco companies like Lorillard and Altria Group have made significant investments in the technology.

Anticipating regulation from the federal government, cities around the country have been moving forward with their own legislation. The Los Angeles City Council voted earlier this month approved a measure requiring venders to obtain licenses to sell e-cigarettes and banning their sales outright in street kiosks and self-service kiosks.

[CBS New York]

10 comments
RichZimm
RichZimm

the first steps in regulating and taxing it has been done here

nike_sky
nike_sky

This situation can easily be solved. But I'm afraid NYC smoking voters are to busy or lazy or both to petition the city council by the hundreds of thousands to throw out this proposal.

nookly23
nookly23

I never thought a place like NYC would require and vote in people who only control their lives. How pathetic.

nycclash
nycclash

NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn is gay.  No problem with that and I'd march with her to tell others that how she lives her life is none of anyone else's business.  There are many out there that do think it's horribly wrong and work hard to stop it. So you can imagine the nasty hypocrisy oozing out of this woman's pores when she is determined to tell others how to live their lives and being the one to force her views on them with the legislative power she holds!  Read the bill.  Not one statement about an intent to "protect people from exposure to e-cigs" (because they had no basis for it).  All 4 reasons given were about how to stop people from the ability to smoke a cigarette themselves.  There are many out there who do think it's horribly wrong but that, like being gay, doesn't matter.  Leave smokers equally alone to their way of life. 

 

sib
sib

What harm does ecig cause other people?!!!  I was a pack a day smoker for 20 years and I used ecigs to quit smoking.  The city keeps trying to get us to quit and now they are taking away the number one way that helped me quit.  Ny is not the same anymore now its this super controlling state with no freedom that doesn't practice what they preach.  Way to go NY!!!

92cotham
92cotham

Incompetent politician imposing his will on others. Congrats, New York, the cutting edge of a truly pussified country

spookiewon
spookiewon

@nycclash  I disagree with you about what is "horribly wrong" but fully agree that we cannot regulate other people's lives based on what we ourselves think is "horribly wrong." That's why I oppose banning churches, despite thinking christianity is "horribly wrong." Unless and until there is compelling evidence ecigarettes harm anyone other than the person using them, bans on using them, even in public, are wrong. I oppose any arguments from ignorance of the possible effects. At one time, it was believed that low fat diets were healthier than high fat diets. Now we know it's not the case. Banning high fat foods to protect people would have had the effect of actually placing people at risk. No good policy can be based on "we don't know."