Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The city council of Austin, Minnesota failed to enact a moratorium against electronic cigarettes this week when it couldn’t get a unanimous vote in favor of the ordinance. The moratorium would have immediately banned use of electronic cigarettes in public places and businesses within the city for one year. That same act is likely to be voted on April 7th when, during its second reading, it will only need a majority in favor rather than unanimous vote to pass.

The final vote was four in favor and three against. The ordinance was largely pushed by local pubic health experts claiming that no one knows what’s in electronic cigarettes. They also claimed that e-cig companies can use cartoon characters and enticing flavors to ensnare kids. A local tobacco treatment specialist there even claimed to have patients with burned throats, nicotine overdoses, and asthma attacks due to the products.

You can read more on the decision here.

While four of the council members voted in favor of the ban, it seems to have been primarily as a way to play it safe — possessing almost no real information on the devices. The other three seemed more interested in staying out of legislation that is better left to individuals meant to control public health policy. In short, it sounds like they felt the issue was bigger than a single local-level government should be in deciding on so quickly (we would agree).

Meanwhile, the mayor reportedly made an argument that confounds even us. From the article: “[Mayor Tom Stiehm] was afraid if the council didn’t unanimously pass the moratorium, it could send a message to area youth that it was OK to use e-cigarettes.” So even voting against the bill because too little information was available was spun as a way to encourage local youth to use e-cigs. We all know how much youth make decisions based on voting divides over local government ordinances.

Many expect the second reading of the ordinance to pass rather easily come April — as only a simple majority is required. Despite already having a majority, it sounds like 2 or 3 members of the council are a bit shaky over the issue. Another three weeks affords a lot of time to study up on the issue and we hope that they do.