Evanston’s City Council this week gave final approval to an ordinance restricting the use and sale of electronic cigarettes.

The ordinance amends the city’s clean air act to prohibit use of e-cigarettes where use of other smoking materials is prohibited and restricts their sale in the same way sales of conventional cigarettes are restricted.

E-cigarettes, which provide a dose of the primary addictive substance in cigarettes — nicotene — but typically eliminate all or most of the cancer-causing substances — are frequently used by smokers trying to break the habit.

The devices are relatively new, and few studies have been done of the health consequences of their use.

But supporters of the ordinance said allowing people to use e-cigarettes in public places where smoking regular cigarettes is banned would create confusion about where smoking is allowed.

They also said bans on the sale of tobacco to minors should also be extended to the e-cigarettes.

Top: An image from the website of blu eCigs, a product of Lorillard Technologies.

Related stories

E-cigarette users turn out to oppose ban

Aldermen asked to restrict electronic cigarettes

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation


  1. Use of e-cigarettes

    I suppose that inhalers will be next on the list for city council.  Credibility just went down one more notch.

  2. More frivolous legislation. What fun.

    Wow, more useless legislation that serves literally no purpose! It was my understanding that the smoking ban was passed largely because of the dangers of second hand smoke. While I question the actual dangers somewhat, I am not entirely opposed to the smoking ban. E-cigarettes emit water vapour. Will the city also be passing a ban on tea-making? Perhaps it should be illegal to use a humidifier. What, exactly, does this ban do? Does this protect the rights of anyone? It seems that this law is enacted, like so many others, to generate revenue for the city. Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time with frivolous legislation, the city could work on being more efficient with their budget. Just my two cents.

  3. Bad Choice

    The city council just ignored all of the available evidence. Since city hall is not staffed by dumb people, I must assume that they were too lazy to do their research or they have their own secret motives.

  4. One cheer, one BIG boo

    Restrict nicotine cartridges to minors? Of course.

    Prevent e-cig users from using in public? Why-EVER would you DO that?? "would create confusion"? Don't you think smokers KNOW they can't smoke indoors, around public entrances, etc. by now?

    This is the WORST sort of nanny-state legislation. You wonder why conservatives think "Government: BAD"? It's legislation like this.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *