[ 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. ]
4/6/14 - 4/9/14 Media Roundup
I need to stop getting so far behind. I hope to post the update for the today tonight, so I'll be back on track. Sorry about that ...
1) In a first of its kind, a vaping=smoking ban in St. Joseph MO was narrowly passed by referendum. The ordinance was promoted as an indoor tobacco smoking ban, but also included vapoing. Apparently both federal and state tax dollars were used to fund the effort on behalf of the law (this is also a first, insofar as a referendum result was so influenced).
2) New paper in Nature suggests a link between vaping and lung cell damage which may be associated with mutations (cancer).
3) New study from the UK suggests that vaping may be "Accelerate Smoking Cessation, Not Hinder It" (quoting Dr. Siegel).
4) CASAA alert for vaping=smoking ordinance to be discussed in Baytown Tx, tomorrow morning:
CASAA: Local Alert! Baytown, Texas E-Cigarette Usage Ban
5) The last bill in the US which might've explicitly excluded vaping from an indoor clean air act appears to have died:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...updates-wisconsin-updates-2.html#post12722062
6) NJOY sued in CA Federal Court in a class action which alleges that the plaintiff was injured by the use of the product, and NJOY made false claims about its safety.
7) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed unanimously in the following places: Smith co. TX; Reno co. KS; Del Mar CA; and Orland CA.
8) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed with dissenters in the following places: Hancock co. IN (2-1); Duncan OK (4-1); Austin MN (4-3); and Yolo co. CA (4-1).
9) Greg Conley from ECF confronts Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, at signing ceremony for city's vaping=smoking indoor ban.
10) US House subcommittee has hearings regarding FDA's slow approval rate for "substantial equivalence" applications under its tobacco products jurisdiction, which is precisely what vaping will be under in the event of FDA regulation under the current rubric.
11) Extremely thoughtful and well-researched article on vaping in Baltimore MD's free paper.
12) Poison control center call stories continue to flow in, at a rate of approximately 15-25/day. Most are from last week's CDC press release, although a few state and local poison control centers are dribbling in with their data. We can probably expect to see these stories for months, because they make good "filler." I'm monitoring them and will review/post the unusual ones as I see fit. But I won't start doing them regularly until the end of the month or so, which is when I anticipate that the flow will slow to a trickle. We are already seeing rare "reposts" of stories on Dutra & Glantz (minor gateway-to-tobacco junk study) and Grana et al. (junk cessation letter), which may be a sign that the "thrill" (as it were) from the poison headlines is subsiding. But the "e-cigarette poisonings of children skyrocket" meme is now well-established as part of the background lore in the US press, and we can expect to see this cited in most future anti-vaping hit jobs, as well as gratuitously added to vaping stories in the indefinite future.
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: E-cigarettes affect cells [possible cancer link]
(Nature) http://www.nature
.com/news/e-cigarettes-affect-cells-1.15015
It's not clear exactly what this means, although it seems to have generated far fewer stories than I'd have anticipated. It's currently being discussed in this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...re-comes-big-one-e-cigs-linked-c-n-c-e-r.html
Title: New Data from England Suggest that Electronic Cigarettes are Helping to Accelerate Smoking Cessation, Not Hinder It
(Dr. Siegel's Blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-data-from-england-suggest-that.html
"Opponents of electronic cigarettes have spent most of their time speculating about the negative impact of these products. They have argued that electronic cigarettes undermine the motivation to quit, normalize smoking, and undermine years of tobacco control efforts. However, a look at the actual scientific evidence suggests that this is not the case at all. Quite the opposite, it appears that electronic cigarettes are enhancing the process of smoking cessation among active smokers."
Title: Contrary to Claims of Many Anti-Smoking Advocates, New Study Shows that Electronic Cigarettes Decrease Nicotine Addiction
(Dr. Siegel's Blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/contrary-to-claims-of-many-anti-smoking.html
Survey study of vapers presented at 014 annual conference of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco indicates reduction in intensity of nicotine dependence.
Title: E-Cig Presence at Big Tobacco Hosted Trade Show
(ECF's InfoZone)
E-Cig Presence at Big Tobacco Hosted Trade Show - ECF InfoZone
What's happened in Vegas this week is The National Association of Tobacco Outlets (yes, it's "NATO"), and Gary Cox isn't going to let it stay in Vegas. The mouse that's roaring at the conference is vaping, because BT knows that its days are numbered. Will what Gary Cox refers to as the "fledgling industry" tolerate being taking under BT's wing?
Title: NEJM Fails to Correct Data on Childrens E-Cigarette Use
(Dr. Rodu's blog)
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/04/nejm-fails-to-correct-data-on-childrens.html
The New England Journal of Medicine doesn't intend to correct an overestimate of the number of US schoolchildren who are either vapoing or using tobacco cigarettes, due to dual use. The overestimate is approximately 1/7.
Title: Florida debates local vs state or federal control of e-cig sale to minors
(ECF's InfoZone)
Florida debates local vs state or federal control of e-cig sale to minors - ECF InfoZone
If you've been following the US legislative battles, you'll know that the ANTZ orgs managed to snatch defeat directly out of the jaws of victory in a number of states such as OR, where they opposed certain niceties of vaping=smoking legislation. In fact, OR didn't even end up with a simple minor sales/possession ban, which CASAA and virtually all vapers support. Now it's déjà vu "all over again" in FL, as a statewide battle erupts over two alternate minor sales/possession bans. One would keep local jurisdictions from imposing more stringent labelling and display requirements, and one would not. (Guess which one the ANTZ orgs oppose?) In this case, FL isn't so "weird," but it might be left with no bill at all.
***
ISRAEL
Title: e-cigarettes next big smoking poison, warns study
(Sydney Aus.-Based Israel/expat. news site) http://www.israelherald
.com/index.php/sid/220876159/scat/a1e025da3c02ca7c/ht/e-cigarettes-next-big-smoking-poison-warns-study
This isn't particularly remarkable for its content, but is yet another rare international report on the CDC press release. It doesn't mention the proposal by Israeli health minister Itamar Grotto to ban vaping.
***
UK NATIONAL
Title: The Great British Vape-off debate
(UK Nat'l paper) http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/10747395/The-Great-British-Vape-off-debate.html
This piece refers to vaping as "smoking," and also contains this curious comment about heating elements:
"Fire chiefs are also concerned that smokers are unaware of risks. The South Yorkshire brigade warned last week that people did not realise that the heating elements within e-cigs can overheat and start fires." (A reference to charger fires?)
More significantly, this piece incorrectly suggests that there's a conflict between what it describes as the EU's desire to regulate vaping as a "consumer product," versus the UK's gov't's alleged desire "to see e-cigarettes licensed as medicinal products."
That statement is true in the very limited sense that the UK gov't has opened the door to medicinal licensing (both BAT and Nicoline have applied to the NHS, as this space reported on 2/2/14). It's also true that the MHRA announced last year that it intends to regulate vaping as cessation therapy - http://uk.reuters
.com/article/2013/06/12/us-tobacco-britain-idUSBRE95B0HL20130612
The article is also correct insofar as the EU's TPD regulates vaping products as consumer (recreational, i.e. non-therapeutic) products.
However the writer is incorrect about the UK gov't's position - despite some rather mixed messages, about whether vaping will be regulated as both a consumer product (as advertising currently is), and as a medical product (to which the door has been opened), OR whether vaping is to be removed entirely from the consumper product regulatory framework and restricted to the therapeutic category. The article also wrongly suggests that the EU's TPD indicates anything about medicinal regulation, other than limiting what can be permitted under the consumer product framework (e.g. nicotine content and refillable cartridge size). In fact, medical use of vaping as cessation therapy is not regulated by the TPD, or by the EU at present: by all accounts the TPD currently envisions a two-track system which is entirely compatible with the UK's current direction, viz., member states will regulate vaping-based cessation therapies.
All of that said, the piece is generally balanced, and contains none of the sorts of factual inaccuracies designed to discourage vaping (or to encourage support for taxing and restricting the use of vaping) that we typically find in the press.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Britains efforts to reduce smoking are becoming a cash cow for big tobacco
(UK adademics' blog site) http://theconversation
.com/britains-efforts-to-reduce-smoking-are-becoming-a-cash-cow-for-big-tobacco-25334
Makes the point that NRT was a huge boon to big pharma, via the strategy of harm reduction, ,and that vaping will be an equal benefit to BT, if/when it's approved as cessation by the MHRA (Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency). The authors conclude:
"Likewise, only profound dizziness explains the about face on nicotine which a decade ago was villainous enough to launch a thousand clinics but is now being rehabilitated with the NHS drug regulator as its cheerleader. But it takes real blindness to consider perpetual nicotine use, with all the dependence, disempowerment and regressive inequalities this presumes, to be sound public health policy."
Apparently the authors' preferred solution to the public health issues surrouding combustible tobacco smoking can be summed up in one word: abstinence.
---
UK: LONDON
Title: London Café Invites Customers to Pair E-Cigarettes with Coffee
(London-based culinary 'zine directed at consumers) http://www.foodbeast
.com/2014/04/07/london-opens-its-first-ecigarette-coffee-shop-vape-lab/
Short but entertaining junk-free review of the vape-and-coffee shop, which this space first reported on 3/20. For a more detailed story, see: http://www.theguardian
.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/london-first-e-cigarette-coffee-shop-vape-lab
---
UK: NORTH YORKSHIRE
Title: Barmaid hit by exploding e-cigarette
(BBC) http://www.bbc
.com/news/uk-26958397
I try not to cover charger fire stories (which the US media has apparently tired of), but this one is everywhere. Apparently there's YT video of this which has gone viral. In a nutshell, some cheap cigalike was plugged into an iPad charger, and it took off like a rocket, causing minor injuries to a bar tender.
---
UK: MANCHESTER
Title: Venomous vaping? Debate over 'poison vapours' threatens to send e-cigarette craze up in smoke
(Manchester MCH UK local news amalgam site) http://www.mancunianmatters
.co.uk/content/080468487-venomous-vaping-debate-over-poison-vapours-threatens-send-e-cigarette-craze-smoke
This is another general survey piece, which begins with some comments about the concerns of regulators such as Drakeford, and moves on to list the usage policies of various local businesses and public authorities. It soesn't attempt to make any sweeping statements about cessation, but does cite the US CDC report about poision center calls. As we so often see in the press, it conflates calls with adverse outcomes, and it also fails to clarify that users of disposable cigalikes do not handle liquid nicotine. Your Correspondent wonders whether this wasn't generated by the usual cut-and-paste technique of mixing google search results with a trip to a local vape shop. That said, it contains little in the way of the sorts of hit job allegations that we find in US articles produced by cub reporters who feel the need to contact their local ALA or tobacco control officer.
***
CANADA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: No proof e-cigarettes are safe
(Ottawa ON Ca local paper) http://www.ottawasun
.com/2014/04/05/no-proof-e-cigarettes-are-safe
This article basically consists of two multi-paragraph quotations.
Dr. Andrew Pipe, of the U. Ottowa Heart Inst., presents the classic Glantz position - vaping will encourage teen smoking, and will not discourage adult smoking, i.e. it leads to "more smoking, not less" (Glantz). Apparently he's unable to crystalize this into a nifty sound bite:
"'There are pretty profound concerns that the use of these devices will not actually assist with (quitting), but will actually perpetuate smoking. They will be attractive to adolescents who want to experiment, and the use of these devices will result in a very rapid addiction to nicotine,' says Pipe. 'Anything that glamourizes the use of a highly-addictive drug is problematic. Impressionable people see (celebrities) vaping, and it appears to be novel, alluring and sophisticated. 'Unfortunately we dealt with that with tobacco products and now it seems we're going to have to deal with the same thing with a different drug delivery device.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[So the bottom line is that a Dr.'s fears and concerns are facts. We don't need any evidence, the "MD" after the name is good enough to ensure that all predictions will become reality.]
The rest of the article consists of a second long multi-paragraph quote, this time from Dr. Jon Ebbert of the Mayo Clinic's Nicotine Dependence Center (your tax dollars at work). Once again - no cessation evidence, and dual use (you know, like with NRT and cigarettes:
"'On one side you've got no evidence (e-cigarettes) are helping people quit -- especially when you look at the fact that most people who use them are actually continuing to smoke cigarettes, and so you've got this dual use phenomenon -- and on the other side you've got a developing body of evidence that it could be harmful.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
But wait, there's more:
"'You've got 'Mom's Apple Pie' flavour, bubblegum flavour, whatever flavour you like, and there's massive amounts of nicotine in these bottles of e-juice,' says Ebbert. 'Potentially lethal doses of nicotine are being sold as a cottage industry, and they can be mailed right to your house. We've had increasing reports to poison control about the ingestion of e-juice, and just touching the fluid can make people, especially kids, quite sick. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(As I always say - if you want a professional hit job, hire an American ANTZ.) What this story illustrates rather well is the success that the CDC has had in adding this third part of the meme to the collective "factoid" background - vaping poisons small children, it hooks teens on tobacco cigarette smoking, and it encourages adult cigarette smokers to smoke more cigarettes (or at least not quit).
Title: E-cigarettes can save lives
(Ottawa ON Ca local paper) http://www.ottawasun
.com/2014/04/05/e-cigarettes-can-save-lives
This piece says what every vaper knows, and what even virtually all ANTZ acknowledge:
"'We've known for decades that if we can deliver the nicotine without the process of combustion, we could essentially end the epidemic,' says Sweanor, University of Ottawa law professor who has spent 30 years as a public health advocate. The readily-available and government-regulated alternatives -- the nicotine patch, chewing gum, lozenges -- have not had nearly the desired impact in the drive to quit, says Sweanor.
[...] Sweanor acknowledges there will still be risks associated with inhaling the vapour -- which contains propylene glycol along with nicotine and various flavouring agents -- but he equates the difference between vaping and smoking to getting a caffeine fix from a cup of coffee instead of lighting up tea leaves. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Sadly, Prof. Sweanor doesn't address the principal anit-vaping meme to the effect that vaping poisons small children, causes teens to take up tobacco cigarettes, and encourages adult tobacco cigarette smokers to either smoke more, or not to quit.
[In fact, everything he says is entirely compatible with eliminating all "recreational" vaping - i.e. full "medicalization," which Your Correspondent believes to be the ultimate objective of the health authorities in the US and the UK, as well as Canada. This goal also formed the basis of the original EU TPD.
***
US NATIONAL
Title: Dangerous Consumer Product Lawsuits -- E-cigarette Maker Facing Class Action
(Law firm based in Tampa FL US) http://www.swoperodante
.com/dangerous-consumer-product-lawsuits-e-cigarette-maker-facing-class-action/
NJOY sued in class action. Plaintiff alleges that "are dangerous and contain levels of nicotine, toxins and carcinogens in amounts that vary from the labels," that NJOY failed to disclose this info., and that he had to stop using the product after it caused "him to exhibit symptoms including dizziness, nausea and chest pains."
"McGovern alleges that he, along with tens of thousands of other consumers, relied on NJOY's representations that e-cigarettes are healthier than conventional cigarettes, including representations on NJOY's website that the nicotine found in its e-cigarette cartridges is, '...found in certain plants, predominantly tobacco, and in lower quantities, tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, cauliflower, bell peppers, and some teas.' McGovern's lawsuit contends that this statement implies the product is safe and that NJOY misrepresents its e-cigarette product as a smoking cessation device. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Suit was filed in the US District court for the Central Dist. of California. (The report doesn't indicate a federal claim, so persumably the case was filed under diversity jurisdiction.) More details in the story.
Title: E-cigarettes have risks but they also offer public health benefits
(US National Paper) http://www.washingtonpost
.com/opinions/e-cigarettes-have-risks-but-they-also-offer-public-health-benefits/2014/0 4/09/72dad318-bc34-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html
As we discovered some weeks ago in a New York Times editorial that appeared to endorse the EU TPD (Tobacco Products Directive), the editors of major U.S. newspapers don't seem to know even the most basic facts about the regulatory framework - both actual and proposed - that governs or will govern vaping. In this case, it's not even clear what the editors are proposing, other than avoidance of an outright ban. Do they support taxing vaping at the same level as tobacco cigarettes? Are they in favor of banning interstate sales? Do they think that flavors and/or refillable cartridges over (say) 2ml - just to pick a random number out of the air - should be prohibited? What about full "medicalization" as some think that the UK's NHS and/or MHRA may be considering? (I.e. available by prescription only.) Your Correspondent has no idea, other than to be absolutely certain that the writers' level of igorance is well beyond the merely profound.
Title: Senate Dems want crackdown on e-cigs
(US Nat'l Politics 'zine) http://thehill
.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/202831-senate-dems-want-agency-crackdown-on-e-cigs
Nothing too surprising about the letter sent by Sen.s Boxer (CA), Blumenthal (CT), Brown (OH), Durbin (IL), Harkin (IA), and Markey (MA), in which they ask the FDA and the FTC to take action against web sites that advertise vaping as cessation. This has mainly gotten attention on political blogs because Sen.s Boxer et al. have sent several similar missives to the FDA and FTC. However Sen. Blumenthal and Rep. Etsy (CT) held a press conference on Monday which was widely covered by the CT media (see collection below). However later this week, I'll be collecting all the articles that cite this letter, to survey them for other junk content (which the CT press articles certainly don't lack). As always, we hear about bubble gum flavoring, etc. in the letter. You can read the letter and the press release here: http://www.boxer
.senate.gov/en/press/releases/040714a.cfm
Title: House Subcommittee Examines Implementation of Tobacco Control Act
(Convenience and fuel store trade 'zine) http://www.nacsonline
.com/News/Daily/Pages/ND0409142.aspx#.U0cOcaJobfg
Title: House Subcommittee Looks at Center for Tobacco Products
http://www.cspnet
.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/house-subcommittee-looks-center-tobacco
US House hearings on the FDA's very slow pace of processing "substantial equivalence" applications are relevant to any future regulation of vaping. As I understand it, if vaping is regulated under the FDA's existing tobacco products jurisdiction, then vaping products will have to wait in the existing queue behind thousands of other requests regarding combustible tobacco products. This is one (among other) reasons why FDA regulation of vaping would effectively amount to a ban. This topic is already being discussed in legislation:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ntation-tobacco-control-act.html#post12794643
---
US: CONNECTICUT
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: To Vape Or Not To Vape? E-Cigarettes Raise Questions
(Newtown CT US local paper) http://www.newtownbee
.com/news/news-health/2014/04/08/vape-or-not-vape-e-cigarettes-raise-questions/199197
It looks as if this reporter did her best to do some research initially, even going to the point of presenting conflicting statements about nicotine:
"Information at WebMD.com states that while e-cigarettes may be safer due to that fact that no burning smoke is inhaled, nicotine is still being delivered to the system. Nicotine is dangerous for those with heart problems and can be harmful to arteries when used over time. There is also evidence of nicotine use being linked to increased blood clotting, branchiospasm of the lungs, and gastrointestinal issues. While not a carcinogen, nicotine may stimulate tumor growth, and there is evidence of increased risk for birth defects when pregnant women use nicotine.
But at the same time, we hear:
"TobaccoHarmReduction.org asserts that the effects of nicotine itself are hardly more than those of caffeine, increasing blood pressure and heart rate temporarily."
At this point, the writer seems to have finished her research, dispensed with her journalism training, and simply turns the rest of the article over to local health "experts," with the expected result: a hit-job-by-proxy:
We start with Marianne Mitchell, "a pulmonary nurse practitioner with Western Connecticut Health Network (Danbury Hospital).":
1) "'We don't even know what's in them,' she said, and she is alarmed by recent findings that the biggest ingredient in e-cigarettes is the same chemical found in antifreeze." [...]
2) "Refilling the cartridges with illegal substances and smoking them is a problem, too, she said. As a pulmonary nurse practitioner, it is the act of smoking that worries her." [...]
3) "'A heavy smoker will inhale,' she said. Nor, said Ms Mitchell, who has run the smoking cessation program 'Quit Now' for 12 years, do e-cigarettes help smokers to stop." [...]
4) "'The top four tobacco companies have bought into e-cigarettes. The tobacco companies are making money off of our youth,' she said."" [para breaks omitted, boldface added][/I]"
Next, we hear from Donna Culbert, "director of health for the Town of Newtown." ECF readers and vapers in general who are familiar with US media coverage can quite likely predict how things will go down from here:
1) Citation of CDC data and a "study" showing that teen vapers are switching to tobacco cigarettes (which is presumably Dutra & Glantz).
2) Citing the CDC poison control calls data.
3) Citing Grana et al. for the "lack of cessation evidence."
In other words, this reporter started off with what appear to be the best of intentions, but was steered into becoming a mouthpiece for the ANTZ playbook by the local "experts."
As a final note, this argument about caffiene vs. nicotine caught Your Correspondent's attention:
"Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, though, she stressed, and while the immediate physical effects may not seem much more dangerous than caffeine, 'you would not be drinking coffee every 20 minutes, which is about how long nicotine affects the body,' she said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ CT 24 (proposed by gov) minor sales ban is still in cmte. More troubling:
HB 5286 - burdensome labelling requirements whose purposes is to "destroy the e-cig industry" (Bill Godshall): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...contents-nicotine-yield-hearing-feb-28-a.html ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Editorial: FDA must regulate e-cigarettes, liquid nicotine
(West Hartford CT US local paper) http://www.westhartfordnews
.com/articles/2014/04/06/opinion/doc533b264b56e83918819841.txt
This dreadful editorial is interesting insofar as it mixes in the CDC minor junk usage statistics with the CDC's release of the poison control center call data (and press release). Evidently the two things they have in common are the CDC, and vaping (did the teens surveyed by the CDC use tanks?). It also quotes Sen Blumenthal's alarmist rhetoric:
"'E-liquids are the new snake oil of cigarette marketing -- with purity and potency varying widely, and no safeguards. The FDA must act immediately to forestall imminent public health threats from e-cigarettes and toxic nicotine e-liquids.'" [boldface added]
Title: New Bill Aims to Curb Teen E-Cigarette Use
(West Hartford CT US NBC affiliate) http://www.nbcconnecticut
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-smoking-malloy-legislation-judiciary-committee-bill-254633201.html
Short note about CT's SB-24, which is Gov. Malloy's simple minor sales/possesion ban. (It's not clear if this bill carries a "SB" or "HB" prefix, since it was proposed by the Gov. CT is one of those few states in which the Gov. can directly introduce a bill.) Primarily noteworthy because Rep. John Sheban voted against it, saying: "'E-nicotine devices don't contain tobacco, and I am hesitant to begin categorizing them as though they are synonymous with cigarettes,' Shaban said in a statement. 'I want to ensure there is a reasonable level of oversight for these devices that is consistent with their contents.'"
(The piece also quotes a married vaping couple, one of whem seems to rather regrettably embrace the minor gateway-to-tobacco argument.)
---
US: NEW JERSEY
Title: NJ should not impose a 'sin tax' on e-cigarettes: Editorial
(Newark NJ US local paper) http://www.nj
.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/nj_should_not_impose_a_sin_tax_on_e-cigarettes_editorial.html
This is basically the reverse argument from what you see immediately below from the Vineland Daily Journal: i.e. if there's any possibility that vaping can help smokers quit, then it shouldn't be taxed the same as cigarettes. (Whereas the article below presumes that vaping is recreational, therefore vaping taxes should be used to fund anti-tobacco-smoking efforts.) I won't say more, since this particular editorial is already being discussed on this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...j-should-not-impose-sin-tax-e-cigarettes.html
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. Passed by the house last month, now ready for the Sen:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
Title: Concern over teens getting high using e-cigarettes
(Newark NJ Verizon radio) http://www.fios1news
.com/newjersey/node/25394#.U0ZQCaJobfg
It's not entirely clear that there was any specific event or occurance that precipitated this piece, which curiously begins with: "Teenagers using electronic cigarettes - sometimes to get high - has one New Jersey anti-teen smoking advocate worried. Middle school and high school students are reportedly pouring mar1juana extract into e-cigarettes to get high. Karen Blumenfeld, executive director of GASP - the Global Advisors Smokefree Policy - in Summit, said she hasnt heard of the new trend but isnt stunned by it." [boldface added, para break omitted]
After this, the writer effectively gives Ms. Blumenfeld "the floor" as it were, and we hear about the minor-gateway-to-tobacco, and the CDC's posion control center call statistics. Although in one small concession, the writer apparently declines to go along with the ANTZ view of vapor, penning "... there is debate over whether the vapor is clean or laden with chemicals."
Your Correspondent has no idea why this story was written in the first instance, other than perhaps to satisfy a requirement for vaping-related verbiage.
[Repost due to re-run]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Use e-cig tax for anti-smoking fight
(Vineland NJ US local paper) http://www.thedailyjournal
.com/article/20140408/OPINION01/304080007/Use-e-cig-tax-anti-smoking-fight
Title: EDITORIAL: Taxes on e-cigarettes have merit, if ...
(Monmouth/Ocean Co. NJ US local paper) http://www.app
.com/article/20140407/NJOPINION01/304070018/EDITORIAL-Taxes-e-cigarettes-merit-?nclick_check=1
Editorial writer is suspicious that vaping taxes will be used for smoking cessation, but argues that these taxes make sense if used for public health. Why should vaping be taxed? Answer:
"It seems reasonable that a cigarette that doesnt include burning tobacco represents a healthier alternative. But we dont yet know the health risks of e-cigarettes. And lets not forget: Once upon a time supporters made plenty of safety claims about regular cigarettes as well, which proved to be wildly disingenuous. It is also an open question as to whether the e-cigarettes function as a smoking cessation product, helping to wean smokers off tobacco - while still providing the nicotine - or whether they could actuallyincrease smoking by introducing more children to a cigarette habit at an earlier age. While electronic cigarettes arent typically marketed to children, they do come in many flavors most likely to appeal to kids."
In other words, because there are "unknowns" and "concerns" about vaping, and because tobacco cigarettes have an evil history, vaping should be taxed to support public health (even if vaping proves to be a desireable cessation technology).
Note:
The older clone of this editorial is also being discussed in this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...l-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax-3.html#post12775551
Title: E-cigarettes can help smokers quit, but they are not without risks
(Vineland NJ US local paper) http://www.dailyrecord
.com/article/20140408/NJLIFE04/304080011/E-cigarettes-can-help-smokers-quit-they-not-without-risks (Monmouth/Ocean Co. NJ US local paper) http://www.app
.com/article/20140408/NJLIFE/304080003/The-risks-e-cigarettes
Relatively junk-free, and very different from the tone of the two editorials above (both of these papers are in the same Gannet group: the Daily Record and the Asbury Park Press. Contains a rather mild statement about nicotine from Dr.Robert Lahita, chairman of medicine and vice president of Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, a Barnabas Health facility:
"... use/overuse of nicotine can cause high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, back pain, depression, anxiety, nausea and sleep disturbances - all reasons why the FDA considers nicotine a drug and potential poison and regulates the sale of tobacco products."
Followed by this rather surprising apparent endorsement:
"In addition to offering a design that satisfies those with an oral fixation or the need to hold something, which nicotine patches and gum products may not completely fulfill, 'e-cigarettes are a cleaner delivery system for nicotine,' he said, 'and may be among the best options out there for mature adults who are trying to wean themselves off of nicotine and quit smoking.' [boldface added]"
---
US: MARYLAND
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Nic Fit - Puffing through the great vape debate over electronic cigarettes
(Baltimore MD US local free alternative paper) http://citypaper.com/news/nic-fit-1
.1664767
A genuinely wonderful personal pro-vaping in depth piece that beats just about anything I've ever seen in a mainstream (or quasi-mainstream) publication. This writer has clearly done his homework, and you'll see many familiar names. This is a must-read and I'd encourage everyone to congratulate the writer on his diligence and sophistication. (Who says the journalism profession is dead in America?)
[ MD's legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: PENNSYLVANIA
Title: Nutter signs law that bans 'vaping'
(Philadelphia PA US local paper) http://www.philly
.com/philly/news/politics/20140410_Mayor_Nutter_signs_law_that_bans__quot_vaping_quot__just_about_everywhere_in_Phila_.html
Interesting only because ECF's own Greg Conley got involved in the action (also see the collection below on the Blumenthal/Etsy Press Conf. that I'll cover in this space in the next update):
"As Mayor Nutter took out his pen Wednesday to sign two bills that crack down on 'vaping,' or puffing on electronic cigarettes, Gregory Conley broke the silence in the Mayor's Reception Room at City Hall. 'Congratulations on hurting public health and deceiving smokers into believing that e-cigarettes are harmful,' Conley shouted at the mayor while holding an e-cigarette. As a member of Nutter's security team stood in front of Conley, an e-cigarette lobbyist, the mayor fired back: 'That device might be harmful, but he's harmless.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
ECF'rs know Greg as "Placebo Effect," and you can read/view some of his extremely persuasive testimony in the legislative forum. You go, Greg!
[ PA's SB 1055 a simple minor sales ban, hasn't passed the state sen. No other threats. ]
---
US: ALABAMA
Title: Youth Council approaches Mobile City Council with e-cigarette, hookah concerns
(Mobile AL US local paper) http://blog.al
.com/live/2014/04/youth_council_approaches_mobil.html
The Mobile City Youth Council is described as: "15 teenagers from high schools around the county who meet regularly to discuss a variety of issues -- drugs, smoking, obesity, etc. -- and serves as a liaison to the local governing bodies." They met with the City Council earlier this week to request that the City Council "look for ways to tighten restrictions on underage e-cigarette and hookah use. Also, they want to urge the Police Department to consider compliance checks at convenience stores and restaurant/bars that allow e-cigarette and hookah smoking."
Unforunately this article seems to move seamlessly between hookah use and vaping (both of which are illegal for minors in AL). It does cite the CDC statistics for minor vaping, and reports that more than half the calls to poison control centers involving vaping were about children under 5. However it says nothing else that's particularly negative, and closes with some quotes by a vape store owner, who says that he has "zero tolerance" for sales to minors.
A city councilman indicated that he felt that it's not the city's business to "legislate morality," and the Youth Council "head" indicates that a "fall campaign" is planned. Hopefully the Youth Council will not approch the City Council to request a pre-emptive vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban, in order to protect minors. (As nearly all vapers know, this rationale is nearly always invoked by elected officials who support vaping restrictions.)
[ AL's legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: INDIANA
Title: E-Cigarette Debate : Shrouded in vapor
(South Bend IN US local paper) http://www.southbendtribune
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-debate-shrouded-in-vapor/article_8e171d3a-be41-11e3-a648-0017a43b2370.html
For a general survey article, this is fairly free of junk. For starters, IN Dep't of Health's director of tobacco prevention and cessation is quoted as making this unbelievably mild statement:
"We don't know enough about these products (e-cigarettes) to guide people."
Almost grudgingly, the reporter quotes last week's CDC report about poision control center calls and minor use, briefly referring to Dutra & Glantz: " The study also found that 76.3 percent of those students who used e-cigarettes within 30 days also smoked conventional cigarettes during that period."
However virtually all of the space in this piece is reserved for postive coverage of vaping and the local vape shop, which apparently has its own vape group and recently held its own Vape Meet.
Interestingly, the piece also suggests that IN's proposed 24% tax seems to be dead for the time being. No other threats exist in IN.
Title: E-cigarette users seek exemption from smoking ban [Hancock Co.]
(Indianapolis IN US NBC affiliate) http://www.wthr
.com/story/25198479/2014/04/08/e-cigarette-users-seek-exemption-from-smoking-ban
As readers of this space know, the Hancock co. bd. was advised by its health comm'r that its indoor/outdoor ban on smoking already covered vaping. The Bd voted unanimously last month to affirm this decision. After discovering it, a local vape shop owner organized a petition with over 400 signatures and appeared with supporters in front of the co. bd. on Tues 4/9. This story indicates that the decision was made by "the smallest of margins." It also says: "The Board of County Commissioners had sought the recommendation of the county's Board of Health." However the Greenfield Reporter article from last week reported that the BOH had initiated the request to the board. If so, this wouldn't be unusual - BOHs all over the US are working with the ALA and related orgs to advance these proposals at both the city and the county level.
Title: Opponents of e-cig ban vow to keep fighting [Hancock Co.]
(Greenfield IN US local paper) http://www.greenfieldreporter
.com/view/local_story/Opponents-of-e-cig-ban-vow-to-_1397087612#.U0YYLKJobfg
Title: Debate over e-cigarettes ignites in Greenfield
(Indianapolis IN US CBS affiliate) http://wishtv
.com/2014/04/08/debate-over-e-cigarettes-ignites-in-greenfield/
The first article above in the Greenfield Reporter is behind a pay wall. The second link adds nothing to the WTRH report described immediately above.
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: Lighter regulations on e-cigarettes desired
(Depaul U. Chicago IL US student paper) http://www.depauliaonline
.com/news/lighter-regulations-on-e-cigarettes-desired-1.3157568#.U0RFEKJobfg
This is one of those rare stories that seems to have had the content driven entirely by vapers instead of local Health Dep't or Tobacco Control personell, MDs etc. I can't find a single word of junk in it. It's basically crafted around a single vape shop near campus.
[ Most serious threat in IL right now is HB 5689, which has passed the house, and which would ban the sale of e-liquid until the IL Health Dep't issues standards:
CASAA: Call to Action! Illinois Bill Would Ban Sale of Liquid for E-Cigarettes Until Illinois Department of Public Health Establishes Packaging Standards
And this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html
IL is also considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter (HB 5868 = SB 3268), see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.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: Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2659 ]
---
US: MINNESOTA
Title: Our view: State can follow Duluth on e-cigs
(Duluth MN US local paper) http://www.duluthnewstribune
.com/content/our-view-state-can-follow-duluth-e-cigs
Given Duluth's history as a hotbed of anti-vaping activity, this junk-filled cesspool of an editorial should come as no surprise. Yes, we find out that calls to poison control centers are "skyrocketing" - that's the beginning. But then, of course we have the nanoparticles:
"Researchers have found metal and silicate particles along with the nicotine in e-cigarettes. Are they at levels so low as not to be dangerous? The problem is we simply dont know. There hasnt been anywhere near enough research and there has been little to no oversight to assure safety. But thats not stopping the use of e-cigarettes, including by those trying to quit real cigarettes, never mind far more effective and proven cessation methods are out there. Even more troubling is the use of e-cigarettes by children ..."
Okay let's see: vaping poisons small children, it hooks teens on cigarette smoking, and it doesn't do much to help adults quit. And it may be poisoning vapers and everyone else around them. Where have we heard that before? But, there's more ...
"E-cigarettes, as addictive, dangerous and harmful to health as they may be, are actively being marketed to kids, just the way tobacco cigarettes used to be.
Now for the finishing touch:
"'Although the [vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor clean air act extension] bill has come a long way in a very short period of time, there is still a lot that can happen,' Jill Doberstein of Duluth, the manager of tobacco prevention and control programs for the American Lung Association in Minnesota, told the News Tribune Opinion page last week. 'Because we know this is an election year for House members across the state, the strong support for policies regulating e-cigarettes ... is a wining issue for any candidate.' [boldface added]"
Wow, now politicians can do the right thing, and get votes too! What's not to hate about vaping, and what's not to like about banning it? (Oh, sorry. They're not calling for a ban. Not yet. Although it's hard to see why not.
[ As long as Gov. Dayton continues to impose MN's proposed indoor vaping ban, there are no serious threats there. ]
Title: Council passes e-cigarette ban [vaping=smoking]
(Austin MN US local paper) http://www.austindailyherald
.com/2014/04/council-passes-e-cigarette-ban/
Title: With city approval, ban on e-cigarettes in public places to start next week
(Austin MN US local paper) http://www.austindailyherald
.com/2014/04/with-city-approval-ban-on-e-cigarettes-in-public-places-could-start-next-week/
Title: Austin City Council Passes Temporary E-Cigarette Ban
(Austin/Rochester/Mason City MN US ABC affiliate) http://www.kaaltv
.com/article/stories/S3391472.shtml
The local paper's articles contain little information about the motives of the Council, although the vote was (amazingly) 4-3 - one of very few instances in which any local official has voted against a vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban. The ABC affiliate's story contains these tid-bits:
"'It's really an opportunity for us to have a year of time to see what the FDA does and to find out more about the health risks associated with e-cigarettes,' said councilor Janet Anderson. [...] And while experts agree more research is needed, they said the ordinance will help protect people until that information is available. 'I think it's good for the public safety, there's just too many unknowns yet with e-cigarettes,' said Deb Skare, a tobacco cessation specialist at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Austin. [para breaks omitted"
Austin is in an area of MN that's seen a great deal of activity from ALA rep.s, who have succesfully passed vaping=smoking indoor clean air act extensions in Manketo (home of Sen. Kathy Sheran, a vaping opponent who seem to do her best to memorize and repeat ALA talking points), N. Manketo, New Ulm, Sleepy Eye, Rochester, Waseca and others. MN is beginning to look like a "poster state" for the idea that it's possible for vapers to successfully push back against statewide legislation, only to lose in virtually every city and county.
Title: 15-Minute Advocate: Support E-Cigarette Regulation [by pointing to the # of cities that have passed vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans]
(League Of MN Cities web site) http://www.lmnc
.org/page/1/15ma-ECig.jsp
Although MN's senate vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban isn't a current threat so long as Gov. Dayton holds to his position, the League of MN Cities is urging vaping opponents to contact the Gov. and/or their elected rep.s to express support for a vaping ban. The three "talking points" are:
1) The FDA doesn't consider vaping to be a form of smoking cessation.
2) The legislature passed the indoor clean air act in 2007, but local jurisdictions can enact more restrictive policies.
3) "Because of potential health concerns and the current lack of regulation, at least 21 cities have passed ordinances on an individual basis that range from to whom they can be sold to prohibiting their use in public places."
In other words, what the League is saying is that local jurisdictions' decisions to ban vaping are themselves "talking points," for urging state legislators to do so. (In fact, this same phenomenon occurs nationally - members of the US Congress are often urged to adopt legislation on the grounds that states have done so.
---
US: MISSOURI
Title: Smoking [and vaping] ban passes in close vote [St. Joseph]
(St. Joseph MO US local paper) http://www.newspressnow
.com/news/local_news/article_8d2689bd-bd24-5ea6-b636-083a7a6d1416.html
Referendum in St. Joseph MO on an indoor smoking ban passes by 818 votes: 52.75% to 47.25% out of 14,880 votes (32.2% turnout). This ord. defined vaping as smoking. It appears that both federal and state money were likely used to fund the effort, since these funds support "Clean Air St. Joe" which is apparently the organization behind the initiative. See this web site:
Clean Air St. Joseph | Supporters
also the now-obsolete CASAA call (for background):
CASAA: Local Alert! St. Joseph, Missouri - April 8, 2014 Public Vote on Ordinance That Would Ban E-Cigarette Use as "Smoking"
[ Missouri presently only has a simple minor ban under consideration SB 841 = HB 1690 and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...acco-derived-product-vapor-product-minor.html ]
---
US: TEXAS
Note: These three different stories paint a picture of the situation in Smith Co., whose commissioners appear to be quite sure that vaping should be treated as smoking, and that public safety requires a 50-ft perimeter around all co. facilities.
Title: Electronic cigarettes could be vaporized from Smith County buildings
(Tyler TX US ABC affiliate) http://www.kltv
.com/story/25193683/electronic-cigarettes-could-be-vaporized-from-smith-county-buildings
County commission meets again "next week" for a final vote.
"Commissioners said employees have been seen smoking the e-cigarettes in and around county buildings. In order to avoid confusion and checking every product for tobacco, they feel it would be easier to ban all vapor, with and without tobacco. 'The CDC came out with a study suggesting the vapors [from nicotine] can be absorbed through the skin and the eyes, so it does affect those that are around you,' said Smith County Judge Joel Baker. 'I always thought they were for people trying to quit smoking but I understand now they have a nicotine in them,' said Precinct 1 Commissioner Jeff Warr. 'We have to make the necessary changes in our policy or someone will say it's not in our policy,' [Comm'r] Hampton said. 'I would be in favor or eliminating the use of e-cigarettes or whatever product they use that creates vapor within the confines of the buildings and within 50 feet just like the no smoking policy,' Baker said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ TX legislature is out of session until 2015, unless Gov. Perry calls a special session. ]
Title: E-cigarettes may be banned within, just outside Smith County facilities
(Tyler TX US local paper) http://www.tylerpaper
.com/TP-News+Local/197827/ecigarettes-may-be-banned-within-just-outside-smith-county-facilities#.U0Q9pqJobfg
I]"Judge Joel Baker said there had been increasing complaints and incidents involving electronic cigarettes and that a recent study indicating the second-hand dangers of the product prompted the action. [...] Baker and other commissioners agreed bringing the devices in line with its Smoke Free Policy, which bans smoking from all county facilities and vehicles, will make the rules consistent. The policy also requires smokers be at least 50 feet from all public entrances. There was a report of a court bailiff taking a smoking device away from a juror recently, Baker said. 'We just needed to bring the policy in line with the traditional idea of smoking,' Baker said. 'There might be health hazards associated with e-cigarettes and there's also a respect factor when you're talking about being in a county building and around the public.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added][/I]"
Title: Smith County exploring indoor e-cig ban
(Tyler TX US CBS affiliate) http://www.cbs19
.tv/story/25191919/smith-county-exploring-indoor-e-cig-ban
"Current county policy fails to address e-cigarettes, whose use has sky-rocketed in the past couple of years.
County workers told commissioners during their weekly meeting Tuesday that there have been complaints from county offices regarding an inability to prevent people from using the devices. One example provided was that of a juror who was smoking an e-cigarette and received instructions from a judge and bailiff to stop doing so. County Judge Joel Baker voiced support for a potential expansion of the county's no smoking policy, citing a recent Centers for Disease Control study. 'The CDC came out with a study suggesting that the vapors can be absorbed through the skin and the eyes so it can affect those that are around you,' Baker said. That study appears to relate only to poisoning cases involving the raw vaping liquid. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Kudos to the writer for correcting the judge's ignorant remark. (Note the use of the word "sky-rocketed" - perhaps this will become the new "Wild West" catch phrase. Whatever else one can say about CDC Dir. Tom Frieden, he has a Glantz-like ability to add terms to the existing hysteria-lexicon surrounding vaping.)
Title: E-cigarette Bans: Necessary or Needless [Georgetown TX]
(Austin TX US CBS affiliate) http://www.keyetv
.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/ecigarette-bans-necessary-needless-17296.shtml
Title: Georgetown City Council bans e-cigarettes in public places
(Austin TX US NBC affiliate) http://kxan
.com/2014/04/08/georgetown-city-council-bans-e-cigarettes-in-public-places/
Five of the six Georgetown City Council members voted for a vaping=smoking ban. (It's not clear if the remaining member was absent, opposed, or didn't vote.) No reason is given in either story. The KEYETV (first) piece says this, although it's not at all clear whether it addresses "second hand vaping" or if it had anything at all to do with the city council's decision:
"The question... is vaping safe? Doctor aren't so sure 'these things haven't been FDA approved they haven't been researched. We don't have any long term data to suggest they are safe. We just don't know' said Dr. Ross Tobleman at Scott and White Hospital. [...] 'That nicotine paralyzes the hair cells inside our lung tissue, inside our lung tissue, inside our bronchioles and prevents them from moving waste products out of the lungs' Tobleman explained. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(Is this really true about inhaled nicotine?) The second (KXAN) report is a very brief announcement.
Title: E-cigarettes are smoking's newest thing; potential dangers hazy
(El Paso TX US local paper) http://www.elpasotimes
.com/living/ci_25508723/e-cigarettes-are-smokings-newest-thing-potential-dangers
While this piece carefully avoids making any specific anti-vaping claims, and only cites some rather mild conclusions from FDA '09 (no diethelyne glycol), it also uses the words "concern" and "fear" a total of seven times. Basically, as far as the author is concerned, we could be dealing with an as-yet-unexplored planet in a distant galaxy. Fortunately he stopped Googling after reading an article on the FDA.
Title: E-Cigarettes: The new fad for the uninformed
(So. Methodist U. Dallas TX US student paper) http://www.smudailycampus
.com/news/e-cigarettes-the-new-fad-for-the-uninformed
Let's see ... which is more harmful, a combustible tobacco cigarette, or vaping? The answer is that we don't know (supposedly):
"The notion of e-cigarettes being healthier may persist because the lack of information allows people to think they are. The only deterrence seems to be, for those who smoke regular cigarettes, that you have to smoke the e-cigarette more in order to get the same nicotine buzz."
Does vaping help anyone quit smoking? Once again, no information whatosever is available:
"Currently, there is no information that shows using e-cigarettes can help someone quit smoking. The only possible sign is that it provides a smaller dose of nicotine per puff than cigarettes."
And there's this zinger, with an unattributed quote:
"The FDA does regulate some e-cigarettes, but only those 'marketed for therapeutic purposes.'
I suppose the one thing that we can all say for certain about vaping after reading this article is that there are indeed many "uninformed" folks, as the title seems to suggest.
---
US: KANSAS
Title: Reno County Commission Approves E-Cigarette Ban
(Hutchinson KS ind radio station) http://www.hutchpost
.com/2014/04/08/reno-county-commission-approves-e-cigarette-ban/
No actual quotes in this story:
"Reno County Commissioners gave approval to ban all e-cigarettes from all county buildings and vehicles during their meeting Tuesday. E-cigarettes are becoming more and more popular, but things people are putting in them which can be illegal are also increasing. So, the county took a proactive approach and banned them all together. The commission felt is would take to much time and effort to police each individual person who uses the electronic cigarettes."
[ 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 ]
Title: E-cigarettes banned from campus buildings
(U KS Laurence KS US student paper) http://kansan
.com/news/2014/04/06/is-it-legal-to-smoke-in-buildings-illegal/
This piece indicates that the U's HR dep't "consulted with physicians at KU medical center" before defining vaping as smoking and banning it w/i 20 feet of most campus buildings. However:
"Exclusions to the policy include Student Housing (residential halls, scholarship halls and apartments) where students are allowed to use e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco and snuff."
That's fairly amazing, given that most college campuses are banning all tobacco-related products (except NRT) everywhere on campus.
---
US: OKLAHOMA
Title: Council weighs water rationing options [city property vaping=smoking ban passed]
(Duncan OK US local paper) http://www.duncanbanner
.com/local/x694519092/Council-weighs-water-rationing-options#sthash.lWSlbYO5.dpuf
Duncan City Council bans indoor vaping on city property and establishes a 25 ft. doorway perimeter. However it permits outdoor vaping except in one location - "Abe Raizin Park, where vapers will be required to be in designated smoking areas to inhale their various flavored vapors. Because vapers typically are ex-smokers who use the vapor devices to replace tobacco, they preferred not to be assigned to a smoking area, but they succeeded in heading off a total ban on outdoor vaping in city parks."
No reasons were given.
[ 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: Oklahoma -- OK! - ECF InfoZone ]
Title: Ban e-cig use in public spaces [Opinion]
(Muskogee OK US local paper) http://www.muskogeephoenix
.com/opinion/x493453294/Ban-e-cig-use-in-public-spaces
In a nutshell:
"The last thing the public needs to do is substitute a cloud of nicotine-laced water vapor for the cloud of smoke we all used to have to walk through everywhere we went. We just dont know what the effect of second-hand vapor will be in the long run."
(This appears to be an editorial, because it's not signed).
---
US: COLORADO
Title: CSU students use E-Cigarettes to quit smoking
(CO St. U. Ft. Collins CO US Student Paper) http://www.collegian
.com/2014/04/csu-students-use-e-cigarettes-to-quit-smoking/73350/
Focus on local vape shop owner, who quit smoking via vaping. There's nary a single anti-vaping syllable in this article. Apparently CSU hasn't banned voutdoor vaping, as so many other campuses have. The article helpfully mentions that smoke alarms can't detect vaping.
[ S18 appears to be superfluous minor sales ban, has passed Sen: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cluding-empty-e-cigs-without-seeing-id-2.html ]
---
US: IDAHO
Title: E-cigarette ban for city workers on the job could take effect this week
(Boise ID US Sinclair affiliate) http://www.kboi2
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-ban-city-workers-council-boise-254310831.html
Vaping as well as other non-NRT tobacco products are also banned on all city property - presumably this applies to more than just the city workers, although the article doesn't say. In fact this is the only jusification given:
"'Since our policy didn't consider that -- it didn't include e-cigarettes -- and we do want very much to have a drug-free workplace, we made the decision that we would present to the council the possibility of changing our policy to include e-cigarettes,' said Adam Park, city spokesman [boldface added]"
[ ID's legislature is out of session until 2015. ]
---
US: ARIZONA
[Reposted because this article vanished and then reappeared under a different URL]
Title: Coconino County added electronic cigarettes to existing smoking ban
(Flagstaff AZ US local paper) http://azdailysun.com/news/local/coconino-county-to-add-electronic-cigarettes-to-existing-smoking-ban/article_9ca88c06-bd5d-11e3-8303-0019bb2963f4
.html
[Note: this article appeared originally under a different URL on Sunday, and then vanished. Now it's back under a slightly different URL. Maybe this is some kind of software glitch? As far as I can tell, the content hasn't changed at all.]
Apparently the co. already passed an ord. that banned "electronic cigarettes," but the report says "And now Coconino County health officials want to add other electronic smoking devices to the existing ban as well - making it illegal to vape any substance in public." The report goes on to mention e-hookahs and vape pens. Frankly it's not at all clear what precisely the BOH is asking the board of supervisors to do, unless the goal is to ban nic-free vaping.
"'There have been some studies done on the products and 10 known agents have been found that are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,' [Assistant Chief Health Officer for Coconino County] Oxtoby said. 'We think that is too big of a health risk to expose the population to.' [...] 'The toxins are less than a traditional cigarette, but they're still really high,' Oxtoby said. 'It goes back to the long-term studies and the lack of regulations by the FDA. No two e-cigs are made alike. It's really buyer beware. You don't know what you could be inhaling. That's attributed to the lack of regulation by the FDA.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Evidently the BOH already asked the advisory board last month to support a ban, but no hearing date before the Co. Bd. of Supervisors is set.
[ No legislative threats appear to exist at the statewide level in AZ. ]
Title: Prescott Valley E-cig store gains local popularity
(Prescott Valley AZ US local paper) http://pvtrib.com/main
.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=114&ArticleID=60624
Title: E-cigs gain strong local popularity
(Prescott AZ US local paper) http://www.prescottaz
.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=130391
Another article about a local vape shop. The writer seems to have done some quick googling or perhaps provided his own opinions:
"Questions regarding the long-term health effects of electronic cigarettes, however, are also growing. Those questions include the effects of nicotine vapor and the effects 'second-hand vapor' may pose to those exposed to it. Other concerns include inadequate labeling, leaving many to speculate about other chemicals or ingredients in the liquid nicotine, and the risk of nicotine addiction."
And apparently he's a little confused about the scope of the FDA's two varieties of authority:
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently regulate e-cigarettes, since the products do not contain tobacco. E-cigarettes, and related accessories, are not subject to American tobacco laws, and can currently be purchased via the Internet and without proof of age. Currently, however, the FDA is working to classify e-cigarettes as a drug delivery device so they can be regulated."
Finally, we get this remarkably noncomittal statement from the obligatory phone call to a local health dep't official:
"In Yavapai County, there are no regulations concerning the use of electronic cigarettes, said David McAtee, spokesman for Yavapai County Community Health Services. 'It's so new it has not been regulated yet,' he said. 'They're still looking at research and trying to determine what exactly is coming out of an e-cigarette, but I'm sure it's coming down the line.' [para break omitted]"
[ No threats appear to exist in AZ's legislature at the moment. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: Del Mar bans e-cigarettes [vaping = smoking indoor/outdoor ban]
(Del Mar CA US local paper) http://www.delmartimes
.net/2014/04/08/del-mar-bans-e-cigarettes/
Unanimous vote by City Council to extend clean indoor air act to cover indoor/outdoor vaping. For some interesting reason, the writer thought it was relevant to mention the CDC's press release from last week, about the poison control center calls. (This was after we read about the ALA's citation of FDA '09, most likely from their web site - so perhaps that's how the CDC press release became relevant in the reporter's mind.)
More ominously, we hear this from the City Council:
"'In some ways, these are much more dangerous to the user than they are to bystanders who dont get second-hand smoke. Theyre also dangerous to kids,' said Councilman Don Mosier. 'I think to the extent that we can discourage use of e-cigarettes - thats [an] important policy objective of the city. This is just the beginning. I think as we learn more about e-cigarettes, we may have some more special requirements for regulation.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]."
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/548077-oh-no-its-alive-ca-no-shipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee.html ]
Title: Ban OK'd on e-cigs by supes at county buildings [Yolo Co. - Davis is next]
(Woodland CA US local paper) http://www.dailydemocrat
.com/breakingnews/ci_25527902/ban-okd-e-cigs-by-supes-at-county
As reported in this space on 4/6, Yolo Co. (home of Davis, CA and UCD) has banned "electronic nicotine delivery devices" wherever smoking is prohibited. Surprisingly, vapers got one vote out of five (which is unusual in California, never mind anywhere else). Stephen Jones, coordinator of the County's Tobacco Education program (yes, a state employee), and Clarance Caldwell, the county health officer, were involved in drafting and lobbying for the ord. They cite the following reasons (boldface added in places):
1) "'There is concern regarding the health effects these products may have on the individuals who use them and those who inhale their secondhand vapor,' Jensen said in the report. 'These products are not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the chemical content is unregulated. Device use inside buildings and other areas where cigarette use is restricted is a potential threat to public health.'"
2) "According to Caldwell, the liquid that the nicotine is dissolved in is not water, despite popular belief, but contains an assortment of unregulated organic chemicals that are believed to release carcinogenic fumes."
3) "'We should try to make our workplaces as safe as possible rather than waiting for undisputed proof that these devices cause harm secondhand,' she said."
4) "Caldwell continued to state that allowing any sort of smoking in the workplace is 'a huge step backwards' because allowing e-cigarettes moves towards normalizing smoking once again."
5) "'These e-cigarettes may or may not be somewhat safer than standard cigarettes to the smoker or to the secondhand smoker but most contain nicotine, which is an extremely addictive substance,' she said. 'If we can allow these devices indoors, in county buildings, this essentially promotes nicotine addiction and contributes to the renormalization of smoking that we are already seeing in our community.'"
6)" There is also concern about marketing toward teens even though state law prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. A survey released in March found that the devices are widely available in Yolo County with more than 45 percent of stores selling them. 'If they're allowed to smoke e-cigarettes, kids get the message smoking is OK again,' Jensen previously said."
(An almost perfect ANTZ score. The only things missing were the tin nanoparticles and the poison control center calls.) The Davis City Council "received a presentation in March regarding expanding its current ban on tobacco to include the vapor devices and could vote on restrictions in the future."
Title: Electronic cigarette ban proposed [City of Orland]
(Glenn Co. CA US local paper collection site) http://www.appeal-democrat
.com/glenn_county_transcript/electronic-cigarette-ban-proposed/article_0c70c290-bf9a-11e3-a3c3-001a4bcf6878.html
The city of Orland has unanimously approved an indoor/outdoor vaping=smoking ban on a first reading. It establishes a 20-ft. perimeter around all entrances, as well as ban applicable to all parks, parking lots, and other city property. (Boldface added in places).
1) "Councilman Bruce Roundy said Orland is ahead of the curve when it comes to California cities addressing this issue."
2) "[Assistant City Manager Angie Crook] said the ban would further serve to protect public health and reduce unwanted and unwelcome exposure to harmful chemicals. 'According to the California Medical Association, the safety of electronic cigarettes is currently unknown,' Crook said. 'The devices have yet to be submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval. However, a 2009 study by the FDA found that electronic cigarettes did contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, although at lower levels that those within cigarettes, to which users and bystanders could be exposed.'"
3) "Most [council members] believe there is very little difference between cigarettes and the electronic devises that emit doses of vaporized nicotine to be inhaled by the user, and from which a vapor cloud is created that resembles cigarette smoke. 'It's similarly disgusting,' said Councilman Dennis Hoffman. 'People smoking these devices believe they are above the law or regulations, and they smoke them practically anywhere they darn well please.'"
4) "In fact, Crook said there had been recent incidences with people smoking the electronic devises inside the Orland Library. 'A patron was told the behavior was disruptive to other patrons,' she said. 'That patron did reluctantly cooperate although with slight resistance.'"
It's not clear what the role of this person was:
"Sharon Lazorko, of Glenn County Public Health's Tobacco Coalition, said she was pleased the Orland City Council is taking steps to ban the use of electronic cigarettes where regular cigarettes are banned. 'I think it's awesome,' she said. 'They can be just as dangerous as cigarettes.' Lazarko said the use of the devices by and the marketing of the them to youth is alarming. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
---
US: ALASKA
Title: Supporters call for Alaska lawmakers to expand smoke-free workplace laws
(Ketchikan AK US local news web site) http://www.sitnews
.us/0414News/040714/040714_smokefree.html
Brief report on AK sen. hearings regarding SB 209, the state's first "clean air act," which also defines vaping as smoking. This is the only thing that's said about vaping, although this space has previously reported that the vaping=smoking parts of the bill are controversial:
"SB209 would also restrict the use of controversial electronic cigarettes in indoor spaces, asking users to take it outside for the health of others. Opponents of the bill, notably the Tobacco Industry, argue that e-cigarettes do not produce smoke like traditional cigarettes and emit 'harmless water vapors' instead. However, Marge Stoneking, Alaska Director of the American Lung Association, testified that, 'E-cigarette secondhand aerosol has been found to contain ultrafine particulates, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds, which are risks for lung cancer, in addition to nicotine.' [boldface added]"
The bill is still in committee.
***
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.)
4/6/14 - 4/9/14 Media Roundup
I need to stop getting so far behind. I hope to post the update for the today tonight, so I'll be back on track. Sorry about that ...
1) In a first of its kind, a vaping=smoking ban in St. Joseph MO was narrowly passed by referendum. The ordinance was promoted as an indoor tobacco smoking ban, but also included vapoing. Apparently both federal and state tax dollars were used to fund the effort on behalf of the law (this is also a first, insofar as a referendum result was so influenced).
2) New paper in Nature suggests a link between vaping and lung cell damage which may be associated with mutations (cancer).
3) New study from the UK suggests that vaping may be "Accelerate Smoking Cessation, Not Hinder It" (quoting Dr. Siegel).
4) CASAA alert for vaping=smoking ordinance to be discussed in Baytown Tx, tomorrow morning:
CASAA: Local Alert! Baytown, Texas E-Cigarette Usage Ban
5) The last bill in the US which might've explicitly excluded vaping from an indoor clean air act appears to have died:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...updates-wisconsin-updates-2.html#post12722062
6) NJOY sued in CA Federal Court in a class action which alleges that the plaintiff was injured by the use of the product, and NJOY made false claims about its safety.
7) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed unanimously in the following places: Smith co. TX; Reno co. KS; Del Mar CA; and Orland CA.
8) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed with dissenters in the following places: Hancock co. IN (2-1); Duncan OK (4-1); Austin MN (4-3); and Yolo co. CA (4-1).
9) Greg Conley from ECF confronts Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, at signing ceremony for city's vaping=smoking indoor ban.
10) US House subcommittee has hearings regarding FDA's slow approval rate for "substantial equivalence" applications under its tobacco products jurisdiction, which is precisely what vaping will be under in the event of FDA regulation under the current rubric.
11) Extremely thoughtful and well-researched article on vaping in Baltimore MD's free paper.
12) Poison control center call stories continue to flow in, at a rate of approximately 15-25/day. Most are from last week's CDC press release, although a few state and local poison control centers are dribbling in with their data. We can probably expect to see these stories for months, because they make good "filler." I'm monitoring them and will review/post the unusual ones as I see fit. But I won't start doing them regularly until the end of the month or so, which is when I anticipate that the flow will slow to a trickle. We are already seeing rare "reposts" of stories on Dutra & Glantz (minor gateway-to-tobacco junk study) and Grana et al. (junk cessation letter), which may be a sign that the "thrill" (as it were) from the poison headlines is subsiding. But the "e-cigarette poisonings of children skyrocket" meme is now well-established as part of the background lore in the US press, and we can expect to see this cited in most future anti-vaping hit jobs, as well as gratuitously added to vaping stories in the indefinite future.
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: E-cigarettes affect cells [possible cancer link]
(Nature) http://www.nature
.com/news/e-cigarettes-affect-cells-1.15015
It's not clear exactly what this means, although it seems to have generated far fewer stories than I'd have anticipated. It's currently being discussed in this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...re-comes-big-one-e-cigs-linked-c-n-c-e-r.html
Title: New Data from England Suggest that Electronic Cigarettes are Helping to Accelerate Smoking Cessation, Not Hinder It
(Dr. Siegel's Blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-data-from-england-suggest-that.html
"Opponents of electronic cigarettes have spent most of their time speculating about the negative impact of these products. They have argued that electronic cigarettes undermine the motivation to quit, normalize smoking, and undermine years of tobacco control efforts. However, a look at the actual scientific evidence suggests that this is not the case at all. Quite the opposite, it appears that electronic cigarettes are enhancing the process of smoking cessation among active smokers."
Title: Contrary to Claims of Many Anti-Smoking Advocates, New Study Shows that Electronic Cigarettes Decrease Nicotine Addiction
(Dr. Siegel's Blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/contrary-to-claims-of-many-anti-smoking.html
Survey study of vapers presented at 014 annual conference of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco indicates reduction in intensity of nicotine dependence.
Title: E-Cig Presence at Big Tobacco Hosted Trade Show
(ECF's InfoZone)
E-Cig Presence at Big Tobacco Hosted Trade Show - ECF InfoZone
What's happened in Vegas this week is The National Association of Tobacco Outlets (yes, it's "NATO"), and Gary Cox isn't going to let it stay in Vegas. The mouse that's roaring at the conference is vaping, because BT knows that its days are numbered. Will what Gary Cox refers to as the "fledgling industry" tolerate being taking under BT's wing?
Title: NEJM Fails to Correct Data on Childrens E-Cigarette Use
(Dr. Rodu's blog)
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/04/nejm-fails-to-correct-data-on-childrens.html
The New England Journal of Medicine doesn't intend to correct an overestimate of the number of US schoolchildren who are either vapoing or using tobacco cigarettes, due to dual use. The overestimate is approximately 1/7.
Title: Florida debates local vs state or federal control of e-cig sale to minors
(ECF's InfoZone)
Florida debates local vs state or federal control of e-cig sale to minors - ECF InfoZone
If you've been following the US legislative battles, you'll know that the ANTZ orgs managed to snatch defeat directly out of the jaws of victory in a number of states such as OR, where they opposed certain niceties of vaping=smoking legislation. In fact, OR didn't even end up with a simple minor sales/possession ban, which CASAA and virtually all vapers support. Now it's déjà vu "all over again" in FL, as a statewide battle erupts over two alternate minor sales/possession bans. One would keep local jurisdictions from imposing more stringent labelling and display requirements, and one would not. (Guess which one the ANTZ orgs oppose?) In this case, FL isn't so "weird," but it might be left with no bill at all.
***
ISRAEL
Title: e-cigarettes next big smoking poison, warns study
(Sydney Aus.-Based Israel/expat. news site) http://www.israelherald
.com/index.php/sid/220876159/scat/a1e025da3c02ca7c/ht/e-cigarettes-next-big-smoking-poison-warns-study
This isn't particularly remarkable for its content, but is yet another rare international report on the CDC press release. It doesn't mention the proposal by Israeli health minister Itamar Grotto to ban vaping.
***
UK NATIONAL
Title: The Great British Vape-off debate
(UK Nat'l paper) http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/10747395/The-Great-British-Vape-off-debate.html
This piece refers to vaping as "smoking," and also contains this curious comment about heating elements:
"Fire chiefs are also concerned that smokers are unaware of risks. The South Yorkshire brigade warned last week that people did not realise that the heating elements within e-cigs can overheat and start fires." (A reference to charger fires?)
More significantly, this piece incorrectly suggests that there's a conflict between what it describes as the EU's desire to regulate vaping as a "consumer product," versus the UK's gov't's alleged desire "to see e-cigarettes licensed as medicinal products."
That statement is true in the very limited sense that the UK gov't has opened the door to medicinal licensing (both BAT and Nicoline have applied to the NHS, as this space reported on 2/2/14). It's also true that the MHRA announced last year that it intends to regulate vaping as cessation therapy - http://uk.reuters
.com/article/2013/06/12/us-tobacco-britain-idUSBRE95B0HL20130612
The article is also correct insofar as the EU's TPD regulates vaping products as consumer (recreational, i.e. non-therapeutic) products.
However the writer is incorrect about the UK gov't's position - despite some rather mixed messages, about whether vaping will be regulated as both a consumer product (as advertising currently is), and as a medical product (to which the door has been opened), OR whether vaping is to be removed entirely from the consumper product regulatory framework and restricted to the therapeutic category. The article also wrongly suggests that the EU's TPD indicates anything about medicinal regulation, other than limiting what can be permitted under the consumer product framework (e.g. nicotine content and refillable cartridge size). In fact, medical use of vaping as cessation therapy is not regulated by the TPD, or by the EU at present: by all accounts the TPD currently envisions a two-track system which is entirely compatible with the UK's current direction, viz., member states will regulate vaping-based cessation therapies.
All of that said, the piece is generally balanced, and contains none of the sorts of factual inaccuracies designed to discourage vaping (or to encourage support for taxing and restricting the use of vaping) that we typically find in the press.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Britains efforts to reduce smoking are becoming a cash cow for big tobacco
(UK adademics' blog site) http://theconversation
.com/britains-efforts-to-reduce-smoking-are-becoming-a-cash-cow-for-big-tobacco-25334
Makes the point that NRT was a huge boon to big pharma, via the strategy of harm reduction, ,and that vaping will be an equal benefit to BT, if/when it's approved as cessation by the MHRA (Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency). The authors conclude:
"Likewise, only profound dizziness explains the about face on nicotine which a decade ago was villainous enough to launch a thousand clinics but is now being rehabilitated with the NHS drug regulator as its cheerleader. But it takes real blindness to consider perpetual nicotine use, with all the dependence, disempowerment and regressive inequalities this presumes, to be sound public health policy."
Apparently the authors' preferred solution to the public health issues surrouding combustible tobacco smoking can be summed up in one word: abstinence.
---
UK: LONDON
Title: London Café Invites Customers to Pair E-Cigarettes with Coffee
(London-based culinary 'zine directed at consumers) http://www.foodbeast
.com/2014/04/07/london-opens-its-first-ecigarette-coffee-shop-vape-lab/
Short but entertaining junk-free review of the vape-and-coffee shop, which this space first reported on 3/20. For a more detailed story, see: http://www.theguardian
.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/london-first-e-cigarette-coffee-shop-vape-lab
---
UK: NORTH YORKSHIRE
Title: Barmaid hit by exploding e-cigarette
(BBC) http://www.bbc
.com/news/uk-26958397
I try not to cover charger fire stories (which the US media has apparently tired of), but this one is everywhere. Apparently there's YT video of this which has gone viral. In a nutshell, some cheap cigalike was plugged into an iPad charger, and it took off like a rocket, causing minor injuries to a bar tender.
---
UK: MANCHESTER
Title: Venomous vaping? Debate over 'poison vapours' threatens to send e-cigarette craze up in smoke
(Manchester MCH UK local news amalgam site) http://www.mancunianmatters
.co.uk/content/080468487-venomous-vaping-debate-over-poison-vapours-threatens-send-e-cigarette-craze-smoke
This is another general survey piece, which begins with some comments about the concerns of regulators such as Drakeford, and moves on to list the usage policies of various local businesses and public authorities. It soesn't attempt to make any sweeping statements about cessation, but does cite the US CDC report about poision center calls. As we so often see in the press, it conflates calls with adverse outcomes, and it also fails to clarify that users of disposable cigalikes do not handle liquid nicotine. Your Correspondent wonders whether this wasn't generated by the usual cut-and-paste technique of mixing google search results with a trip to a local vape shop. That said, it contains little in the way of the sorts of hit job allegations that we find in US articles produced by cub reporters who feel the need to contact their local ALA or tobacco control officer.
***
CANADA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: No proof e-cigarettes are safe
(Ottawa ON Ca local paper) http://www.ottawasun
.com/2014/04/05/no-proof-e-cigarettes-are-safe
This article basically consists of two multi-paragraph quotations.
Dr. Andrew Pipe, of the U. Ottowa Heart Inst., presents the classic Glantz position - vaping will encourage teen smoking, and will not discourage adult smoking, i.e. it leads to "more smoking, not less" (Glantz). Apparently he's unable to crystalize this into a nifty sound bite:
"'There are pretty profound concerns that the use of these devices will not actually assist with (quitting), but will actually perpetuate smoking. They will be attractive to adolescents who want to experiment, and the use of these devices will result in a very rapid addiction to nicotine,' says Pipe. 'Anything that glamourizes the use of a highly-addictive drug is problematic. Impressionable people see (celebrities) vaping, and it appears to be novel, alluring and sophisticated. 'Unfortunately we dealt with that with tobacco products and now it seems we're going to have to deal with the same thing with a different drug delivery device.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[So the bottom line is that a Dr.'s fears and concerns are facts. We don't need any evidence, the "MD" after the name is good enough to ensure that all predictions will become reality.]
The rest of the article consists of a second long multi-paragraph quote, this time from Dr. Jon Ebbert of the Mayo Clinic's Nicotine Dependence Center (your tax dollars at work). Once again - no cessation evidence, and dual use (you know, like with NRT and cigarettes:
"'On one side you've got no evidence (e-cigarettes) are helping people quit -- especially when you look at the fact that most people who use them are actually continuing to smoke cigarettes, and so you've got this dual use phenomenon -- and on the other side you've got a developing body of evidence that it could be harmful.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
But wait, there's more:
"'You've got 'Mom's Apple Pie' flavour, bubblegum flavour, whatever flavour you like, and there's massive amounts of nicotine in these bottles of e-juice,' says Ebbert. 'Potentially lethal doses of nicotine are being sold as a cottage industry, and they can be mailed right to your house. We've had increasing reports to poison control about the ingestion of e-juice, and just touching the fluid can make people, especially kids, quite sick. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(As I always say - if you want a professional hit job, hire an American ANTZ.) What this story illustrates rather well is the success that the CDC has had in adding this third part of the meme to the collective "factoid" background - vaping poisons small children, it hooks teens on tobacco cigarette smoking, and it encourages adult cigarette smokers to smoke more cigarettes (or at least not quit).
Title: E-cigarettes can save lives
(Ottawa ON Ca local paper) http://www.ottawasun
.com/2014/04/05/e-cigarettes-can-save-lives
This piece says what every vaper knows, and what even virtually all ANTZ acknowledge:
"'We've known for decades that if we can deliver the nicotine without the process of combustion, we could essentially end the epidemic,' says Sweanor, University of Ottawa law professor who has spent 30 years as a public health advocate. The readily-available and government-regulated alternatives -- the nicotine patch, chewing gum, lozenges -- have not had nearly the desired impact in the drive to quit, says Sweanor.
[...] Sweanor acknowledges there will still be risks associated with inhaling the vapour -- which contains propylene glycol along with nicotine and various flavouring agents -- but he equates the difference between vaping and smoking to getting a caffeine fix from a cup of coffee instead of lighting up tea leaves. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Sadly, Prof. Sweanor doesn't address the principal anit-vaping meme to the effect that vaping poisons small children, causes teens to take up tobacco cigarettes, and encourages adult tobacco cigarette smokers to either smoke more, or not to quit.
[In fact, everything he says is entirely compatible with eliminating all "recreational" vaping - i.e. full "medicalization," which Your Correspondent believes to be the ultimate objective of the health authorities in the US and the UK, as well as Canada. This goal also formed the basis of the original EU TPD.
***
US NATIONAL
Title: Dangerous Consumer Product Lawsuits -- E-cigarette Maker Facing Class Action
(Law firm based in Tampa FL US) http://www.swoperodante
.com/dangerous-consumer-product-lawsuits-e-cigarette-maker-facing-class-action/
NJOY sued in class action. Plaintiff alleges that "are dangerous and contain levels of nicotine, toxins and carcinogens in amounts that vary from the labels," that NJOY failed to disclose this info., and that he had to stop using the product after it caused "him to exhibit symptoms including dizziness, nausea and chest pains."
"McGovern alleges that he, along with tens of thousands of other consumers, relied on NJOY's representations that e-cigarettes are healthier than conventional cigarettes, including representations on NJOY's website that the nicotine found in its e-cigarette cartridges is, '...found in certain plants, predominantly tobacco, and in lower quantities, tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, cauliflower, bell peppers, and some teas.' McGovern's lawsuit contends that this statement implies the product is safe and that NJOY misrepresents its e-cigarette product as a smoking cessation device. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Suit was filed in the US District court for the Central Dist. of California. (The report doesn't indicate a federal claim, so persumably the case was filed under diversity jurisdiction.) More details in the story.
Title: E-cigarettes have risks but they also offer public health benefits
(US National Paper) http://www.washingtonpost
.com/opinions/e-cigarettes-have-risks-but-they-also-offer-public-health-benefits/2014/0 4/09/72dad318-bc34-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html
As we discovered some weeks ago in a New York Times editorial that appeared to endorse the EU TPD (Tobacco Products Directive), the editors of major U.S. newspapers don't seem to know even the most basic facts about the regulatory framework - both actual and proposed - that governs or will govern vaping. In this case, it's not even clear what the editors are proposing, other than avoidance of an outright ban. Do they support taxing vaping at the same level as tobacco cigarettes? Are they in favor of banning interstate sales? Do they think that flavors and/or refillable cartridges over (say) 2ml - just to pick a random number out of the air - should be prohibited? What about full "medicalization" as some think that the UK's NHS and/or MHRA may be considering? (I.e. available by prescription only.) Your Correspondent has no idea, other than to be absolutely certain that the writers' level of igorance is well beyond the merely profound.
Title: Senate Dems want crackdown on e-cigs
(US Nat'l Politics 'zine) http://thehill
.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/202831-senate-dems-want-agency-crackdown-on-e-cigs
Nothing too surprising about the letter sent by Sen.s Boxer (CA), Blumenthal (CT), Brown (OH), Durbin (IL), Harkin (IA), and Markey (MA), in which they ask the FDA and the FTC to take action against web sites that advertise vaping as cessation. This has mainly gotten attention on political blogs because Sen.s Boxer et al. have sent several similar missives to the FDA and FTC. However Sen. Blumenthal and Rep. Etsy (CT) held a press conference on Monday which was widely covered by the CT media (see collection below). However later this week, I'll be collecting all the articles that cite this letter, to survey them for other junk content (which the CT press articles certainly don't lack). As always, we hear about bubble gum flavoring, etc. in the letter. You can read the letter and the press release here: http://www.boxer
.senate.gov/en/press/releases/040714a.cfm
Title: House Subcommittee Examines Implementation of Tobacco Control Act
(Convenience and fuel store trade 'zine) http://www.nacsonline
.com/News/Daily/Pages/ND0409142.aspx#.U0cOcaJobfg
Title: House Subcommittee Looks at Center for Tobacco Products
http://www.cspnet
.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/house-subcommittee-looks-center-tobacco
US House hearings on the FDA's very slow pace of processing "substantial equivalence" applications are relevant to any future regulation of vaping. As I understand it, if vaping is regulated under the FDA's existing tobacco products jurisdiction, then vaping products will have to wait in the existing queue behind thousands of other requests regarding combustible tobacco products. This is one (among other) reasons why FDA regulation of vaping would effectively amount to a ban. This topic is already being discussed in legislation:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ntation-tobacco-control-act.html#post12794643
---
US: CONNECTICUT
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: To Vape Or Not To Vape? E-Cigarettes Raise Questions
(Newtown CT US local paper) http://www.newtownbee
.com/news/news-health/2014/04/08/vape-or-not-vape-e-cigarettes-raise-questions/199197
It looks as if this reporter did her best to do some research initially, even going to the point of presenting conflicting statements about nicotine:
"Information at WebMD.com states that while e-cigarettes may be safer due to that fact that no burning smoke is inhaled, nicotine is still being delivered to the system. Nicotine is dangerous for those with heart problems and can be harmful to arteries when used over time. There is also evidence of nicotine use being linked to increased blood clotting, branchiospasm of the lungs, and gastrointestinal issues. While not a carcinogen, nicotine may stimulate tumor growth, and there is evidence of increased risk for birth defects when pregnant women use nicotine.
But at the same time, we hear:
"TobaccoHarmReduction.org asserts that the effects of nicotine itself are hardly more than those of caffeine, increasing blood pressure and heart rate temporarily."
At this point, the writer seems to have finished her research, dispensed with her journalism training, and simply turns the rest of the article over to local health "experts," with the expected result: a hit-job-by-proxy:
We start with Marianne Mitchell, "a pulmonary nurse practitioner with Western Connecticut Health Network (Danbury Hospital).":
1) "'We don't even know what's in them,' she said, and she is alarmed by recent findings that the biggest ingredient in e-cigarettes is the same chemical found in antifreeze." [...]
2) "Refilling the cartridges with illegal substances and smoking them is a problem, too, she said. As a pulmonary nurse practitioner, it is the act of smoking that worries her." [...]
3) "'A heavy smoker will inhale,' she said. Nor, said Ms Mitchell, who has run the smoking cessation program 'Quit Now' for 12 years, do e-cigarettes help smokers to stop." [...]
4) "'The top four tobacco companies have bought into e-cigarettes. The tobacco companies are making money off of our youth,' she said."" [para breaks omitted, boldface added][/I]"
Next, we hear from Donna Culbert, "director of health for the Town of Newtown." ECF readers and vapers in general who are familiar with US media coverage can quite likely predict how things will go down from here:
1) Citation of CDC data and a "study" showing that teen vapers are switching to tobacco cigarettes (which is presumably Dutra & Glantz).
2) Citing the CDC poison control calls data.
3) Citing Grana et al. for the "lack of cessation evidence."
In other words, this reporter started off with what appear to be the best of intentions, but was steered into becoming a mouthpiece for the ANTZ playbook by the local "experts."
As a final note, this argument about caffiene vs. nicotine caught Your Correspondent's attention:
"Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, though, she stressed, and while the immediate physical effects may not seem much more dangerous than caffeine, 'you would not be drinking coffee every 20 minutes, which is about how long nicotine affects the body,' she said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ CT 24 (proposed by gov) minor sales ban is still in cmte. More troubling:
HB 5286 - burdensome labelling requirements whose purposes is to "destroy the e-cig industry" (Bill Godshall): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...contents-nicotine-yield-hearing-feb-28-a.html ]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Editorial: FDA must regulate e-cigarettes, liquid nicotine
(West Hartford CT US local paper) http://www.westhartfordnews
.com/articles/2014/04/06/opinion/doc533b264b56e83918819841.txt
This dreadful editorial is interesting insofar as it mixes in the CDC minor junk usage statistics with the CDC's release of the poison control center call data (and press release). Evidently the two things they have in common are the CDC, and vaping (did the teens surveyed by the CDC use tanks?). It also quotes Sen Blumenthal's alarmist rhetoric:
"'E-liquids are the new snake oil of cigarette marketing -- with purity and potency varying widely, and no safeguards. The FDA must act immediately to forestall imminent public health threats from e-cigarettes and toxic nicotine e-liquids.'" [boldface added]
Title: New Bill Aims to Curb Teen E-Cigarette Use
(West Hartford CT US NBC affiliate) http://www.nbcconnecticut
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-smoking-malloy-legislation-judiciary-committee-bill-254633201.html
Short note about CT's SB-24, which is Gov. Malloy's simple minor sales/possesion ban. (It's not clear if this bill carries a "SB" or "HB" prefix, since it was proposed by the Gov. CT is one of those few states in which the Gov. can directly introduce a bill.) Primarily noteworthy because Rep. John Sheban voted against it, saying: "'E-nicotine devices don't contain tobacco, and I am hesitant to begin categorizing them as though they are synonymous with cigarettes,' Shaban said in a statement. 'I want to ensure there is a reasonable level of oversight for these devices that is consistent with their contents.'"
(The piece also quotes a married vaping couple, one of whem seems to rather regrettably embrace the minor gateway-to-tobacco argument.)
---
US: NEW JERSEY
Title: NJ should not impose a 'sin tax' on e-cigarettes: Editorial
(Newark NJ US local paper) http://www.nj
.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/nj_should_not_impose_a_sin_tax_on_e-cigarettes_editorial.html
This is basically the reverse argument from what you see immediately below from the Vineland Daily Journal: i.e. if there's any possibility that vaping can help smokers quit, then it shouldn't be taxed the same as cigarettes. (Whereas the article below presumes that vaping is recreational, therefore vaping taxes should be used to fund anti-tobacco-smoking efforts.) I won't say more, since this particular editorial is already being discussed on this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...j-should-not-impose-sin-tax-e-cigarettes.html
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. Passed by the house last month, now ready for the Sen:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
Title: Concern over teens getting high using e-cigarettes
(Newark NJ Verizon radio) http://www.fios1news
.com/newjersey/node/25394#.U0ZQCaJobfg
It's not entirely clear that there was any specific event or occurance that precipitated this piece, which curiously begins with: "Teenagers using electronic cigarettes - sometimes to get high - has one New Jersey anti-teen smoking advocate worried. Middle school and high school students are reportedly pouring mar1juana extract into e-cigarettes to get high. Karen Blumenfeld, executive director of GASP - the Global Advisors Smokefree Policy - in Summit, said she hasnt heard of the new trend but isnt stunned by it." [boldface added, para break omitted]
After this, the writer effectively gives Ms. Blumenfeld "the floor" as it were, and we hear about the minor-gateway-to-tobacco, and the CDC's posion control center call statistics. Although in one small concession, the writer apparently declines to go along with the ANTZ view of vapor, penning "... there is debate over whether the vapor is clean or laden with chemicals."
Your Correspondent has no idea why this story was written in the first instance, other than perhaps to satisfy a requirement for vaping-related verbiage.
[Repost due to re-run]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Use e-cig tax for anti-smoking fight
(Vineland NJ US local paper) http://www.thedailyjournal
.com/article/20140408/OPINION01/304080007/Use-e-cig-tax-anti-smoking-fight
Title: EDITORIAL: Taxes on e-cigarettes have merit, if ...
(Monmouth/Ocean Co. NJ US local paper) http://www.app
.com/article/20140407/NJOPINION01/304070018/EDITORIAL-Taxes-e-cigarettes-merit-?nclick_check=1
Editorial writer is suspicious that vaping taxes will be used for smoking cessation, but argues that these taxes make sense if used for public health. Why should vaping be taxed? Answer:
"It seems reasonable that a cigarette that doesnt include burning tobacco represents a healthier alternative. But we dont yet know the health risks of e-cigarettes. And lets not forget: Once upon a time supporters made plenty of safety claims about regular cigarettes as well, which proved to be wildly disingenuous. It is also an open question as to whether the e-cigarettes function as a smoking cessation product, helping to wean smokers off tobacco - while still providing the nicotine - or whether they could actuallyincrease smoking by introducing more children to a cigarette habit at an earlier age. While electronic cigarettes arent typically marketed to children, they do come in many flavors most likely to appeal to kids."
In other words, because there are "unknowns" and "concerns" about vaping, and because tobacco cigarettes have an evil history, vaping should be taxed to support public health (even if vaping proves to be a desireable cessation technology).
Note:
The older clone of this editorial is also being discussed in this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...l-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax-3.html#post12775551
Title: E-cigarettes can help smokers quit, but they are not without risks
(Vineland NJ US local paper) http://www.dailyrecord
.com/article/20140408/NJLIFE04/304080011/E-cigarettes-can-help-smokers-quit-they-not-without-risks (Monmouth/Ocean Co. NJ US local paper) http://www.app
.com/article/20140408/NJLIFE/304080003/The-risks-e-cigarettes
Relatively junk-free, and very different from the tone of the two editorials above (both of these papers are in the same Gannet group: the Daily Record and the Asbury Park Press. Contains a rather mild statement about nicotine from Dr.Robert Lahita, chairman of medicine and vice president of Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, a Barnabas Health facility:
"... use/overuse of nicotine can cause high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, back pain, depression, anxiety, nausea and sleep disturbances - all reasons why the FDA considers nicotine a drug and potential poison and regulates the sale of tobacco products."
Followed by this rather surprising apparent endorsement:
"In addition to offering a design that satisfies those with an oral fixation or the need to hold something, which nicotine patches and gum products may not completely fulfill, 'e-cigarettes are a cleaner delivery system for nicotine,' he said, 'and may be among the best options out there for mature adults who are trying to wean themselves off of nicotine and quit smoking.' [boldface added]"
---
US: MARYLAND
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Nic Fit - Puffing through the great vape debate over electronic cigarettes
(Baltimore MD US local free alternative paper) http://citypaper.com/news/nic-fit-1
.1664767
A genuinely wonderful personal pro-vaping in depth piece that beats just about anything I've ever seen in a mainstream (or quasi-mainstream) publication. This writer has clearly done his homework, and you'll see many familiar names. This is a must-read and I'd encourage everyone to congratulate the writer on his diligence and sophistication. (Who says the journalism profession is dead in America?)
[ MD's legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: PENNSYLVANIA
Title: Nutter signs law that bans 'vaping'
(Philadelphia PA US local paper) http://www.philly
.com/philly/news/politics/20140410_Mayor_Nutter_signs_law_that_bans__quot_vaping_quot__just_about_everywhere_in_Phila_.html
Interesting only because ECF's own Greg Conley got involved in the action (also see the collection below on the Blumenthal/Etsy Press Conf. that I'll cover in this space in the next update):
"As Mayor Nutter took out his pen Wednesday to sign two bills that crack down on 'vaping,' or puffing on electronic cigarettes, Gregory Conley broke the silence in the Mayor's Reception Room at City Hall. 'Congratulations on hurting public health and deceiving smokers into believing that e-cigarettes are harmful,' Conley shouted at the mayor while holding an e-cigarette. As a member of Nutter's security team stood in front of Conley, an e-cigarette lobbyist, the mayor fired back: 'That device might be harmful, but he's harmless.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
ECF'rs know Greg as "Placebo Effect," and you can read/view some of his extremely persuasive testimony in the legislative forum. You go, Greg!
[ PA's SB 1055 a simple minor sales ban, hasn't passed the state sen. No other threats. ]
---
US: ALABAMA
Title: Youth Council approaches Mobile City Council with e-cigarette, hookah concerns
(Mobile AL US local paper) http://blog.al
.com/live/2014/04/youth_council_approaches_mobil.html
The Mobile City Youth Council is described as: "15 teenagers from high schools around the county who meet regularly to discuss a variety of issues -- drugs, smoking, obesity, etc. -- and serves as a liaison to the local governing bodies." They met with the City Council earlier this week to request that the City Council "look for ways to tighten restrictions on underage e-cigarette and hookah use. Also, they want to urge the Police Department to consider compliance checks at convenience stores and restaurant/bars that allow e-cigarette and hookah smoking."
Unforunately this article seems to move seamlessly between hookah use and vaping (both of which are illegal for minors in AL). It does cite the CDC statistics for minor vaping, and reports that more than half the calls to poison control centers involving vaping were about children under 5. However it says nothing else that's particularly negative, and closes with some quotes by a vape store owner, who says that he has "zero tolerance" for sales to minors.
A city councilman indicated that he felt that it's not the city's business to "legislate morality," and the Youth Council "head" indicates that a "fall campaign" is planned. Hopefully the Youth Council will not approch the City Council to request a pre-emptive vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban, in order to protect minors. (As nearly all vapers know, this rationale is nearly always invoked by elected officials who support vaping restrictions.)
[ AL's legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: INDIANA
Title: E-Cigarette Debate : Shrouded in vapor
(South Bend IN US local paper) http://www.southbendtribune
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-debate-shrouded-in-vapor/article_8e171d3a-be41-11e3-a648-0017a43b2370.html
For a general survey article, this is fairly free of junk. For starters, IN Dep't of Health's director of tobacco prevention and cessation is quoted as making this unbelievably mild statement:
"We don't know enough about these products (e-cigarettes) to guide people."
Almost grudgingly, the reporter quotes last week's CDC report about poision control center calls and minor use, briefly referring to Dutra & Glantz: " The study also found that 76.3 percent of those students who used e-cigarettes within 30 days also smoked conventional cigarettes during that period."
However virtually all of the space in this piece is reserved for postive coverage of vaping and the local vape shop, which apparently has its own vape group and recently held its own Vape Meet.
Interestingly, the piece also suggests that IN's proposed 24% tax seems to be dead for the time being. No other threats exist in IN.
Title: E-cigarette users seek exemption from smoking ban [Hancock Co.]
(Indianapolis IN US NBC affiliate) http://www.wthr
.com/story/25198479/2014/04/08/e-cigarette-users-seek-exemption-from-smoking-ban
As readers of this space know, the Hancock co. bd. was advised by its health comm'r that its indoor/outdoor ban on smoking already covered vaping. The Bd voted unanimously last month to affirm this decision. After discovering it, a local vape shop owner organized a petition with over 400 signatures and appeared with supporters in front of the co. bd. on Tues 4/9. This story indicates that the decision was made by "the smallest of margins." It also says: "The Board of County Commissioners had sought the recommendation of the county's Board of Health." However the Greenfield Reporter article from last week reported that the BOH had initiated the request to the board. If so, this wouldn't be unusual - BOHs all over the US are working with the ALA and related orgs to advance these proposals at both the city and the county level.
Title: Opponents of e-cig ban vow to keep fighting [Hancock Co.]
(Greenfield IN US local paper) http://www.greenfieldreporter
.com/view/local_story/Opponents-of-e-cig-ban-vow-to-_1397087612#.U0YYLKJobfg
Title: Debate over e-cigarettes ignites in Greenfield
(Indianapolis IN US CBS affiliate) http://wishtv
.com/2014/04/08/debate-over-e-cigarettes-ignites-in-greenfield/
The first article above in the Greenfield Reporter is behind a pay wall. The second link adds nothing to the WTRH report described immediately above.
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: Lighter regulations on e-cigarettes desired
(Depaul U. Chicago IL US student paper) http://www.depauliaonline
.com/news/lighter-regulations-on-e-cigarettes-desired-1.3157568#.U0RFEKJobfg
This is one of those rare stories that seems to have had the content driven entirely by vapers instead of local Health Dep't or Tobacco Control personell, MDs etc. I can't find a single word of junk in it. It's basically crafted around a single vape shop near campus.
[ Most serious threat in IL right now is HB 5689, which has passed the house, and which would ban the sale of e-liquid until the IL Health Dep't issues standards:
CASAA: Call to Action! Illinois Bill Would Ban Sale of Liquid for E-Cigarettes Until Illinois Department of Public Health Establishes Packaging Standards
And this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html
IL is also considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter (HB 5868 = SB 3268), see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.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: Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2659 ]
---
US: MINNESOTA
Title: Our view: State can follow Duluth on e-cigs
(Duluth MN US local paper) http://www.duluthnewstribune
.com/content/our-view-state-can-follow-duluth-e-cigs
Given Duluth's history as a hotbed of anti-vaping activity, this junk-filled cesspool of an editorial should come as no surprise. Yes, we find out that calls to poison control centers are "skyrocketing" - that's the beginning. But then, of course we have the nanoparticles:
"Researchers have found metal and silicate particles along with the nicotine in e-cigarettes. Are they at levels so low as not to be dangerous? The problem is we simply dont know. There hasnt been anywhere near enough research and there has been little to no oversight to assure safety. But thats not stopping the use of e-cigarettes, including by those trying to quit real cigarettes, never mind far more effective and proven cessation methods are out there. Even more troubling is the use of e-cigarettes by children ..."
Okay let's see: vaping poisons small children, it hooks teens on cigarette smoking, and it doesn't do much to help adults quit. And it may be poisoning vapers and everyone else around them. Where have we heard that before? But, there's more ...
"E-cigarettes, as addictive, dangerous and harmful to health as they may be, are actively being marketed to kids, just the way tobacco cigarettes used to be.
Now for the finishing touch:
"'Although the [vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor clean air act extension] bill has come a long way in a very short period of time, there is still a lot that can happen,' Jill Doberstein of Duluth, the manager of tobacco prevention and control programs for the American Lung Association in Minnesota, told the News Tribune Opinion page last week. 'Because we know this is an election year for House members across the state, the strong support for policies regulating e-cigarettes ... is a wining issue for any candidate.' [boldface added]"
Wow, now politicians can do the right thing, and get votes too! What's not to hate about vaping, and what's not to like about banning it? (Oh, sorry. They're not calling for a ban. Not yet. Although it's hard to see why not.
[ As long as Gov. Dayton continues to impose MN's proposed indoor vaping ban, there are no serious threats there. ]
Title: Council passes e-cigarette ban [vaping=smoking]
(Austin MN US local paper) http://www.austindailyherald
.com/2014/04/council-passes-e-cigarette-ban/
Title: With city approval, ban on e-cigarettes in public places to start next week
(Austin MN US local paper) http://www.austindailyherald
.com/2014/04/with-city-approval-ban-on-e-cigarettes-in-public-places-could-start-next-week/
Title: Austin City Council Passes Temporary E-Cigarette Ban
(Austin/Rochester/Mason City MN US ABC affiliate) http://www.kaaltv
.com/article/stories/S3391472.shtml
The local paper's articles contain little information about the motives of the Council, although the vote was (amazingly) 4-3 - one of very few instances in which any local official has voted against a vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban. The ABC affiliate's story contains these tid-bits:
"'It's really an opportunity for us to have a year of time to see what the FDA does and to find out more about the health risks associated with e-cigarettes,' said councilor Janet Anderson. [...] And while experts agree more research is needed, they said the ordinance will help protect people until that information is available. 'I think it's good for the public safety, there's just too many unknowns yet with e-cigarettes,' said Deb Skare, a tobacco cessation specialist at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Austin. [para breaks omitted"
Austin is in an area of MN that's seen a great deal of activity from ALA rep.s, who have succesfully passed vaping=smoking indoor clean air act extensions in Manketo (home of Sen. Kathy Sheran, a vaping opponent who seem to do her best to memorize and repeat ALA talking points), N. Manketo, New Ulm, Sleepy Eye, Rochester, Waseca and others. MN is beginning to look like a "poster state" for the idea that it's possible for vapers to successfully push back against statewide legislation, only to lose in virtually every city and county.
Title: 15-Minute Advocate: Support E-Cigarette Regulation [by pointing to the # of cities that have passed vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans]
(League Of MN Cities web site) http://www.lmnc
.org/page/1/15ma-ECig.jsp
Although MN's senate vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor ban isn't a current threat so long as Gov. Dayton holds to his position, the League of MN Cities is urging vaping opponents to contact the Gov. and/or their elected rep.s to express support for a vaping ban. The three "talking points" are:
1) The FDA doesn't consider vaping to be a form of smoking cessation.
2) The legislature passed the indoor clean air act in 2007, but local jurisdictions can enact more restrictive policies.
3) "Because of potential health concerns and the current lack of regulation, at least 21 cities have passed ordinances on an individual basis that range from to whom they can be sold to prohibiting their use in public places."
In other words, what the League is saying is that local jurisdictions' decisions to ban vaping are themselves "talking points," for urging state legislators to do so. (In fact, this same phenomenon occurs nationally - members of the US Congress are often urged to adopt legislation on the grounds that states have done so.
---
US: MISSOURI
Title: Smoking [and vaping] ban passes in close vote [St. Joseph]
(St. Joseph MO US local paper) http://www.newspressnow
.com/news/local_news/article_8d2689bd-bd24-5ea6-b636-083a7a6d1416.html
Referendum in St. Joseph MO on an indoor smoking ban passes by 818 votes: 52.75% to 47.25% out of 14,880 votes (32.2% turnout). This ord. defined vaping as smoking. It appears that both federal and state money were likely used to fund the effort, since these funds support "Clean Air St. Joe" which is apparently the organization behind the initiative. See this web site:
Clean Air St. Joseph | Supporters
also the now-obsolete CASAA call (for background):
CASAA: Local Alert! St. Joseph, Missouri - April 8, 2014 Public Vote on Ordinance That Would Ban E-Cigarette Use as "Smoking"
[ Missouri presently only has a simple minor ban under consideration SB 841 = HB 1690 and: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...acco-derived-product-vapor-product-minor.html ]
---
US: TEXAS
Note: These three different stories paint a picture of the situation in Smith Co., whose commissioners appear to be quite sure that vaping should be treated as smoking, and that public safety requires a 50-ft perimeter around all co. facilities.
Title: Electronic cigarettes could be vaporized from Smith County buildings
(Tyler TX US ABC affiliate) http://www.kltv
.com/story/25193683/electronic-cigarettes-could-be-vaporized-from-smith-county-buildings
County commission meets again "next week" for a final vote.
"Commissioners said employees have been seen smoking the e-cigarettes in and around county buildings. In order to avoid confusion and checking every product for tobacco, they feel it would be easier to ban all vapor, with and without tobacco. 'The CDC came out with a study suggesting the vapors [from nicotine] can be absorbed through the skin and the eyes, so it does affect those that are around you,' said Smith County Judge Joel Baker. 'I always thought they were for people trying to quit smoking but I understand now they have a nicotine in them,' said Precinct 1 Commissioner Jeff Warr. 'We have to make the necessary changes in our policy or someone will say it's not in our policy,' [Comm'r] Hampton said. 'I would be in favor or eliminating the use of e-cigarettes or whatever product they use that creates vapor within the confines of the buildings and within 50 feet just like the no smoking policy,' Baker said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ TX legislature is out of session until 2015, unless Gov. Perry calls a special session. ]
Title: E-cigarettes may be banned within, just outside Smith County facilities
(Tyler TX US local paper) http://www.tylerpaper
.com/TP-News+Local/197827/ecigarettes-may-be-banned-within-just-outside-smith-county-facilities#.U0Q9pqJobfg
I]"Judge Joel Baker said there had been increasing complaints and incidents involving electronic cigarettes and that a recent study indicating the second-hand dangers of the product prompted the action. [...] Baker and other commissioners agreed bringing the devices in line with its Smoke Free Policy, which bans smoking from all county facilities and vehicles, will make the rules consistent. The policy also requires smokers be at least 50 feet from all public entrances. There was a report of a court bailiff taking a smoking device away from a juror recently, Baker said. 'We just needed to bring the policy in line with the traditional idea of smoking,' Baker said. 'There might be health hazards associated with e-cigarettes and there's also a respect factor when you're talking about being in a county building and around the public.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added][/I]"
Title: Smith County exploring indoor e-cig ban
(Tyler TX US CBS affiliate) http://www.cbs19
.tv/story/25191919/smith-county-exploring-indoor-e-cig-ban
"Current county policy fails to address e-cigarettes, whose use has sky-rocketed in the past couple of years.
County workers told commissioners during their weekly meeting Tuesday that there have been complaints from county offices regarding an inability to prevent people from using the devices. One example provided was that of a juror who was smoking an e-cigarette and received instructions from a judge and bailiff to stop doing so. County Judge Joel Baker voiced support for a potential expansion of the county's no smoking policy, citing a recent Centers for Disease Control study. 'The CDC came out with a study suggesting that the vapors can be absorbed through the skin and the eyes so it can affect those that are around you,' Baker said. That study appears to relate only to poisoning cases involving the raw vaping liquid. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Kudos to the writer for correcting the judge's ignorant remark. (Note the use of the word "sky-rocketed" - perhaps this will become the new "Wild West" catch phrase. Whatever else one can say about CDC Dir. Tom Frieden, he has a Glantz-like ability to add terms to the existing hysteria-lexicon surrounding vaping.)
Title: E-cigarette Bans: Necessary or Needless [Georgetown TX]
(Austin TX US CBS affiliate) http://www.keyetv
.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/ecigarette-bans-necessary-needless-17296.shtml
Title: Georgetown City Council bans e-cigarettes in public places
(Austin TX US NBC affiliate) http://kxan
.com/2014/04/08/georgetown-city-council-bans-e-cigarettes-in-public-places/
Five of the six Georgetown City Council members voted for a vaping=smoking ban. (It's not clear if the remaining member was absent, opposed, or didn't vote.) No reason is given in either story. The KEYETV (first) piece says this, although it's not at all clear whether it addresses "second hand vaping" or if it had anything at all to do with the city council's decision:
"The question... is vaping safe? Doctor aren't so sure 'these things haven't been FDA approved they haven't been researched. We don't have any long term data to suggest they are safe. We just don't know' said Dr. Ross Tobleman at Scott and White Hospital. [...] 'That nicotine paralyzes the hair cells inside our lung tissue, inside our lung tissue, inside our bronchioles and prevents them from moving waste products out of the lungs' Tobleman explained. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(Is this really true about inhaled nicotine?) The second (KXAN) report is a very brief announcement.
Title: E-cigarettes are smoking's newest thing; potential dangers hazy
(El Paso TX US local paper) http://www.elpasotimes
.com/living/ci_25508723/e-cigarettes-are-smokings-newest-thing-potential-dangers
While this piece carefully avoids making any specific anti-vaping claims, and only cites some rather mild conclusions from FDA '09 (no diethelyne glycol), it also uses the words "concern" and "fear" a total of seven times. Basically, as far as the author is concerned, we could be dealing with an as-yet-unexplored planet in a distant galaxy. Fortunately he stopped Googling after reading an article on the FDA.
Title: E-Cigarettes: The new fad for the uninformed
(So. Methodist U. Dallas TX US student paper) http://www.smudailycampus
.com/news/e-cigarettes-the-new-fad-for-the-uninformed
Let's see ... which is more harmful, a combustible tobacco cigarette, or vaping? The answer is that we don't know (supposedly):
"The notion of e-cigarettes being healthier may persist because the lack of information allows people to think they are. The only deterrence seems to be, for those who smoke regular cigarettes, that you have to smoke the e-cigarette more in order to get the same nicotine buzz."
Does vaping help anyone quit smoking? Once again, no information whatosever is available:
"Currently, there is no information that shows using e-cigarettes can help someone quit smoking. The only possible sign is that it provides a smaller dose of nicotine per puff than cigarettes."
And there's this zinger, with an unattributed quote:
"The FDA does regulate some e-cigarettes, but only those 'marketed for therapeutic purposes.'
I suppose the one thing that we can all say for certain about vaping after reading this article is that there are indeed many "uninformed" folks, as the title seems to suggest.
---
US: KANSAS
Title: Reno County Commission Approves E-Cigarette Ban
(Hutchinson KS ind radio station) http://www.hutchpost
.com/2014/04/08/reno-county-commission-approves-e-cigarette-ban/
No actual quotes in this story:
"Reno County Commissioners gave approval to ban all e-cigarettes from all county buildings and vehicles during their meeting Tuesday. E-cigarettes are becoming more and more popular, but things people are putting in them which can be illegal are also increasing. So, the county took a proactive approach and banned them all together. The commission felt is would take to much time and effort to police each individual person who uses the electronic cigarettes."
[ 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 ]
Title: E-cigarettes banned from campus buildings
(U KS Laurence KS US student paper) http://kansan
.com/news/2014/04/06/is-it-legal-to-smoke-in-buildings-illegal/
This piece indicates that the U's HR dep't "consulted with physicians at KU medical center" before defining vaping as smoking and banning it w/i 20 feet of most campus buildings. However:
"Exclusions to the policy include Student Housing (residential halls, scholarship halls and apartments) where students are allowed to use e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco and snuff."
That's fairly amazing, given that most college campuses are banning all tobacco-related products (except NRT) everywhere on campus.
---
US: OKLAHOMA
Title: Council weighs water rationing options [city property vaping=smoking ban passed]
(Duncan OK US local paper) http://www.duncanbanner
.com/local/x694519092/Council-weighs-water-rationing-options#sthash.lWSlbYO5.dpuf
Duncan City Council bans indoor vaping on city property and establishes a 25 ft. doorway perimeter. However it permits outdoor vaping except in one location - "Abe Raizin Park, where vapers will be required to be in designated smoking areas to inhale their various flavored vapors. Because vapers typically are ex-smokers who use the vapor devices to replace tobacco, they preferred not to be assigned to a smoking area, but they succeeded in heading off a total ban on outdoor vaping in city parks."
No reasons were given.
[ 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: Oklahoma -- OK! - ECF InfoZone ]
Title: Ban e-cig use in public spaces [Opinion]
(Muskogee OK US local paper) http://www.muskogeephoenix
.com/opinion/x493453294/Ban-e-cig-use-in-public-spaces
In a nutshell:
"The last thing the public needs to do is substitute a cloud of nicotine-laced water vapor for the cloud of smoke we all used to have to walk through everywhere we went. We just dont know what the effect of second-hand vapor will be in the long run."
(This appears to be an editorial, because it's not signed).
---
US: COLORADO
Title: CSU students use E-Cigarettes to quit smoking
(CO St. U. Ft. Collins CO US Student Paper) http://www.collegian
.com/2014/04/csu-students-use-e-cigarettes-to-quit-smoking/73350/
Focus on local vape shop owner, who quit smoking via vaping. There's nary a single anti-vaping syllable in this article. Apparently CSU hasn't banned voutdoor vaping, as so many other campuses have. The article helpfully mentions that smoke alarms can't detect vaping.
[ S18 appears to be superfluous minor sales ban, has passed Sen: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cluding-empty-e-cigs-without-seeing-id-2.html ]
---
US: IDAHO
Title: E-cigarette ban for city workers on the job could take effect this week
(Boise ID US Sinclair affiliate) http://www.kboi2
.com/news/local/e-cigarette-ban-city-workers-council-boise-254310831.html
Vaping as well as other non-NRT tobacco products are also banned on all city property - presumably this applies to more than just the city workers, although the article doesn't say. In fact this is the only jusification given:
"'Since our policy didn't consider that -- it didn't include e-cigarettes -- and we do want very much to have a drug-free workplace, we made the decision that we would present to the council the possibility of changing our policy to include e-cigarettes,' said Adam Park, city spokesman [boldface added]"
[ ID's legislature is out of session until 2015. ]
---
US: ARIZONA
[Reposted because this article vanished and then reappeared under a different URL]
Title: Coconino County added electronic cigarettes to existing smoking ban
(Flagstaff AZ US local paper) http://azdailysun.com/news/local/coconino-county-to-add-electronic-cigarettes-to-existing-smoking-ban/article_9ca88c06-bd5d-11e3-8303-0019bb2963f4
.html
[Note: this article appeared originally under a different URL on Sunday, and then vanished. Now it's back under a slightly different URL. Maybe this is some kind of software glitch? As far as I can tell, the content hasn't changed at all.]
Apparently the co. already passed an ord. that banned "electronic cigarettes," but the report says "And now Coconino County health officials want to add other electronic smoking devices to the existing ban as well - making it illegal to vape any substance in public." The report goes on to mention e-hookahs and vape pens. Frankly it's not at all clear what precisely the BOH is asking the board of supervisors to do, unless the goal is to ban nic-free vaping.
"'There have been some studies done on the products and 10 known agents have been found that are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,' [Assistant Chief Health Officer for Coconino County] Oxtoby said. 'We think that is too big of a health risk to expose the population to.' [...] 'The toxins are less than a traditional cigarette, but they're still really high,' Oxtoby said. 'It goes back to the long-term studies and the lack of regulations by the FDA. No two e-cigs are made alike. It's really buyer beware. You don't know what you could be inhaling. That's attributed to the lack of regulation by the FDA.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Evidently the BOH already asked the advisory board last month to support a ban, but no hearing date before the Co. Bd. of Supervisors is set.
[ No legislative threats appear to exist at the statewide level in AZ. ]
Title: Prescott Valley E-cig store gains local popularity
(Prescott Valley AZ US local paper) http://pvtrib.com/main
.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=114&ArticleID=60624
Title: E-cigs gain strong local popularity
(Prescott AZ US local paper) http://www.prescottaz
.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=130391
Another article about a local vape shop. The writer seems to have done some quick googling or perhaps provided his own opinions:
"Questions regarding the long-term health effects of electronic cigarettes, however, are also growing. Those questions include the effects of nicotine vapor and the effects 'second-hand vapor' may pose to those exposed to it. Other concerns include inadequate labeling, leaving many to speculate about other chemicals or ingredients in the liquid nicotine, and the risk of nicotine addiction."
And apparently he's a little confused about the scope of the FDA's two varieties of authority:
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently regulate e-cigarettes, since the products do not contain tobacco. E-cigarettes, and related accessories, are not subject to American tobacco laws, and can currently be purchased via the Internet and without proof of age. Currently, however, the FDA is working to classify e-cigarettes as a drug delivery device so they can be regulated."
Finally, we get this remarkably noncomittal statement from the obligatory phone call to a local health dep't official:
"In Yavapai County, there are no regulations concerning the use of electronic cigarettes, said David McAtee, spokesman for Yavapai County Community Health Services. 'It's so new it has not been regulated yet,' he said. 'They're still looking at research and trying to determine what exactly is coming out of an e-cigarette, but I'm sure it's coming down the line.' [para break omitted]"
[ No threats appear to exist in AZ's legislature at the moment. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: Del Mar bans e-cigarettes [vaping = smoking indoor/outdoor ban]
(Del Mar CA US local paper) http://www.delmartimes
.net/2014/04/08/del-mar-bans-e-cigarettes/
Unanimous vote by City Council to extend clean indoor air act to cover indoor/outdoor vaping. For some interesting reason, the writer thought it was relevant to mention the CDC's press release from last week, about the poison control center calls. (This was after we read about the ALA's citation of FDA '09, most likely from their web site - so perhaps that's how the CDC press release became relevant in the reporter's mind.)
More ominously, we hear this from the City Council:
"'In some ways, these are much more dangerous to the user than they are to bystanders who dont get second-hand smoke. Theyre also dangerous to kids,' said Councilman Don Mosier. 'I think to the extent that we can discourage use of e-cigarettes - thats [an] important policy objective of the city. This is just the beginning. I think as we learn more about e-cigarettes, we may have some more special requirements for regulation.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]."
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/548077-oh-no-its-alive-ca-no-shipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee.html ]
Title: Ban OK'd on e-cigs by supes at county buildings [Yolo Co. - Davis is next]
(Woodland CA US local paper) http://www.dailydemocrat
.com/breakingnews/ci_25527902/ban-okd-e-cigs-by-supes-at-county
As reported in this space on 4/6, Yolo Co. (home of Davis, CA and UCD) has banned "electronic nicotine delivery devices" wherever smoking is prohibited. Surprisingly, vapers got one vote out of five (which is unusual in California, never mind anywhere else). Stephen Jones, coordinator of the County's Tobacco Education program (yes, a state employee), and Clarance Caldwell, the county health officer, were involved in drafting and lobbying for the ord. They cite the following reasons (boldface added in places):
1) "'There is concern regarding the health effects these products may have on the individuals who use them and those who inhale their secondhand vapor,' Jensen said in the report. 'These products are not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the chemical content is unregulated. Device use inside buildings and other areas where cigarette use is restricted is a potential threat to public health.'"
2) "According to Caldwell, the liquid that the nicotine is dissolved in is not water, despite popular belief, but contains an assortment of unregulated organic chemicals that are believed to release carcinogenic fumes."
3) "'We should try to make our workplaces as safe as possible rather than waiting for undisputed proof that these devices cause harm secondhand,' she said."
4) "Caldwell continued to state that allowing any sort of smoking in the workplace is 'a huge step backwards' because allowing e-cigarettes moves towards normalizing smoking once again."
5) "'These e-cigarettes may or may not be somewhat safer than standard cigarettes to the smoker or to the secondhand smoker but most contain nicotine, which is an extremely addictive substance,' she said. 'If we can allow these devices indoors, in county buildings, this essentially promotes nicotine addiction and contributes to the renormalization of smoking that we are already seeing in our community.'"
6)" There is also concern about marketing toward teens even though state law prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. A survey released in March found that the devices are widely available in Yolo County with more than 45 percent of stores selling them. 'If they're allowed to smoke e-cigarettes, kids get the message smoking is OK again,' Jensen previously said."
(An almost perfect ANTZ score. The only things missing were the tin nanoparticles and the poison control center calls.) The Davis City Council "received a presentation in March regarding expanding its current ban on tobacco to include the vapor devices and could vote on restrictions in the future."
Title: Electronic cigarette ban proposed [City of Orland]
(Glenn Co. CA US local paper collection site) http://www.appeal-democrat
.com/glenn_county_transcript/electronic-cigarette-ban-proposed/article_0c70c290-bf9a-11e3-a3c3-001a4bcf6878.html
The city of Orland has unanimously approved an indoor/outdoor vaping=smoking ban on a first reading. It establishes a 20-ft. perimeter around all entrances, as well as ban applicable to all parks, parking lots, and other city property. (Boldface added in places).
1) "Councilman Bruce Roundy said Orland is ahead of the curve when it comes to California cities addressing this issue."
2) "[Assistant City Manager Angie Crook] said the ban would further serve to protect public health and reduce unwanted and unwelcome exposure to harmful chemicals. 'According to the California Medical Association, the safety of electronic cigarettes is currently unknown,' Crook said. 'The devices have yet to be submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval. However, a 2009 study by the FDA found that electronic cigarettes did contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, although at lower levels that those within cigarettes, to which users and bystanders could be exposed.'"
3) "Most [council members] believe there is very little difference between cigarettes and the electronic devises that emit doses of vaporized nicotine to be inhaled by the user, and from which a vapor cloud is created that resembles cigarette smoke. 'It's similarly disgusting,' said Councilman Dennis Hoffman. 'People smoking these devices believe they are above the law or regulations, and they smoke them practically anywhere they darn well please.'"
4) "In fact, Crook said there had been recent incidences with people smoking the electronic devises inside the Orland Library. 'A patron was told the behavior was disruptive to other patrons,' she said. 'That patron did reluctantly cooperate although with slight resistance.'"
It's not clear what the role of this person was:
"Sharon Lazorko, of Glenn County Public Health's Tobacco Coalition, said she was pleased the Orland City Council is taking steps to ban the use of electronic cigarettes where regular cigarettes are banned. 'I think it's awesome,' she said. 'They can be just as dangerous as cigarettes.' Lazarko said the use of the devices by and the marketing of the them to youth is alarming. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
---
US: ALASKA
Title: Supporters call for Alaska lawmakers to expand smoke-free workplace laws
(Ketchikan AK US local news web site) http://www.sitnews
.us/0414News/040714/040714_smokefree.html
Brief report on AK sen. hearings regarding SB 209, the state's first "clean air act," which also defines vaping as smoking. This is the only thing that's said about vaping, although this space has previously reported that the vaping=smoking parts of the bill are controversial:
"SB209 would also restrict the use of controversial electronic cigarettes in indoor spaces, asking users to take it outside for the health of others. Opponents of the bill, notably the Tobacco Industry, argue that e-cigarettes do not produce smoke like traditional cigarettes and emit 'harmless water vapors' instead. However, Marge Stoneking, Alaska Director of the American Lung Association, testified that, 'E-cigarette secondhand aerosol has been found to contain ultrafine particulates, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds, which are risks for lung cancer, in addition to nicotine.' [boldface added]"
The bill is still in committee.
***
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:
