Beverly Hills Council to consider two ordinances banning e-cigs tonight - Tuesday November 5th

[pamdis]

I live in Illinois, but I stayed up late last night watching this meeting live. Kudos to everyone who testified. Great job!

My thoughts on what I heard -

Positive studies do need to be sent to the health commission

The staff study has links at the end of where they got their research - maybe someone could look at that and rebut/refute the actual studies they are using (i.e. show what was left out or misconstrued in the summaries which is probably the only part they are reading)

One council member seemed overly concerned about who was paying for the positive studies that were referred to in testimony. If she is concerned, then maybe she should be informed on who is funding each of the studies that the staff is relying on in their report. (Heck, even the FDA study was done to prove their point in a lawsuit against them, hardly unbiased there)

 

[lindsayfox]

Am I correct to presume that Beverly Hills Councilman Dr. Gold (who is clearly an e-cig prohibitionist who isn't interested in evidence) sponsor these emergency ordinances?

Yes, Dr. Gold proposed the emergency ordinance.

 

[ImThatGuy]

"I can't see banning e-cigarettes and not cigarettes," said Mayor John A. Mirisch.

 

[pamdis]

"I can't see banning e-cigarettes and not cigarettes," said Mayor John A. Mirisch.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they mentioned they are already investigating whether it would be legal for them to ban the sale of cigarettes.

 

[ITPython]

I choose to spend my dining out budget at vape-friendly establishments. Is that a boycott? Or is it just doing business with those who don't tolerate intolerance?

See that is perfectly fine, but actively trying to soil the reputation of a establishment simply because they would not allow you to blow clouds of vapor in their restaurant is another thing entirely.

And you believe that people who don't want clouds of fragrant vapor blown on/near them while they eat (and spend their dining-out funds), are intolerant? There is an alarming number of ecig users that are incredibly self-absorbed, and believe that just because they think vaping is relatively harmless that everybody should just accept it and deal with it, no matter what situation. This is a dangerous mentality.

What about the kids in the restaurant seeing you blow clouds of vapor? They don't know any better and will believe you are smoking, probably think you are cool, and want to try it themselves someday. Or perhaps they smell the sweet candy-like fragrance and it peaks their curiosity. You have no idea how it is affecting others, and have no right to force it on them.

Even I, as an aware ecig user, wouldn't want somebody vaping near me in a restaurant that I am spending my money on, blowing huge clouds that may waft towards my table while I eat. Who knows what flavor they may be vaping, could be pleasant, or it could be extremely offensive. And unless that restaurant makes it clear that vaping is allowed, and by going there I agree to that, then IMO vapers should not be inconsiderately blowing clouds around others who may or may not like it. And they shouldn't take offense when told to stop.

 

[ITPython]

Yes, I would. It might seem like snobbery but if analog smokers see us vapors enjoying our ecigs in public places it might persuade them to look into making the switch themselves. While some are pressing to hide their vaping habit from the public eye I say exposure is important. We shouldn't have to hide in our homes and vape for fear of the ignorant mass majority being scared of second-hand scented water vapor.

I'm more than happy to inform any curious bystanders about my device and its benefits even if I'm sitting down in a public restaurant to eat. Last year I watched as my grandmother faded and passed away as she was being eaten alive by her cancer and if my "entitlement attitude" can spare just one other person from watching someone they love die a painful and slow death to cancer like she did then I'll gladly be an elitist snob.

I shouldn't have to feel guilty like I already do when vaping in public for doing something that's not illegal or harmful to anyone. I'm tired of ignorant squeaky wheels getting grease because they're too damn lazy to do 10 minutes of research on the Internet to prove to themselves that ecig vapor does not pose a health risk. There is no "second hand smoke" when it comes to vapor but they act like frightened animals when they see a thick cloud of water mist because it -looks- like smoke.

Just because you chose to smoke and got addicted to cigarettes, and now use ecigs, doesn't give you the right to expose others to your clouds of vapor when and how you want. And that doesn't mean people should be forced to do research on something just because you say so. This kind of selfish flamboyant attitude only serves to hurt ecig users, not help.

Also FYI, what you are blowing out isn't just water vapor. And we actually don't know whether or not ecig vapor is harmful or harmless in the long run. Heck, for all we know, inhaling artificial flavors, rather than digesting them through our stomachs, can cause cancer 200x's faster than cigarettes. It's already bad enough eating artificial flavors, and who knows how bad it is inhaling them for years.

If you want to educate smokers, than that is fine, but force exposing non-smokers to your vapor "just because I think it is safe and they should go and do some research because they are ignorant fools" is not a good way to go about it. And this kind of attitude likely scares off more cig smokers than it does bring in. You would be better off going into the smoking areas, with actual smokers, and vaping and educating them there. Rather than forcing everybody, not just the smokers, to endure your vapor.

 

[Shopan]

"What about the kids in the restaurant seeing you blow clouds of vapor? They don't know any better and will believe you are smoking, probably think you are cool, and want to try it themselves someday. Or perhaps they smell the sweet candy-like fragrance and it peaks their curiosity. You have no idea how it is affecting others, and have no right to force it on them."

So you are Making The "Save The Children" argument too. How Wreching!! The fact that they have Pushed Smokers outside was a Good thing For Everyone as we know that it is Bad, But Splitting hairs as to How any behavior affects anyone is laughable...I say what are parents For!
As To the Original point of Not patronizing places that discourage Vaping...I would post a comment on all available forums to make sure my Fellow Vapors avoid the place and Comment on how I was dealt with...This is the Digital age and anything can affect business.
While I am not advocating Chasing Clouds in Public I do not and will not be treated as a Smoker. i.e Sitting in a smoking section(second hand Smoke is bad dontcha know) and I will Vape before during and after any activity and not act any different than I do sitting and posting this...I see your point about watching How the Rest of the World views all of Us but I will not let them Put me in that Smokers Box. If we accept that then we are worse off for it...

 

[Uma]

Wow wow wow, I am so impressed with the turnout of speakers. You all did a fantastic job, & somehow the info shared came from various needed angles. That was divine intervention, the angels who had died from smoking gave eac & every speaker a nudge of what to cover.
(I don't mean religion, I mean spiritual guidance).
WTG everyone!

I love at the end how the Mayor mentioned that the way science flips & flops, cigs will probably be safe in the next study. Methinks somebody's been researching a little more than he wants to let on, & was hoping to ban the smoke tax competitor more than the vapor.


Why can't the restaurant owners make their own rules in their own restaurants?

 

[trying]

I believe that the way the proposed Beverly Hills ordinance was written it would not hold up to a legal challenge.
The wording would represent that if a person were to fill something that even looked like an E-cigarette
only with water and inhaled the water vapor that would still be illegal.
To me that is much to broad to be enforceable.

 

[stevegmu]

I believe that the way the proposed Beverly Hills ordinance was written it would not hold up to a legal challenge.
The wording would represent that if a person were to fill something that even looked like an E-cigarette
only with water and inhaled the water vapor that would still be illegal.
To me that is much to broad to be enforceable.

They would just classify pvs as dual use paraphernalia. Wouldn't matter what is in it, possessing the paraphernalia would be illegal.

 

[Toots Aplenty]

If you want to educate smokers, than that is fine, but force exposing non-smokers to your vapor "just because I think it is safe and they should go and do some research because they are ignorant fools" is not a good way to go about it. And this kind of attitude likely scares off more cig smokers than it does bring in. You would be better off going into the smoking areas, with actual smokers, and vaping and educating them there. Rather than forcing everybody, not just the smokers, to endure your vapor.

Let's be honest in saying that half the population is generally stupid, and half of that half is even worse. A can of soda, especially with artificial sweetener, is a lot worse for you (possibly even carcinogenic) and caffeine coupled with sugar is the #1 drug pushed on adults AND children. In fact they try to put as much caffeine into energy drinks as possible without causing the consumer's heart to explode. People have overdosed on energy drinks.
And it's not like I'm blowing vapor clouds in people's faces like I was being an ....... about it, I blow them upward when it a public setting out of politeness. If someone nearby is upset by a pleasant scent in the air then we'd better rush a ban on Glade plugins so as not to offend anyone's nostrils with perfumes

 

[DC2]

..............................

 

[DC2]

Glade plugins so as not to offend anyone's nostrils with perfumes

Glade plug-ins and scented candles are almost certainly FAR more hazardous that what we exhale.

 

[Shopan]

Glade plugins so as not to offend anyone's nostrils with perfumes

Glade plug-ins and scented candles are almost certainly FAR more hazardous that what we exhale.

One would think...but untill we have Real answers the right thing to do is stay active;Post your story! Be informed and VaPE IN PUBLIC. Do not hide like a Smoker you are Not one. Chase clouds if you must in your own space but think of the rest of us if you are in Wally world subing 90/10 vg. Ehrn people say you can not smoke say it is not. If they continue explain it is a pg/vg mix and direct them to www.casaa.org...

 

[Uma]

That one lady on the council, seemed to want to dismiss the Drexel Study by belittling the funding for it. Has anyone sent her/them a history of the funding against the eCig? FDA spending millions, etc.. Big Pharma, grants.. etc.. here's one refresher post http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/490265-personal.html#post11241786 about johnson

 

[DC2]

That one lady on the council, seemed to want to dismiss the Drexel Study by belittling the funding for it. Has anyone sent her/them a history of the funding against the eCig? FDA spending millions, etc.. Big Pharma, grants.. etc.. here's one refresher post http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/490265-personal.html#post11241786 about johnson

Maybe some day I will be able to compose a letter explaining the evil that is Big Pharma funding for anti-smoking and anti-vaping studies.
But such a letter would be hard to write without coming off like a conspiracy theory nutcase.

The problem is that Big Pharma has done everything right in not so much covering their tracks, but making those tracks look really pretty to the average person.
And to expose the ugliness of those tracks you have to expose people like the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society.

And then you have to establish the links between those "saintly non-profits" and Big Pharma.
And even when you clearly expose all of this, most people will still think you are a conspiracy theory nutcase.

Yes, that is a hard letter to write without making us look even worse.

 

[Anjaffm]

hm... is this guy a conspiracy theory nutcase too?

Gilbert Ross, M.D., is the executive and medical director of The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org) in New York

Why Is The FDA Shielding Smokers From The Good News About E-Cigarettes? - Forbes

Consider this: those who stand in the way of acceptance of e-cigarettes are acting from motivations that are far removed from public health. The nonprofit groups in the forefront of anti-e-cigarette activism are also heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies in the business of selling near-useless cessation drugs — a fact which they conveniently neglect to disclose. If tobacco companies carried on the same way, they would be hauled into court by the FDA in a heartbeat. Meanwhile, the net result of the official campaigns: cigarette markets protected, worthless cessation aids promoted. Who profits? Not addicted smokers.

 

[Uma]

True. It would have to be in a comparison chart... say ... RWF thousands... FDA millions... compared to Drexel/Casaa hundreds? thousands? How much did that cost anways? It's pennies in comparison. Just how much has been spent on non-biased, peer pressure work?

Anja, that's an excellent example.
Also, (not an example) here's a summary of sorts, http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html
If only we could put the two together!

 

[Uma]

True. It would have to be in a comparison chart... say ... RWF thousands... FDA millions... compared to Drexel/Casaa hundreds? thousands? How much did that cost anways? It's pennies in comparison. Just how much has been spent on non-biased, peer pressure work?

Anja, that's an excellent example.
Also, (not an example) here's a summary of sorts, http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html
If only we could put the two together!

 

[DC2]

True. It would have to be in a comparison chart... say ... RWF thousands... FDA millions... compared to Drexel/Casaa hundreds? thousands? How much did that cost anways? It's pennies in comparison. Just how much has been spent on non-biased, peer pressure work?

Anja, that's an excellent example.
Also, (not an example) here's a summary of sorts, http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html
If only we could put the two together!

People are always looking for smoking guns...
But Big Pharma is holding a smoking AK-47 and nobody in the mainstream media can see it.