Hayward CA, to define Vape as “Smoke” Ban usage in Parks, add Fees & Inspections, New Regs, Goal to CLOSE Vape shops. Urgency Ordinance Meeting 1/14/

[tombaker]

Bottom line: unlike the BP folks who are fighting AGAINST e-cigs, NOBODY IS PAYING anybody in CASAA to do this, everybody has day jobs. So I'd like to help the board by giving them more notice of things, and I could use a hint as to how to do that, or rather, how to get my Mac to do that, so I can send the board earlier heads'-up.

Okay good, glad that it was at least something found, that was not being tracked otherwise. Yes Union City and Hayward, right next door to each other. As it remains the effect to vapers about bans and regulations, are so much worse on the local level, than the FDA. These 6 shops have set up businesses, invested, and the city where they are in, has targeted them for closure. That is real.

As far as the search, I did not search news, the exact string I used I forget, but it was heavily on key words of the FDA language.

 

[Jman8]

4. Define an E-Cig as not needing Nicotine to be an E-Cig. Page 16

5. And the BIG ONE. Define Vapor as “Smoke” Page 16

Okay, so my response is same as #9 which I'm thinking is same for most vapers. Wow, just wow and this is making a lie into the law.

I'm wondering why we (entire vaping community, hopefully lawyers) wouldn't challenge this? Not saying we won't, but if you can make a lie and contradictory language into law, it really takes things to another level in the fight we are up against.

I read the text on "Smoke means....." as contradictory. You look at point #4 above and compare that to, "except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine" and I'm between confused on what is being said here and thinking it would be easy to challenge this in court. I don't see it as slam dunk, but do see the challenge, if we went all out with it, would allow us a platform to do some educating, and make it clear, vapor is not smoke.

I also see the "Smoke means" paragraph saying this: "Smoke”means... vapors released into the air as a result of ... vaporization, when the apparent or usual purpose of the... vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts." And that's leaving out the wording from my previous objection. Thus, anything that releases vapor into the air, via vaporization, would be subject to this. Again, not a slam dunk, but enough that it does seem like it could be reasonably challenged.

Why not just say vapor is vapor, and smoke is smoke, and write whatever anti-vapor rule you want to write with regards to eCigs in that fashion. As it stands now, it seems ripe for legal challenge, and if this is how other municipalities are going to attempt usage bans, I think it behooves the vaping community to stand up in a very very public way and challenge this on the simple grounds that vapor is not smoke. I mean how many times have we each individually had to explain or chose to explain that what we are vaping is not smoke and then walk people through that? Plus in doing that, have them come to understand what we are saying and show up favorably in the (simple) point we were making? In my experience with the general public, it is never a back and forth contentious disagreement, and is almost always people gaining understanding and then seeing "vaporization" from eCigs as a non-issue when compared to smoking.

 

[tombaker]

Why not just say vapor is vapor, and smoke is smoke, and write whatever anti-vapor rule you want to write with regards to eCigs in that fashion. As it stands now, it seems ripe for legal challenge, and if this is how other municipalities are going to attempt usage bans, I think it behooves the vaping community to stand up in a very very public way and challenge this on the simple grounds that vapor is not smoke. I mean how many times have we each individually had to explain or chose to explain that what we are vaping is not smoke and then walk people through that? Plus in doing that, have them come to understand what we are saying and show up favorably in the (simple) point we were making? In my experience with the general public, it is never a back and forth contentious disagreement, and is almost always people gaining understanding and then seeing "vaporization" from eCigs as a non-issue when compared to smoking.

Working off memory and not re-reading the documents.....The are defining Vapor as Smoke, but excluding non-E-cig devices, such as fog machines, they toss in some language that says something like "when the vapor is inhaled by a human"

They seem to be very clever in the crafting because its makes E-Cig vapor with or without nicotine, as smoke. Probably because they are looking at enforcement, and by do it this way, the police will not be thwarted that the E-Cig has no nicotine, they wrote it so its illegal no matter what.

Once defined as SMOKE, all the existing laws on the books on smokers, immediately flow on top. Nothing needs to be passed again...nope.....E-Cig users are in Smoker's Jail, parks, transportation, public places, if laws stop bars from allowing somkers, they now apply to E-Cigs.

This to me seems the design of what this is......and if this and Chicago go.....it going to be cut and paste into City after City.
The 2009 Tobacco Control Act can do nothing like this. If the Tobacco Act of 2009 had big sharp teeth, the nasty effects of such power would have been felt.....it just a sock puppet of fear.....3 years later the FDA has done nothing.....and the localites have Marshalled their forces, and are set to knock off City after City......Hayward (bay area), Chicago.....if they do this January push......the mass of others will fall in line, as the Hall Monitors of City Halls start pushing paper.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Looks like are trying to make sure that this doesn't happen to them.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/88422-virginia-attorney-general-rules-e-cigs.html#post1314818

 

[cmknight]

"First, an e-cigarette does not involve the "inhaling, or exhaling of smoke". Smoke is defined as "the gaseous products of burning carbonaceous materials made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon." To be sure, one definition of smoke is "fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture." That, however, is not the way the term smoke is commonly understood. Statutes should be construed under their "ordinary and plain meaning." Water vapor containing traces of particulate matter, such as water evaporating from a tea kettle, is not ordinarily understood to be "smoke". An e-cigarette does not function in [the] manner of a traditional cigarette because it functions electrically rather than via combustion of a material such as tobacco. Therefore, the vapor emitted by an e-cigarette would not fall within the definition of "smoke" or "smoking" in 15.2-2820. Second, an e-cigarette is battery powered and is not "lighted" as that term is commonly understood. No flame is involved in its operation."

This has the potential to be quite helpful in the Hayward fight.

 

[Jman8]

Working off memory and not re-reading the documents.....The are defining Vapor as Smoke, but excluding non-E-cig devices, such as fog machines, they toss in some language that says something like "when the vapor is inhaled by a human"

Clever as they may be, I can make the case that humans inhale vapor from a fog machine and then turn around and exhale that vapor. It would be challenging to show a case where vaporization is occurring, and humans are present, and humans are not inhaling that vapor.

Hence, all vapor everywhere is now smoke under this legal definition.

 

[Berylanna]

Clever as they may be, I can make the case that humans inhale vapor from a fog machine and then turn around and exhale that vapor. It would be challenging to show a case where vaporization is occurring, and humans are present, and humans are not inhaling that vapor.

Hence, all vapor everywhere is now smoke under this legal definition.

While I think it would be fun to make big press stopping a Disney On Ice show from performing, the funny thing about law is that they can actually be enforced on anybody but Mother Nature/God as long as they don't fail a constitutional test. So just because you're right doesn't mean you can enforce it. An exception under the law is an exception under the law. Now if PG were ACTUALLY harmful (to people not allergic to it) such a case could be brought......

The Supreme Court is not made up of scientists. They have ALREADY ruled constitutional a law can require doctors to give a biased speech to women seeking abortion in one state. (I am not saying there is NO truth in the speech, but parts of it are not scientifically sound, and they can still make doctors say THOSE parts too.)

The law is second to the Constitution, but first before reality. Only God/Mother Nature can disobey a law and not risk getting busted for it, even if the law is to make pi == 3.0. Circles would not change, but computer calculations could get interesting.....

 

[DC2]

{MODERATED}

I would strongly suggest contacting CASAA at board@casaa.org if you need any help in formulating or supporting your arguments.
Also, you might want to contact other vapes shops in your area and let them know what's going on.

Good luck!

 

[Berylanna]

{MODERATED}

This is a Berylanna opinion, backed up by friends in other Horde races such as Orcs, Trolls, Blood Elves, and Tauren, and Undead.

I urge everyone to look also at the CASAA local alert for Hayward, which was posted thanks to this tombaker thread, for further information.

 

[DC2]

{MODERATED}

I would strongly suggest contacting CASAA at board@casaa.org if you need any help in formulating or supporting your arguments.
Also, you might want to contact other vapes shops in your area and let them know what's going on.

Sorry for quoting myself, but I just wanted to expand on this a little bit...

If for any reason you do not contact CASAA at least make sure to use this study in your presentation...
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

This study was "commissioned" by CASAA so that we could all have something we could present when faced with ban attempts such as this one.


It is a systematic review of all of the currently existing analyses that have been done on electronic cigarette vapor...

Key Conclusions:
 Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring
on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for
concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact
that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to
people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern
or call for remedial action.

 Expressed concerns about nicotine only apply to vapers who do not wish to consume it; a voluntary (indeed,
intentional) exposure is very different from a contaminant.

 There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde,
acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been
detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.

 The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or
diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to
the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.

 Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are present in trace quantities and pose no more (likely much less) threat
to health than TSNAs from modern smokeless tobacco products, which cause no measurable risk for cancer.

 Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims
about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.

 The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially
due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration
in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure
to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in
previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such
that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true
zeros.

 Routine monitoring of liquid chemistry is easier and cheaper than assessment of aerosols. Combined with an
understanding of how the chemistry of the liquid affects the chemistry of the aerosol and insights into behavior
of vapers, this can serve as a useful tool to ensure the safety of e-cigarettes.

 The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further
research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to
cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on
the lack of reassuring data.

 

[Jman8]

While I think it would be fun to make big press stopping a Disney On Ice show from performing, the funny thing about law is that they can actually be enforced on anybody but Mother Nature/God as long as they don't fail a constitutional test. So just because you're right doesn't mean you can enforce it. An exception under the law is an exception under the law. Now if PG were ACTUALLY harmful (to people not allergic to it) such a case could be brought......

The Supreme Court is not made up of scientists. They have ALREADY ruled constitutional a law can require doctors to give a biased speech to women seeking abortion in one state. (I am not saying there is NO truth in the speech, but parts of it are not scientifically sound, and they can still make doctors say THOSE parts too.)

The law is second to the Constitution, but first before reality. Only God/Mother Nature can disobey a law and not risk getting busted for it, even if the law is to make pi == 3.0. Circles would not change, but computer calculations could get interesting.....

Fun is not the reason I would challenge this. Education and winning on the point that vapor is (clearly) not smoke would be the reason to challenge this law.

 

[tombaker]

Clever as they may be, I can make the case that humans inhale vapor from a fog machine and then turn around and exhale that vapor. It would be challenging to show a case where vaporization is occurring, and humans are present, and humans are not inhaling that vapor.

Hence, all vapor everywhere is now smoke under this legal definition.

They are pretty darn specific, they make no mistake that Vaper from and E-Cig will be defined, as they state, and they will use their definition to explain exactly what they are talking about.

Definitions - Staff has also been working on developing comprehensive definitions to identify
tobacco and tobacco-related products to comprehensively regulate the type of products that are
allowed to be sold and the products that would be prohibited. Some of the key definitions are as
follows:

“Smoke” means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization, when the apparent or usual purpose of the
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts,
except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine and
the purpose of inhalation is solely olfactory, such as, for example, smoke from incense.
The term “Smoke” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, and electronic cigarette
vapors.

 

[JustJulie]

CASAA has issued a Local Alert for Hayward, CA: CASAA: Local Alert: City of Hayward, California, May Issue Moratorium on E-Cigarette Stores and Lounges.

We have sent out an email in the next hour to all our members on our California email list. If you live in California and you do not receive an email from CASAA about the Hayward Local Alert within the next hour or two it either means (1) you haven't signed up to be a member, or (2) you need up update your profile in order to get alerts from California.

To become a member and sign up for emails: Become a CASAA Member

To update your profile, open any email you have received from CASAA and click the "Update Your Profile/Email Address" link at the bottom of the email.

 

[JustJulie]

If for any reason you do not contact CASAA at least make sure to use this study in your presentation...
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

This study was "commissioned" by CASAA so that we could all have something we could present when faced with ban attempts such as this one.


It is a systematic review of all of the currently existing analyses that have been done on electronic cigarette vapor...

The study has now been published in BMC Public Health, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. The study is freely accessible and not barricaded behind a paywall.

Those quoting the Burstyn study should now use this link: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-18.pdf

(A note on copying links from ECF . . . when copying a link provided in a post, if you copy directly from the post, you may get an abbreviated or truncated link that doesn't work. Instead, right-click on the link in the post and then hit "copy link address," which will paste it into your clipboard. Or you can click on the link in the post and then copy the address from the new window it opens.)

 

[rothenbj]

{MODERATED}

I'm curious, weren't you sent a notice well in advance that this meeting was scheduled?

 

[Jman8]

They are pretty darn specific, they make no mistake that Vaper from and E-Cig will be defined, as they state, and they will use their definition to explain exactly what they are talking about.

Definitions - Staff has also been working on developing comprehensive definitions to identify
tobacco and tobacco-related products to comprehensively regulate the type of products that are
allowed to be sold and the products that would be prohibited. Some of the key definitions are as
follows:

“Smoke” means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization, when the apparent or usual purpose of the
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts,
except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine and
the purpose of inhalation is solely olfactory, such as, for example, smoke from incense.
The term “Smoke” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, and electronic cigarette
vapors.

And I was being very specific when I brought this up earlier. The "or" means it is possible to exclude the electrical ignition portion to understand the law. If go with "and/or" less of a challenge. How I worded things earlier is accurate with how the legal definition is worded. If it is "electrical ignition and vaporization" it would take out a whole bunch of things on this planet where vaporization occurs. As it is currently written with "or vaporization" then arguably wherever there is vaporization occurring, it is smoke by definition of this law.

 

[DJLEC]

{MODERATED}

I sent an e-mail to the Council Members.

 

[Sad Society]

Not from Hayward CA. But a sign outside of a grocery store in CA.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Private business, they can choose to do that and we can choose not to shop there. Best thing to do is write them a polite letter explaining why they will no longer get any of your money and that you will tell your non smoking friends who were glad to see you quit why they should bypass this store.
I've owned my own shop dealing with the public for over 30 years, they will notice if enough people start shopping somewhere else.

 

[tombaker]

And I was being very specific when I brought this up earlier. The "or" means it is possible to exclude the electrical ignition portion to understand the law. If go with "and/or" less of a challenge. How I worded things earlier is accurate with how the legal definition is worded. If it is "electrical ignition and vaporization" it would take out a whole bunch of things on this planet where vaporization occurs. As it is currently written with "or vaporization" then arguably wherever there is vaporization occurring, it is smoke by definition of this law.

when the apparent or usual purpose of the combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts