Letters, Phone Calls & Emails NEEDED for NJ

**Bigbuyer** · 12-09-2009, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by kristin

He doesn't seem to be listed and his website has a contact form and no listed email address, but I did find this one by google:

senator@lautenberg.senate.gov

Hopefully, it works.

I'll send one to him, as well!

Senator Lautenberg is a US Senator to Congress and has no vote or influence on the NJ State Legislature as far as I know.

**Tristar4** · 12-09-2009, 04:53 AM

Just finished emailing. Plan to make some phone calls tomorrow as well.

**ski** · 12-09-2009, 04:56 AM

Thanks Kristin, I just used the form to send Lautenberg a copy of my email.

**kristin** · 12-09-2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Bigbuyer

I have used the list to write all the Senators.
I quoted Kristin's letter saying I agree completely with it.

Just please when I sent it, spell check found a bunch of misspellings. I hope you ran it too before sending.

I hope this bill does not pass!

I just edited my original post with the spell-checked copy. Most of it was in the quotes, so I did not change those, but I did have two of my own misspellings. I wrote it in notepad and forgot to spellcheck. Oops.

**kristin** · 12-09-2009, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Bigbuyer

Senator Lautenberg is a US Senator to Congress and has no vote or influence on the NJ State Legislature as far as I know.

Oh well, he got my letter anyhow!

**Bigbuyer** · 12-09-2009, 05:15 AM

Kristin no problem. As long as they get some sort of response from the public it is better than not.

I already received some of the bounce back confirmations from the Senators.

**kristin** · 12-09-2009, 05:53 AM

Yeah, I've received a few auto-responses, too. Hopefully, a real person will read them!!

**youtubecommercial** · 12-09-2009, 06:15 AM

E-mailed them all ... Used Kristin's letter but shortened it a little and put Proposed Bill in the subject line:

Dear Senator,
It has been brought to my attention that there is currently a proposed bill in which the definition of smoking is to include "electronic cigarettes." While I agree completely that electronic cigarettes should not be sold to minors, considering electronic cigarettes to be the same as smoking tobacco would place more people in harm's way than not.

The proposed bill states:

"Electronic smoking devices have not been approved as to safety and efficacy by the federal Food and Drug Administration, and their use may pose a health risk to persons exposed to their smoke or vapor because of a known irritant contained therein and other substances that may, upon evaluation by that agency, be identified as potentially toxic to those inhaling the smoke or vapor;"

I believe the authors of this bill have completely misinterpreted the FDA report. In truth, the FDA has done no research nor released any statements on the possible effect of EXHALED vapor, because they only did limited tests on the unvaporized liquid. In fact, the tests they did revealed that electronic cigarette liquid contained a minuscule fraction of the ingredients found in tobacco cigarettes, showing that they do not pose the same risk as tobacco!

There is no tar, carbon monoxide nor most of the other toxins that are created by the burning of tobacco, because there is no burning in electronic cigarettes. This is the very reason that, in spite of the FDA "warning," tens of thousands of electronic cigarette users (and more every day) consider the devices to be a life saver and have used them to escape the dangers of cigarette smoke. In fact, there have been NO reports of any illness or deaths associated with electronic cigarettes in the 5 years they have been available and the majority of electronic cigarette users report improved health and breathing.

Please consider your vote on this bill very carefully. If you vote yes, you "may" be protecting some people from "possible" danger, but you will DEFINITELY be putting thousands of electronic cigarette users right back into the KNOWN danger of tobacco smoke.

Sincerely,