[ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser - the extra line doesn't matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I've missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ]
1) Dr. Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is apparently unaware of 0% e-liquid.
2) Encinitas CA has all-but passed a vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban that would apply to private businesses as well - mostly (if not entirely) on the basis of the minor-gateway-to-tobacco argument. Cerritos CA's vaping-smoking indoor/outdoor ban applies only to city property.
3) La Mesa CA postpones vote on vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban until staff can research the situation in other jurisdictions.
4) At risk: McHenry Co. IL (City of Woodstock) and Eau Claire WI (city & co.): some signs that the local health dep'ts are getting ready to lobby elected officials for vaping restrictions.
5) Also at risk: the entire state of TN, which will be awash in $15M of "cessation" funding over the next three years. How much of that will be used to support lobbying of elected officials to pass anti-vaping rules, and/or to convince smokers not to try vaping as a cessation tool? It's hard to say, but certainly the amount is going to be larger than nothing.
6) Co. of Paco FL to refuse to hire smokers - will this become a general "no nicotine" policy that includes vapers?
7) MI Gov. Snyder wants to use MSA money for Detroit, ticks off CFTFK and other ANTZ orgs.
8) MN Gov. Dayton open to talking, but not to changing his mind on a statewide vaping=smoking extension to the clean indoor air act.
9) Fascinating report on the list of OK cities that have been effectively bribed by MSA funds in order to pass vaping=smoking ord.s. Includes names we've heard before, such as Ada and Tahlequah.
Coverage: US domestic only - MA, FL, TN, MI, IL, MN, WI, IA, KS, OK, OR, CA, HI
Not covered: A few poison call center stories are still trickling in, along with the odd article about the US House Dems' introduction of PCECAA (the Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act). I suspect the flow of these will entirely subside in a couple of days, and I'll list them all at once in a collection.
***
US: NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Assessing health effects of e-cigarettes [profile of Maciej L. Goniewicz]
(Buffalo NY US local paper) http://www.buffalonews
.com/life-arts/refresh/assessing-health-effects-of-e-cigarettes-20140329
This is a profile of Dr. Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Rosewell Park Cancer Institute, who is very often quoted by American media writers - certainly much more so, than Dr. Siegel, it seems. While much of what he says is unfortunate, those of you who follow the media are probably a bit happier to read his name than that of (say) a couple of other California-based researchers.
Speaking of names, Maciej L. Goniewicz is pronounced "Ma CHEY, Gon YA Vic" according to this article. Less (perhaps) surprising is the fact that he did his first U.S. postdoc at - you guessed it - UCSF.
What Your Correspondent found especially astonishing, is the fact that after studying e-cigarettes for years (up to four, it seems), the Dr. is apparently unaware of the existence of 0% nicotine vaping:
"Stay away from tobacco cigarettes. Don’t come back to smoking, not even a single cigarette. I would also encourage them to think about quitting electronic cigarettes. They quit smoking. They succeeded. The next step should be not only tobacco-free but nicotine-free. Just think about it. Maybe electronic cigarettes are just the [intermediate] step for you to be free, to be free from nicotine."
Bear in mind that we aren't talking about a typically-brazen mendacious ALA professional ANTZ who makes a conscious effort to disingenously advance the party line that vaping is intentionally marketed to children by BT (because of pretty colors and flavors such as bubble gum which BT doesn't even offer). (Or Stanton Glantz and his ilk, who seem to have a particular passion - or is it a dramatic flair? - for shamelessly lying with statistics that fit neatly into reprehensibly-inaccurate talking points.)
Nor are we discussing government health department officials, who don't know the first thing about vaping - in part because they have scores of other responsibilities in addition to "tobacco control." We're not even speaking about ignorant politicians who breathlessly recite the talking points fed to them by their ANTZ handlers, or someone with barely two years of college who has managed to acquire some sort of impressive-sounding smoking tobacco cessation title.
No. Instead: Dr. Goniewicz is one of a dozen or so leading research professionals in this area, and he evidently hasn't heard of zero-percent e-liquid - after years of research and publishing myriad highly-regarded conference papers and journal papers.
Remarkable, isn't it?
Title: New Report May Be Poison to Booming E-Cigarette Market
(US Nat'l investment site) http://www.fool
.com/investing/general/2014/03/28/new-report-may-be-poison-to-booming-e-cigarette-ma.aspx
It seems that Motley Fool's Rich Duprey was off on Friday, when this article was written. Pity, because the last piece he wrote that I reviewed in this space demonstrated some genuine insight into the vaping community. Jessica Alling, unfortunately seems to have no such sophistication, and falls for the "poison control center call" meme in its entirety. That said, she makes a valid point about the need for the industry to respond to the hysteria via an awareness campaign. But she's correct to point out that this is hardly a basis for investor panic: "For now, investors should wait to see how the companies respond to the new report. Though the liquid is potentially dangerous if not monitored, the booming industry is far from ending anytime soon. Since this will be an ongoing story, there's little for investors to do now but wait and see."
She might've added that media coverage of the industry has a tendency to be more than a tad loopy, as might be evident from the number of stories about car tires that were punctured by discarded cartridges, or the handful of pieces about child molesters who offered e-cigarettes (along with a host of other illegal blandishments which were too pedestrian to mention until the end of the media stories about their arrests). Anyone who covers this industry should be aware of this phenomenon by now.
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Electronic Cigarettes in High Demand by Consumers
(Springfld MA US ABC/Fox affiliate) http://www.wggb
.com/2014/03/28/electronic-cigarettes-in-high-demand-by-consumers/
This very brief report quotes a tobacco store owner who also sells vaping supplies. It also cites the Gana et al. junk JAMA letter regarding 88 smokers who had tried vaping - this publication is now widely-referenced in the US media as evidence for the idea that vaping doesn't help smokers quit. However this article suggests that the lettercovered 1K smokers (which is true) but doesn't mention that there were only 88 smokers who had even tried vaping - nor the fact that none of the entire group was known to want to quit:
"The small sample size makes it difficult to draw conclusions, but opponents fear the trendy product will encourage some to start smoking. Some worry the liquid nicotine can be toxic if ingested. 'It is a nicotine delivery device and it doesn't have smoke, tar and other chemicals as far as we know... need to be more studies done, but waiting for FDA to weigh in on it,' said Gary Hochheiser, of Baystate Health. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
That's a faily mild statement, as they go. It's worth noting that a 3/12 story about cessation by another local station (WWLP) was followed up on 3/23 with an announcement that the Northhamption city BOH had adopted a vaping=smoking rule that covers public parks and establishes a 25 ft. perimeter around city buildings.
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: http://blog.casaa.org/2013/09/call-to-action-massachusetts-e.html ]
---
US: FLORIDA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Pasco proposes smoking ban for new employees
(Tampa Bay FL US CBS affiliate) http://www.wtsp
.com/story/news/local/2014/03/26/pasco-smoking-ban-new-employees/6926561/
New Pasco co. hires will have to sign an affidavit indicating that they haven't smoked for a year, and that they'll refrain from smoking as long as they're employed by the co. "According to the policy, anyone caught smoking could be subject to nicotine testing and then disciplinary action, including termination."
Existing employees will be grandparented in.
Inquiring minds want to know whether they'll start testing people regularly and/or how they will determine if someone is "caught smoking." Your Correspondent is willing to bet a considerable sum of money that vaping will be included in the prohition even though the story doesn't mention it. (After all: no one can prove that it's not as dangerous as smoking, right?)
If so, Pasco co. may be the first gov't non-health-related employer in the nation which is known to have a "no vapers need apply" policy. How precisely the co. intends to handle nic-free vaping and/or NRT is also unclear.
[ FL has no active threats in the state legislature. ]
---
US: TENNESSEE
Title: Sullivan County gets $267,200 check
(Bristol TN US local paper) http://www.tricities
.com/news/local/article_c4dc21ea-b6e3-11e3-8343-0017a43b2370.html
Sullivan Co. TN (pop. approx 150K) gets $267K check for a three-year tobacco-prevention program. However inquiring minds might wish to know what fraction of that money will be spent to battle vaping, on the grounds that vaping is presumed to involved a "tobacco product." (The story doesn't mention vaping.) Approx $15M is slated for the state of TN over the next three years for such programs. Too bad some of that money couldn't be spent to do a study or two on vaping - might save more lives than the battle against vaping.
[ Minor ban in place. CASAA supports HB 1461 which would exempt vaping from indoor clean air act: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-support-tennessee-bill.html ]
Title: Wilson receives dollars to target tobacco usage
(Lebanon TN US local paper) http://www.lebanondemocrat
.com/article/local-government/364171
Very similar to above.
---
US: MICHIGAN
Title: Tobacco money not going where intended
(Detroit MI US local paper) http://www.detroitnews
.com/article/20140327/POLITICS02/303270032/Tobacco-money-not-going-where-intended
Title: Anti-smoking groups want money spent for health
(AP - re: MI) http://www.kansascity
.com/2014/03/27/4919911/anti-smoking-groups-want-money.html
[These stories combined.]
Gov Snyder is asking the legis. to use $17.5M annually over the next 20 years of MSA money to help resolve Detroit's bankruptcy. The money would go to pensioners and to help "save masterpieces" at the Detroit Museum of Art. In the past, the state has paid for "budget fixes and scholorships" from the $250-300M annual MSA payments (AP).
CDC says that MI needs $110M annually to run an "effective tobacco prevention program" which is 60 times more than the $1.5M it currently spends (both stories).
Naturally, the CFTFK and other Tobacco Control grantees are up in arms:
"Clifford Douglas, executive director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network, said it's 'an embarrassment' that Michigan doesn't spend more to counteract smoking-related diseases. He said an effective advertising, cessation and prevention campaign would save lives and substantially reduce the number of early deaths. 'To be blunt, the State of Michigan is not taking seriously its leading epidemic,' he said. [AP]
'We're not opposed to fixing Detroit's economic problems, but we feel a reasonable percentage of the (tobacco settlement) money should be used to help people quit smoking,' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the national Tobacco-Free Kids group. [Detroit News] [para breaks omitted." These stories don't mention vaping - however as every vaper should know by now: Tobacco Cessation money is increasingly being directed against vaping, hence the fewer resources that the Tobacco Control Industry has at its disposal, the better off vapers are.
[ MI appears to have several simple minor sales bans in the works - SB 667/8 and HB 4997 5007. SB 667/8 have passed the Sen. Most significantly, MI is under threat from HB 5393, which would effectively ban vaping sales entirely:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536975-michigan-legislation.html ]
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: McHenry County Department of Health - Electronic Cigarettes
(Official co. web site) http://www.co
.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=28918
I'm not sure what to call this document, which popped up on my daily Google search. It has no title other than what you see above, and after trying a number of ways to search their site, I couldn't manage to find a link. (Perhaps it was a draft that got pulled off?) In any event, it's chock-full-o'-junk, including FDA '09, and the claim that proplyne glycol is an OSHA-recognized inhalant risk.
McHenry co. is one of six "collar counties" in the Chicago area, so on that basis alone it - and its largest city, Woodstock - may be at risk for anti-vaping ordinances.
[ IL currently considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter, see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.html and one bill that would require special packaging: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html Also worth watching: SB2659, which would ban smoking in cars containing a minor - however the definition doesn't currently include vaping (and is still in the Public Health Cmte, with a status of "postponed." See: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...GAID=12&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=78165&SessionID=85 And HB 689, which would mandate special packaging in order to protect children (which only has one sponsor at the moment: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html ]
---
US: MINNESOTA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Dayton open to discussion on e-cigarettes but reluctant to change his mind
(Twin Cities MN local paper) http://www.startribune
.com/politics/statelocal/252959421.html
As readers of this space know, Gov. Dayton (D) indicated on Fri that he wouldn't support SF 2027, an indoor/outdoor statewide vaping=smoking extension of MN's clean indoor air act. [I've repeated the story immediately below, for those of you who weren't following it last week.] Yesterday, this space reported Sen Kathy Sheran (D-Manketo) was very disappointed with the Gov's decision, telling her hometown paper that the result is that "addicts" (i.e. vapers) will be able to "practice their addiction at the expense of the public." It was also reported that SF 2027 has been sent back to committe, however it appears that Sen. Sheran isn't quite yet ready to give up:
"[...Sheran dual-tracked her proposal through a Health and Human Services omnibus bill, meaning it will remain on the floor for a vote this session. Sheran said that in the meantime, she plans to meet with Dayton in hopes of changing his mind. Dayton said he despite the disagreement, he respects the opinion of Ehlinger and is meeting with Sheran next week. However, he stopped short of saying he was open to changing his position. 'I’m not enthusiastic about the absolute ban; I won’t say ahead of time whether I will veto it or not veto it,' he said. 'I need to see the language again.' Dayton said he wishes the bill would return in 2015. [para breaks omitted]." No junk.
[Reposted because none of the more recent stories has any more info about Dayton' s decision]
Title: Gov. Dayton has doubts about moves to restrict use of e-cigarettes
(Twin Cities MN US local paper) http://www.startribune
.com/politics/statelocal/252366351.html
[H/t to JustJulie for posting this link in legislation.]
It's not clear if this means that he'd veto the bills or whether he'd change his mind on them. SF 2027 is ready for a full vote in the MN sen., HF 1931 - the companion vaping=smoking indoor ban, is still in a house cmte. That said, many MN local gov'ts have already passed indoor/outdoor vaping bans.
"[Gov.] Dayton said that while he would sign a bill to restrict children's ability to buy e-cigarettes, he is likely to oppose proposed restrictions on their use indoors. 'After we came down pretty hard on smokers last session, that's probably enough for this biennium,' Dayton said. The state raised taxes on cigarettes last year. 'We did enough to smokers last session.' The governor's position may quash the growing movement at the Legislature to restrict where Minnesotans can use the newly popular smokeless devices. [...] Dayton said he does not know whether there is definitive evidence that secondhand vapors pose a danger similar to secondhand smoke.[...] Dayton said if e-cigarettes cut down on the use of regular cigarettes, as some users maintain, that may be a boon. Dayton supported an increase in cigarette taxes partly as a way to curb smoking. 'A lot of people are trying to quit smoking because of the higher price and are using this as a way of quitting smoking, which is what we want them to do,' the governor said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]." No junk.
---
US: WISCONSIN
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: [Eau Claire City/Co.] Health Department says e-cigarettes are a public health concern
(Eau Claire WI US ABC affiliate) http://www.wqow
.com/story/25104655/2014/03/28/eau-claire-citycounty-health-dept-says-e-cigarettes-are-a-public-health-concern
In a nutshell, since:
a) Vaping is not "proven" to be either "safe" or an "effective cessation tool."
b) Nicotine is addictive [and vaping is presumed to involve using nicotine, which the health dep't dir. does say in the audio piece at 0:24, but which isn't stated in the policy: "... there is nicotine in e-cigarettes" - emphasis in original]
c) Tobacco cigarettes are dangerous THEREFORE
"... the Eau Claire City-County Health Department Board of Health stands in support of existing policy that supports smoke-free air in public places and ongoing research related to impact of e-cigarettes on nicotine addiction and tobacco cessation."
Now it's critical to observe here that the Health Dep't also acknowledges that the existing rules don't cover vaping, and Health Dep't Dir. Lieske Giese also says:
"[We] are not changing any city or county policy at this point. It's really just making a statement that there are health concerns with e-cigarette use. [boldface added]"
We'll see how long that lasts. The video piece also includes a brief segment with Kyle Anderson, owner of E-Cig 53, who points out that vaping is here to help people enjoy a better alternative to smoking.
Let's hope he's ready when the Health Dep't lobbys the City and the Co. to ban indoor and outdoor vaping. No other junk, besides what you see above.
[ WI has two bills that would explicitly exempt from the state Indoor Clean Air Act, which CASAA strongly supports: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-updated-support.html Also see report by Kirstin: http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-two-days-in-wisconsins-capitol.html and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...6240-wisconsin-updates-wisconsin-updates.html ]
---
US: IOWA
[Repost due to rerun]
Title: Iowa View: Do the right thing: Restrict sales of e-cigarettes
(Des Moines IA US local paper)
http://www.desmoinesregister
.com/article/20140327/OPINION02/303270022/Iowa-View-Do-right-thing-Restrict-sales-e-cigarettes Title: Do the right thing: Restrict sales of e-cigarettes
(IA City local paper) http://www.press-citizen
.com/article/20140329/OPINION05/303290022/Do-right-thing-Restrict-sales-e-cigarettes
Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa CEO urges passage of IA's simple minor sales/possesion ban. No junk.
[ HF 2109 (formerly HSB 566) simple minor sales ban is ready for Sen. SF 2038 also a minor sales ban but would require tobacco licenses for vendors. ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Will city follow county on electronic cigarette
restrictions? (Clinton IA US local paper) http://www.clintonherald
.com/clinton/x2010446889/Will-city-follow-county-on-electronic-cigarette-restrictions#sthash.wF4Cu7X7.dpuf
Clinton Co. has already banned vaping in co. buildings and outdoors on co. grounds (as well as establishing a 20-ft perimeter between vaping and any doorways. Will the city be next? (So far, this issue appears to be limited to gov't property, but it seems rather likely that the local ALA rep.s will be lobbying the city for an indoor vaping ban that applies to private businesses.) What the ALA needs right now is a "victim" - that shouldn't be too difficult to find (maybe they can use our tax dollars to fly in that guy from La Mesa CA who told the San Diego fair commission that he had to put on his rescue inhaler and leave the county fair immediately, just as soon as someone in an outdoor queue decided to start vaping):
"City Administrator Jessica Kinser said they have yet to face anything regarding the use of e-cigarettes within city buildings, so there has been little discussion on if the city plans to amend their non-smoking policy to address the vaporizers. 'This is ultimately a conversation that we have not had,' Kinser said. 'There is no smoking in city buildings, but we have not encountered anything with a policy regarding e cigarettes and whether that counts as smoking or not.' Councilman Paul Gassman, a member of the Rules and Regulations committee, the group that would first address a policy change, also said the conversation has yet to reach the committee level but he feels it will not be an issue the city would have to face. His reaction is that electronic cigarettes should be handled the same way as regular cigarettes and should not be allowed inside city buildings. 'It's got pretty much the same chemistry but it's just a different way of delivering nicotine so, it should all be considered in the same way,' Gassman said. 'It only becomes a problem when somebody tries to bend the rules or break them.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Local vape store owner seems entirely unconcerned.
---
US: OKLAHOMA
Title: E-Cigarettes Banned In Some OK Cities
(Tulsa OK US ind. web site)http://ournewsoklahoma.com/article-view/80-county/5920-e-cigarettes-banned-in-some-ok-cities
Great reporting here by this ind. site about the list of OK cities that have been effetively bribed by the promise of receiving grant money from OK's MSA, in orer to ban vaping on city property (including outdoor vaping in city parks). " The money is given by the Healthy Communities Incentive Grants, which come with specific guidelines for cities to become certified. The larger incentives come from the Oklahoma’s Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust. The amount of grant money is based on the population of each city. Some of the cities that have banned e-cigarettes include Ada, Shawnee, Skiatook and Tahlequah, and all of the cities have been accused of banning for bucks.[para breaks omitted]. No junk.
[ SB 1892 is a mixed bag for proponents of smoke-free alternatives, because it raises the tax on Snus and other smokeless products, but exempts vaping. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-bills-introduced-oklahoma-hearing-held.html
and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/news/oklahoma-ok.html ]
---
US: KANSAS
Title: Opinion: E-cigarettes prove to be no better than regular cigarettes in some aspects
(KS ST. U. college paper) http://www.kstatecollegian
.com/2014/03/26/opinion-e-cigarettes-prove-to-be-no-better-than-regular-cigarettes-in-some-aspects/
This piece should be titled "e-cigarettes are just as bad as tobacco cigarettes - if not worse - and certainly have no advantages whatsoever for anyone."
While this hardly satisfies the standards for a professional ANTZ hit job, it's not a bad attempt for a Journalism junior who can only just barely manage to organize her thoughts in a coherent manner, add a topic sentence to a paragraph and compose a gramatically correct phrase. (That said, Your Correspondent was a bit surprised to discover that this is a college-level student paper.)
There are a couple of innovative fantasies that we might not put past the imaginations of well-trained ANTZ, such as this zinger of a non sequitur: "Then there are others who don’t smoke tobacco cigarettes, but smoke e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking tobacco. Many e-cigarette smokers use this nontraditional equipment because they hang out with people who smoke tobacco cigarettes and want something to do while others are smoking."
Or try this garbled thought: "Though there are some flavors that do not contain nicotine, the second listed ingredient (meaning the second most prominent ingredient in most e-cigarette flavors) is nicotine."
Aside from the unsurprising misunderstanding that the writer displays concerning Dutra & Glantz (i.e. she presents the study as longitudinal), the portion of this article that made me cringe most painfully was her citation of the despicable NPR "youth radio" piece by Jenny Lei Bolario. (I'll discuss that one tomorrow in the US National section when I review a You Tube video that she just made.) But to make a long story short: Ms. Bolario used an audiotape of an eighth-grader which is presented as fact" (and was picked up by national outets as such). On the tape, the student says that her friends buy PVs off of E-bay, and managed to use one at least once while a substitute teacher was standing and observing them.
Perhaps the writer of this opinion shares Ms. Bolario's standards of journalism ethics, insofar as both embrace the notion that rumors floating around in primary school hallways are to be treated as verified facts which are suitable for shaping American Public Health Policy.
[ Kansas appears to have no pending vaping legislation, but HB2672 would vastly increase the tax on smokeless products as well as tobacco cigarettes (but not vaping - yet): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...29-pack-increase-otp-tax-10-78-wholesale.html ]
---
US: OREGON
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Are e-cigarettes really safer than cigarettes? Doctors say no
(Medford OR US NBC) http://kobi5.com/news/item/are-e-cigarettes-really-safer-than-cigarettes-doctors-say-no
.html#.Uzb2Fc5obfg
"... local physicians say [e-cigarettes] are not any safer than traditional cigarettes. [Dr. Rebecca Schane from Asante Rogue Regional] says that [e-cigarettes can't be used for cessation] because they still contain nicotine 'It's just another product that's been marketed to keep you hooked, in many respects. It's a newer idea, it's a new option, a reinvention of the wheel.' Schane also says younger smokers who start smoking with e-cigarettes are more likely to choose smoking as a long term habit. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
Got that? Hmm. Looks like NRT is out, then, right? And of course ... the real problem with tobacco cigarettes is the nicotine, - not the tobacco, correct? No other junk.
[ OR legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: ED MURRIETA: There's at least one place your e-cigarette is welcome, Vapour House
(Sacramento CA local bus. web site) http://www.bizjournals
.com/sacramento/news/2014/03/26/ed-murrieta-theres-at-least-one-place-your-e.html
This is those of you who enjoyed the previews of Vape Mania or the recent HuffPo article entitled The Rise of the Electronic Cigarette Cognoscenti, here's a little fun for a change: a review of a high-end vape lounge that serves quality fare in all regards! [Note: the HuffPo article is discussed in this thread:]
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...05-rise-electronic-cigarette-cognoscenti.html
The author of this excellent piece is described as:
Ed Murrieta edits SacBizLunch.com. He's written about food, restaurants and farm-to-fork topics for the Sacramento Bee, the Seattle Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers and the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Enjoy!
Title: Cerritos council to vote on more than $334,000 in park upgrades
http://www.presstelegram
.com/lifestyle/20140325/cerritos-council-to-vote-on-more-than-334000-in-park-upgrades
["And now, back to our regular, sometimes-dreary programming ..."]
Cerritos city council is expected to ban vaping in all city-owned or operated facilities. However this doesn't affect private businesses - despite the potential for doing so when the ban was originally proposed. No rationale is given in this junk-free blurb.
Title: La Mesa resident exposed to e-cigarette smoke at restaurant [but proposed vaping=smoking ord. was tabled until staff can do more research]
(SD CA US Ind free paper) http://www.sandiegoreader
.com/news/2014/mar/28/stringers-exposed-e-cigarette-smoke-restaurant/
Yes, this is the now-infamous La Mesa: the town in the San Diego co. CA town whose mayor (Art Madrid) tried to ban the sale of PVs entirely, until CASAA got involved and sent Legislative Dir. Julie Woessner to the meeting on Jan 28th this year. Result: the city council voted to waited to delay action until the staff researched the issue.
On Tues 3/25, the council met again, and Mayor Art Madrid proposed banning vaping indoors and outdoors wherever smoking is prohibited. He cited a report from a resident at an earlier meeting who indicated that he was dining with his family at a restaurant, where another patron had vaped. From then on, not much is clear from this murky story, which seems to describe events at two different meetings via a kind of back-and-forth "stream of consciousness" technique.
It seems that three residents who tesitified at the 3/25 meeting were split: two were in favor of the mayor's proposal, one was against. Debbie Kelley, the ALA's SD County Advocacy Dir. and Proj. Dir. for Tobacco-Free Communities indicated that 12 of the 18 cities in San Diego Co. were looking into regulating vaping, and 11 of those 12 were considering passing vaping=smoking bans (it seems that Ms. Kelley is either directly or indirectly paid with tax dollars).
What's not clear from the report is why this ord. didn't pass on the first attempt, given that only one council member and only one resident appeared to oppose it. However staff have been asked to return within 90 days with "information about issues such as e-cigarette legislation in other jurisdictions." No other junk.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Encinitas moves toward banning e-cigarettes
http://www.seasidecourier
.com/news/encinitas-moves-toward-banning-e-cigarettes/article_c39c2718-b6bf-11e3-bb78-0017a43b2370.html
Either the reporter decided it was irrelevant to mention the issue of "second hand vaping," or the council made its decision entirely on the basis of the minor gateway argument:
"Public health officials and advocates say companies behind e-cigarettes are targeting children and teens in their marketing, which could create a new generation of smokers who graduate from vaping to real cigarettes.
Those health officials point to recent reports that showed that e-cigarette use among school-aged children nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011. Reports also indicate that teens are using the devices with mar!juana and h@sh oil.
The public health advocates, including representatives from the San Diego County Alliance for Drug Free Youth and the American Lung Association, congratulated the council on its decision. 'They treated this as a health issue and not a political one,' said Joe Kellejian, a former Solana Beach mayor who sits on the leadership board of the American Lung Association.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Yecch.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette vapor not annoying to most Americans, national study finds
(Pasadena CA US local paper) http://www.pasadenastarnews
.com/health/20140326/e-cigarette-vapor-not-annoying-to-most-americans-national-study-finds
After this one opened on a hopeful note by mentioning the 2014 American E-Cigarette Etiquette survey comissioned by Mistic, the author ups the ante by quoting CASAA's Legislative Dir., Julie Woessner:
"'It's really unfortunate that all these cities are rushing to regulate what can only be called a public health miracle,' said Woessner, from Indiana. 'Especially for the relatively new vapors or the people who are transitioning (from smoking to vaping), it's just not a good idea to force them to use their devices only where smokers are.' [para breaks omitted]"
And now, it's time for ... Dr. Jonathan Samet, who sits on the FDA's Tobacco Products Advisory Bd. "He said the juices used in e-cigs are not regulated in any way. So some have levels of tobacco smoke carcinogens and other contaminants."
(Huh? They have tobacco smoke carcinogens?? because they're not regulated? We'll have to chalk that up to the problem of paraphrasing.)
"'Allowing these devices to be used anywhere -- in part with some of the advertising that goes on -- would, in a sense, normalize nicotine addiction and perhaps even smoking,' Samet said. 'One of the ways we've made so much progress is that it's not acceptable to smoke in public places.' [...] 'There have been two reasons to handle e-cigs the same as combustible products,' Samet said. 'People would be exposed to the nicotine in the air, so the vapor could settle on people. It could contaminate the air that they breathe. It could [also]contaminate a chair, and they could touch it and nicotine can go through the skin.'[yeah, just like a nicotine inhaler, right?] [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Catch that? "Third hand vapor," here we come: multi-unit dwelling restrictions, hazmat teams required before a single-family house can be sold, and don't even think about trying to sell your car. (Or dryclean your clothes. How about flying on a commercial flight?)
It's a good thing that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over air quality standards.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Mercury News editorial: FDA needs to restrict e-cigarettes
(San Jose CA US local paper) http://www.mercurynews
.com/opinion/ci_25416369/mercury-news-editorial-fda-needs-restrict-e-cigarettes
After citing the ordinances recently passed in LA, SF, and Santa Clara county, the writers transition without any warning to the dreadful "selling poison by the barrel" NYT hit job:
"The New York Times on Sunday published an in-depth report on the dangers of the liquid form of nicotine, known as e-liquids, which are mixed with flavorings, colorings and other chemicals to create e-cigarettes. The products come in flavors such as chocolate, bubble gum, cheesecake and cotton candy to appeal to kids, and they are frighteningly dangerous. The Times reported that tiny amounts of the liquid nicotine, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can be lethal. The National Poison Data System reporting a 300 percent increase in poisonings from the substance just since 2012.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Aside from the myriad flaws in the NYT piece, Your Correspondent is utterly baffled by the linkage between the indoor vaping bans, and the potential for e-liquid poisoning. Are they not aware that e-liquid isn't present in large quantities within a PV, nor in high concentrations?
It's one thing to believe in the junk statistics proffered by Dutra & Glantz: surely we can't expect the editors of this paper to have studied any mathematics beyond primary school arithmetic. And the variety of near-pathological innumeracy that would permit someone to accept a generalization about 40M smokers from a sample of 88 subjects (and a variation within that sample of a half-dozen) is equally understandable here in a nation in which we're all proud of our incapability to comprehend the level of mathematical sense expected of every other nation's seventh-graders.
But are these editors entirely ignorant of the ordinance passed in San Francisco, just a hop-and-a-skip from their own doorsteps, and competely at sea when it comes to the difference between regulating a consumer product and air quality?
A reasonable person could well wonder how it is that the writers of this piece are able to speak without drooling uncontrollably.
---
US: HAWAII
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Teens and E-Cigarettes
(Some ind HI site, based in Honolulu) http://hawaiiahe
.com/2014/03/29/teens-e-cigarettes/
This is a verbatim copy of the yesterday's US Heath and Human Services official "Healthbeath," which represents the first clear endorsement by the U.S. gov't of the Dutra & Glantz junk statistics "study" in JAMA Pediatrics which confuses causation with causality. You can read the US gov'ts post here:
http://www.hhs
.gov/news/healthbeat/2014/03/teens-and-e-cigarettes.html
[ HB2133 (bans flavors) is dead, but SB 2495 (taxes, bans internet sales, state clean air act ext.) is very much alive and well: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-hawaii-bills-that-would.html http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...obacco-products-including-vapor-products.html ]
***
Google Tips
to see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
1) Dr. Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is apparently unaware of 0% e-liquid.
2) Encinitas CA has all-but passed a vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban that would apply to private businesses as well - mostly (if not entirely) on the basis of the minor-gateway-to-tobacco argument. Cerritos CA's vaping-smoking indoor/outdoor ban applies only to city property.
3) La Mesa CA postpones vote on vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban until staff can research the situation in other jurisdictions.
4) At risk: McHenry Co. IL (City of Woodstock) and Eau Claire WI (city & co.): some signs that the local health dep'ts are getting ready to lobby elected officials for vaping restrictions.
5) Also at risk: the entire state of TN, which will be awash in $15M of "cessation" funding over the next three years. How much of that will be used to support lobbying of elected officials to pass anti-vaping rules, and/or to convince smokers not to try vaping as a cessation tool? It's hard to say, but certainly the amount is going to be larger than nothing.
6) Co. of Paco FL to refuse to hire smokers - will this become a general "no nicotine" policy that includes vapers?
7) MI Gov. Snyder wants to use MSA money for Detroit, ticks off CFTFK and other ANTZ orgs.
8) MN Gov. Dayton open to talking, but not to changing his mind on a statewide vaping=smoking extension to the clean indoor air act.
9) Fascinating report on the list of OK cities that have been effectively bribed by MSA funds in order to pass vaping=smoking ord.s. Includes names we've heard before, such as Ada and Tahlequah.
Coverage: US domestic only - MA, FL, TN, MI, IL, MN, WI, IA, KS, OK, OR, CA, HI
Not covered: A few poison call center stories are still trickling in, along with the odd article about the US House Dems' introduction of PCECAA (the Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act). I suspect the flow of these will entirely subside in a couple of days, and I'll list them all at once in a collection.
***
US: NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Assessing health effects of e-cigarettes [profile of Maciej L. Goniewicz]
(Buffalo NY US local paper) http://www.buffalonews
.com/life-arts/refresh/assessing-health-effects-of-e-cigarettes-20140329
This is a profile of Dr. Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Rosewell Park Cancer Institute, who is very often quoted by American media writers - certainly much more so, than Dr. Siegel, it seems. While much of what he says is unfortunate, those of you who follow the media are probably a bit happier to read his name than that of (say) a couple of other California-based researchers.
Speaking of names, Maciej L. Goniewicz is pronounced "Ma CHEY, Gon YA Vic" according to this article. Less (perhaps) surprising is the fact that he did his first U.S. postdoc at - you guessed it - UCSF.
What Your Correspondent found especially astonishing, is the fact that after studying e-cigarettes for years (up to four, it seems), the Dr. is apparently unaware of the existence of 0% nicotine vaping:
"Stay away from tobacco cigarettes. Don’t come back to smoking, not even a single cigarette. I would also encourage them to think about quitting electronic cigarettes. They quit smoking. They succeeded. The next step should be not only tobacco-free but nicotine-free. Just think about it. Maybe electronic cigarettes are just the [intermediate] step for you to be free, to be free from nicotine."
Bear in mind that we aren't talking about a typically-brazen mendacious ALA professional ANTZ who makes a conscious effort to disingenously advance the party line that vaping is intentionally marketed to children by BT (because of pretty colors and flavors such as bubble gum which BT doesn't even offer). (Or Stanton Glantz and his ilk, who seem to have a particular passion - or is it a dramatic flair? - for shamelessly lying with statistics that fit neatly into reprehensibly-inaccurate talking points.)
Nor are we discussing government health department officials, who don't know the first thing about vaping - in part because they have scores of other responsibilities in addition to "tobacco control." We're not even speaking about ignorant politicians who breathlessly recite the talking points fed to them by their ANTZ handlers, or someone with barely two years of college who has managed to acquire some sort of impressive-sounding smoking tobacco cessation title.
No. Instead: Dr. Goniewicz is one of a dozen or so leading research professionals in this area, and he evidently hasn't heard of zero-percent e-liquid - after years of research and publishing myriad highly-regarded conference papers and journal papers.
Remarkable, isn't it?
Title: New Report May Be Poison to Booming E-Cigarette Market
(US Nat'l investment site) http://www.fool
.com/investing/general/2014/03/28/new-report-may-be-poison-to-booming-e-cigarette-ma.aspx
It seems that Motley Fool's Rich Duprey was off on Friday, when this article was written. Pity, because the last piece he wrote that I reviewed in this space demonstrated some genuine insight into the vaping community. Jessica Alling, unfortunately seems to have no such sophistication, and falls for the "poison control center call" meme in its entirety. That said, she makes a valid point about the need for the industry to respond to the hysteria via an awareness campaign. But she's correct to point out that this is hardly a basis for investor panic: "For now, investors should wait to see how the companies respond to the new report. Though the liquid is potentially dangerous if not monitored, the booming industry is far from ending anytime soon. Since this will be an ongoing story, there's little for investors to do now but wait and see."
She might've added that media coverage of the industry has a tendency to be more than a tad loopy, as might be evident from the number of stories about car tires that were punctured by discarded cartridges, or the handful of pieces about child molesters who offered e-cigarettes (along with a host of other illegal blandishments which were too pedestrian to mention until the end of the media stories about their arrests). Anyone who covers this industry should be aware of this phenomenon by now.
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Electronic Cigarettes in High Demand by Consumers
(Springfld MA US ABC/Fox affiliate) http://www.wggb
.com/2014/03/28/electronic-cigarettes-in-high-demand-by-consumers/
This very brief report quotes a tobacco store owner who also sells vaping supplies. It also cites the Gana et al. junk JAMA letter regarding 88 smokers who had tried vaping - this publication is now widely-referenced in the US media as evidence for the idea that vaping doesn't help smokers quit. However this article suggests that the lettercovered 1K smokers (which is true) but doesn't mention that there were only 88 smokers who had even tried vaping - nor the fact that none of the entire group was known to want to quit:
"The small sample size makes it difficult to draw conclusions, but opponents fear the trendy product will encourage some to start smoking. Some worry the liquid nicotine can be toxic if ingested. 'It is a nicotine delivery device and it doesn't have smoke, tar and other chemicals as far as we know... need to be more studies done, but waiting for FDA to weigh in on it,' said Gary Hochheiser, of Baystate Health. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
That's a faily mild statement, as they go. It's worth noting that a 3/12 story about cessation by another local station (WWLP) was followed up on 3/23 with an announcement that the Northhamption city BOH had adopted a vaping=smoking rule that covers public parks and establishes a 25 ft. perimeter around city buildings.
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: http://blog.casaa.org/2013/09/call-to-action-massachusetts-e.html ]
---
US: FLORIDA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Pasco proposes smoking ban for new employees
(Tampa Bay FL US CBS affiliate) http://www.wtsp
.com/story/news/local/2014/03/26/pasco-smoking-ban-new-employees/6926561/
New Pasco co. hires will have to sign an affidavit indicating that they haven't smoked for a year, and that they'll refrain from smoking as long as they're employed by the co. "According to the policy, anyone caught smoking could be subject to nicotine testing and then disciplinary action, including termination."
Existing employees will be grandparented in.
Inquiring minds want to know whether they'll start testing people regularly and/or how they will determine if someone is "caught smoking." Your Correspondent is willing to bet a considerable sum of money that vaping will be included in the prohition even though the story doesn't mention it. (After all: no one can prove that it's not as dangerous as smoking, right?)
If so, Pasco co. may be the first gov't non-health-related employer in the nation which is known to have a "no vapers need apply" policy. How precisely the co. intends to handle nic-free vaping and/or NRT is also unclear.
[ FL has no active threats in the state legislature. ]
---
US: TENNESSEE
Title: Sullivan County gets $267,200 check
(Bristol TN US local paper) http://www.tricities
.com/news/local/article_c4dc21ea-b6e3-11e3-8343-0017a43b2370.html
Sullivan Co. TN (pop. approx 150K) gets $267K check for a three-year tobacco-prevention program. However inquiring minds might wish to know what fraction of that money will be spent to battle vaping, on the grounds that vaping is presumed to involved a "tobacco product." (The story doesn't mention vaping.) Approx $15M is slated for the state of TN over the next three years for such programs. Too bad some of that money couldn't be spent to do a study or two on vaping - might save more lives than the battle against vaping.
[ Minor ban in place. CASAA supports HB 1461 which would exempt vaping from indoor clean air act: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-support-tennessee-bill.html ]
Title: Wilson receives dollars to target tobacco usage
(Lebanon TN US local paper) http://www.lebanondemocrat
.com/article/local-government/364171
Very similar to above.
---
US: MICHIGAN
Title: Tobacco money not going where intended
(Detroit MI US local paper) http://www.detroitnews
.com/article/20140327/POLITICS02/303270032/Tobacco-money-not-going-where-intended
Title: Anti-smoking groups want money spent for health
(AP - re: MI) http://www.kansascity
.com/2014/03/27/4919911/anti-smoking-groups-want-money.html
[These stories combined.]
Gov Snyder is asking the legis. to use $17.5M annually over the next 20 years of MSA money to help resolve Detroit's bankruptcy. The money would go to pensioners and to help "save masterpieces" at the Detroit Museum of Art. In the past, the state has paid for "budget fixes and scholorships" from the $250-300M annual MSA payments (AP).
CDC says that MI needs $110M annually to run an "effective tobacco prevention program" which is 60 times more than the $1.5M it currently spends (both stories).
Naturally, the CFTFK and other Tobacco Control grantees are up in arms:
"Clifford Douglas, executive director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network, said it's 'an embarrassment' that Michigan doesn't spend more to counteract smoking-related diseases. He said an effective advertising, cessation and prevention campaign would save lives and substantially reduce the number of early deaths. 'To be blunt, the State of Michigan is not taking seriously its leading epidemic,' he said. [AP]
'We're not opposed to fixing Detroit's economic problems, but we feel a reasonable percentage of the (tobacco settlement) money should be used to help people quit smoking,' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the national Tobacco-Free Kids group. [Detroit News] [para breaks omitted." These stories don't mention vaping - however as every vaper should know by now: Tobacco Cessation money is increasingly being directed against vaping, hence the fewer resources that the Tobacco Control Industry has at its disposal, the better off vapers are.
[ MI appears to have several simple minor sales bans in the works - SB 667/8 and HB 4997 5007. SB 667/8 have passed the Sen. Most significantly, MI is under threat from HB 5393, which would effectively ban vaping sales entirely:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536975-michigan-legislation.html ]
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: McHenry County Department of Health - Electronic Cigarettes
(Official co. web site) http://www.co
.mchenry.il.us/home/showdocument?id=28918
I'm not sure what to call this document, which popped up on my daily Google search. It has no title other than what you see above, and after trying a number of ways to search their site, I couldn't manage to find a link. (Perhaps it was a draft that got pulled off?) In any event, it's chock-full-o'-junk, including FDA '09, and the claim that proplyne glycol is an OSHA-recognized inhalant risk.
McHenry co. is one of six "collar counties" in the Chicago area, so on that basis alone it - and its largest city, Woodstock - may be at risk for anti-vaping ordinances.
[ IL currently considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter, see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.html and one bill that would require special packaging: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html Also worth watching: SB2659, which would ban smoking in cars containing a minor - however the definition doesn't currently include vaping (and is still in the Public Health Cmte, with a status of "postponed." See: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...GAID=12&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=78165&SessionID=85 And HB 689, which would mandate special packaging in order to protect children (which only has one sponsor at the moment: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html ]
---
US: MINNESOTA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Dayton open to discussion on e-cigarettes but reluctant to change his mind
(Twin Cities MN local paper) http://www.startribune
.com/politics/statelocal/252959421.html
As readers of this space know, Gov. Dayton (D) indicated on Fri that he wouldn't support SF 2027, an indoor/outdoor statewide vaping=smoking extension of MN's clean indoor air act. [I've repeated the story immediately below, for those of you who weren't following it last week.] Yesterday, this space reported Sen Kathy Sheran (D-Manketo) was very disappointed with the Gov's decision, telling her hometown paper that the result is that "addicts" (i.e. vapers) will be able to "practice their addiction at the expense of the public." It was also reported that SF 2027 has been sent back to committe, however it appears that Sen. Sheran isn't quite yet ready to give up:
"[...Sheran dual-tracked her proposal through a Health and Human Services omnibus bill, meaning it will remain on the floor for a vote this session. Sheran said that in the meantime, she plans to meet with Dayton in hopes of changing his mind. Dayton said he despite the disagreement, he respects the opinion of Ehlinger and is meeting with Sheran next week. However, he stopped short of saying he was open to changing his position. 'I’m not enthusiastic about the absolute ban; I won’t say ahead of time whether I will veto it or not veto it,' he said. 'I need to see the language again.' Dayton said he wishes the bill would return in 2015. [para breaks omitted]." No junk.
[Reposted because none of the more recent stories has any more info about Dayton' s decision]
Title: Gov. Dayton has doubts about moves to restrict use of e-cigarettes
(Twin Cities MN US local paper) http://www.startribune
.com/politics/statelocal/252366351.html
[H/t to JustJulie for posting this link in legislation.]
It's not clear if this means that he'd veto the bills or whether he'd change his mind on them. SF 2027 is ready for a full vote in the MN sen., HF 1931 - the companion vaping=smoking indoor ban, is still in a house cmte. That said, many MN local gov'ts have already passed indoor/outdoor vaping bans.
"[Gov.] Dayton said that while he would sign a bill to restrict children's ability to buy e-cigarettes, he is likely to oppose proposed restrictions on their use indoors. 'After we came down pretty hard on smokers last session, that's probably enough for this biennium,' Dayton said. The state raised taxes on cigarettes last year. 'We did enough to smokers last session.' The governor's position may quash the growing movement at the Legislature to restrict where Minnesotans can use the newly popular smokeless devices. [...] Dayton said he does not know whether there is definitive evidence that secondhand vapors pose a danger similar to secondhand smoke.[...] Dayton said if e-cigarettes cut down on the use of regular cigarettes, as some users maintain, that may be a boon. Dayton supported an increase in cigarette taxes partly as a way to curb smoking. 'A lot of people are trying to quit smoking because of the higher price and are using this as a way of quitting smoking, which is what we want them to do,' the governor said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]." No junk.
---
US: WISCONSIN
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: [Eau Claire City/Co.] Health Department says e-cigarettes are a public health concern
(Eau Claire WI US ABC affiliate) http://www.wqow
.com/story/25104655/2014/03/28/eau-claire-citycounty-health-dept-says-e-cigarettes-are-a-public-health-concern
In a nutshell, since:
a) Vaping is not "proven" to be either "safe" or an "effective cessation tool."
b) Nicotine is addictive [and vaping is presumed to involve using nicotine, which the health dep't dir. does say in the audio piece at 0:24, but which isn't stated in the policy: "... there is nicotine in e-cigarettes" - emphasis in original]
c) Tobacco cigarettes are dangerous THEREFORE
"... the Eau Claire City-County Health Department Board of Health stands in support of existing policy that supports smoke-free air in public places and ongoing research related to impact of e-cigarettes on nicotine addiction and tobacco cessation."
Now it's critical to observe here that the Health Dep't also acknowledges that the existing rules don't cover vaping, and Health Dep't Dir. Lieske Giese also says:
"[We] are not changing any city or county policy at this point. It's really just making a statement that there are health concerns with e-cigarette use. [boldface added]"
We'll see how long that lasts. The video piece also includes a brief segment with Kyle Anderson, owner of E-Cig 53, who points out that vaping is here to help people enjoy a better alternative to smoking.
Let's hope he's ready when the Health Dep't lobbys the City and the Co. to ban indoor and outdoor vaping. No other junk, besides what you see above.
[ WI has two bills that would explicitly exempt from the state Indoor Clean Air Act, which CASAA strongly supports: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-updated-support.html Also see report by Kirstin: http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-two-days-in-wisconsins-capitol.html and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...6240-wisconsin-updates-wisconsin-updates.html ]
---
US: IOWA
[Repost due to rerun]
Title: Iowa View: Do the right thing: Restrict sales of e-cigarettes
(Des Moines IA US local paper)
http://www.desmoinesregister
.com/article/20140327/OPINION02/303270022/Iowa-View-Do-right-thing-Restrict-sales-e-cigarettes Title: Do the right thing: Restrict sales of e-cigarettes
(IA City local paper) http://www.press-citizen
.com/article/20140329/OPINION05/303290022/Do-right-thing-Restrict-sales-e-cigarettes
Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa CEO urges passage of IA's simple minor sales/possesion ban. No junk.
[ HF 2109 (formerly HSB 566) simple minor sales ban is ready for Sen. SF 2038 also a minor sales ban but would require tobacco licenses for vendors. ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Will city follow county on electronic cigarette
restrictions? (Clinton IA US local paper) http://www.clintonherald
.com/clinton/x2010446889/Will-city-follow-county-on-electronic-cigarette-restrictions#sthash.wF4Cu7X7.dpuf
Clinton Co. has already banned vaping in co. buildings and outdoors on co. grounds (as well as establishing a 20-ft perimeter between vaping and any doorways. Will the city be next? (So far, this issue appears to be limited to gov't property, but it seems rather likely that the local ALA rep.s will be lobbying the city for an indoor vaping ban that applies to private businesses.) What the ALA needs right now is a "victim" - that shouldn't be too difficult to find (maybe they can use our tax dollars to fly in that guy from La Mesa CA who told the San Diego fair commission that he had to put on his rescue inhaler and leave the county fair immediately, just as soon as someone in an outdoor queue decided to start vaping):
"City Administrator Jessica Kinser said they have yet to face anything regarding the use of e-cigarettes within city buildings, so there has been little discussion on if the city plans to amend their non-smoking policy to address the vaporizers. 'This is ultimately a conversation that we have not had,' Kinser said. 'There is no smoking in city buildings, but we have not encountered anything with a policy regarding e cigarettes and whether that counts as smoking or not.' Councilman Paul Gassman, a member of the Rules and Regulations committee, the group that would first address a policy change, also said the conversation has yet to reach the committee level but he feels it will not be an issue the city would have to face. His reaction is that electronic cigarettes should be handled the same way as regular cigarettes and should not be allowed inside city buildings. 'It's got pretty much the same chemistry but it's just a different way of delivering nicotine so, it should all be considered in the same way,' Gassman said. 'It only becomes a problem when somebody tries to bend the rules or break them.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Local vape store owner seems entirely unconcerned.
---
US: OKLAHOMA
Title: E-Cigarettes Banned In Some OK Cities
(Tulsa OK US ind. web site)http://ournewsoklahoma.com/article-view/80-county/5920-e-cigarettes-banned-in-some-ok-cities
Great reporting here by this ind. site about the list of OK cities that have been effetively bribed by the promise of receiving grant money from OK's MSA, in orer to ban vaping on city property (including outdoor vaping in city parks). " The money is given by the Healthy Communities Incentive Grants, which come with specific guidelines for cities to become certified. The larger incentives come from the Oklahoma’s Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust. The amount of grant money is based on the population of each city. Some of the cities that have banned e-cigarettes include Ada, Shawnee, Skiatook and Tahlequah, and all of the cities have been accused of banning for bucks.[para breaks omitted]. No junk.
[ SB 1892 is a mixed bag for proponents of smoke-free alternatives, because it raises the tax on Snus and other smokeless products, but exempts vaping. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-bills-introduced-oklahoma-hearing-held.html
and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/news/oklahoma-ok.html ]
---
US: KANSAS
Title: Opinion: E-cigarettes prove to be no better than regular cigarettes in some aspects
(KS ST. U. college paper) http://www.kstatecollegian
.com/2014/03/26/opinion-e-cigarettes-prove-to-be-no-better-than-regular-cigarettes-in-some-aspects/
This piece should be titled "e-cigarettes are just as bad as tobacco cigarettes - if not worse - and certainly have no advantages whatsoever for anyone."
While this hardly satisfies the standards for a professional ANTZ hit job, it's not a bad attempt for a Journalism junior who can only just barely manage to organize her thoughts in a coherent manner, add a topic sentence to a paragraph and compose a gramatically correct phrase. (That said, Your Correspondent was a bit surprised to discover that this is a college-level student paper.)
There are a couple of innovative fantasies that we might not put past the imaginations of well-trained ANTZ, such as this zinger of a non sequitur: "Then there are others who don’t smoke tobacco cigarettes, but smoke e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking tobacco. Many e-cigarette smokers use this nontraditional equipment because they hang out with people who smoke tobacco cigarettes and want something to do while others are smoking."
Or try this garbled thought: "Though there are some flavors that do not contain nicotine, the second listed ingredient (meaning the second most prominent ingredient in most e-cigarette flavors) is nicotine."
Aside from the unsurprising misunderstanding that the writer displays concerning Dutra & Glantz (i.e. she presents the study as longitudinal), the portion of this article that made me cringe most painfully was her citation of the despicable NPR "youth radio" piece by Jenny Lei Bolario. (I'll discuss that one tomorrow in the US National section when I review a You Tube video that she just made.) But to make a long story short: Ms. Bolario used an audiotape of an eighth-grader which is presented as fact" (and was picked up by national outets as such). On the tape, the student says that her friends buy PVs off of E-bay, and managed to use one at least once while a substitute teacher was standing and observing them.
Perhaps the writer of this opinion shares Ms. Bolario's standards of journalism ethics, insofar as both embrace the notion that rumors floating around in primary school hallways are to be treated as verified facts which are suitable for shaping American Public Health Policy.
[ Kansas appears to have no pending vaping legislation, but HB2672 would vastly increase the tax on smokeless products as well as tobacco cigarettes (but not vaping - yet): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...29-pack-increase-otp-tax-10-78-wholesale.html ]
---
US: OREGON
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Are e-cigarettes really safer than cigarettes? Doctors say no
(Medford OR US NBC) http://kobi5.com/news/item/are-e-cigarettes-really-safer-than-cigarettes-doctors-say-no
.html#.Uzb2Fc5obfg
"... local physicians say [e-cigarettes] are not any safer than traditional cigarettes. [Dr. Rebecca Schane from Asante Rogue Regional] says that [e-cigarettes can't be used for cessation] because they still contain nicotine 'It's just another product that's been marketed to keep you hooked, in many respects. It's a newer idea, it's a new option, a reinvention of the wheel.' Schane also says younger smokers who start smoking with e-cigarettes are more likely to choose smoking as a long term habit. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
Got that? Hmm. Looks like NRT is out, then, right? And of course ... the real problem with tobacco cigarettes is the nicotine, - not the tobacco, correct? No other junk.
[ OR legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: ED MURRIETA: There's at least one place your e-cigarette is welcome, Vapour House
(Sacramento CA local bus. web site) http://www.bizjournals
.com/sacramento/news/2014/03/26/ed-murrieta-theres-at-least-one-place-your-e.html
This is those of you who enjoyed the previews of Vape Mania or the recent HuffPo article entitled The Rise of the Electronic Cigarette Cognoscenti, here's a little fun for a change: a review of a high-end vape lounge that serves quality fare in all regards! [Note: the HuffPo article is discussed in this thread:]
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...05-rise-electronic-cigarette-cognoscenti.html
The author of this excellent piece is described as:
Ed Murrieta edits SacBizLunch.com. He's written about food, restaurants and farm-to-fork topics for the Sacramento Bee, the Seattle Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers and the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Enjoy!
Title: Cerritos council to vote on more than $334,000 in park upgrades
http://www.presstelegram
.com/lifestyle/20140325/cerritos-council-to-vote-on-more-than-334000-in-park-upgrades
["And now, back to our regular, sometimes-dreary programming ..."]
Cerritos city council is expected to ban vaping in all city-owned or operated facilities. However this doesn't affect private businesses - despite the potential for doing so when the ban was originally proposed. No rationale is given in this junk-free blurb.
Title: La Mesa resident exposed to e-cigarette smoke at restaurant [but proposed vaping=smoking ord. was tabled until staff can do more research]
(SD CA US Ind free paper) http://www.sandiegoreader
.com/news/2014/mar/28/stringers-exposed-e-cigarette-smoke-restaurant/
Yes, this is the now-infamous La Mesa: the town in the San Diego co. CA town whose mayor (Art Madrid) tried to ban the sale of PVs entirely, until CASAA got involved and sent Legislative Dir. Julie Woessner to the meeting on Jan 28th this year. Result: the city council voted to waited to delay action until the staff researched the issue.
On Tues 3/25, the council met again, and Mayor Art Madrid proposed banning vaping indoors and outdoors wherever smoking is prohibited. He cited a report from a resident at an earlier meeting who indicated that he was dining with his family at a restaurant, where another patron had vaped. From then on, not much is clear from this murky story, which seems to describe events at two different meetings via a kind of back-and-forth "stream of consciousness" technique.
It seems that three residents who tesitified at the 3/25 meeting were split: two were in favor of the mayor's proposal, one was against. Debbie Kelley, the ALA's SD County Advocacy Dir. and Proj. Dir. for Tobacco-Free Communities indicated that 12 of the 18 cities in San Diego Co. were looking into regulating vaping, and 11 of those 12 were considering passing vaping=smoking bans (it seems that Ms. Kelley is either directly or indirectly paid with tax dollars).
What's not clear from the report is why this ord. didn't pass on the first attempt, given that only one council member and only one resident appeared to oppose it. However staff have been asked to return within 90 days with "information about issues such as e-cigarette legislation in other jurisdictions." No other junk.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Encinitas moves toward banning e-cigarettes
http://www.seasidecourier
.com/news/encinitas-moves-toward-banning-e-cigarettes/article_c39c2718-b6bf-11e3-bb78-0017a43b2370.html
Either the reporter decided it was irrelevant to mention the issue of "second hand vaping," or the council made its decision entirely on the basis of the minor gateway argument:
"Public health officials and advocates say companies behind e-cigarettes are targeting children and teens in their marketing, which could create a new generation of smokers who graduate from vaping to real cigarettes.
Those health officials point to recent reports that showed that e-cigarette use among school-aged children nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011. Reports also indicate that teens are using the devices with mar!juana and h@sh oil.
The public health advocates, including representatives from the San Diego County Alliance for Drug Free Youth and the American Lung Association, congratulated the council on its decision. 'They treated this as a health issue and not a political one,' said Joe Kellejian, a former Solana Beach mayor who sits on the leadership board of the American Lung Association.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Yecch.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette vapor not annoying to most Americans, national study finds
(Pasadena CA US local paper) http://www.pasadenastarnews
.com/health/20140326/e-cigarette-vapor-not-annoying-to-most-americans-national-study-finds
After this one opened on a hopeful note by mentioning the 2014 American E-Cigarette Etiquette survey comissioned by Mistic, the author ups the ante by quoting CASAA's Legislative Dir., Julie Woessner:
"'It's really unfortunate that all these cities are rushing to regulate what can only be called a public health miracle,' said Woessner, from Indiana. 'Especially for the relatively new vapors or the people who are transitioning (from smoking to vaping), it's just not a good idea to force them to use their devices only where smokers are.' [para breaks omitted]"
And now, it's time for ... Dr. Jonathan Samet, who sits on the FDA's Tobacco Products Advisory Bd. "He said the juices used in e-cigs are not regulated in any way. So some have levels of tobacco smoke carcinogens and other contaminants."
(Huh? They have tobacco smoke carcinogens?? because they're not regulated? We'll have to chalk that up to the problem of paraphrasing.)
"'Allowing these devices to be used anywhere -- in part with some of the advertising that goes on -- would, in a sense, normalize nicotine addiction and perhaps even smoking,' Samet said. 'One of the ways we've made so much progress is that it's not acceptable to smoke in public places.' [...] 'There have been two reasons to handle e-cigs the same as combustible products,' Samet said. 'People would be exposed to the nicotine in the air, so the vapor could settle on people. It could contaminate the air that they breathe. It could [also]contaminate a chair, and they could touch it and nicotine can go through the skin.'[yeah, just like a nicotine inhaler, right?] [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Catch that? "Third hand vapor," here we come: multi-unit dwelling restrictions, hazmat teams required before a single-family house can be sold, and don't even think about trying to sell your car. (Or dryclean your clothes. How about flying on a commercial flight?)
It's a good thing that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over air quality standards.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Mercury News editorial: FDA needs to restrict e-cigarettes
(San Jose CA US local paper) http://www.mercurynews
.com/opinion/ci_25416369/mercury-news-editorial-fda-needs-restrict-e-cigarettes
After citing the ordinances recently passed in LA, SF, and Santa Clara county, the writers transition without any warning to the dreadful "selling poison by the barrel" NYT hit job:
"The New York Times on Sunday published an in-depth report on the dangers of the liquid form of nicotine, known as e-liquids, which are mixed with flavorings, colorings and other chemicals to create e-cigarettes. The products come in flavors such as chocolate, bubble gum, cheesecake and cotton candy to appeal to kids, and they are frighteningly dangerous. The Times reported that tiny amounts of the liquid nicotine, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can be lethal. The National Poison Data System reporting a 300 percent increase in poisonings from the substance just since 2012.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Aside from the myriad flaws in the NYT piece, Your Correspondent is utterly baffled by the linkage between the indoor vaping bans, and the potential for e-liquid poisoning. Are they not aware that e-liquid isn't present in large quantities within a PV, nor in high concentrations?
It's one thing to believe in the junk statistics proffered by Dutra & Glantz: surely we can't expect the editors of this paper to have studied any mathematics beyond primary school arithmetic. And the variety of near-pathological innumeracy that would permit someone to accept a generalization about 40M smokers from a sample of 88 subjects (and a variation within that sample of a half-dozen) is equally understandable here in a nation in which we're all proud of our incapability to comprehend the level of mathematical sense expected of every other nation's seventh-graders.
But are these editors entirely ignorant of the ordinance passed in San Francisco, just a hop-and-a-skip from their own doorsteps, and competely at sea when it comes to the difference between regulating a consumer product and air quality?
A reasonable person could well wonder how it is that the writers of this piece are able to speak without drooling uncontrollably.
---
US: HAWAII
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Teens and E-Cigarettes
(Some ind HI site, based in Honolulu) http://hawaiiahe
.com/2014/03/29/teens-e-cigarettes/
This is a verbatim copy of the yesterday's US Heath and Human Services official "Healthbeath," which represents the first clear endorsement by the U.S. gov't of the Dutra & Glantz junk statistics "study" in JAMA Pediatrics which confuses causation with causality. You can read the US gov'ts post here:
http://www.hhs
.gov/news/healthbeat/2014/03/teens-and-e-cigarettes.html
[ HB2133 (bans flavors) is dead, but SB 2495 (taxes, bans internet sales, state clean air act ext.) is very much alive and well: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-hawaii-bills-that-would.html http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...obacco-products-including-vapor-products.html ]
***
Google Tips
to see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
Last edited:
