Augusta, GA -- E-cigarettes in smoking ban extension

[Placebo Effect]

Augusta, GA is amending their smoke-free ordinance to more match the glorious ANR model. In addition to extending their existing ban, this will ban e-cigarettes in hundreds of workplaces already covered under the existing language.

Augusta, GA - Official Website

Commissioner's contact info -- Augusta, GA - Official Website - Augusta Commission

If someone could put the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses into format similar to what our Call to Action's look like, I'd appreciate it.

Augusta, Georgia invites public input with respect to these proposed amendments and has set aside two Public Hearings for this purpose. The time allotted for each participant to speak may be limited to five minutes. The Public Hearings are: Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. at the Augusta, Georgia Commission Chambers, 530 Greene Street, 8th Floor, Augusta, Georgia and Monday, October 17, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at Julian Smith Casino, 2200 Broad Street, Augusta Georgia.

A public hearing at 10 a.m. :shakes head:

Below is a letter CASAA wrote to the the chief sponsor of the ordinance and the town's attorney in August, before the legislation was official proposed. They didn't remove e-cigarettes, but they did define them separately and include them in the title. Unfortunately, the city's website only bothered to note that it was a ban on SMOKING (public notice here). I'm hoping to get that changed.

Mr. Mackencie and Commissioner Brigham,
[FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Having reviewed the model ordinance distributed at a recent meeting of the Augusta Commission, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association ([URL="http://www.casaa.org/"]CASAA[/URL]) urges you to not include electronic cigarettes in the proposed changes to Augusta’s indoor smoking laws. Electronic cigarettes emit NO smoke and pose NO known health risks to users or nonusers. CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking tobacco products and to provide the public with truthful information about such alternatives. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Smoking bans were enacted for the purpose of protecting non-smokers from the potentially harmful effects of second-hand smoke. But electronic cigarettes have not been shown to harm bystanders or users. The FDA did not find any toxic or cancer-causing substances in the vapor. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless tobacco products and to the risks of using nicotine gum, lozenges, patch, and inhalers.

There are enormous differences between smoke and vapor. Smoke is created by the process of combustion. Setting tobacco on fire creates tar, carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, dozens of carcinogens and thousands of other hazardous chemicals. Inhaling these substances in smoke is the cause of 99% of tobacco-related diseases and deaths.

Vapor from an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) does not contain any of these substances. Vapor, while resembling smoke, is not a product of combustion but rather the product of the process of condensation. Vapor is created by heating a liquid to the point of evaporation.

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested e-cigarette vapor for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants. No such toxicant was found. Dr. Laugesen stated, “Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential.” [1]

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes—including the testing conducted by the FDA in 2009—and concluded, “A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.” Dr. Siegel states that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. [2]

The majority of consumers use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for all their tobacco cigarettes, and most of the rest use e-cigarettes to reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke. These products are improving the health of their users, and could save the lives of many more smokers—provided their use is not discouraged. [3, 4]

Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them being used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use, forcing e-cigarette users outside, removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that could very well reduce their risks of smoking-related disease.

Recently, different locales have chosen to take different stances towards e-cigarettes.
- Delaware County, Indiana initially included e-cigarettes in their proposed smoking regulations, but a City Commissioner whose daughter found success with an e-cigarette sponsored a successful amendment to remove them.
- Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington held several public hearings when they announced their intention to include e-cigarettes in their smoking regulations. After 40-50 e-cigarette users testified against the inclusion, the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health severely scaled back their regulations, instead choosing to only ban the use of e-cigarettes in public places where children are permitted. A copy of that regulation is available upon request.

If, for some reason, it is not possible to remove e-cigarettes from the proposed legislation, CASAA urges you to define them separately and explicitly mention them in the title of the ordinance so that the public and news media is aware of the scope of the legislation.

Very truly yours,

Gregory Conley
Board Member -- Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association


References:
1. Laugesen M. Health New Zealand. Poster Presentation at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco conference, Dublin, April 30, 2009. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf
2. Cahn and Siegel. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control. Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health Policy 1–16. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
3. Heavner K, Dunworth J, Bergen P, Nissen C, Phillips CV. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results of an online survey of e-cigarette users. Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 Yearbook, Chapter 19. http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
4. Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x. Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy - Etter - 2011 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library (accessed June 2011) Full Text: Electronic Cigarettes

 

[Placebo Effect]

I made a request that Augusta mention e-cigarettes in their public hearing notice.

The website has been updated -- Augusta, GA - Official Website

Looking at the glass as half full, at least this may result in someone from the news media reporting on e-cigarettes being included.

 

[Bill Godshall]

No mention of e-cigarettes in this news article about the hearing in Augusta.
Smoke-free advocates, opponents air opinions at hearing on proposed Augusta ordinance | The Augusta Chronicle

 

[Bill Godshall]

An important note in the news article posted above. It would be helpful if some GA vapers showed up.

There will be another public hearing on the proposed comprehensive smoke-free law for Augusta at 6 p.m. Monday at Julian Smith Casino, 2200 Broad St.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Proposed smoking ban raises controversy at public hearing

Noah Garcia brings up his concerns with the language of the law. "If the ordinance is to prevent second-hand smoke, then why are electric cigarette devices listed, too?" He starts up his electric cigarette, showing a the minimal amount of smoke it produces. Garcia says he's used the nicotine-only device as a way to ween off of cigarettes. "There's no fire, no combustible plant matter, there's no trash. You don't litter, there's no nothing. And there's no smoke! You can't say that it's harmful to anybody else but me."

 

[kristin]

Yay Noah! Way to go to show up and speak!!

 

[Placebo Effect]

Augusta Call to Action -- CASAA.org

Unfortunately, Mr. Garcia broke the cardinal rule of speaking before the government -- don't compare politicians to Nazis.

Must be something in the water | The Augusta Chronicle

Noah Garcia, who thinks e-cigarettes should not be part of the ban, doesn’t think it would work even if the ban is passed.

“I’m going to do it anyway, regardless,” he said. With all the restrictions, the country is “about to become like Nazi Germany,” he said.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Good news

More Work To Be Done Before City Leaders Take On Proposed Smoking Ban In Augusta | ABC 6 WJBF-TV

I made phone calls to 3 of the 4 committee members last night asking that they address the e-cigarette issue. I spoke to Ronald Wolf, who is quoted in the above article, and apparently they did discuss them before deciding that the bill needed some revisions.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Proposed smoking ordinance sent back for revisions | The Augusta Chronicle

On Monday, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Bowles questioned why the draft ordinance banned e-cigarettes, electronic devices that dispense a chemical vapor, while Johnson asked if the ordinance couldn’t also ban smoking in cars with children.

“If we’re going to address this issue, let’s address it more broadly,” Johnson said.

We've got the Mayor Pro Tem advocating for us!

 

[rothenbj]

When I send to these Health groups, I've been looking up the mayor and town council members and copying them on the correspondence. I think it's good to get them to understand the issues as well as the obviously ban oriented health departments. I figure my 20+ years in the health/pharma industry doesn't hurt mentioning either.

 

[Jacinda222]

Wanted to bump this thread since the next committee meeting is coming up in about a week (on January 18th). Do we have any local vapers who are going to be able to attend?

 

[Tom09]

local news article (Augusta Chronicle, Feb. 13: Smoking ban going back to the Augusta Commission with potential tweaks ):

The new ordinance, for instance, would not affect electronic cigarettes.

 

[Jacinda222]

Good to hear! Fingers crossed!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Augusta smoking ban fails to get commission approval
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest...sta-smoking-ban-fails-get-commission-approval

Looks like we don't have to worry about Augusta until next year. Had the commission approved the bill (that didn't include e-cigarettes), we wouldn't have to keep monitoring this.

 

[TennDave]

Still, a good time to educate them- it will rear its ugly head again.
What city was it in Virginia, or was it all of Virginia that enacted a smoking ban but did not include e-cigs and it's working out rather nicely! Hey, they can even sell e-cigs at the bar for those who want to "indulge" but can't "burn" one in-doors!!
Would be a great way to turn folks off from smoking and onto e-cigs. I guess the next thing coming (watch for it!!) are e-cig vending machines and it's bound to be controversial too.

 

[rstreet55]

To be quite honest, I don't mind banning e-cigs along with cigarettes inside public places. Remember, when you exhale, you are exhaling a lot of nicotine, especially since the majority of the nicotine is not absorbed in the lungs compared to cigarettes. I would not want children or elderly people inhaling my exhaled nicotine. It can be harmful and/or irritating to non-smokers/vapers. I never use my ecigs inside unless it's within my own home or in my vehicle. Ecigs are safer, but they are not entirely harmless either.

 

[CJsKee]

. . . Remember, when you exhale, you are exhaling a lot of nicotine, especially since the majority of the nicotine is not absorbed in the lungs compared to cigarettes. . . .

rstreet55, this is not correct. See: Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled Actually, only a small amount of nicotine is in a puff, and most of it is absorbed by the user. As the chart says, nicotine is not harmful in the amounts exhaled.

 

[sherid]

Do you oppose drinking coffee inside a coffee shop since the steam from the coffee makers must surely carry whiffs of caffeine that might pose a health risk to elderly people and children. Caffeine and nicotine are similar substances. When is the last time you heard of someone becoming ill or dead from inhaling either substance? BTW, what are three names of anyone who ever died of shs as the only cause of death? In Augusta or in any other place on the planet, what people have ever been held captive inside a bar or other place that allows smoking inside? If people are being forced to breathe either the fumes from cigarette smoke, caffeine, or the vapor from e cigs, then we have a problem that involves a charge of kidnapping. If someone is elderly, a child, or an asthmatic whose condition is made worse from any of these substances, then that person needs to avoid going into a place that allows those substances. I have a terrible reaction to eucalyptus. It makes me instantly nauseous, so it is necessary for me to avoid stores that sell eucalyptus such as craft stores. It is very simple. I just walk out of the place as soon as I catch a whiff. We are responsible for our own health. Everyone has bad reactions to something. If I have a cat allegry, it is doubtful that I will own a cat, go to people's homes who own cats even if they are relatives, or frequent pet stores.

 

[TennDave]

I was going to comment too but looks like you two covered it.

 

[rstreet55]

You should know that healthnz.co.nz is not an equivalent of the FDA or BMJ. That study was not peer-reviewed. The link you gave just has a table and some unsubstantiated claims. The lone source is the study itself. Again, no peer review. It seems as if you have just found a site that coincides with your beliefs and that is all there is to it.

@sherid, your analogy to caffine is irrelevant as you cannot absorb caffeine by sitting next to a cup of coffee. But people can be at risk to exposure to nicotine through vapor. Also, I can avoid eucalyptus simply by walking away from if I see it. It's not going to follow me on it's own and I've seen someone walking around with it in public. However, if I am in a grocery store and someone is puffing away at an ecig next to me in line, I can't exactly just leave unless I decide to just leave my cart in the line.

e cig study by FDA

It shows absorption levels of nicotine from different cartridges in ecigs. Yes, I know a lot of you hate the FDA and feel they are in some giant conspiracy to ban ecigs, but scientific facts are scientific facts. I know a lot of people like using high levels (24-36, some even 48) of nic in their juices. This only increases the amount that can be exhaled. My point is that you should be careful where you are using it and who is around you when you're puffing. People are sensitive or allergic to different substances and we can't always know. It's better to be safe than sorry when out in public around people.

I am happy I found ecigs. I can now workout vigorously, play ultimate frisbee, and run races now that I quit. I believe my health is improved greatly based on the results of my last few doctors visits. I understand they may not be completely safe but I am far better off now than I was a year ago. But just because we have found an amazing alternative to smoking doesn't mean we automatically dismiss any negative studies about the products. And we shouldn't see all positive claims as fact or truth when they haven't been tested without bias or peer review. Just because I want to believe that there are no harmful side effects does not mean there aren't or that I should ignore studies that say there very well could be.