UCSF bans e-cigarette use where smoking is banned
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Cooks breathe vaporized food flavorings and colorants all day long for years and years.
I'm not saying that makes them completely safe to vape all day long for years and years.
But it certainly suggests they would be completely safe to breathe in the amounts found in second hand vapor.
I just don't understand why we should have to prove that.
Nobody is making restaurants prove that it is safe to breathe in the kitchen.
Cooks breathe vaporized food flavorings and colorants all day long for years and years.
I'm not saying that makes them completely safe to vape all day long for years and years.
But it certainly suggests they would be completely safe to breathe in the amounts found in second hand vapor.
I just don't understand why we should have to prove that.
Nobody is making restaurants prove that it is safe to breathe in the kitchen.
Not sure that Cooks breathing Flavorings is a very good argument.
Hey I'm the first to say that some things in Life are Not Fair or that some Policies are Stupid.
I think e-Cig are too closely aligned with Smoking Analogs to not expect them to be Banned in Public Places. Fair or Not is debatable. But I would "compromise" on that one. I just don't see it as Winnable.
I would put my time and effort into ensuring Reasonable Taxes on e-Cig Products.
CASAA doesn't bring law suits, and CASAA doesn't conduct scientific testing. For an explanation of where CASAA came from and our mission, see Post # 93 in this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rettes-indoor-smoking-ban-10.html#post5223907
Not that we wouldn't like to do some of these things, if we had a vast collection of money to do so. But we don't. We are supported by free-will donations, and only just recently did our bank balance nudge into 5 figures. Law suits and scientific studies cost much, much more. Many of our supporters can only afford to give us $5 and we gratefully accept that.
All of the members of the board of directors are unpaid volunteers, many of whom have full time jobs, and most of whom have families making demands on their time and energy as well. The nine of us can only do so much. So we depend on the good will, energy, and dedication of our membership. When there is legislation or regulation being proposed locally, we put out a call to action so that those who live nearby can show up to testify at public hearings and to contact their local elected officials to express their opinion. We provide "talking points" to address some of the disinformation on which the proposed legislation is based.
There are studies of what is in the vapor--that would be first-hand vapor, as inhaled by users. We have posted links to these studies on our web site. Dr. Zachary Cahn of Berkeley and Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed 16 studies, including the one conducted by FDA that was so misleadingly publicized by the FDA. Cahn and Siegel concluded that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. “A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.”
Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication 9 December 2010; doi: 10.1057/jphp.2010.41 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
The FDA asked the public in 2009 to report adverse events. So far, the only AEs reported have been not much different from the minor side effects seen with use of FDA-approved NRTs, such as dry mouth. No serious illness have been reported that can be attributed to use of e-cigarettes as the causal factor.
In fact, surveys of users have found that 90% state that their health has improved since they switched from inhaling smoke to inhaling vapor. Not very surprising, if you ask me.
Now think about this. A combusted cigarette emits undiluted, unfiltered smoke from the tip during the entire time the cigarette stays lit. In contrast, an e-cigarette is only activated when the user inhales, so unless there is a tiny bit of vapor that escapes from the users' mouth before being inhaled, all vapor is filtered through the lungs of another human being before being released into the atmosphere.
So if there wasn't anything harmful in the first-hand-vapor, how could there possibly be something harmful in the exhaled vapor? And if those who use an e-cigarette are experiencing better health having directly inhaled vapor, how could what they exhale possibly sicken a bystander? It makes no sense to me.
We could have a million toxicology studies, and the Antis would claim they are no good because "industry paid for them." So the only evidence the Antis will accept is if one of their own researchers own conducts the studies. They don't want to do that because their goal is NOT to prove the safety of these products. Their goal is to get rid of them.
Last edited:
The seminar can be viewed here -- IT'S ABOUT A BILLION LIVES SYMPOSIUM_2/3/2012
Fearmongering presentation by Rachel Grana starts at around the 1 hour mark.
Stan Glantz also claims that e-cigarettes were banned at UCSF because he learned that people were planning a vape-in.
Cynthia Hallet with ANR specifically bemoaned that some communities had specifically exempted e-cigarettes in smoking bans, and they are working on "stoping" that from happening.
A lawyer at the California Attorney General's office was present, and at around 1 hours and 15 minutes, she mentions that they are currently 'investigating' e-cigarette companies for selling to minors over the Internet and making unsubstantiated health claims.
Fearmongering presentation by Rachel Grana starts at around the 1 hour mark.
Stan Glantz also claims that e-cigarettes were banned at UCSF because he learned that people were planning a vape-in.
Cynthia Hallet with ANR specifically bemoaned that some communities had specifically exempted e-cigarettes in smoking bans, and they are working on "stoping" that from happening.
A lawyer at the California Attorney General's office was present, and at around 1 hours and 15 minutes, she mentions that they are currently 'investigating' e-cigarette companies for selling to minors over the Internet and making unsubstantiated health claims.
Last edited:
If you're going to spit in my face, I just ask that you don't pretend it's rain.
"health risk"- Not proven qualitatively or quantitatively with scientific fact so far. (more "spit")
Which leaves us with "improve quality.." and "enhance environment"- based on the above two (but also subject to reasonable definition and intent of the terms), more "spit" imo.
Lastly, "Tobacco product"- since nicotine is also found in eggplant and I'm not sure that anyone can say conclusively where the nicotine extract in question actually came from .. a real big wad of "spit".
For educators to present less than educated statements is appalling, but not unusual these days.
Alas, it's their campus but since precedence is the foundation for much of law and regulation .. this spitball reaches far and wide.
Smoke- So technically speaking vapor can be defined as "smoke", but so can high humidity air. It's the first definition that's most applicable and honest to the stated purpose. (so "smoke" = "spit" here.)
"health risk"- Not proven qualitatively or quantitatively with scientific fact so far. (more "spit")
Which leaves us with "improve quality.." and "enhance environment"- based on the above two (but also subject to reasonable definition and intent of the terms), more "spit" imo.
Lastly, "Tobacco product"- since nicotine is also found in eggplant and I'm not sure that anyone can say conclusively where the nicotine extract in question actually came from .. a real big wad of "spit".
For educators to present less than educated statements is appalling, but not unusual these days.
Alas, it's their campus but since precedence is the foundation for much of law and regulation .. this spitball reaches far and wide.
Last edited:
I don't think it will really matter. The ANTZ will twist anything...they don't want to hear it.
THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
AND THEY WON'T.
Studies and Prominent Doctors Endorsements isn’t about converting ANTZ’s.
It’s about having Published Documentation and Experts who can Speak for it when Dealing with Policy Makers.
If I was on the say Board of Regents for UCSF and was charged with deciding if e-Cigs should be banned, I would want to Read info on whether or not e-Cigs pose a Hazard to both the User and to People Around the User.
If the ANTZ provide me with Studies and Doctors signatures against e-Cigs, I have to seriously consider this information. And if the Pro e-Cig group has Nothing, well, there really isn’t much to decide.
That all sounds good...and I hope you both are right.
I just know that when the discussion was in the Senate here in Tennessee last year (they positioned things for now) and I got to talk to a senator who was proposing the bill, he didn't want to hear anything- all he kept repeating was that the FDA had not approved e-cigs. So, it depends on who the law makers are and if their pockets have any mullah in them or could have mullah in them from other Anti-organizations. In the case of the University it may be different- but you never know where their connection is either unless you research things...who knows, they may have a relative who is a big pharmaceutical executive for instance. In the case of the TN legislator, as I found out later, he was a Big Tobacco lobbyist before becoming a Senator and his deal ended up being about "control," and taxing to give "tobacco farmers a fighting chance in TN," strange as it sounds.
I just know that when the discussion was in the Senate here in Tennessee last year (they positioned things for now) and I got to talk to a senator who was proposing the bill, he didn't want to hear anything- all he kept repeating was that the FDA had not approved e-cigs. So, it depends on who the law makers are and if their pockets have any mullah in them or could have mullah in them from other Anti-organizations. In the case of the University it may be different- but you never know where their connection is either unless you research things...who knows, they may have a relative who is a big pharmaceutical executive for instance. In the case of the TN legislator, as I found out later, he was a Big Tobacco lobbyist before becoming a Senator and his deal ended up being about "control," and taxing to give "tobacco farmers a fighting chance in TN," strange as it sounds.
Yes, that was a bizarre couple months, capping off with Rep Joe Armstrong saying that he never intended to ban e-cigarettes -- the bill was just drafted poorly.
If that was the case, why didn't you tell me 2 months prior when I was calling your office every other day?
This same rep was immortalized on a tin of mints shortly thereafter, and I laughed and laughed when I saw it -- Mints sales boom after embargo » Knoxville News Sentinel
This is Exactly why there needs to be more Studies.
If there are only a few studies out there, so what if the FDA doesn't approve e-Cig use.
But what if there were a Handful of Published Studies that had been Independently Verified by Other Researchers showing that e-Cigs don't pose any Significant Risk to either the User or with Second Hand Vape?
Then the FDA would get pressure to approve e-Cigs. And the Pressure would come from the Federal/State Governments.
Unfortunately, the Push for FDA approval would be so that Fed/State Governments could impose Taxes on e-Liquids. Just like they do with Tobacco or Alcohol.
If there are only a few studies out there, so what if the FDA doesn't approve e-Cig use.
But what if there were a Handful of Published Studies that had been Independently Verified by Other Researchers showing that e-Cigs don't pose any Significant Risk to either the User or with Second Hand Vape?
Then the FDA would get pressure to approve e-Cigs. And the Pressure would come from the Federal/State Governments.
Unfortunately, the Push for FDA approval would be so that Fed/State Governments could impose Taxes on e-Liquids. Just like they do with Tobacco or Alcohol.
In the case of UCSF, there is a huge connection, and his name is Stanton Glantz.
And if you do any research, you'll find he is a leading figure in the movement to denormalize smokers.
And you'll also find that he and his cronies aren't interested in the truth.
Last edited:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What other product introduced in the past 30 years had to prove itself "100% safe" in order to be sold? Even Chantix was allowed to be on the market without proving it didn't have long-term health effects - it just had to show it was infinitesimally more effective than a placebo. Even after it was proven to cause harm to many users, the measure of whether or not it should be banned was if it still helped many smokers quit - the theory being that the benefits outweighed the risks.
Why are e-cigarettes not held to that same standard then? E-cigarettes have been on the open market as long as Chantix without ANY of the same reports of serious adverse health effects Chantix has, yet e-cigarettes are being treated as a menace to public health and Chantix is not.
With EVERY other product on the market (with the exception of those containing nicotine) the product was not withheld from the public nor banned from public use without actual, verifiable reports of harm or public outcry and e-cigarettes have had neither. Why then, should we sit back and accept this kind of treatment for our devices??
Roll over and play dead if you want to, but I'm not about to give up this time. Enough is enough.
Why are e-cigarettes not held to that same standard then? E-cigarettes have been on the open market as long as Chantix without ANY of the same reports of serious adverse health effects Chantix has, yet e-cigarettes are being treated as a menace to public health and Chantix is not.
With EVERY other product on the market (with the exception of those containing nicotine) the product was not withheld from the public nor banned from public use without actual, verifiable reports of harm or public outcry and e-cigarettes have had neither. Why then, should we sit back and accept this kind of treatment for our devices??
Roll over and play dead if you want to, but I'm not about to give up this time. Enough is enough.
Start taking donations to hire E-Cig lobbyists and to make campaign donations in the millions. Then we'll get the treatment we want and E-Cig public approval. I'm convinced anything short of that is insufficient these days. I lost faith in public office a long time ago and it will take an all out revolution to change my opinion. In the mean time, I'll continue to stealth vape everywhere. It's not illegal anywhere to inhale from my PV... It's just illegal to exhale.
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. There are already more than a few studies that clearly demonstrate that e-cigs present no known serious health risks. The only studies that have not taken place are the premarket clinical trials proving that a new drug or device is safe and effective for its prescribed use--these have not been done because e-cigarettes are not marketed for any therapeutic use but were invented to be reduced harm smoke-free recreational alternatives and the FDA has announced their intention to regulate them as tobacco products (which cannot be banned outright in the US) along with other products like dissolvables.
Basically the question that now remains is: Exactly what testing or regulations are necessary and reasonable for the FDA to require before tobacco products can be marketed as reduced risk alternatives to smoking? ...As far as I'm concerned, any evidence that a product is not lit on fire and produces no smoke should be considered conclusive proof of reduced risk by multiple orders of magnitude, but the ANTZ are convinced that if they look hard enough eventually they'll figure out how e-cigs might be dangerous or something....they're completely convinced that e-cigs are "bad", but they have no idea why or how or what specific bad things might happen, but eventually karma from all those milliliters of innocent glycerine vaporized is sure to do something bad to those nasty nicodemon addicts, right? We can't let people go unpunished just because they were only PRETENDING to smoke?? Next thing you know, we'll stop executing thespians* for pretending to commit murder!
*Not that there's anything wrong with being a thespian.
I'd like to know if the new Glade Sense and Spray "smoke" (since the definition of smoke now seems to include liquid mists) was proven safe for short or long-term exposure before being allowed in millions of homes with the elderly, small children and pets - and probably used in a lot of public places, as well:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/10/18/study_air_fresheners_contain_h.aspx
http://chetday.com/dangersairfreshener.htm
Since we're apparently OK now with banning new aerosol products that have not been proven harmful....
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/10/18/study_air_fresheners_contain_h.aspx
http://chetday.com/dangersairfreshener.htm
Since we're apparently OK now with banning new aerosol products that have not been proven harmful....
Last edited:
It seems that much of discussion here is about the wording of the Imposed Ban.
If the Policy Makers at UCSF came out and said that they were Banning the use of e-Cigs on Campus because there was No Guarantee that Vapers would not be Using Illegal Narcotic Substances inside Cartos/Attys, would there be the same outpouring of descent?
Just a thought.
If the Policy Makers at UCSF came out and said that they were Banning the use of e-Cigs on Campus because there was No Guarantee that Vapers would not be Using Illegal Narcotic Substances inside Cartos/Attys, would there be the same outpouring of descent?
Just a thought.
It depends. How would people feel if UCSF was trying to ban bottled drinks because minors could be hiding alcohol in the them? Or baked goods because people could be eating pot brownies?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked