Hi all,
First of all, I hope I am posting this in the correct place.
I recently received a call to action regarding banning indoor vaping and I asked my husband to write the response I knew he would do a much better job than me!
He also sent me some additional thoughts (which I didn't send), but I am posting.
Feel free to use any of this if any of you are searching for "responses" to CTA's.
Hope this might be useful and vape on
LETTER:
I have a few comments with respect to your proposed rule banning indoor vaping.
1. If your intent is to protect non-vapors from the effect of the vapors emitted by the smokeless cigarette, no qualified medical evidence exists that this activity is harmful. There is a reluctant observation by the medical community that if anything vaping is less harmful than second-hand cigarette smoke.
2. If your intent is to make vaping less desirable to impressionable youngsters, this regulation will only drive more youngsters to have an interest in the product because it is a simple example of defiance, i.e., tattoos and pierced ears. If you have children you know how well that works.
3. If your intent is to classify the activities as a tobacco product, thus subject to more rigorous regulation, this will leave the door open for big tobacco to dominate this industry. As you are well aware, the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco products are onerous. Regulators have mandated warning labels; restricted advertizing banned flavored cigarettes, all in an attempt to reduce the consumption of tobacco products. In fact, Britain has recently mandated that logos cannot appear on packaged cigarettes. The potential of this new market has not gone unnoticed by the traditional tobacco manufacturers.
I suggest that before you ban the use of smokeless cigarettes, you obtain a study from a reliable source that will support your regulatory action. Moreover, you should have the purveyor of the report determine that the atmospheric effects of scented candles, incense sticks, essential oils, room deodorizers and lastly vented exhaust for barbeque and pizza establishments, are not as harmful as the vapor emitted from these devises., as otherwise you may expect further regulation.
Any theory of public health that you rely upon; if not supported by competent data risks a challenge by the affected groups as essentially you are negating free will. This will not be without cost. And notwithstanding the rule, it will be difficult to enforce without clear evidence of a greater good for the invitees of public establishments.
There is reliable evidence for second hand smoke; but here you have none. Thus, it leads a reasonable person to opine that fear of the unknown is driving this decision. At present, I believe your plan is unwarranted and will not accomplish any meaningful goal.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: (not sent)
You could also add that some would interpret this rule as a being dictated by 'big tobacco' to avoid competition, and perhaps there are behind-the scene activities with the tobacco lobby that would not pass the smell test if any communications exist in support of the proposed rule.
This is an area that would be under intense scrutiny, and mindful of the new rules about e-discovery, its the kind of evidence that would be hard to avoid.
You may be assured that is a legal challenge was brought in this matter, email correspondence would be carefully scrutinized.
While you may assume that such supportive efforts are merely helpful, the perception of undue influence may be pervasive.
First of all, I hope I am posting this in the correct place.
I recently received a call to action regarding banning indoor vaping and I asked my husband to write the response I knew he would do a much better job than me!
He also sent me some additional thoughts (which I didn't send), but I am posting.
Feel free to use any of this if any of you are searching for "responses" to CTA's.
Hope this might be useful and vape on
LETTER:
I have a few comments with respect to your proposed rule banning indoor vaping.
1. If your intent is to protect non-vapors from the effect of the vapors emitted by the smokeless cigarette, no qualified medical evidence exists that this activity is harmful. There is a reluctant observation by the medical community that if anything vaping is less harmful than second-hand cigarette smoke.
2. If your intent is to make vaping less desirable to impressionable youngsters, this regulation will only drive more youngsters to have an interest in the product because it is a simple example of defiance, i.e., tattoos and pierced ears. If you have children you know how well that works.
3. If your intent is to classify the activities as a tobacco product, thus subject to more rigorous regulation, this will leave the door open for big tobacco to dominate this industry. As you are well aware, the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco products are onerous. Regulators have mandated warning labels; restricted advertizing banned flavored cigarettes, all in an attempt to reduce the consumption of tobacco products. In fact, Britain has recently mandated that logos cannot appear on packaged cigarettes. The potential of this new market has not gone unnoticed by the traditional tobacco manufacturers.
I suggest that before you ban the use of smokeless cigarettes, you obtain a study from a reliable source that will support your regulatory action. Moreover, you should have the purveyor of the report determine that the atmospheric effects of scented candles, incense sticks, essential oils, room deodorizers and lastly vented exhaust for barbeque and pizza establishments, are not as harmful as the vapor emitted from these devises., as otherwise you may expect further regulation.
Any theory of public health that you rely upon; if not supported by competent data risks a challenge by the affected groups as essentially you are negating free will. This will not be without cost. And notwithstanding the rule, it will be difficult to enforce without clear evidence of a greater good for the invitees of public establishments.
There is reliable evidence for second hand smoke; but here you have none. Thus, it leads a reasonable person to opine that fear of the unknown is driving this decision. At present, I believe your plan is unwarranted and will not accomplish any meaningful goal.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: (not sent)
You could also add that some would interpret this rule as a being dictated by 'big tobacco' to avoid competition, and perhaps there are behind-the scene activities with the tobacco lobby that would not pass the smell test if any communications exist in support of the proposed rule.
This is an area that would be under intense scrutiny, and mindful of the new rules about e-discovery, its the kind of evidence that would be hard to avoid.
You may be assured that is a legal challenge was brought in this matter, email correspondence would be carefully scrutinized.
While you may assume that such supportive efforts are merely helpful, the perception of undue influence may be pervasive.
