My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_1014_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2013
>
2013_1014_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 10:55:31 AM
Creation date
10/10/2013 12:38:05 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Department Approval <br />��� <br />t�"�i <br />�� <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: 10/14/13 <br />Item No. : 14. c <br />City Manager Approval <br />�� �� <br />Item Description: Consider an Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 306: Cigarette and Tobacco <br />Products <br />BACKGROUND <br />At the February 13, 2012 City Council meeting the Council adopted a revised Tobacco Ordinance to <br />address new forms of tobacco products and devices that had recently become available to consumers. <br />One of those new tobacco products included electronic cigarettes or `e-cigarettes'; a smokeless device <br />designed to deliver nicotine by inhaling a water vapor mist. This delivery process is known as `vaping' <br />as opposed to smoking. <br />The revised Ordinance prohibited smoking indoors under all circumstances and covers products that are <br />derived from tobacco and are ingested by inhaling. <br />City Staff and the City Attorney have concluded that the current ordinance sufficiently covers e- <br />cigarettes that feature a nicotine delivery system, because nicotine is derived from and historically linked <br />to tobacco. However, in the past 18 months e-cigarettes have evolved further and in some cases no <br />longer contain nicotine but rather feature other substances and flavorings. Because they lack nicotine, <br />we have concluded that they would NOT be subj ect to the existing ordinance. <br />From a regulatory standpoint, this is problematic because a casual observer would be unable to detect <br />which e-cigarettes contain nicotine and which do not. This is especially problematic given that some <br />tobacco retail establishments have begun to actively market their establishment as `vaping lounges' <br />where customers can freely use their e-cigarettes. <br />Currently, e-cigarettes are NOT regulated under the State's Minnesota Clean Indoor Act of 1975 or the <br />Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007 — both of which, along with other statutory provisions, provide explicit <br />authority for local governments to impose their own regulations on tobacco-related products. Nor are <br />they regulated by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration like tobacco is, although the FDA itself is <br />suggesting that it is moving in that direction. <br />City Staff does not have the expertise to highlight the long-term health or societal implications of e- <br />cigarettes. While manufacturers might conclude that they are safer than regular cigarettes, others <br />suggest that "not all of the science is in". The question before the Council is whether the City should <br />regulate all e-cigarettes or similar devices the same. A secondary question is whether the City Council <br />has the authority to impose restrictions on e-cigarettes that do not feature any tobacco-related products. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.