MOUNT VERNON – After three months of discussion, city council voted unanimously to pass an ordinance on Monday night that places restrictions on the sale and use of vaping products within the city, making smoking and vaping regulations parallel.
The law prohibits the sale or distribution of vape products to those under the age of 18, matching the state’s law that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors. The law applies to both businesses and individuals, meaning that if someone over the age of 18 sells or distributes tobacco or vaping products to a minor, they will be in violation of the city’s law – just as a business would be for doing the same thing.
The city’s new law also prohibits smoking (of both vape and tobacco products) in public places or places of employment. This does not include private residences (unless it is used as a place of employment), designated hotel smoking rooms, existing vape shops, outdoor patios or drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities that provide recreational activities to recovering addicts.
No establishment is eligible for an exemption, however, if it allows minors to be exposed to secondhand smoke.
Mayor Richard Mavis signed the ordinance on Monday night, rendering it effective immediately.
By passing the new ordinance, Mount Vernon’s smoking laws are now up-to-date with state law. City Law Director Rob Broeren told Knox Pages in September that the city’s current law, which went into effect in 1995, allows for the designation of ‘smoking’ and ‘non-smoking’ areas in public places, including within businesses.
The state adopted legislation in 2006 that banned smoking in public places and businesses, and Mount Vernon had not updated its code since that time to reflect equal regulations at a local level.
Council voted on Monday after holding a public hearing for the proposed ordinance during the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, which took place before the legislative session. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the ordinance at that time.
Council also voted to amend the ordinance before passing it, changing the proposed age restriction. The law’s initial draft prohibited the sale of vape products to those ages 18-21; the amendment changed it to those under the age of 18. This change was discussed at the last two meetings, as council agreed that doing so would place smoking and vaping on equal terms.
Mayor Richard Mavis first introduced the idea of citywide vaping regulations at council’s Aug. 27 meeting, when he noted vaping’s apparent rise in popularity within the city. He voiced concerns over how vaping might impact the community’s health. Since then, numerous Knox County Health Department officials have informed council of the dangers of vaping.
The department has cited research which shows that vaping can not only harm the user (via carcinogens and other harmful chemicals), but also those around the user (via secondhand smoke).
Mike Whitaker, a tobacco treatment specialist at the health department, has warned council about the dangers of smoking for those under the age of 18, as he said doing so often leads to nicotine addiction later in life. He believes that vape products are often marketed towards the adolescent demographic, given the fruity flavors typically found in e-liquids.
While the health department voiced its concerns about vaping, council heard little opposition to those opinions during that time. Members of Puckerfish Vape, one of two vape shops in Mount Vernon, offered written and verbal feedback to council on the proposed ordinance. But the shop expressed support for the age restriction provision, as manager Travis Kauffman said that Puckerfish routinely checks IDs and uses only food-safe ingredients (as labeled by the FDA) in its vape products.
Owner Matt Dawson added that the shop’s only request would be to allow vaping inside his store and others (even though they would be considered “public places of employment”) so that customers can try new flavors and devices before purchasing them.
He said that many of the shop’s customers would not buy products (which he said often provide an alternative to tobacco) if they were not able to try them in the shop first, and added that the shop rarely uses nicotine juice when demonstrating its products to the public.
According to the city’s new law, an exemption allows all retail vape shops in existence prior to the law’s passage to continue the practice of vaping inside their stores, as long as minors are not allowed into the shop (which could cause them to be exposed to secondhand vapor). Conversely, if a existing shop chooses to give up in-store vaping, it would be allowed to have minors in the shop.
This exemption does not apply for any new vape shop that wishes to do business in the city moving forward.
Existing shops will not be exempt from the law’s age restrictions, however, which prohibit the sale of vape products to those under the age of 18. Broeren said that the city typically works with state agencies to regulate underage tobacco and alcohol sales, and hinted at the idea that enforcement might be similar in this case.
He said that the state will send underage agents “a couple times a year” to Mount Vernon, and those agents will try to purchase tobacco or alcohol products from city establishments.
“I think what we’re really trying to do is just make sure that vaping is held to the same standard as purchasing cigarettes,” council member Chris Menapace said Monday, in summation.
“We need to figure out a way in our community to stop 14, 15 and 16-year olds from getting ahold of these products that could have things like THC in them and some of these other carcinogens that are in there, and the addictive properties.”
Mavis signed the law on Monday night, rendering it effective immediately.
Violations of the law will be recorded as unclassified misdemeanors, resulting in fines. A first-time offense will result in a maximum $150 fine; a second offense within 12 months will result in a maximum $250 fine; and a third offense within the same time frame will result in a maximum $500 fine.
Mount Vernon’s ordinance nearly mirrors Newark’s, which was passed by its city council one week before Mavis introduced the idea. Newark’s legislation came after local business owners claimed that people vaping outside their stores were driving off customers.
‘A pretty slippery exemption’
While council voted unanimously to pass the law, council member Sam Barone expressed concern over the wording applied to the ordinance’s ‘existing shop’ exemption, which could be amended at a later date.
Under the exemption, vape shops already in business before the law’s passage are allowed to permit vaping inside the shop as long as minors are not present.
Barone asked how parents, who may have children with them, will be able to tell if there is vaping occuring in the shop before entering. Broeren said he hopes that owners of existing shops will post a sign outside that signals whether or not minors are allowed in the shop (based on their in-shop vaping policy). That is not a requirement in the law, however, which caused Barone to raise the point.
“It seems like it’s a pretty slippery exemption,” he said.
Barone also asked about when owners of existing shops can change their door policies – could they change every hour, every day? – given the lack of stated regulations on such matters. He also asked when existing shops will be forced to fully comply with the city’s code, as there is no deadline included in the ordinance.
“By grandfathering in existing proprietors, we’re giving them a heck of a privilege – a competitive benefit – over everybody else,” said Barone, who noted that new shops coming to the city will not benefit from such lenient restrictions.
Broeren said that ultimately, regardless of the shop owner’s door policy, if they get caught permitting secondhand fumes around a minor, they will be in violation of the city’s code. But Barone then brought up another grey area in the legislation: what constitutes as being exposed to secondhand vapors? After all, vapor often lingers in the air long after the act of vaping ends.
Barone said that the lack of specification in this provision could make it more difficult to enforce the law.
“It seems to me that we ought to make it a little bit more difficult, we ought to have a better compliance mechanism,” Barone said. “And maybe we can’t do it tonight, but it seems to me that unless we put some teeth into that or make it a little bit more explicit, we’re not really putting any burden on the proprietors to protect buyers when they walk into their shop.”
Council agreed that it would encourage further discussion on the exemptions portion of the ordinance at a later date, but that it would be important to pass the law as it stood on Monday in order to enhance the safety and health of the community’s youth.
A separate discussion: Tobacco 21
Before voting to pass the vaping legislation, council continued discussions on a separate-but-related issue: ‘Tobacco 21.’
The health department has urged council to consider adopting legislation that would prohibit the sale of tobacco and vaping products to those under the age of 21. Whitaker told council at its last meeting that there are currently 15 “large” Ohio municipalities that have already raised the age requirement, including Columbus, Dublin and Cleveland Heights. He said that Mount Vernon would likely be “one of the smallest municipalities” in the state to adopt such a policy.
During Monday’s public hearing for the vaping ordinance, health department program coordinator Tami Ruhl asked if council had any questions on the initiative.
Council member Chris Menapace asked about how it would be enforced. He said he had talked with members of Columbus Public Health, who are charged with enforcing Columbus’s Tobacco 21 policy. Menapace added that “they have quite a staff that goes out to enforce that,” and that he didn’t want council to propose legislation that would place an undue burden on the agency tasked with enforcing it (which would be the health department in this case, Ruhl confirmed).
“That’s true with anything we pass, we have to be able to enforce it,” Planning and Zoning Committee Chair Nancy Vail agreed.
Ruhl could not say whether or not the health department would be equipped to handle such a responsibility, although she said the department is currently researching ways it could.
“I wish I had a definite answer for you this evening,” Ruhl said. “I know that Mike (Whitaker) has talked to Nate Overholt, our environmental health division director, and I know they would be probably the group that would be in charge of that, if not others in the health department, too.
“So it is something that we’re looking into, but I don’t have a conclusive answer for you as to how that would work.”
Council member Mike Hillier also confirmed with Ruhl that the county’s health board has yet to publicly support Tobacco 21, although the board is meeting to discuss the policy soon. Ruhl said that the State of Ohio has yet to adopt the policy, although several cities have done so themselves.
Council agreed that it would consider the idea down the road, but that it would need to have discussions with the health department on how it would work before proposing any sort of legislation. Ruhl told council that as the health board continues to discuss Tobacco 21, the department would present resident feedback on the issue at future council meetings.
“It is all about prevention and trying to keep those tobacco products out of the youth’s hands,” Ruhl said. “Because we know that the younger they start or have contact with that, the higher the risk that they are for being a smoker.”
