ShareThis Page
Vaping ban argued before Allegheny County Council committee |

Vaping ban argued before Allegheny County Council committee

| Monday, February 6, 2017 8:39 p.m
Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review
Jason Lee, 32, of Bloomfield and manager of Vape Inn On Liberty, vapes inside his shop in Bloomfield, Tuesday, January 3, 2017.
Theresa Clift
Eight panelists discuss a proposed vaping ban during an Allegheny County Council Health and Human Services Committee meeting Monday, Feb. 6.

More than 30 people spoke to the pros and cons of Allegheny County’s proposed ban on vaping in public places during a public hearing Monday night.

Those against the proposed ban argued that vaping helps smokers quit, that many businesses already ban it, and forcing vapers outside with the smokers sends the wrong public message ­— one that could push them to go back to smoking.

Those in favor of vacating the vapers in public places argued that use of e-cigarettes can be a “gateway” for teens to pick up smoking the real thing, and that the vapor, although better than cigarette smoke, is not harmless when consumed secondhand.

Panelists received five minutes each for comments, while the more than 20 members of the public who signed up received three minutes each.

Speakers on both sides cited studies to support their argument.

Those who support the ban cited a report released last year by the Surgeon General that found e-cigarettes — now the most commonly used tobacco product among teens — are a public health concern for teens and pregnant women.

Some of those opposed to it cited a study released this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine that, among other findings, reported long-term e-cigarette users have “substantially reduced levels of measured carcinogens and toxins relative to smoking only combustile cigarettes.”

The Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association sent a letter to the council last month questioning whether the county had the legal authority to institute the ban, or whether it would have to be done at the state level, due to the Clean Indoor Air Act’s preemption clause.

County Solicitor Andrew Szefi said he is confident the legislation being proposed is not preempted by the act, or any state law.

Councilman Ed Kress said he is concerned the state code on medical marijuana, which can be vaped, would be in conflict with the proposed legislation.

“I don’t want to penalize anybody trying to take their medicine in a public place,” said Kress, who opposes the ban.

Szefi said Kress shouldn’t let that “stand in the way” of supporting the ban.

“It’s not the point of the legislation or the Clean Indoor Air Act,” said Szefi.

The council’s Health and Human Services Committee, which held the hearing, will consider the proposal at a future meeting, and could send it for consideration by the full council.

Panelists opposed to the vaping ban included: Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association; Marc Conn, owner of Steel City Vapors; Saul Shiffman, research professor at the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Joel Nitzkin, health policy consultant and past co-chair of Tobacco Control Task Force of the American Association of Public Health Physicians.

Panelists in favor of the ban included: Deborah Brown, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic; Dr. Jonathan Spahr, clinical director for the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh’s division of pediatric pulmonary medicine; Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh’s division of adolescent and young adult medicine chief; and Brittany Huffman, program coordinator for Tobacco Free Allegheny.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.