OUR Two cents:
The irony of this story is not only that the Vancouver council is treating e-cigarettes as tobacco cigarettes, but that they are clarifying to all the the marijuana users not to worry, because it won’t affect vaping marijuana anywhere you would like to.
Vancouver City Council passed changes to by-laws on Wednesday banning the “vaporization” of “any substance” in the same places smoking is prohibited, but officials publicly stated that the new rules would not be used to target medical marijuana users or vapor lounges.
At the end of a marathon Council Session lasting over 13 hours and including several items of business, councillors voted unanimously to change the definition of “burning” to mean “to produce smoke, vapour or other substances that can be inhaled.”
Councillors also modified the definition of “smoking” to include “burning a cigarette or cigar, or burning any substance using a pipe, hookah pipe, lighted smoking device or electronic smoking device,” while striking out the words “or other weed” from the original by-law.
Another by-law was amended to add the definition of “Electronic Cigarettes” as “electronic cigarettes, electronic pipes, electronic hookahs, or similar devices that can be used to deliver nicotine or other substances, and replaceable cartridges and refills used with those devices.”
Despite adding new language that could be interpreted as banning marijuana vaporization and vapor lounges, city officials publicly stated the new by-laws would not be used to target marijuana smokers.
“This by-law has no prohibition in terms of anybody who needs anything for medicinal purposes,” Vancouver City Manager Penny Ballem told city councillors, who had asked her for clarification about ambiguous language in an earlier draft of the amendment. “The speaker asked ‘Will there be any shutting down of vapor and other like lounges that exist?’ I guess that is part of something you received as a change that will be addressed. There is an outstanding court case I have to advise council of involving interpretation of the current health provision we have, and as such the proposed amendment does not change those particular matters.”