NYC lawmakers vote to expand indoor smoking ban to include e-cigarettes; mayor to consider

  • Article by: JAKE PEARSON , Associated Press
  • Updated: December 19, 2013 - 7:48 PM

NEW YORK — With smokers exiled years ago to New York City's sidewalks, some took up e-cigarettes as a way to come in from the cold. They could puff away in restaurants and offices without running afoul of the city's ban on smoking in indoor public places.

  • 20
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rshacklefordDec. 19, 13 8:12 PM

So the law no longer bans tobacco but rather nicotine?

37
9
mgs5150Dec. 19, 13 9:20 PM

Thus proving it was never a public health or second hand smoke issue in the first place. People are just annoyed by cigarette smoke, that is it. OSHA documented that smoking within a restaurant or bar fell under the mandatory parts per million to be considered a health hazard yet people sold it as a public health issue. Typical government fraud and the libs that follow along, freedom when only they want it.

36
23
zkat5zugDec. 20, 1312:08 AM

Funny how that if you personally can't do whatever you want, whenever you want, all others be damned, it's a liberal conspiracy.

19
23
jhb8426Dec. 20, 1312:22 AM

This is one of those things petty politicians do because they can.

29
4
jpnIIIDec. 20, 1312:39 AM

What is in those vapors, anyway? I haven't really followed this storyline, so I don't know. I can only assume that if several states, and now NYC, are banning e-cigs in enclosed, public places, that there must be something hazardous about them. I'm wondering also if nicotine can be purchased legally anywhere? Would smokers be satisfied if they could just take some type of nicotine pill? I tend to be conservative on some things, liberal on others, but it has always bothered me that smokers in enclosed spaces forced others to breathe their smoke. Buses and airplanes used to be horrible. Both of my folks smoked; us kids called it the "smokeatorium." We didn't realize what the smoke did to our clothes until we went away to school. Uffda. Two minutes, and it's off to the laundromat. People surely have the right to smoke. They don't have the right to (essentially) cause me to also smoke, however.

10
9
obviousDec. 20, 13 2:42 AM

If they can't tax it, then ban it !! ...

20
6
brianstrDec. 20, 13 6:52 AM

This AP story is full of holes. Why are e-cigs being banned? Are they hazardous to those who use it? If so, are they hazardous to those near those who use it? For a news story there sure is a substantial lack of info.

22
5
mnpls123Dec. 20, 13 6:53 AM

"So the law no longer bans tobacco but rather nicotine?"-----nope. You can chew the nic gum or wear a patch all you want. Even double them up if it floats your boat. Just don't put more crap in the air that the rest of breath.

4
26
mbisysDec. 20, 13 7:08 AM

Ok if you put pot smoke in the air though.

24
6
redeye12Dec. 20, 13 7:29 AM

The anti-smoking zealots never stop. Interestingly, a large and lengthy National Cancer Institute study just released found no correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. So all the hand wringing over removing smoking from the public seems to be unwarranted. This move takes it a step further. As rshackleford notes, this is a nicotine ban. The nanny state never stops.

20
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT