ATTN!! E-cigs added to Springfield no-smoking regs

[CJsKee]

Forgive me if this is already posted and I missed it...In readin a comment on Dr. Siegel's blog a commenter posted this link...

http://sgfsmoking.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/councilbill.pdf

Looks like they're coming fast and furious now.

 

[t9c]

Another ordinance based solely upon ignorance. To wit "Purpose: To protect the City of Springfield, its residents, businesses, employees, and visitors from the health hazards caused by exposure to secondhand smoke."

Would someone explain to me where the "secondhand smoke" exists by vaping an e-cig?

I was under the impression that is is only vapor produced solely upon exhaling.

In my own studies, where I blew my exhaled vapor in a non-smoker's face from a distance of 1 foot, the recipient of the vapor did not smell ANYTHING!!!

Perhaps this is the very kind of "study" these ignorant antis need to realize how stupid these regulations are.

on 'em!

 

[Janetda]

Forgive me if this is already posted and I missed it...In readin a comment on Dr. Siegel's blog a commenter posted this link...

http://sgfsmoking.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/councilbill.pdf

Looks like they're coming fast and furious now.

It is our understanding that this piece of legislation was not signed and was put on hold for the time being.

 

[Janetda]

Another ordinance based solely upon ignorance. To wit "Purpose: To protect the City of Springfield, its residents, businesses, employees, and visitors from the health hazards caused by exposure to secondhand smoke."

Would someone explain to me where the "secondhand smoke" exists by vaping an e-cig?

I was under the impression that is is only vapor produced solely upon exhaling.

In my own studies, where I blew my exhaled vapor in a non-smoker's face from a distance of 1 foot, the recipient of the vapor did not smell ANYTHING!!!

Perhaps this is the very kind of "study" these ignorant antis need to realize how stupid these regulations are.

on 'em!

The issue isn't with what you can smell. Prohibitionists cling to the FDA's press release saying that there are carcinogens in e-cigs and therefore we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders. This is why the IVAQS study is so important. We will not be able to fight these bans effectively without sound scientific evidence. We need to encourage everyone to donate to this important research project. This study will not happen without your help!

 

[CJsKee]

Thanks, Janet...I was a bit worried!

 

[bassnut]

This is why the IVAQS study is so important. We will not be able to fight these bans effectively without sound scientific evidence. We need to encourage everyone to donate to this important research project. This study will not happen without your help!

Somehow I missed this.
Info link?

 

[bassthumper]

Somehow I missed this.
Info link?

HEY BASS BROTHER!!!
Keep it funky

 

[CJsKee]

Somehow I missed this.
Info link?

Here ya go: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/109076-nvc-donations.html

 

[t9c]

The issue isn't with what you can smell. Prohibitionists cling to the FDA's press release saying that there are carcinogens in e-cigs and therefore we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders. This is why the IVAQS study is so important. We will not be able to fight these bans effectively without sound scientific evidence. We need to encourage everyone to donate to this important research project. This study will not happen without your help!

I'm not trying to disagree or be argumentative, although I've been accused of that before, but where is the evidence of statements that we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders?

I'd like to see that in writing somewhere, because that would be great disinformation I could use.

I believe in the safety of e-cigs, but before I go attacking ill-informed or ignorant legislators, I want to have my facts straight.

btw, thanks for the study info. I took a leap of faith and contributed to the cause.

 

[bassnut]

HEY BASS BROTHER!!!
Keep it funky

Back at ya brother.
There's a few of us lowenders lurking around here.

 

[kristin]

I'm not trying to disagree or be argumentative, although I've been accused of that before, but where is the evidence of statements that we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders?

I'd like to see that in writing somewhere, because that would be great disinformation I could use.

I believe in the safety of e-cigs, but before I go attacking ill-informed or ignorant legislators, I want to have my facts straight.

btw, thanks for the study info. I took a leap of faith and contributed to the cause.

There IS no evidence. All they have to do is cite the FDA press release (that the FDA found carcinogens and anti-freeze) and the lemmings blindly do whatever they (the ALA, AMA, ACS, etc) tell them to do.

So far, every single attempted ban legislation has quoted the misleading FDA press statement.

 

[Janetda]

I'm not trying to disagree or be argumentative, although I've been accused of that before, but where is the evidence of statements that we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders?

I'd like to see that in writing somewhere, because that would be great disinformation I could use.

Almost every article written about e-cigs has some "health professional" saying that e-cigs are dangerous. The contention that the exhaled vapor is dangerous is the basis of all of these indoor bans. There are several indoor bans that we've missed in Massachusetts and I'm sure elsewhere that are already enforce. Here's a little bit of the proposed Albany indoor ban:

This Legislature also finds and determines that new, unregulated high-tech smoking devices, commonly referred to as electronic cigarettes or 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 intentionally advertise their products as safe nicotine delivery devices and smoking cessation modalities.

This Legislature also finds that these safety and smoking cessation assertions made by e-cigarettes companies have been disproven by laboratory tests conducted by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). This testing has shown that e-cigarettes do contain carcinogens, including nitrosamines. Further, the FDA tests showed that e-cigarettes were found to contain toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol. This compound is a common ingredient in antifreeze and, in 2007, was also surreptitiously substituted for glycerin by several Chinese manufacturing companies in the making of toothpaste which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people worldwide. While some e-cigarette manufacturers dispute the FDA's findings as limited in scope and sample, these manufacturers have not submitted for independent peer review any of their findings that purportedly support their safety and smoking cessation claims.

I learned when speaking with the co-sponsor of this bill that he really thought that antifreeze and DEG were an ingredients in the cartridges! He also informed me that all the same chemicals in regular cigarettes are in e-cigarettes. No one actually read the FDA report. All of these "health professionals" and legislators saw was the press release or were given a summery from someone else who read the press release. You have to hand feed these guys the real information, and then they still don't believe it because the FDA (and the axis of evil) have established reputations. Heaven knows they wouldn't lead us astray.

 

[yvilla]

Kristin, I read t9c's post differently - I thought he was asking for evidence that the antis are actually making those claims.

If that's the case, there's plenty of evidence. t9c, just look at the legislative statements of findings or intent at the beginning of just about any of the numerous proposed bans we have seen and responded to, both statewide and local, and you will see all the evidence you want.

Start with the Albany County law they are trying to get passed: http://www.albanycounty.com/departments/legislature/resolutions/2010/20100712/10-LL_G.pdf

 

[yvilla]

Wow, I was posting at the same time you were Janet! Great minds ....

 

[Brad-c]

It is our understanding that this piece of legislation was not signed and was put on hold for the time being.

you cleared it up for me i dont live there but you know governors like to follow one another.. you know some things work good in one state but does horrible in another... i would govern e-cigs and tell the world to vape on!!!

 

[Janetda]

I think it's really important that we all bear in mind that the Springfield issue is a local issue, not state. If it were just states we had trouble with it would be one thing, but now the anti's are going after local health boards. It's VERY difficult to fight these. First we have to know about them, which we is almost impossible unless a local paper does a write up and it hits the internet. Also, and many times the health boards can just enact these things without a vote of the town council. The potential for these local indoor bans is tremendous. Just think about how many towns there are in this country. The worst part is, once there are enough towns with indoor bans in a particular state, then it will be much easier for the State legislator to enact state-wide bans. This is exactly how the antis got the first state-wide analog bans.

 

[DLite]

Tell them to take a analog and exhale into a paper towel then do the same thing with an E-Cig if that doesn't do it then people are really really blind.

 

[Janetda]

While the towel test is cool, it doesn't really do much scientifically. There are lots of things that are bad for us that we can't see. Love your avatar though!

 

[bassnut]

While the towel test is cool, it doesn't really do much scientifically. There are lots of things that are bad for us that we can't see. Love your avatar though!

I understand what you're saying and as you mentioned, the towel test does have a coolness factor and regardless (or even irregardless) of it's scientific validity, it's not without it's visceral, dramatic value. It gets attention and makes a powerful, if visual, statement. Let people draw their own conclusions or seek further knowledge on their own. Either way the point gets made and the ultimate conclusion will prove to be correct.

As to it's scientific validity...I've already bet on it's merit in that department.
"I vape, therefore I am."

 

[Vocalek]

I'm not trying to disagree or be argumentative, although I've been accused of that before, but where is the evidence of statements that we must be blowing out carcinogens to bystanders?

I'd like to see that in writing somewhere, because that would be great disinformation I could use.

I believe in the safety of e-cigs, but before I go attacking ill-informed or ignorant legislators, I want to have my facts straight.

btw, thanks for the study info. I took a leap of faith and contributed to the cause.

A discussion of disinformation perpetuated in the Ethic Soup blog:

The Truth About Nicotine: Unethical Soup

[Aside: April's comment is a hoot!]