Alhambra, CA bans e-cigs in public places

[MikeJA]

Hits pretty close to home for me. Passed 4-0, but at least one councilman abstained:

Councilman Gary Yamauchi abstained because he said there was not enough information to make an informed decision.

“I will not vote on any new laws that affect citizens in the city of Alhambra unless I feel that it’s a truly necessary law,” he said. “In general, we have too many laws governing us right now, and it’s about time we start expressing our freedoms even more.”


Alhambra’s City Council bans e-cigarette use in public places

EDIT: Whoops. I should've put this in the Legislation News thread. Could a mod move it?

 

[Uma]

"Councilman Gary Yamauchi abstained because he said there was not enough information to make an informed decision.

“I will not vote on any new laws that affect citizens in the city of Alhambra unless I feel that it’s a truly necessary law,” he said. “In general, we have too many laws governing us right now, and it’s about time we start expressing our freedoms even more.”



One voice of exquisite, rare, reasoning in a town of greedy, corrupt leaders. I hope this guy runs for higher offices. The world needs him.

 

[Uma]

"Few scientists have published reports about the health risks of e-cigarettes, according to EurekAlert!, a database of worldwide scientific studies. The three studies directly related to health hazards were preliminary ones with small sample sizes."

Say what???
Did they even look? Talk about turning a deaf ear and a blind eye.

 

[Vocalek]

"Few scientists have published reports about the health risks of e-cigarettes, according to EurekAlert!, a database of worldwide scientific studies. The three studies directly related to health hazards were preliminary ones with small sample sizes."

Say what???
Did they even look? Talk about turning a deaf ear and a blind eye.

There really are very few that look exclusively at health risks. I would not call those, "preliminary ones with small sample sizes." The only ones I have seen were case studies with a sample size of one.

The good news is that Dr. Polosa is putting together a series of case studies that look at before and after lung health records of individuals who switched to e-cigarettes.

All of the clinical trials so far (largest of these had about 600 subjects) have reported only minor adverse events (e.g., cough), mostly disappearing as the trial progressed. I really wish, however, that the clinical trials had looked more closely at health improvements, as well. I wish they had conducted general screenings of heart and lung health before, during, and after treatment. That data could have been quite persuasive.

 

[AgentAnia]

There really are very few that look exclusively at health risks. I would not call those, "preliminary ones with small sample sizes." The only ones I have seen were case studies with a sample size of one.

The good news is that Dr. Polosa is putting together a series of case studies that look at before and after lung health records of individuals who switched to e-cigarettes.

All of the clinical trials so far (largest of these had about 600 subjects) have reported only minor adverse events (e.g., cough), mostly disappearing as the trial progressed. I really wish, however, that the clinical trials had looked more closely at health improvements, as well. I wish they had conducted general screenings of heart and lung health before, during, and after treatment. That data could have been quite persuasive.

Bless Dr. Polosa!

I'm guessing that the anti-ecig lobby is well aware of all the anecdotal evidence of positive health effects of ecigs, and cynnical me supposes that because they control so much of the research funding, anyone even mentioning "health effects" and "ecigs" in the same grant application probably would have trouble getting the grant.

(Perhaps funding would be more forthcoming if all applicants mentioned "adverse health effects" and "ecigs." Then when the results are published, the authors could say "Surprise! We didn't find any adverse effects, only positive effects!")

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

(Perhaps funding would be more forthcoming if all applicants mentioned "adverse health effects" and "ecigs." Then when the results are published, the authors could say "Surprise! We didn't find any adverse effects, only positive effects!")

This was my first thought and then I realized that they probably know what the outcome would be.

It ain't going to happen with their money.

 

[Uma]

Wow, I thought there were more published studies. (Obviously lol)
Let's hope they can get them out ther.

I see that Talbots "suck harder" study is "published". That's such BS I don't know where to begin. Does she mention "one brand" in her presentations, or does she insinuate all brands. That's like saying sucking hard on a straw fills your lungs with plastic-cules (which it probably does, but have they banned straws? No.).

 

[AgentAnia]

Wow, I thought there were more published studies. (Obviously lol)
Let's hope they can get them out ther.

I see that Talbots "suck harder" study is "published". That's such BS I don't know where to begin. Does she mention "one brand" in her presentations, or does she insinuate all brands. That's like saying sucking hard on a straw fills your lungs with plastic-cules (which it probably does, but have they banned straws? No.).

Oh no! Not the dreaded plastic-cules!! Ban anyone under 18 sucking through a straw! We must save the chiiiiiildren!!!