skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Bill Would Treat E-cigarettes Like Other Tobacco

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California would treat electronic cigarettes like any other tobacco product by restricting where people can use them in public under a bill approved by the state Senate on Friday.

Some of the vapors or nicotine emitted by the e-cigarettes may pose health risks, said Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-Hayward. Her SB648 would impose the same limits that apply to other smokers on where the devices can be used under California's existing smoke-free laws.

The Senate approved the bill, 21-10, on Friday, sending it to the Assembly.

Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine objected, saying the e-cigarettes are a popular alternative for those who are trying to stop smoking.

"My phone's been ringing off the hook," Anderson said. "There are so many smokers who this has changed their lives, it's given them a new lease on life. It's gotten them off the cigarettes."

A 2010 law also sponsored by Corbett already makes it unlawful to sell or furnish electronic cigarettes anyone under 18.

Health organizations back Corbett's recent bill, but the Electronic Cigarette Industry Group objects that there is no proof that their product emits secondhand smoke that can harm bystanders. The harm to the user is similar to that caused by other smokeless tobacco products, according to the industry.

While the health effect is a matter of debate and further study, Corbett said the state should err on the side of protecting the public.

The devices are often made to look like cigarettes, cigars or pipes, but can be disguised to look like pens or computer memory sticks so they can be used discreetly.

Corbett said Amtrak has already banned their use on trains, and the Navy doesn't allow their use below decks in submarines. The U.S. Department of Transportation is also proposing to ban their use on airplanes because of the possible health risks.

If the devices are added to California's smoke-free laws, they also could not be used in the workplace, schools, public buildings, day care centers, restaurants or health facilities.

Comments

Avatar for user 'muckapoo1'

muckapoo1 | May 25, 2013 at 10:34 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

"May pose a risk". LOL This is all about control and not science. These lamos probably add their input into global warming too. California is as about being control crazy as that NYC mayor. There goes my big gulp from my 7-Eleven.
PS: I don't smoke>but would not infringe on those that do. Especially those who are trying so hard to confirm with the hitleresqe group in our midst.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Trick'

Trick | May 26, 2013 at 2:06 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

"Other" tobacco? Since when do e-cigarettes contain tobacco?

It's no wonder misguided, needless legislation like this gets passed when people obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'muckapoo1'

muckapoo1 | May 26, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Correct Trick. I fear these libs more than I fear any terrorist. They are sneaky, manipulative creeps that have nothing to do but dream up another "crisis" for them to solve. Their last horizon will be flatulence. Must be something toxic there based on shear odor. LOL I can see the sign now>> No Fart Zone !!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'ecigator'

ecigator | May 28, 2013 at 7:28 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Government wants to create revenues because of their uncontrolled spending. E-cigarettes give people an option besides traditional tobacco products that can re-create the act of smoking which many people crave if they try to quit cold turkey or with patches or gums.

http://www.ecigator.net/

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 28, 2013 at 8:10 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Hey, _uckapoo, you talk of "government control," and I concur on this one, yet you want more and more money for CBP??? A little contradictory, I might say.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 28, 2013 at 9:31 a.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Mission, one of the few jobs of the constitutional government is to protect our borders. Not to regulate non-tobacco products as if they contained tobacco.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 28, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

This is acceptable as it is the California government instituting the policy.

As we have taxpayer supported healthcare, California must heavily restrict or ban unhealthy lifestyle choices such as smoking, alcohol, and fast food to protect taxpayers.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | May 28, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

From my own experience as a non-smoker, E-cigarettes are less invasive than traditional ones. Sen. Corbett receives contributions from health workers, life and medical insurance companies (not tobacco companies). I don't agree with her position, but at least there's congruence between her contributors and legislative agenda.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'smokinghot'

smokinghot | May 28, 2013 at 6:07 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

How sad that for some people money and personal gain are more important than the health of the nation they have pledged to serve! I for one can attest from personal experience that e-cigarettes cause much less harm to the body than tobacco cigarettes. Furthermore, how can e-cigarette be classified as tobacco products if they have nothing in common with tobacco? Not even nicotine which can now be synthesized.
This whole charade is a bunch of bull and should not be allowed to continue! You can read more on my website http://e-cig-review.net
Don't let these bureaucrats corner you! Do what you can locally to send a message to these "public servants"!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 28, 2013 at 7:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

"......but the Electronic Cigarette Industry Group objects that there is no proof that their product emits secondhand smoke that can harm bystanders."

Big Tobacco said the same thing for years.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 28, 2013 at 7:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

And they said it while experts in their own boardrooms told them the truth.

These industries care about money, not who they harm.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 28, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Muckapoo, do you agree with the regulations we have for regular cigarettes?

I'm curious to see how far your "government is evil, stay out of my life" mantra goes even for public health measures that have data-backed results to show significant reduction of deadly diseases.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 29, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ― 1 year, 3 months ago

Duck,

I have to agree with you and would encourage people like JM to shift their priorities. As government healthcare is being shoved down our throats by Washington, we now have to protect taxpayers rather than protect freedom.

Why should a taxpayer leading a healthy lifestyle be forced to pay the medical bills of someone who chooses an unhealthy lifestyle? That is not fair and why greater regulation of unhealthy choices like e-cigarettes and fast food is necessary.

( | suggest removal )