Have a question about county's authority to designate a building as non-smoking. County jail is run by elected county sheriff who allows smoking in the building. Any reason why he couldn't allow smoking? Any problem with employee complaints about second-hand smoke? There is no city involved and no county ordinance (that I know of). Thoughts?

We have a similar situation. Smokers (I think we have only one) go outside. The commissioners court would be the one to make policy for the county buildings. Our Sheriff's office is across the street from the Court House, and there is apparently no restrictions in the SO for smoking.

For what it's worth to you, the Attorney General has opined that the commissioners court has authority to ban smoking in all county buildings. See Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. DM-183 (1992), at 2-3. This flows from the fact that the commissioners court is the body with general control over all county facilities. While the sheriff has operational control over the jail, if the commissioners court bans smoking, I think that ban sticks. So, in the end, it would appear this is a question to be resolved by discussion between your sheriff and your commissioners court. If the court sees fit to permit smoking in the sheriff's building, so be it. If not, then I suppose the front of the building will be a popular place.

Thanks for your comments on this topic - they are very helpful.

What about e-cigarettes? I know the jury is still out on whether there are any harmful effects of the second-hand smoke (or vapor). I've noticed that many who use the devices are of the mindset that they are harmless and therefore can use them wherever they want.

Not exactly what Brownsville Station (or Motley Crue) had in mind when they sang "Smokin' in the Boys Room," is it?

Your question is an interesting one. I would think the challenge to a ban would take the form of a claim that, because e-cigarettes emit only vapor (and I don't know if it smells or not--that would seem pretty relevant to the issue), no one is being harmed or reasonably offended. Ergo, the argument might go, the ban is arbitrary; hence, an abuse of discretion. I'm not sure I buy that argument, but I can sure imagine it being raised.

You should also look closely at the language that prohibits "smoking" - if the language prohibits the use of tobacco products generally, then it likely does not apply to e-cigarettes at all. As far as the "vapor" goes, boiling water (maybe even hot coffee) could produce a similar vapor, so I'd be careful in regulating (or attempting to regulate) that activity.

My limited understanding of e-cigs is that they are still nicotine delivery devices. The vapor comes from a tobacco extract, the flavor of which can be enhanced and modified. So that vapor, while it may be odorless, or have a great, fruity smell, still contains nicotine. If I'm correct then they probably could be covered by tobacco bans. Opponents of e-cigs claim that the devices still put nicotine into the air, which non-smokers have a right to not inhale. It's probably a matter of time before they come under the scrutiny of the FDA.