A recent change in strategy by the ANTZ?

[DC2]

Not too long ago we were seeing these attacks on electronic cigarette usage coming at the local levels.

But a new trend seems to be developing...
Most of the latest attempts to define smoking as including electronic cigarette usage are coming at the state level.

IT'S ABOUT A BILLION LIVES SYMPOSIUM_2/3/2012

Fearmongering presentation by Rachel Grana starts at around the 1 hour mark.

Stan Glantz also claims that e-cigarettes were banned at UCSF because he learned that people were planning a vape-in.

Cynthia Hallet with ANR specifically bemoaned that some communities had specifically exempted e-cigarettes in smoking bans, and they are working on "stoping" that from happening.

A lawyer at the California Attorney General's office was present, and at around 1 hours and 15 minutes, she mentions that they are currently 'investigating' e-cigarette companies for selling to minors over the Internet and making unsubstantiated health claims.

Is this the new strategy the ANTZ are following?

 

[rolygate]

They are either funded to stop e-cigs, or idealogically opposed to any form of nicotine consumption (while ignoring the fact it's part of the diet, and that they drink coffee and wine, which have about the same health implications).

Therefore, if unable to ban e-cigs outright, their intention is to nibble away at the availability of e-cigs. They will try to ban their use at local level, or restrict sales in some way, or remove access to certain options.

The strange thing would be if they stopped their perverted antics. You can't stop fruitcakes and people paid to oppose health improvements, it's either their job or their belief. There were probably people who opposed antibiotics or painkillers, it's just a fact of life that there will be commercial opponents to any progress, or nutjobs who want to stop it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

DC2 inquired

Is this the new strategy the ANTZ are following?

Their strategy hasn't changed. Back in October of 2009, e-cigarette opponents at ANR (Cynthia Hallet, Bronson Frick, Peter Hanaur) changed ANR's model smokefree workplace ordinances to redefine "smoking" as including the use of e-cigarettes, and in 2010 CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA changed their model smokefree workplace state legislation to redefine "smoking" to include the use of e-cigarettes.

While all five groups (ANR/CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA) partner to advocate local ordinances, CTFK/ACS/ALA/AHA tend to take the lead in advocating state legislation (ANR rarely gets involved with state legislation, except to oppose state bills that would preempt local ordincances).

There are about the same number of bills introduced this year (i.e. four) at the state level (that would ban e-cig use in workplaces). While the Utah bill (HB 245) is a huge threat that must be aggressively opposed NOW, and the bill in KY poses a medium threat, the bills in AL and MS aren't likely to pass.

 

[CES]

.....the bills in AL and MS aren't likely to pass.

That makes me hopeful Bill!

During the hearing for the Birmingham city ordinance, the AHA and ALA reps brought out the tired FDA study, but also added that those that enforcing smoking restrictions will have difficulty telling the difference between vapor and smoke (as if that's difficult) ....but it seems as if they may have slowed down on direct comparisons between vapor and smoke.