FDA takes historic action against e-cigs/vaping: Why does S.O. want to allow vape and hookah lounges?

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

 The difference is that tobacco and booze are "established." Vap is not. 

 I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument.

spontaneous said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

 The difference is that tobacco and booze are "established." Vap is not. 

 I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument.

 That is the argument used by legislators and FDA regulators against stricter regulations against indoor tobacco use in the '90's and aught's.

I didn't make that one up.

jersey_boy said:
I'm thinking of taking up vaping to make me look younger.  

 Doesn’t match the look.  Pipes are another story. 

I wouldn't mind an "Electric Tattoo" in South Orange as long as Lake House Studio was nearby.

There was a tattoo place in Hoboken. I went with a fellow teacher after work as she had a fair amount of body art. Looked like a cool place. I briefly flirted with the idea of doing tats, as a few friends who knew my paintings asked me to design pieces for them.  I think the idea seemed more interesting than the reality.

I imagine in a college town there would be some traffic.

As for any kind of prohibition, I don't think it works. For younger people, it only glamorizes the product, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm just projecting.

Morganna said:

I imagine in a college town there would be some traffic.

 Like I said before, come down to the South Orange pool any weekend day and you'll see that the market for tattoos in South Orange is not just college students.

I went to a store next to a hookah lounge.  The noise was aggravating, it was like being next to a dance club....no concern for neighboring businesses.

The social mores of vaping are not yet clear.  The question of doing it in public spaces has not yet been resolved.  I know of an instance where an adult person entered a hospital patient's room and immediately started vaping.   Was quickly asked to stop.  Apparently this offender felt it was permitted without even asking permission from the patient.

What do other people think?  Let's see if we can come to a consensus, not only in hospitals, but other places as well.  

Years ago when I was sick and tired of visitors smoking tobacco in my house, I removed the ash trays.  That worked, but vaping requires no ash trays.

annielou said:
Tee hee. But I think the obvious problem is residual poop left on the grass.  Regardless of how well the owner cleans up ( if in fact this could even be regulated ), stuff left on the grass isnt so great for kids who just want to run and play in the park.

The assumption that the grass is "clean" if there are no dogs allowed is pretty far-fetched considering all of the wild animals in the area.  Nobody is cleaning up squirrel or deer or other animal poop.  Regardless of the existence of this ordinance or the previous status quo, parents should not assume that it makes a huge difference in whether or not their kids should play in the park.

Maplewood allows dogs on leash in the parks and I haven't heard of any issues with children and poop residue here.

There’s been no evidence one way or another to my knowledge ( which is admittedly very limited on this topic ), however we know enough about tobacco and we know vaping involves tobacco. Not wanting to sound like an old fuddy duddy but , again, why was it so important for this particular kind of business to be included in the resolution? Who stands to gain from this? Certainly not the persons in close proximity. To me it’s simply a public health issue, and a strange idea given that we are becoming more and more environmentally conscious. Or so I thought. And where would this business be located? Our town is densely populated.

mrmaplewood said:
The social mores of vaping are not yet clear.  The question of doing it in public spaces has not yet been resolved.  I know of an instance where an adult person entered a hospital patient's room and immediately started vaping.   Was quickly asked to stop.  Apparently this offender felt it was permitted without even asking permission from the patient.
What do other people think?  Let's see if we can come to a consensus, not only in hospitals, but other places as well.  
Years ago when I was sick and tired of visitors smoking tobacco in my house, I removed the ash trays.  That worked, but vaping requires no ash trays.

 Treat it like smoking.  

I just ask people to not smoke in my house.  If someone showed up and started vaping I'd do the same.

seriously. Who would show up at someone’s house and start smoking? That’s just plain rude. 

conandrob240 said:
seriously. Who would show up at someone’s house and start smoking? That’s just plain rude. 

 I'm assuming you're too young to remember this one.   

annielou said:
There’s been no evidence one way or another to my knowledge ( which is admittedly very limited on this topic ), however we know enough about tobacco and we know vaping involves tobacco. 

Vaping most definitely doesn't involve tobacco. There's so much misinformation in this thread.

However, smoking/vaping/licking grass as a visitor in someone else's home just is plain rude. And I would extend that to any public place. I'm all for preventing second-hand smoke/vape in public locations.

BUT, why not have a lounge for people to enjoy a hookah or to vape? Is this any different from a cigar/whiskey lounge? 

Banning vice increases crime and does nothing to decrease vice.  Why do so many people want to keep making the same mistake over and over and over again?

GoSlugs said:
Banning vice increases crime and does nothing to decrease vice.  Why do so many people want to keep making the same mistake over and over and over again?

Probably better to spend time and resources treating addiction / dependency. But people like the black and white surety of a ban, and big drug busts make for better headlines than successful smoking cessation programs.

We've never had a principled or scientifically coherent approach to the regulation (or not) of mind altering substances.  The original wave of drug prohibition was born of hysteria and nonsense and those influences still hang over our policies and beliefs.   

What crime will increase if vaping and tobacco use are restricted to adults?

mrincredible said:

GoSlugs said:
Banning vice increases crime and does nothing to decrease vice.  Why do so many people want to keep making the same mistake over and over and over again?

Probably better to spend time and resources treating addiction / dependency. But people like the black and white surety of a ban, and big drug busts make for better headlines than successful smoking cessation programs.

bub said:
We've never had a principled or scientifically coherent approach to the regulation (or not) of mind altering substances.  The original wave of drug prohibition was born of hysteria and nonsense and those influences still hang over our policies and beliefs.   

 I don't think there's a pro-banning argument being made here.  Like I said, treat it like smoking.

I think in general there haven't been any pro-banning arguments made. However, there have been some posts suggesting more restrictive regulation for vaping than smoking (e.g., prescription-based purchasing). And those same posters seem to want to ban a business license for a hookah/vape lounge.

But I agree with you nohero. Treat it like smoking. Same prohibitions in public spaces. Same age requirements. Same marketing restrictions. Perhaps tax it similarly as well.

the main issue for me was that the smoking (vaping) industry once again got away with marketing to and addicting a whole new generation of teens. They said it was harmless when we all knew it wasn’t and when we’d all heard that before. The flavors, the packaging, the loose regulation- terrible.

ltc said:

annielou said:
There’s been no evidence one way or another to my knowledge ( which is admittedly very limited on this topic ), however we know enough about tobacco and we know vaping involves tobacco. 

Vaping most definitely doesn't involve tobacco. There's so much misinformation in this thread.
However, smoking/vaping/licking grass as a visitor in someone else's home just is plain rude. And I would extend that to any public place. I'm all for preventing second-hand smoke/vape in public locations.
BUT, why not have a lounge for people to enjoy a hookah or to vape? Is this any different from a cigar/whiskey lounge? 

It involves nicotine and various other chemicals.  

"E-liquid is the mixture used in vapor products such as e-cigarettes and generally consists of propylene glycol, glycerin, water, nicotine, and flavorings. While the ingredients vary the liquid typically contains 95% propylene glycol and glycerin."

You left out acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, amongst others.  Vaping may not involve tobacco, though the output is similar in places albeit at lower levels.  Vaping cannabis is what I’d be worried about. 

ctrzaska said:
You left out acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, amongst others.  Vaping may not involve tobacco, though the output is similar in places albeit at lower levels.  Vaping cannabis is what I’d be worried about. 

 Why, cannabis in particular?

Neighbors - sorry I'm late to the discussion. There was a similar post on Nextdoor that I responded to so I'm just going to copy and paste to make it a little easier.  The premise is "why is South Orange is trying to recruit hookah or tattoo parlors" and that the poster would much rather see a "Gap" or "Panera" - the following is my response.

_______________________________________________________

As with any "blurb" in an article - the extent of changes will never be captured with a multi-year process, public meetings, and review of best practices. Types of businesses are considered "permitted uses" and can be acceptable (or even conditional) in certain designated zones. Our Master Plan or Village Code does not specify that land is zoned for any particular type of establishment. We zone for a permitted primary use of "retail" (Gap) which has it's own regulations with respect to building codes and parking requirements or we zone for "restaurants" (Panera) which has it's own regulations based on patrons, usable floor area, kitchen, etc. Both are currently already permitted and are welcome to come here. The Business Code Review Task Force looked at a variety of existing uses established decades ago and updated our uses to reflect this point in time. It does not mean anyone is recruiting a "tattoo shop" or a "hookah lounge" or that those will ever come to fruition. It means that if those uses come in, they won't need a use variance or be rejected due to the nature of their business alone. Just as important in relation to zoning and permitted uses are the economics of any businesses model. I'll provide a couple examples suggested in this thread. Both Gap and Panera (I love them both) have existing requirements that relate to proximity of other stores - I.e. Gap is in Short Hills Mall and Panera is in Essex Green. Both have a massive surplus of on-site parking and are located along major corridors. You'll also find that if the parking requirements aren't met or near major commercial strips, they're firmly planted in very dense districts with a great deal of pedestrian traffic. Stores like this (or Anthropology or Applebees) either need lots of vehicular traffic and parking for cars or lots of people in walking proximity which would lessen their reliance on dedicated parking. To the point of a tattoo shop - whether someone is pro or anti-tattoo is somewhat irrelevant because the market will decide whether that type of business can succeed in South Orange. I've seen some people think of run down locations with ink and dirty needles and others have seen beautiful art galleries that have tattoo artists. At a price point of $35 triple net in our commercial districts, there's a greater probability of the latter. As for hookah, this is obviously an adult oriented activity and again, with the economics, unless it's tied to a restaurant (typically Mediterranean) it's unlikely at our rents that a $20 hookah for 5 people for an hour would allow it's sole existence to succeed and be profitable. However, if a restaurant also offered hookah as a part of the experience for adults and complied with the smoke free air act (required), it's completely viable. It's not everyone's cup of tea but the market will determine whether it's successful.
More probable uses that were previously rejected as non-permitted uses include: Pinot's Palette (a paint and sip establishment), a kid's gym which was interested in the former Blockbuster Space, an arcade targeted at families with food on site, and real estate offices that feature our housing market which were previously made to be non-permitted.

I hope that's helpful for you (and others) in understanding at least what the Code Review was about and provides some context behind some of the decisions. This is only one component of a very comprehensive review of all things impacting our business community. We also established a Design Review Board last year (doing great work) to assist new businesses in making sure storefronts look great (a lot of disasters avoided) and the customer service of doing business in town is also critical to retention and attraction.

Sheena said:
 However, if a restaurant also offered hookah as a part of the experience for adults and complied with the smoke free air act (required), it's completely viable. It's not everyone's cup of tea but the market will determine whether it's successful.

 As I recall, (2006 N.J. indoor smoking law) for a restaurant-hookah or restaurant -any tobacco facility to exist, the tobacco sales would have to account for a minimum of 50% of gross revenue. That would be difficult to attain.

100 % tobacco, such as a cigar or hookah or vape lounge, there is no minimum.

ctrzaska said:
You left out acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, amongst others.  Vaping may not involve tobacco, though the output is similar in places albeit at lower levels.  Vaping cannabis is what I’d be worried about. 

Oh no, ctrazaka...

I respect you a ton and you're definitely one of the most reasonable and thoughtful people on this board. But, you're perpetuating some FUD here.

The aldehydes that you listed are not "ingredients," but instead are theoretical byproducts of vaping. You may be referring to the infamous New England Journal of Medicine study on formaldehydes. If so, then you should note that they weren't able to produce formaldehyde (technically formaldehyde hemiacetals) at lower voltages. At extremely high voltages, they were able to produce those hemiacetals by essentially burning out the coil. It's a completely unrealistic scenario because vaping at those voltages would be extraordinarily unpleasant. There's more risk of formaldehyde exposure from a wood fire or even pressed flooring and wallpaper. Not sure what you're referencing on acetaldehyde, but I assume the study was performed under similar extreme voltage circumstances.

I'm not trying to argue that vaping is completely safe. I'm mentioned this before that not vaping is certainly healthier than vaping. But arguably, for adults that want to relax with nicotine, vaping appears to be a safer alternative than cigarettes. And for that reason, I don't understand the backlash against the industry (although I do understand it from the Big Tobacco lobby, as they are getting hurt by the rise of vaping). 

And where are you going with the last statement? That there are better ways than vaping to medicate with cannabis or that vaping could lead to the rise of marijuana usage?

Thank you Sheena for the feedback.

You address the issues of zoning, parking needs, economics, and the process that S.O. went through.  However, my concern is related to public health.  Why would S.O. change its ordinances to allow a business that we know causes serious health issues and that promotes an industry that is actively targeting teenagers?

How do you feel regarding the health issues of this relatively new consumer product?

Why do we allow bakeries in this day and age when countless people are suffering from diabetes, obesity, and other health issues related directly to diet?