Tupelo council likely to halt e-cigarette use in public places

I'm a journalist focused on government, policy, politics and people.
I find what matters and bird dog it like nobody's business.

town_tupelo_green

By Robbie Ward

Daily Journal

TUPELO – The City Council seems ready to kick the vaping habit this week, likely banning public use of electronic cigarettes.

A city council member has convinced at least three others to expand Tupelo’s smoking ban to include e-cigarettes, a product marketed as a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

Instead of lighting up traditional cigarettes, battery-operated electronic products deliver less nicotine, but more flavor and other chemicals to users. Officials say the practice releases vapors filled with detectable levels of chemicals such as formaldehyde found in traditional cigarettes.

Councilman Buddy Palmer of Ward 5 seems to have succeeded in lining up enough votes for Tuesday’s meeting to ban e-cigarettes in public, which includes restaurants and other workplaces, including local businesses selling the products.

The council agreed last week to postpone discussion of banning e-cigarettes in public after two council members – Nettie Davis of Ward 4 and Willie Jennings of Ward 7 – wanted more information prior to voting.

Researchers have limited studies showing health impact of e-cigarettes, invented in 2003 in China. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently does not regulate their sale to children. However, the federal regulatory agency may soon adopt the same standards that regular tobacco products require for sale and distribution, including health warnings on packages.

Palmer, an occasional cigar smoker, sees no reason to postpone enforcing limits for e-cigarette users in public places. E-cigarettes create small amounts of carcinogens and other toxic chemicals and emit a scented mist noticeable to others by smell and sight.

“I don’t think they have right to go to public places and put out a vapor,” Palmer said. “I find it very offensive.”

Tupelo’s inclusion of e-cigarettes to the smoking ban ordinance would prohibit using the electronic nicotine devices at least 25 feet from a building entrance and 10 feet from an exit where smoking is banned.

Adoption of the public ban would make Tupelo the 37th Mississippi municipality to limit areas available to use e-cigarettes.Nationwide, 188 local governments already banned the practice in indoor public locations, while New Jersey and North Dakota have similar prohibitions statewide.

While not legal in Mississippi, the electronic devices can be manipulated to include other chemicals, including THC, the chemical found in marijuana.

Other City Council members who voiced support to the Daily Journal for voting Tuesday to ban e-cigarettes in public include Markel Whittington of Ward 1, Lynn Bryan of Ward 2 and Mike Bryan of Ward 6, who proposed the ban a few months ago.

Jennings said Friday he’ll decide whether to support or oppose the issue Tuesday, when the council meets at 6 p.m.

Davis, however, said the council shouldn’t expect her support to banning e-cigarettes this week.

“I’m not supportive of banning it right now,” she said. “I feel like I need a little more investigation before I decide for myself.”

Local business owners who sell e-cigarettes have recently pleaded with council members to resist temptations to ban their products, saying they do not sell to minors and only use e-cigarette ingredients made in the United States.

Council President Mike Bryan said if the ban passes, the council could decide afterward whether to exempt usage in places selling e-cigs. Locally, specialty shops, some convenience stores and other businesses sell the products.

Councilman Jim Newell of Ward 3, director of Itawamba Community College’s respiratory care technology program, resigned Friday and won’t vote.

Mayor Jason Shelton objects to the council amending the city’s smoking ordinance without more research available on e-cigarettes’ health impact and other negative associations such as encouraging children to addictive use of nicotine.

“To me, taking away a freedom requires in-depth discussion and study,” he said Friday. “We need to look at repealing laws instead of adding new ones.”

Shelton vowed not to veto the change to the smoking ban, if approved by the council.

robbie.ward@journalinc.com

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly quoted Tupelo Mayor Jason Shelton’s position on city laws. He wants to look at repealing them, not “appealing” them, which makes no sense. However, he did find appealing the concept of accurately quoting him.

Draft amendment to Tupelo’s existing smoking ban

  • L.M.

    I always learned in school that when one elects a representative, that person is representing what the people of their district want. Shouldn’t each council member do a study about what their constituents want on any matter?

    • TWBDB

      This issue is pretty simple to me: as with cigarettes, if you wish to inhale these chemicals you have every right to do so, but you do not have the right to subject my lungs to the insult.

      • L.M.

        I’ve been around people using e cigarettes and do not inhale the vapors even at close proximity to them.

        • TWBDB

          My question to you would be, “Do you smell the e-cig vapor?” If yes, you’re inhaling it. I’m not a freak about this issue but I do believe I should have the right to clean air. I used to smoke, will still take a cigarette occasionally, if I’m in a crowd of smokers. But that’s a choice I make.

          Some of those e-cig vapors stink. A passing whiff on a sidewalk is one thing but no one should be allowed to stink up an enclosed public area.

          • L.M.

            To answer your question: No I do not smell e-cigarettes even when sitting or standing next to someone who is “vaping”.

          • TWBDB

            The minty flavors are near odorless, as are quite a few others. The tobacco ones, can linger and smell like a cigar.

          • ppc

            So you would ban certain scents in public?

          • TWBDB

            Some of the tobacco e-cig flavors are obnoxious: they not only smell when people are smoking them but they leave a residue which smells once they leave. E-cigs and cigarettes contain nicotine ( an addictive substance ). When you smoke either one, you exhale more smoke or vapor than you actually absorb. So, I don’t find it particularly over-reaching to regulate where a smoker smokes. To me, this whole issue is pretty simple. In the mall, in the hospital, in schools, in the courthouse, library, etc….public places….ban all smoking except in designated areas. In private establishments, leave it up to the owner but provide the guideline they make their allowances public at the entrance. The patron then has the option to enter or not. What’s wrong with that?

  • Winston Smith

    I just dislike bans. I’d leave it to the individual business owners discretion. If someone wanted a vape friendly coffee shop then fine, if another place wanted to ban them fine. Then everyone’s happy.

  • Jo E

    There is a fair review and testing link below….LM I agree with you 100% there are many vape friendly business owners in Lee County and Tupelo. Maybe someone should “give time” to ask what THEY want instead of railroading this through like a freight train….Seems everyone is complaining about the government taking away freedoms in this country but yet so many rush to hand it over to them. 911 should have been a lesson in this. Fear used by a few to control many ended up with where we are today. Learn the facts and don’t buy into the greed of big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and more control and laws not to mention the misinformation thrown out to the public.
    I find it interesting also that you are so afraid but yet sit in traffic on North Gloster and inhale a lot more fumes and chemicals. You allow the spraying of chemicals over head and on the ground and Monsanto to be added to your food, sugar and caffeine, McDonalds to your kids….. Not to mention supporting a later alcohol sell in the city….But this a product that is saving lives, “mine included” you banish without a care to even do study on. I smoked 43 years….I have been off their deadly poison for over a year now. I personally do not want to stand with the smokers either and inhale what I have fought to get away from. Maybe we should consider banning the use of asthma inhalers since many of the chemical makeup is the same….Bottom line…..Let the business owner decide! Stop making more laws that take away freedom of choice for everyone!!!!

  • Jo E

    ? My comment? I’m sure it was the links that got it deleted??? Second posting There is a fair review and testing link below….LM I agree with you 100% there are many vape friendly business owners in Lee County and Tupelo. Maybe someone should “give time” to ask what THEY want instead of railroading this through like a freight train….Seems everyone is complaining about the government taking away freedoms in this country but yet so many rush to hand it over to them. 911 should have been a lesson in this. Fear used by a few to control many ended up with where we are today. Learn the facts and don’t buy into the greed of big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and more control and laws not to mention the misinformation thrown out to the public.
    I find it interesting also that you are so afraid but yet sit in traffic on North Gloster and inhale a lot more fumes and chemicals. You allow the spraying of chemicals over head and on the ground and Monsanto to be added to your food, sugar and caffeine, McDonalds to your kids….. Not to mention supporting a later alcohol sell in the city….But this a product that is saving lives, “mine included” you banish without a care to even do study on. I smoked 43 years….I have been off their deadly poison for over a year now. I personally do not want to stand with the smokers either and inhale what I have fought to get away from. Maybe we should consider banning the use of asthma inhalers since many of the chemical makeup is the same….Bottom line…..Let the business owner decide! Stop making more laws that take away freedom of choice for everyone!!!!

    • L.M.

      I posted a rather lengthy post with a link on it that got deleted also, yet nothing that I thought was offensive was written. There is supposed to be “discussion” about articles on here, but posts get deleted for what reason?
      One of the things I posted was that I do favor a ban on allowing minors to purchase e cigarettes. Minors do not know what they are getting into for the long haul when it comes to matters like these.
      Another was an excerpt of an article that u s pharmacists dot com wrote about the e cigarettes.
      I was a two and a half pack a day smoker myself some time ago and quit cold turkey. I could have used a little help to ease the pain. That was during a time when
      most people were already hooked on tobacco when the warning on the labels first came out.

    • Jon

      The fact is that e-cigarettes are not safe at all. They were originally developed in China back in 2007 and have yet to be thoroughly tested by the FDA. According to a recently CDC study, there has been a sharp increase in the number calls to poison control centers related to e-cigarettes. Liquid nicotine (which is extracted from tobacco) can be very harmful/lethal to inhale and the amount in each cartridge varies so much due to how little these things are regulated. In addition to the nicotine contents, there are dangers of other contaminants being released as well, such as tin and other carcinogens.

      • Jo E

        Common sense tells me don’t buy eliquids from China and keep them in a safe place, away from kids and pets just like you would alcohol or prescription drugs….Even Tylenol can kill if ingested….Alcohol kills thousands daily and alcohol OD’s are common…..Working at a 911 center myself, we have recieved not one call to date on this. Not to mention your car puts out much worse emissions and chemicals in the air that we ALL breathe. I know they are saving my life… I only buy USA made liquid from reputable dealers. Some regulation yes and I am for them being listed under medical devices just make them affordable to those needing them not a office visit and prescription that people cannot afford. As for this issue….It should be the right of the business to decide and I think several of the board members agree with more study and time. As for Board member Palmer “Owner of Palmers Grocery”….railroading is a lack of leadership and ethics. His rush and bully tactic are shameful. I hope the citizens of Tupelo be for or against see his lack of leadership for what it is…

      • ppc

        Find one death from ecigarettes.

        • TWBDB

          Why not just go to WebMD and look up the toxic warnings for liquid nicotine yourself.

    • http://djournal.com/ DJournal.com

      The deleted comments should now appear. Our spam filter picked them up, likely due to there being links included. We’ll look into fixing that. Apologies, and thank you for your patience.

      • L.M.

        Thank you for looking into it and fixing the problem. Much appreciated!

  • Ec

    I think it should be up to the person them self if they want to smoke or not telling people you can’t smoke in their own place where they have spent their life savings to live the American dream if you don’t like it don’t go there it’s your choice just like it should be everyone else’s choice we do still have that right?

    • Jon

      Very eloquently put, Ec.

    • Jo E

      and to vape also…..

  • TWBDB

    Great link! Thank you. The article supports the health and safety advantages of e-cigs vs cigs for the user, no doubt. We should definitely encourage this wonderful alternative to cigarettes. I also favor a balance between the interests of private business owners vs the rights of individuals in a public space.

    The article also speaks to the issue at hand here. E-cigarettes are a drug delivery device which works by aerosolizing its contents; the user absorbs a small portion of the contents and exhales the rest. It’s the larger portion exhaled in question. The article does state these studies are ongoing. Again, I think a balance in the tenor of safety doesn’t hurt.

    • Jo E

      More information and study is being done daily worldwide. All we ask is for is TIME to review, understand and learn. I know the tobacco compaines are losing so much money they are now puting out their own ecigs. So as always it’s about money keep in mind that even President Obama passed ok for cigarettes to have carpet glue as a by product, I think it was around 2008. I had much rather have vapors around me anyday than the over 5000 chemicals now that are being used in cigarettes.

      • TWBDB

        Jo E – – I would definitely prefer to breath e-cigarette vapor as opposed to cigarette smoke. I would ‘most’ prefer to have the choice to breath either one.

        • Jo E

          And you may, let the business decide, then you may decide to go or not go there…I would most prefer not to have screaming kids around me and perfume that’s a trigger for my asthma but we can hope…

          • TWBDB

            Good point. I’ll step out of this conversation. I wish you all the best in your smoking cessation regimen and encourage you to continue to push forward in weaning yourself off nicotine. It took me quite a while: I know the road isn’t easy.

          • Jo E

            Thank you TWBDB and on a lighter note I found myself taking the stairs in the city building tonight :) Over a year ago I struggled just to get to the building!!! Life is precious and I now have hope of living a much longer one :)))) I am at 6mg now and dropping to 3 as soon as Five Pawns ships out their new 3mg product next month :))) Then….on to 0!!!!

    • Jo E

      I see your point of view but how can something so bad be improving my health and the health of many I know ? My chest x rays are now clear, no more coughing, no more shortness of breath, no more asthma attacks…For me that speaks for it’s self. As for the nicotine….well at least it’s not caffeine which alone raises heart rate and blood pressure. I won’t even mention the sugar that’s put in todays products and we wonder why the kids are climbing the walls…..But then we medicate them and take our sleeping pill “Ambien” and hopefully don’t get up, drive to Tunica to gamble and kill someone. Or maybe we will just consume alcohol to forget about it all and relax us…..The world is full of addictions…..I picked my poison at 12 years old….What I would give to have those years back and vaped instead….

  • Jo E

    thank you for posting this link I also have many more FDA and Government links that give a fair reviews of ecigs.

  • Jo E

    No minors…I agree. Although I still don’t understand why you can go to war at 18 but can’t buy certain items. As for this bs about the flavors drawing kids…..Seriously that is pathetic so slap another energy drink and box of cereal thats pure sugar in their mouth and say no they have no ill will for our kids. Maybe again we should just ban everything…..personal responsibility for raising children and comman sense have left the planet….Kids are going to try things, just ran up on a truck full of kids yesterday smoking…..didn’t notice any fruit flavor in those….BUT, I did catch a drift of Bahama Momma from the alcoholic cooler they were drinking….

    • L.M.

      Jo E, you are just making too much sense! :)

      I’ve been asking the war question for 40 years and nobody yet has given me a viable answer.

  • Jo E

    health, legislation, politics, studies, vaping

    EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

    April 3, 2014 matt black

    In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

    First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

    I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Catchy title. I was intrigued.

    This quote caught my eye:

    Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

    In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

    Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

    Continued…

    Method and Rates of Application

    ….

    Air Sanitizer

    Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10′x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

    A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

    General Toxicity Observations

    Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

    Carcinogenicity Classification

    A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

    Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

    2. FQPA Safety Factor

    The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

    In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

    The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

    An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

    I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

    • Jo E

      link is being held by spam filter on DJ site

    • TWBDB

      Jo E – – We cannot base aerosol safety standards on past mistakes. My main concern about e-cigarette vapor exhaled in an enclosed space is actually the content of the active ingredient, nicotine. This substance is highly toxic, highly addictive on its own. Of course, the concentration of nicotine in the vapor is within accepted safety standards or it wouldn’t be approved for use in the first place. But there is a reason this is called a drug.

      In public enclosed places, there are children who should not be subjected to any drug without parental consent. I would submit a lot of parents don’t even realize or bother to check on substances potentially harmful to their own children, so someone has to take the upper ground.

      • Jo E

        I hope people keep in mind that no onslaught of 50 vapors will be in any establishment at any given time. As I stated, I agree with the toxicity of nicotine so what about us whom are vaping 0 nicotine? That’s the goal for many, it’s not so much the drug you speak of but the inhale/exhale, hand hold habits of past smokers. I am curious to know the chemicals that are put into that food we consume via, hormones, drug test in beef, pork and other meats and vegetables such as Monsanto based products. What about the AC systems and duct work, filters, chemicals used just to cool air for us? The parking lots full of emissions, factory’s in the area and their use of pesticides and chemicals….We can debate this all day long…BUT my main point is……it should be up to Business Owners to decide if they remain vape friendly or not. They are well capable of doing their own homework on the facts. Why must we give away more rights on the basis of lack of 100 % test results and facts just because personal agendas and greed?

      • ppc

        Except even with many vapers in the same enclosed area, the exposure will not approach what one actual vaper is exposed to, which is proven to have almost no health risk.

  • Jo E

    re e-cigarettes harmful to users? An unresolved question. It’s harder still to judge the danger to bystanders. How many different substances do e-smokers exhale — and what are they? A new study brings light to the shadows.

    Electronic cigarettes are experiencing somewhat of a boom at the moment. An estimated two million people in Germany have already turned to the vapor cigarette, which many view as a healthy alternative to conventional smoking. However, a number of voices, primarily from the political sphere, are warning of possible health risks, claiming that the long-term consequences cannot yet be foreseen. Studies to date have come to mixed conclusions. There is a general lack of substantiated facts, fuelling an ongoing battle between supporters and opponents. By carrying out a new, independent study, researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Wood Research WKI in Braunschweig hope to introduce a degree of objectivity into this emotional topic of debate. The scientists’ goal was to find out whether e-cigarettes pollute the surrounding air, thus affecting bystanders of an e-cigarette user.

    An e-cigarette consists of a battery, an atomizer, a heating coil and a reservoir for the liquids used for producing vapor. These liquids are heated up in the atomizer and vaporized at between 65 and 120 degrees Celsius. The user activates the mechanism either by pressing a button or by suction, depending on the design. Liquids come with or without nicotine, and also contain aromas and flavors like amaretto, almond, vanilla or apple. Propylene glycol is the most usual solvent; it produces the atomized mist that resembles smoke when exhaling. In contrast to conventional cigarettes, which constantly emit smoke as the tobacco burns, the electronic equivalent only releases volatile substances when it is turned on. But that is not the only difference between the two stimulants, as the WKI researchers observed. “In the e-cigarette, vaporized substances create an aerosol of ultrafine particles which become even finer when inhaled into the lungs. These tiny nanodroplets disperse over time. In contrast, the combustion process discharges solid particles that can remain in the surrounding air for a considerable time,” says Dr. Tobias Schripp, scientist at Fraunhofer WKI and co-author of the study.

    No formaldehyde emissions detected

    The Fraunhofer experts conducted a series of test chamber measurements to analyze emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ultrafine particles and formaldehyde, with particular emphasis on the quantity, concentration and distribution of particles. Tests were conducted using volunteers in an 8-cubic-meter test chamber, where conventional cigarettes were compared with e-cigarettes containing a variety of liquids. To ascertain how the distribution of particles develops over a number of minutes, and the amount of propylene glycol released in the longer term, the vapor was in addition pumped directly into a 10-liter glass chamber. This test was performed on different types of e-cigarette, all containing the same liquid. “In general, the emissions of VOCs and ultrafine particles when smoking an e-cigarette were lower than the equivalent emissions from a standard cigarette,” says Schripp. Furthermore, the researcher and his team were not able to detect any formaldehyde emissions from the e-cigarette. Conventional cigarettes, on the other hand, exceeded the guideline value of 0.1 ppm (parts per million) for indoor air quality under the given test conditions.

    Vaporized propylene glycol was released into the air from both electronic and tobacco cigarettes, as it is also often used as an additive in tobacco. Pulmonologists fear that this solubilizing agent can irritate the airways when inhaled in large quantities. “While it is true that the electronic cigarette contributes less to indoor air pollution than tobacco cigarettes, it is not entirely emission-free. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that bystanders are exposed to the released vapor and thus ‘passive vaping’ is possible,” says Schripp, summing up the results of his measurements. He also criticizes the product labeling strategy, which in many cases provides inexact or inadequate information on the liquids used. As a result, e-smokers often have no reliable way of knowing what potentially harmful substances they are inhaling and exhaling.

    The scientists’ aim in carrying out this study is to provide measurement data suitable for use as the basis for future investigations. “However, the study does not claim to provide any kind of toxicological assessment,” stresses Schripp. A summary of the results was published in the Indoor Air journal. The researchers intend to present the study on December 6, 2012 at the 10th German Conference for Tobacco Control.

    Story Source:

    The above story is based on materials provided by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

    • Jo E

      link is being held by spam filter

  • VocalCoach

    I would be interested to know if Hookahs are banned for sale or use in Tupelo. If so, the e-cig debate should be void. E-cigs are essentially a miniature hookah.

    • ppc

      Except without the dangerous parts, the tobacco substrate that can occasionally burn and the burning coals that produce CO and hydrocarbon.