ShareThis Page

Can Allegheny County enact its vaping ban?

Theresa Clift
| Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017, 6:48 p.m.
Jason Lee, 32, manager of Vape Inn On Liberty, vapes inside his shop in Bloomfield, Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2017.
Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review
Jason Lee, 32, manager of Vape Inn On Liberty, vapes inside his shop in Bloomfield, Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2017.

The Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association is questioning whether Allegheny County has the legal authority to institute a proposed vaping ban that's been in the works since May.

A Jan. 12 letter to Allegheny County Council members from the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the association points to the preemption clause in the state's Clean Indoor Air Act.

Section 11 of the act, titled “Preemption of local ordinances,” reads: “This act shall supersede any ordinance, resolution or regulation adopted by a political subdivision concerning smoking in a public place. No political subdivision shall have the authority to adopt or enforce any ordinance, regulation or resolution which is in conflict with this act.”

Michael Parker, solicitor for the Allegheny County Health Department, said the department's legal analysis determined vaping products are not covered by the Clean Indoor Air Act or its preemption clause.

“The Clean Indoor Air Act only regulates ‘lighted smoking devices' and does not include any language on e-cigarettes or vaping,” Parker wrote in an email to the Tribune-Review. “A recent Clean Indoor amendment (HB 682) proposed by the legislature included e-cigarettes and vaping but was not passed. This acknowledged that e-cigarettes and vaping were not covered by the act.”

The proposal would prohibit vaping and e-cigarettes everywhere cigarette smoking is not permitted such as indoor workplaces, schools, restaurants, health care-related properties, theaters, sports facilities and transit stations.

During Tuesday's council meeting, Councilman James Ellenbogen, D-Banksville, urged the county to seek a legal opinion before proceeding.

“For us to spend months and months on this to find out it's not legal, I think, is a complete waste of time,” Ellenbogen said. “I think (the legality) is the most important issue at this point.”

Councilman Sam DeMarco, R-North Fayette, said he shares Ellenbogen's concerns about the legality but wants to schedule the public hearing and then revisit the legality issue if it comes up for a council vote. The council then voted unanimously to schedule the public hearing for Feb. 6.

The Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association's local chapter, which has about 600 members, supports a vaping ban but thinks it needs to be enacted at the state level, said Tim Zugger, chapter president and general manager of DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites in Downtown.

“We feel these types of items should always be addressed on the state level, not piecemeal with different municipalities,” Zugger said.

Melissa Bova, vice president of government affairs for the association, said the vaping ban could result in the same outcome as the county's ban on cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants in 2007. Commonwealth Court halted that ordinance with an injunction hours after it took effect and later that year issued a final ruling striking down the county ban. The General Assembly passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, which bans smoking in public places, in 2008.

After the Feb. 6 public hearing, the legislation is set to be considered by the council's Health & Human Services Committee, which could send it to the full council for a vote.

Theresa Clift is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-380-5669 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.