Alameda CA about to bring smoking & vaping bans to a new level
- Thread starter Tom09
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
3 e-cigarette supporters spoke, including my friend Andrew, who is a non-smoker and non-vaper who has seen several friends (including me) quit with electronic cigarettes.
Because 30 people showed up to speak (including 6 high schoolers that were brought in), they cut the speaking down to 2 minutes. Geoff from Tasty Vapor did an excellent job.
The city attorney (I believe) was completely uninformed, and admitted she'd only just heard about it today. Her presentation did not even mention e-cigarettes, and she had to be questioned about it to discuss it. She said that e-cigarettes are included because the FDA intends to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, and that the model ordinances from ALA, AHA, CFTFK, etc. all recommend including e-cigarettes in smoking bans.
Councilwoman Beverly Johnson spoke out strongly against e-cigarettes being included, and they plan to revisit this issue (and others, like patios at bars and enlarging the ban to condos) after the second reading.
Because 30 people showed up to speak (including 6 high schoolers that were brought in), they cut the speaking down to 2 minutes. Geoff from Tasty Vapor did an excellent job.
The city attorney (I believe) was completely uninformed, and admitted she'd only just heard about it today. Her presentation did not even mention e-cigarettes, and she had to be questioned about it to discuss it. She said that e-cigarettes are included because the FDA intends to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, and that the model ordinances from ALA, AHA, CFTFK, etc. all recommend including e-cigarettes in smoking bans.
Councilwoman Beverly Johnson spoke out strongly against e-cigarettes being included, and they plan to revisit this issue (and others, like patios at bars and enlarging the ban to condos) after the second reading.
City Attorney: We're going to take out e-cigarettes.
This is more like they're tabling the issue to another date. They're still likely going to have a meeting where e-cigarettes will be discussed. The city attorney will be receiving plentiful amounts of information about e-cigarettes.
This is just a first reading, and like in Boise, they could be re-added at any time. So we have to stay vigilant.
This is more like they're tabling the issue to another date. They're still likely going to have a meeting where e-cigarettes will be discussed. The city attorney will be receiving plentiful amounts of information about e-cigarettes.
This is just a first reading, and like in Boise, they could be re-added at any time. So we have to stay vigilant.
"She said that e-cigarettes are included because the FDA intends to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, and that the model ordinances from ALA, AHA, CFTFK, etc. all recommend including e-cigarettes in smoking bans."
The truth be told, this is the key statement you don't get from many of these local municipalities on why E Cigs pop up. They want to protect their money train and know that if smoking goes away, the train gets derailed. They lost the fight on the national scene and know that it's harder for us to stop the little leaks in the dam.
The truth be told, this is the key statement you don't get from many of these local municipalities on why E Cigs pop up. They want to protect their money train and know that if smoking goes away, the train gets derailed. They lost the fight on the national scene and know that it's harder for us to stop the little leaks in the dam.
Was it Beverly Johnson that was opposed, I thought she was the one who asked for more information.
Anyhow my correspondence with both Beverly Johnson (thinking she was open), and Donna Mooney (attorney).
(Sorry I'm too lazy to put the hyperlinks in).
-----
Dear Beverly Johnson,
I believe it was you who suggested holding off on regulating e-cigarettes indoors pending further information. Organizations like American Lung Association and Tobacco Free Kids are opposed to them because they feel they counter their efforts to denormalize smoking. They're entitled to their opinion, but it clearly crosses the line between air quality and modeling behavior. The FDA in fact lost their court case seeking to ban the import of e-cigarettes, as seen here, or here for Judge Leon's full ruling.
E-cigarettes are nothing more than a portable Glade-Plugin, except they use pharmaceutical or food grade materials, typically as follows
~70% propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin
~14% Food Grade Flavoring (typically Lorann Oils)
~14% water
~2% nicotine
Glade plug-ins are known to be more toxic as their base uses iso-paraffin compounds with a HMIS health rating of 2. They also operate 24/7 at 72watt/hrs. E-cigarettes typically operate at 4watts typically well under 3.7watt hrs, and because of the PG and VG, have a HMIS health rating of 1. One serving of Egg Plant (100g) contains more nicotine (0.01 mg) than bystander could be exposed to if they were to lock lips with an e-cig user for an hour and inhale directly from their lungs.
The FDA in 2009 issued a very scary press release, but look to the actual FDA sponsored lab study here. Out of 18 samples, they claimed to find one with LESS THAN 1% diethylene glycol (Smoking Everywhere 555). This was NOT detected in the vapor, and was consistent with FDA limits on food grade PG. Even at 1% of 1ml, a large e-cigarette cartridge, this is 1/10th what is found in aspirin, 1/40th what is found in real cigarettes. In 5 samples, the they detected trace levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) in the liquid, not the vapor. "...myosmine 69 ppb; β-nicotyrine 170 ppb present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification... Presence of tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative at 60 deg C." Worst case, the liquid has the same impurities levels as the nicotine patch or inhaler. In use, not detected.
To be valid science, it has to be observable, testable, and repeatable. Exponent, Inc filed a report (Exp Report) stating the FDA failed to provide evidence E-cigarettes are more dangerous than NRPs, and verified they are safer than real ones. They also pointed out that the use of the Nicotrol® inhaler as a control was absent in many tests. Alliance Technologies (report #1, report #2) didn't find DEG, nor TSNAs. The Ruyan sponsored study by Dr. Laugesen of HealthNZ was similar, acrolein and acetaldehyde detected below 300 parts per billion, "well below the minimum risk levels accepted by the US Public Health Service and OSHA". After testing in 30 labs it was determined "unlikely to emit cigarette toxicants in their mist." The FDA has lost their sample of SE 555, so their DEG claim was never verified by any independent lab, but if their claim is valid,
With respect to your fellow counsel member, the role e-cigarettes play in cessation is not anecdotal. It's an observed fact. There are at least 17 peer reviewed scientific studies backing up their relative safety, and their role in cigarette cessation. Dr. Polosa (BMC Public Health) most recently finished his study seeing if smokers NOT INTERESTED IN QUITTING would reduce their cigarette intake. He found 22.5% cigarette cessation instead by week 24. Dr. Michael Siegel (Boston University of Health) published his study in Dec 2010 citing smoking cessation rates of 31% at week 24, twice as effective as the patch and gum at 12% and 18%. Those who didn't enjoy total cessation enjoyed reduced cigarette consumption. Polls are less conservative than these studies, but the point is made.
It should be noted that the FDA has opted to fund studies of low nicotine cigarettes (22nd Century - Spectrum) over e-cigarettes. See the New York Times for details on this cigarette cessation device. If someone cites e-cigarettes being problematic in enforcement, imagine a flaming cessation device over the recreational version.
Objective reality and science backs supports e-cigarettes role in reducing the harm to the user by well over 99%. Solution that contain nicotine will always have some risk to the user, as stated by Dr. Neal L Benowitz, FDA's leading expert on tobacco products. Even when delivered in smokeless tobacco, no evidence nicotine causes or promotes cancer, slight risk of stroke but nothing compared to cigarettes, and adverse affects on reproduction. Non-nicotine solutions would be lower risk than being in a room with a fog machine.
I personally made the switch Feb 2011, literally 1 pack/day for about 30 years to 1 pack in a month. Wasn't easy, but easier than the patch and gum at the same time with Zyban. In 7 months I've downgraded my nicotine intake.
I admire your desire to learn more before making a ruling, and hopefully you can see why e-cigarettes should not be included in indoor smoking bans. We ban smoking because it's recreational pollution with a measurable affect on air quality. Same would hold true for burning wood, tolerated for it's utility, but it's use is restricted. Smoking bans should be about air quality only, it's not the government's role to regulate behavior. The absence of smoke makes it clear that use of these devices is not smoking. If there was an objective health risk to bystanders, it would be in another class. But all objective evidence indicates the the risk is less than a Glade-Plugin, or burning paraffin candle. The risk of indoor bans and classing vaping as smoking puts former smokers using these devices at risk of relapse, and exposure to second hand smoke.
We can't ban cigarettes, but we can do everything in our power to make the industry less viable. If e-cigarettes posed any risk as a bridge product to cigarettes, you'd expect cigarette sales to be up over the past 5 years. They are down industry wide by 6.4% just in the last quarter of 2010. No evidence to support e-cigarettes as a bridge product, no evidence to support their role in increasing cigarette use, no evidence of any objective health impact to bystanders. No reason what so ever to include them in an indoor smoking ban, and every reason to just not include them. They are used by smokers to abandon cigarettes.
Thank you for your time, do have an inspirational day...
The meeting in .mp3
MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
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.
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.
Reported by Thad Marney on Facebook this afternoon:
Great job, guys!
(For those who use Facebook, don't forget to join the "We Are CASAA" Facebook group: Welcome to Facebook)
Great job, guys!
(For those who use Facebook, don't forget to join the "We Are CASAA" Facebook group: Welcome to Facebook)
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*
So we need to stay on top of this and make sure that e-cigarettes remain excluded from the smoking ban. *sigh*
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!
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked