Alameda CA about to bring smoking & vaping bans to a new level

[JustJulie]

Reported by Thad Marney on Facebook this afternoon:

Dear Mr. Marney,
The City Council deleted the prohibition of electronic cigarettes from
the ordinance last night. The second reading will be on November 15,
2011. Your e-mail will be included in the record. Thank you for
sharing your viewpoint with the Council.
Sincerely,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk

Great job, guys!

(For those who use Facebook, don't forget to join the "We Are CASAA" Facebook group: Welcome to Facebook)

[sanjosse]

!!!!!!!!!!!winning!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JustJulie]

Well, as excited as I am, I know we can't rest on our laurels . . . we thought we had Boise nailed down with a specific exemption for e-cigarettes in the smoking ban, and then--with no notice--the exemption was quietly removed.

So we need to stay on top of this and make sure that e-cigarettes remain excluded from the smoking ban. *sigh*

[rothenbj]

I received this note yesterday:
Your e-mail was provided to the Council and made part of the record. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
Sincerely,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk

Their CS is great. Let's hope their reasoning levels are as well.

Ditto here. It was nice to hear back that they received it, that was a first for me, months before any of my representatives in congress.

Hey, it looks like we did some good!

[Vocalek]

What we need is an eager-beaver lawyer anxious to make a name for him/herself to bring a class action suit against a government body that makes former smokers go into the smoking zone to use their smoke-free product. All we need is one win, and the rest of the country will have to fall in line. There is just something so wrong about that!

Just had another thought. Why not sue organizations that have money? The best you can get from a government is an injunction to stop them doing something. You can't sue for damages. And in all fairness, the lawmakers have been misled.

All this ..... is coming down on us thanks to organizations like Americans for Nonsmokers Rights that has sent out model legislation telling governments include e-cigs in their smoking bans. And shills and lobbists for the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Cancer Action Network, and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids turn up to testify in favor of these bans. These organizatons have buckets of money. As far as I am concerned, they are endangering the health of former smokers. And they are endangering the health of the smokers who might be convinced to switch to less hazardous alternatives if these "charities" were not pushing for laws that discourage switching.

All these organzations know the truth, because many of us have written to tell them the truth. They refuse to listen. Perhaps if we hit them where it hurts--in the wallets--they will listen up.

[MattZuke]

Just had another thought. Why not sue organizations that have money?

Because we don't have anyone as full of awesome like Gene Sweeney, or whoever AHLA's attorney was who discovered an old law that gave them free ad time after tobacco television commercials.

You can't sue for damages

Can't you? With all the information the CDC puts out, estimating over 45 dead bodies an hour from smoking, evidence in the form of clinical trials, the FDA's own report, you tell me a case can't be built on this presumption?

You could be right, the ALA NY FB representative said "we don't know what's in them", and ignorance seems to be a great excuse contrary to the popular meme to the contrary. But we have that one nice lady in Florida who ditched her $80 investment based on her doctor's say so. We have the Mayor of Alameda stating clearly the ALA is writing the legislation.

But damages? Anyone who doesn't quit smoking who otherwise would have considered e-cigarettes, with a 20%+ cessation rate.

[MattZuke]

Just to be clear, I believe these groups are stepping outside their realm as 501(c)3 organizations by writing model legislation that is geared toward modeling behavior, rather than addressing an objective health risk. And you don't need a fancy lawyer to get them investigated, you just need enough complaints to the IRS.

[rothenbj]

What we really need is a good, young smokeless tobacco lawyer that wants to make a name for herself/himself and collect some coin at the same time. It's an interesting thought and would bring this whole issue in front of the cameras.

How about a class action suit by the widows/widowers of their husbands or wives that considered E Cigs, but backed away because of statements from these ?non-profit? "health" associations and the banning efforts that discouraged trying other alternatives. How many people have contacted these organizations when they heard about PVs and decided not to try them on the advice they received? We certainly know what they were told since numerous PV users did just that over the last several years.

[DC2]

My wife passed the bar about 10 years ago, but never did become a lawyer.

Anyway, she says you have to show damages to be able to sue.
She also said that you have to prove that they knew they were providing false information.

I think it would be very unlikely that such a case would succeed, but it has enough merit to try perhaps.
At the very least it would shine one heck of a spotlight on our cause.

[kristin]

My wife passed the bar about 10 years ago, but never did become a lawyer.

Anyway, she says you have to show damages to be able to sue.
She also said that you have to prove that they knew they were providing false information.

I think it would be very unlikely that such a case would succeed, but it has enough merit to try perhaps.
At the very least it would shine one heck of a spotlight on our cause.

How about people who have smoking-related diseases or families of deceased smokers, instead of suing the tobacco companies because they smoked, sue the ANTZ groups for lying about smokeless alternatives, which caused them to KEEP smoking instead of switching to a less harmful alternative? We can pretty much show THEY have been lying - or at least have been deliberately deceiving about smokeless not being safer.