Laserfiche WebLink
Kathy Glanzer <br />From: Katie Engman <tobaccoke @yahoo.com> <br />Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:45 PM <br />To: Kathy Glanzer <br />Subject: Fw: Tobacco Ordinance Update <br />Attachments: SEC802 Tobacco Products recommended changes RTC edits.doc <br />Hi Kathy - <br />Thanks for allowing me to review the City Attorney's comments and suggstions before it goes to council. I <br />greatly appreciate it and am thankful for the opportunity. <br />I have attached a document with Track Changes suggestions in it. <br />Our overall concern is that it actually is too broad, and therefore may be more open to litigation. We have seen <br />this in other cities and states that try to broadly include things like drug paraphernalia language in their tobacco <br />ordinance. Since your tobacco ordinance deals only with tobacco, more specific language is actually helpful. <br />I learned that when Public Health Law Center (PHLC) was drafting the electronic delivery device sample <br />language, the issues that your attorney tries to address were defiantly discussed. Ultimately, they decided to <br />limit the definition to apply only to electronic delivery devices and only to substances that are intended for <br />human consumption, as to apply only to products that can be used by a person to simulate smoking, via <br />inhalation of vapor from the product. Again, this is what they felt was most appropriate for a tobacco ordinance. <br />I appreciate all Little Canada does to protect and promote the communities health. Thank you Kathy, for your dedication! <br />9 <br />