Advocating reasonable laws for e-cigarettes

[Bill Godshall]

Per the following article, I strongly urge e-cigarette marketers and users to support local ordinances (or state legislation) that prohibits e-cigarette sales to minors and/or that legally empowers employers and managers of public places to ban or restrict the use of e-cigarettes at their facilities. I also urge support for school board policies that ban the use of e-cigarettes at K-12 school facilities (including outside).

Now that Congress has enacted the FDA tobacco legislation (that doesn't regulate e-cigarettes), and with the FDA contemplated (and prohibitionists callin for) a nationwide ban on the sale of e-cigarettes, it is vital that tobacco harm reduction advocates (including e-cigarette marketers and users) at least reactively (and preferably proactively) support reasonable local/state measures for the sale and use of e-cigarettes.

While I don't support laws that ban the use of e-cigarettes in locations that smoking is banned (since e-cigarettes don't pollute the air)
as the proposed Suffolk County ordinance would do, I think its important (especially for the ECA) to contact and urge local officials to enact reasonable and responsible regulations for e-cigarettes (e.g. urging them to amend their proposal to empower building managements to ban or restrict use of e-cigarettes).



Newsday
June 16, 2009

Legislator takes aim at electronic cigarettes (Huntington Local) - Newsday.com
Legislator takes aim at electronic cigarettes

By Paul Perillie
As home to one of the nation’s first public smoking bans, and one of the first localities in the country to raise the legal age to purchase cigarettes to 19, Suffolk County has been at the vanguard of national efforts to break America’s addiction to smoking. But now a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of “electronic cigarettes. “
Marketed towards young smokers, untested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and lacking any governmental oversight whatsoever, the skyrocketing popularity of “e-cigarettes” has spurred Suffolk County Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) to introduce legislation that would prohibit the sale of these devices to anyone under the age of 19. Cooper’s bill would also place the same public usage restrictions on e-cigarettes that are already in effect for traditional forms of smoking.
If approved by the Legislature, Suffolk County would become the first municipality in the nation, and one of only a small handful of governments worldwide, to place restrictions on these untested devices.

-----------------------------------------------------------Got opinion? Read it all and click here to leave a comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------​

E-cigarettes closely resemble and purposefully mimic the art of smoking by having users inhale vaporized liquid nicotine (often through kid-friendly, flavored cartridges) created by heat through an electronic ignition system. This actually makes the tip of the e-cigarette glow as if it were really lit. The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette. Versions are also available that mimic cigars or pipes. After inhaling, the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke.
“These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. But they also have the potential to create a life-long addiction to nicotine,” says Cooper. “They’re just too dangerous to be left unrestricted. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to be able to get their hands on them.”

But kids are getting their hands on them. Besides being sold at numerous sites on the Internet, there are currently at least four known locations on Long Island where anyone can legally purchase e-cigarettes. And that literally means anyone. Since these devices are so new to the American market and they don’t contain tobacco, e-cigarettes are not governed by Suffolk’s Tobacco 19 law or any other state or federal regulation.
“I commend Legislator Cooper for taking a pro-active stance on health care with this legislation prohibiting the sale of this drug delivery device to individuals under the age of 19 and banning its use where cigarettes are banned," said Suffolk County Department of Health Services Commissioner Dr. Humayan Chaudhry.
Just because they don’t contain tobacco, don’t be fooled into believing e-cigarettes are safe. Manufacturers of these devices still have not subjected them to independent, peer-reviewed, scientific examination.
A known neurotoxin, nicotine is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption. More lethal than strychnine, just 60 milligrams of nicotine on the tongue —about three drops—is enough to kill a 160 pound person. In contrast: The lethal dose for strychnine is 75 mg, for diamondback rattlesnake venom it’s 100 mg, you’d need to ingest 200 mg of arsenic to do somebody in, and Cyanide's lethal dose is 500 mg.
Studies show that adolescents can become addicted to nicotine after ingesting the equivalent of 20 traditional cigarettes (the amount normally available in a single pack). The appeal created by the flavorings of e-cigarette cartridges (including cherry, grape and vanilla, just to name a few) can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction.
To make matters worse, the current lack of governmental testing and regulation means that e-cigarette manufacturers and marketers can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices. This includes telling customers they can legally be smoked anywhere, which has already led to altercations between non-smoking restaurant patrons and “e-smokers.”
So now, after nearly a decade of progress on public smoking bans nationwide, e-cigarettes are being used where traditional forms of smoking are outlawed. This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke. It’s also causing confusion for public health agencies that are not sure what, if any, authority they have to prevent e-smokers from powering up and puffing away.
By giving county and municipal law enforcement and public health officials the tool they need, Cooper’s proposed law will also close that loophole. Non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand ingestion will no longer have to stress about being exposed to a cloud of vapor from an e-cigarette.
“When it comes to smoking in any form, we can’t wait for Washington to release another report or issue another obvious warning. We need them to step up and take real action,” says Cooper. “Until they do, we here at the local level who are on the front lines of the smoking war must once again take it upon ourselves to protect our most vulnerable populations from the enslaving dangers of nicotine addiction. If we fail to act on this newest front, the future casualties will be our own children.”
A public hearing on Cooper’s legislation will take place at the June 23 meeting of the County Legislature, which will be held at Suffolk Community College’s Culinary Arts Center in Riverhead.
Paul Perillie is an aide to the majority caucus.

 

[TnA]

Mr Godshall, while I don't completely disagree with your thoughts/intents (and hope your intentions are true and honest), I also find myself in some disagreement in what you are advocating. In essence, you are advocating that the e-cigarette community treat itself like smokers!

However, I would say that is exactly what the e-cigarette community is not! I'm not advocating flaunting my electronic cigarette in public, taking it to every eating establishment/bar and blowing vapor in peoples' faces and telling them I can't be stopped because it's not smoke. But I am also not advocating that the electronic cigarette community be treated like second-class citizens. We all lived that life-style as analog smokers. We chose to try a method that is (hopefully) safer for us and does not infringe on the rights of non-smokers.

To be put into the same category as smokers and to have the exact same restrictions placed on me is a complete antithesis of the move that I made away from analogs.

I agree that underage minors should not be allowed to access electronic cigarettes. I agree that electronic smoking should not be glamorized. I would even agree that electronic cigarettes should not be allowed on school grounds....but just where do you propose electronic cigarettes should be allowed, that analogs currently are not? As far as I'm aware, any manager of a store, restaurant, bar, etc can legally ask me to vacate the premises if I don't wish to cease my electronic smoking in their establishment. So what empowerment to building managers need that they don't currently have?

 

[yvilla]

TnA, Bill is not advocating that ecigs be confined to "smoking areas" only.

While I don't support laws that ban the use of e-cigarettes in locations that smoking is banned (since e-cigarettes don't pollute the air)
as the proposed Suffolk County ordinance would do, I think its important (especially for the ECA) to contact and urge local officials to enact reasonable and responsible regulations for e-cigarettes (e.g. urging them to amend their proposal to empower building managements to ban or restrict use of e-cigarettes).

Bill is only warning us that others, like the Suffolk County legislator Jon Cooper referred to in the article he quoted, want to do so. And telling us he thinks it would be best to proactively agree to things like restrictions on sale to minors, while at the same time fighting off the likes of Cooper.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I understand the argument you're making and I agree that if the devices are going to be legislated (inevitable) we should be at the forefront of advocating for rational laws that support the reasonable use of the device rather than blanket bans.

But this quote just infuriates me:

“These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. But they also have the potential to create a life-long addiction to nicotine,” says Cooper. “They’re just too dangerous to be left unrestricted. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to be able to get their hands on them.”

That's the boilerplate anti-smoking ideology being articulated by someone who obviously knows nothing about e-cigarettes. We need to fight that kind of ignorance wherever we see it because it's out there now and being spread by an increasing number of public officials. For a lot of people, the first exposure they get to e-cigarettes is going to be a quote like that one, and as we all know, first impressions can be very hard to reverse.

 

[OutWest]

legally empowers employers and managers of public places to ban or restrict the use of e-cigarettes at their facilities. I also urge support for school board policies that ban the use of e-cigarettes at K-12 school facilities (including outside).

I do support the age limit at point of purchase. However, I dont believe in banning at the schools -- there are faculty and administrators there as well that would be affected and I'd rather see a kid puffing on an ecig than a cigarette, for that matter (not to say that either is good, but considering the known hazards that cigarettes have...). And, in many states (if not all) employers and managers can already legally restrict the use of ecigs if they so desire, just like they can say "no food or drink allowed"

edit to clarify - if the schools choose to ban, then so be it and I would support them having the right to choose to do so. But I do not support any legislation that forces a ban.

 

[TnA]

TnA, Bill is not advocating that ecigs be confined to "smoking areas" only.



Bill is only warning us that others, like the Suffolk County legislator Jon Cooper referred to in the article he quoted, want to do so. And telling us he thinks it would be best to proactively agree to things like restrictions on sale to minors, while at the same time fighting off the likes of Cooper.

yvilla, I'm obviously not reading Bill Godshall's words correctly. As I see it, he is not just warning us, but asking us to reactively (at minimum) and preferably, proactively get ahead of any banning action. However, where I am confused is just how he proposes we do so.

"I strongly urge e-cigarette marketers and users to support local ordinances (or state legislation) that prohibits e-cigarette sales to minors and/or that legally empowers employers and managers of public places to ban or restrict the use of e-cigarettes at their facilities. I also urge support for school board policies that ban the use of e-cigarettes at K-12 school facilities (including outside)."

I agree that we should support prohibition of e-cigarette sales to minors.

I agree that we should support banning of use of e-cigarettes at K-12 school facilities.

But what I'm confused about is the "....that legally empowers employers and managers of public places to ban or restrict the use of e-cigarettes at their facilities" statement. As far as I'm aware, any public place I go to, I can be told by the management to stop using my device or leave the premise. If I were an employee of such a place, I would be faced with either compliance or release from employment. So what ordinance or state legislation is needed to empower the management of these places?

As far as trying to take a proactive stance to prevent Suffolk County-type ordinances from popping up across the United States, I have trouble believing that this is going to be some widespread phenomenon that sweeps the country. Fact of the matter is that legislation (at any level) is created by people voted for by the people. If the legislation is ridiculous, the voters will let the politicians know by voting in new politicians. So, to some extent, I see this as a form of fear-mongering. I don't disagree with trying to stay proactive with the laws, but how much are we willing to give in before we become just another "analog-type" device to be controlled?

 

[yvilla]

I agree that we should support prohibition of e-cigarette sales to minors.

I agree that we should support banning of use of e-cigarettes at K-12 school facilities.

But what I'm confused about is the "....that legally empowers employers and managers of public places to ban or restrict the use of e-cigarettes at their facilities" statement. As far as I'm aware, any public place I go to, I can be told by the management to stop using my device or leave the premise. If I were an employee of such a place, I would be faced with either compliance or release from employment. So what ordinance or state legislation is needed to empower the management of these places?

Actually, I agree with you on this.

 

[Cancer]

Why not either join the members of this forum in attending this Suffolk County hearing and make a public statement(like your group would for an analog ban). Equally you could send a certified letter ,that you request be read at this hearing,voicing your opinions. You are the ONLY reasonable member of the anti-smoking coalitions to help in this regard. Thanks for your input, i just hope you could be more vehement on this hearings importance and your helpfullness in turning its outcome.

 

[dumwaldo]

AMENDED COPY AS OF 6/1/2009
​

Intro. Res. No. 1347-2009 Laid on Table 4/28/2009
Introduced by Legislator Cooper

RESOLUTION NO. -2009, ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO.  -2009, A LOCAL LAW BANNING THE SALE OF E-CIGARETTES TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 19
​

WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on  , 2009, a proposed local law entitled, "A LOCAL LAW BANNING THE SALE OF E-CIGARETTES TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 19; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows:

LOCAL LAW NO.  -2009, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK

A LOCAL LAW BANNING THE SALE OF E-CIGARETTES TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 19

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows:

Section 1. Legislative Intent.

This Legislature hereby finds that while state and federal government have been slow to respond meaningfully to the public health crisis caused by smoking, the Suffolk County Legislature has a long and proud history of being at the forefront of the efforts to curb smoking and its inherent dangerous effects on the general public’s health.

This Legislature finds that Suffolk County was one of the first municipalities in the nation to ban smoking in restaurants and other public places and one of the first municipalities to limit the access school age children have to tobacco products by passing “Tobacco 19”, which raised to 19 the legal age for the purchase of tobacco products.

This Legislature recognizes that dangers posed by tobacco are not limited to cigarettes, pipes or other traditional forms of smoking.

This Legislature also finds and determines that a new, untested and unregulated high-tech smoking device, commonly referred to as e-cigarettes, have recently been made available to consumers. These devices closely resemble and purposefully mimic the art of smoking by having users inhale vaporized liquid nicotine created by heat through an electronic ignition system. The vapors are expelled via a cartridge that usually contains a concentration of pure nicotine. The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette, cigar or pipe. After inhaling, the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional cigarettes, cigars and pipes.

This Legislature also finds and determines that nicotine is a known neurotoxin that is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption.

This Legislature finds that the manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes purposefully and intently advertise their produces as safe, nicotine delivery devices and smoking cessation modalities.

This Legislature also finds that the safety and smoking cessation assertions made by e-cigarettes companies have no reliable basis in fact because their products have not undergone testing by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) as drug delivery devices, nor have e-cigarette manufacturers submitted for independent peer review any findings on the safety and smoking cessation claims of their products.

This Legislature also finds that the FDA has publicly expressed concerns over the safety of these devices. The FDA has launched an official investigation into the
e-smoking devices and has refused to allow e-cigarettes, e-cigars and e-pipes to cross the border because they're considered new drugs and drug delivery devices that require FDA approval.
This Legislature further finds that concurrent with this lack of suitable information,
e-cigarette manufacturers offer their nicotine cartridges in a variety of flavors, including cherry, chocolate, and vanilla. Public health advocates warn these flavorings are purposefully meant to appeal to and attract young people and are commonly referred to as “training wheels” for traditional cigarettes.

This Legislature also finds that studies show that adolescents can become addicted to nicotine after ingesting the equivalent of 20 traditional cigarettes (the amount traditionally available in a single pack). The appeal created by the flavorings discussed can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction.

This Legislature also finds that the nicotine content in e-cigarettes is unknown and unspecified and presents a significant risk of rapid addiction or overdose.

This Legislature also finds that when consumed in public places where traditional tobacco products are banned, the use of e-cigarettes causes fear, stress and confusion among patrons and workers alike. This in turn seriously compromises the County’s current public health laws governing indoor smoking bans by creating an enforcement nightmare for the Department of Health Services’ Tobacco Enforcement Unit.

This Legislature is encouraged that other governments and public health organizations have joined the FDA and are speaking out about the potential dangers posed by e-cigarettes. These entities are also calling on e-cigarette manufacturers to cease and desist their safety claims until these products have been independently tested. These groups include the World Health Organization and the Canadian’s government’s FDA equivalent, the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate.

This Legislature further finds that every year tobacco products siphon off more than $268 billion in directly related healthcare and lost worker productivity costs and lead to the deaths of almost one-half million Americans. This Legislature is supportive of tobacco cessation programs and modalities that have proven efficacy and utilize safe FDA-approved products.

This Legislature also determines that protecting Suffolk County residents against an untested nicotine product like e-cigarettes represents sound public health and fiscal policy.

Therefore, the purpose of this law is to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and like products in Suffolk County to persons under the age of 19 until the United States Food and Drug Administration determines that e-cigarettes are safe and/or effective smoking cessation devices and to prohibit “smoking” or otherwise using e-cigarettes and like products in public places where traditional forms of smoking are already disallowed.

Section 2. Definitions.

As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

A) “E-CIGARETTE” shall mean any electronic smoking device composed of a mouthpiece, heating element, battery and electronic circuits that provide a vapor of pure nicotine mixed with propylene glycol to the user as they simulate smoking. This term shall include such devices whether they are manufactured as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes or under any other product name.

B) “LIQUID NICOTINE” shall mean any liquid product composed either in whole or part of pure nicotine and proprylene glycol and manufactured for use with e-cigarettes.

C) “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity of business of any kind.

Section 3. Prohibition.

No person shall sell or offer for sale e-cigarettes or liquid nicotine within the County of Suffolk to persons under nineteen (19) years of age.

Section 4. Amendment.

Chapter 437 of the SUFFOLK COUNTY CODE is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 437, SMOKING


* * * *
​

§ 437-2. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

BAR or TAVERN -- Any indoor area open to the public devoted to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption regardless of the quantity of food served to patrons for on-premises consumption.

E-CIGARETTE – Shall mean any electronic smoking device composed of a mouthpiece, heating element, battery and electronic circuits that provide a vapor or pure nicotine mixed with propylene glycol to the user as they simulate smoking. This term shall include such devices whether they are manufactured as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes or under any other product name.

* * * *
​

SMOKING -- The combustion of any cigar, cigarette, tobacco, e-cigarette or any similar article or any other combustible substance in any manner or in any form.

* * * *
​

Section 5. Penalties.

Any person who intentionally violates the provisions of Section 3 of this law shall be guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each violation shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.

Section 6. Reverse Preemption.

This law, with the exception of Section 4, shall be null and void on the day that Statewide or Federal legislation goes into effect, incorporating either the same or substantially similar provisions as are contained in this law, or in the event that a pertinent State or Federal Administrative Agency issues and promulgates regulations preempting such action by the county of Suffolk. The County Legislature may determine via mere resolution whether or not identical or substantially similar statewide legislation has been enacted for the purposes of triggering the provisions in this section.

Section 7. Applicability.

This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law.

Section 8. Severability.

If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.

Section 9. SEQRA Determination.

This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law.

Section 10. Effective Date.

This law shall take effect sixty (60) days after its filing in the Office of the Secretary of State.

DATED:

APPROVED BY:


_____________________________
County Executive of Suffolk County

Date:

 

[dumwaldo]

Spikey, Josh and myself have been meeting with Suffolk County legislators for the last two weeks in an effort to get them more informed on this subject. We have presented many of the legislators with the following studies...

http://www.vapersclub.com/pg.html


On thursday we will be meeting with the Honorable Jon Cooper himself.

Hopefully we can get him to understand that he has been grossly misinformed and he will be willing to amend the one paragraph where he essentially sneaks in the text about prohibiting use in public areas where smoking is prohibited.

The Long Island Vapers Club will NOT give up. As the article states, Suffolk County has led the way for anti smoking legislation so we understand the critical importance of not letting this legislation pass under its current form. It WILL be used as a model for other localities so we are working hard to make sure it gets modeled in a responsible fashion.

DW

 

[Surf Monkey]

Fantastic work. Please let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

 

[katzndawgs]

I'm new here and this is my first post, but I am just stunned by this misinformation! I've been lurking here almost a month, when I found this forum and bought my 901 on 5/22. After 30+ years of smoking, 1 - 2 packs a day, I've been virtually smoke-free since! Ok, so I've smoked maybe 8 or 10 analogs since then, and only when alcohol was involved But even then, it just wasn't the same, they didn't taste good, and didn't start the craving again.

The eCig has been a miracle for me! I've tried other NRTs, but none has addressed the behavioral and psychological aspects of smoking like this. Smoking addiction involves much more than just nicotine. Now this legislator wants to equate PVs with candy?!?!?

 

[TnA]

Spikey, Josh and myself have been meeting with Suffolk County legislators for the last two weeks in an effort to get them more informed on this subject. We have presented many of the legislators with the following studies...

Propylene Glycol Research Study Results


On thursday we will be meeting with the Honorable Jon Cooper himself.

Hopefully we can get him to understand that he has been grossly misinformed and he will be willing to amend the one paragraph where he essentially sneaks in the text about prohibiting use in public areas where smoking is prohibited.

The Long Island Vapers Club will NOT give up. As the article states, Suffolk County has led the way for anti smoking legislation so we understand the critical importance of not letting this legislation pass under its current form. It WILL be used as a model for other localities so we are working hard to make sure it gets modeled in a responsible fashion.

DW

DW, that's great to hear! I wish you guys the best of luck and I will happily offer my assistance in any way I can. I just wish we had people like Mr Godshall actively engaging in these issues (nationwide vice just their geographical area). While I'm sure his intent was to inform and warn, it also reeks of fear-mongering without his active support/assistance.

 

[boxhead]

gool luck to you guys and girls on thursday with m#$%^ cooper, having tried to get on an e-cigs on a dinky little fair in shasta county only to be met with such complete scorn and hostility not to mention ingnorince<sp> i am glad you have a little more than luck on your side. being able to bring out the positves and bring some true facts to the table...

 

[Lala]

The misinformation is unforgivable! To take a positive step for so many and demonize it! How dare they publish such ignorant, biased and obviously un-researched tripe? What happened to integrity in the news media, to basic background information being gathered before submitting a piece? What happened to supporting a statement?

"But now a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of “electronic cigarettes. “ "
It is not even smoking! VAPOR

"Marketed towards young smokers,"
Really? how? where? aren't many users actually middle-aged who have struggled with other forms of quitting?

"(often through kid-friendly, flavored cartridges)"
Because only kids like flavors! next we will ban fruity 'girly' alcoholic drinks!

"The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette."
Hmm, except for the devices that seem most popular on this forum at least, and my own two types! This again shows lack of real research for the article.

"the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke."
Undetermined? The three ingredients are known and listed. (if talking about PG, the alternative mixes are also known)

" “These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. ... "
Yes kids might find them appealing, just like cars, but they cant have them either!


"But kids are getting their hands on them."
Who? Where? If so, then that is irresponsible and wrong, but is it really an issue? had he backed up this statement at all?

"A known neurotoxin, nicotine is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption. More lethal than strychnine, just 60 milligrams of nicotine on the tongue —about three drops—is enough to kill a 160 pound person. In contrast: The lethal dose for strychnine is 75 mg, for diamondback rattlesnake venom it’s 100 mg, you’d need to ingest 200 mg of arsenic to do somebody in, and Cyanide's lethal dose is 500 mg."
True, but used in an inflammatory way. When used properly, following directions, these concentrations are not being used. When used improperly anything can be dangerous! They are not selling pure nicotine, three drops of what is actually sold is not lethal! how about over the counter and prescription meds? Pure concentrations of the active ingredients are just as lethal. Yes, I could misuse my liquid and kill myself, just like I could any number of common substances to the same effect.

"The appeal created by the flavorings of e-cigarette cartridges (including cherry, grape and vanilla, just to name a few) can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction. "
Ok, so don't give them to kids, they are not meant for kids! Again, only children like flavors? When I started smoking as a child, I cared more about what the other kids thought then if it tasted good, it was about proving something. As a teen I drank my hard alcohol straight, again proving something. Now I only drink what I like, what is wrong with vaping what I like? Don't demonize the vapor, just go ahead and prosecute adults who would give it to a minor.

"can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices."
Again, dangerous when used properly? Really? Wanna back that up?

"telling customers they can legally be smoked anywhere, which has already led to altercations between non-smoking restaurant patrons and “e-smokers.” "
Yes, blame the device for ignorant users with attitudes.

"This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke."
Again, not smoke. Distress from ignorance about a new product, not a problem from the new product. People should be considerate around others. No, people should not subject others to their vapor if it bothers anyone, even just psychologically. Just as they shouldn't subject others to a cloud of perfume that could irritate. And users should be aware that some people are sensitive to chemicals like PG, I would never use this in a room with my grandma, (just like I would never spray anything around her)

"It’s also causing confusion for public health agencies that are not sure what, if any, authority they have to prevent e-smokers from powering up and puffing away."
Why should they have control over my choices? If I don't make a nuisance of myself, leave me be!

"If we fail to act on this newest front, the future casualties will be our own children.” "
Yes the author is quoting someone, but this quote is an obvious emotional argument, not a logical one. A common tool for propaganda.

Sorry this was so long, but the ignorance and bias is infuriating. I am not against reasonable legislation at all, just against this misinformation being swallowed by people unknowingly.

 

[Spikey]

The misinformation is unforgivable! To take a positive step for so many and demonize it! How dare they publish such ignorant, biased and obviously un-researched tripe? What happened to integrity in the news media, to basic background information being gathered before submitting a piece? What happened to supporting a statement?

"But now a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of “electronic cigarettes. “ "
It is not even smoking! VAPOR

"Marketed towards young smokers,"
Really? how? where? aren't many users actually middle-aged who have struggled with other forms of quitting?

"(often through kid-friendly, flavored cartridges)"
Because only kids like flavors! next we will ban fruity 'girly' alcoholic drinks!

"The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette."
Hmm, except for the devices that seem most popular on this forum at least, and my own two types! This again shows lack of real research for the article.

"the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke."
Undetermined? The three ingredients are known and listed. (if talking about PG, the alternative mixes are also known)

" “These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. ... "
Yes kids might find them appealing, just like cars, but they cant have them either!


"But kids are getting their hands on them."
Who? Where? If so, then that is irresponsible and wrong, but is it really an issue? had he backed up this statement at all?

"A known neurotoxin, nicotine is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption. More lethal than strychnine, just 60 milligrams of nicotine on the tongue —about three drops—is enough to kill a 160 pound person. In contrast: The lethal dose for strychnine is 75 mg, for diamondback rattlesnake venom it’s 100 mg, you’d need to ingest 200 mg of arsenic to do somebody in, and Cyanide's lethal dose is 500 mg."
True, but used in an inflammatory way. When used properly, following directions, these concentrations are not being used. When used improperly anything can be dangerous! They are not selling pure nicotine, three drops of what is actually sold is not lethal! how about over the counter and prescription meds? Pure concentrations of the active ingredients are just as lethal. Yes, I could misuse my liquid and kill myself, just like I could any number of common substances to the same effect.

"The appeal created by the flavorings of e-cigarette cartridges (including cherry, grape and vanilla, just to name a few) can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction. "
Ok, so don't give them to kids, they are not meant for kids! Again, only children like flavors? When I started smoking as a child, I cared more about what the other kids thought then if it tasted good, it was about proving something. As a teen I drank my hard alcohol straight, again proving something. Now I only drink what I like, what is wrong with vaping what I like? Don't demonize the vapor, just go ahead and prosecute adults who would give it to a minor.

"can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices."
Again, dangerous when used properly? Really? Wanna back that up?

"telling customers they can legally be smoked anywhere, which has already led to altercations between non-smoking restaurant patrons and “e-smokers.” "
Yes, blame the device for ignorant users with attitudes.

"This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke."
Again, not smoke. Distress from ignorance about a new product, not a problem from the new product. People should be considerate around others. No, people should not subject others to their vapor if it bothers anyone, even just psychologically. Just as they shouldn't subject others to a cloud of perfume that could irritate. And users should be aware that some people are sensitive to chemicals like PG, I would never use this in a room with my grandma, (just like I would never spray anything around her)

"It’s also causing confusion for public health agencies that are not sure what, if any, authority they have to prevent e-smokers from powering up and puffing away."
Why should they have control over my choices? If I don't make a nuisance of myself, leave me be!

"If we fail to act on this newest front, the future casualties will be our own children.” "
Yes the author is quoting someone, but this quote is an obvious emotional argument, not a logical one. A common tool for propaganda.

Sorry this was so long, but the ignorance and bias is infuriating. I am not against reasonable legislation at all, just against this misinformation being swallowed by people unknowingly.

Thanks Lala! I spent a few hours doing the same thing as above.. picking this apart and defending the incorrect statements with FACTS. I will be likely to call Newsday and ask them to print the article I am writing to refute the article above. The Health Commisioner Dr.Chaudry is REALLY a Doctor??? Are we sure??? Cause he is having PRINTED outright LIES! And by the way.. he HAS received the info on PG being non harmful (from the Long Island Vapers Club) and as a DOCTOR he knows the amounts of nic we use are NOT dangerous yet he was STILL willing to say that in a NEWSPAPER!!!Are you freakin kidding me?

TB... I may PM you for editing and suggestions on the article I am working on.

Now what do we need??? PHYSICAL SUPPORT!!!!

3 people allowed to speak for 5 minutes each will mean we speak for 15 minutes. They will allow ANYONE to speak at this meeting... even if you get up and say "vaping has helped me cause my clothes don't smell and my kids will hug me again and my car seat doesn't get burn holes in it anymore and blah, blah, blah".

SO... if TWELVE people speak for 5 minutes each.... we then have 1 HOUR to help them "get it". PLEASE guys!!! We NEED your help! I don't care if you drive the 4 hours from NJ to speak for 5 minutes... if this could save the PV isn't it worth it???

 

[Spikey]

Oh yeah! And write some letters to the newspaper to say that they printed something that was NOT true in MANY ways! They don't like to feel like idiots!!!

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Oh yeah! And write some letters to the newspaper to say that they printed something that was NOT true in MANY ways! They don't like to feel like idiots!!!

The newspaper will be getting a rebuttal from me - no worries there...

We're seeing a swing back to the ugly side of "I hate E-Cigs," again....their rebuttals to our arguements, so to speak. Really wish they'd come up with something new to fight over, instead of the same tired rhetoric (think of the children, fercristsake!) - you know, perhaps the truth as to why they don't like our toys...

I know - pipe dreams - they can't out the real reasons - because that would expose them as the power-mad control freaks they are.

Glad to see ya back, Spikey - you're one of the greatest assets this forum (and the entire PV movement) has.... and you got my support 100%!

 

[Spikey]

Just so you are all aware... The article HAS a place for readers to post COMMENTS!!! Click the link in the OP and you can make comments at the bottom of the article. Since the comments need to be "approved" first... I would think that they would not post the ones stating the article is composed from lies and fabrications.. but they do seem to be fair about posting comments... so give it a try!!

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Just a quick comment on the whole flavor issue...

Is strawberry lube made for kids?

Because that's gross.