Breathe California Supports ban of ecigs (Youtube video)

[its a no brainer]

Here is the link - Make sure you drop them a comment on their youtube page and set them straight.



YouTube - breathecalifornia.mov

 

[Wafflestomper]

This guy is a poor spokesperson. He says they contain "Chemicals that cause cancer and Nicotine"

I wasn't aware that PG causes cancer... He seems like a nice guy, just uneducated. But it's very dangerous for uneducated people to just post video's like that making unfounded claims.

Good find!

 

[Raven1]

Just another uninformed radical anti trying to "save the children". Pathetic.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Just another uninformed radical anti trying to "save the children". Pathetic.

agreed

I'm all for saving the children, but these guys are using them as a bullet-shield in their little war. Reminds me of when parents use children as leverage in divorce situations.

What really chaffs me is that they are the ones claiming the moral high road.

 

[beingbekah]

Rated and commented.

 

[spaky]

"Think of the children! Think of the children! What's that mean after a certain age they're off your love list? You either love people of all ages or you just shut the fark up!"
Bill Hicks quote

 

[420GypsyGirl]

LOL! What an idiot. OMG...where do these people come from?

 

[Raven1]

Just posted my comment!!!!!

 

[htchhikr]

Who are they thinking is selling e-cigs to kids? Are they buying them online with their parents credit cards?

This .... is really starting to piss me off. Get a clue Breathe, the more people vaping means less people smoking. Maybe if you watched your kids you could keep them from buying Hustler at the store and booze and eCigs online. Stupid ....ers!

 

[Turco Chips]

...but you can get yer weed in Cali...no problem there!

TC

 

[elysianwing]

lol....Commented(like 6 times)

 

[BartS]

Does this guy work for or have shares in a tobacco company. Thought the old conspiracy theory thing is going to feature more and more at some point. He did not state any proper facts. He just made statements that are as big and wide as the universe.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Was disappointed to see the YouTube video. Last Thursday (after Judge Leon issued his decision), I sent Andy Katz lots of scientific and other evidence about e-cigarettes (and I believe I had previously sent him information). While everyone supports banning e-cigarette sales to minors, AG Brown's lawsuit and the e-cigarette legislation sponsored last year in CA would have banned e-cigarette sales to adults as well.

Here's his contact info.

Andy Katz, JD, MCP
Government Relations Director
BREATHE California
2171 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 720
Daly City, CA 94014
Phone: (510) 848-5001
Office: (650) 994-5868
Fax: (650) 994-4601
andyk@ggbreathe.org
Breathe California

 

[Bill Godshall]

As a correction to my last posting, AG Brown's lawsuit doesn't appear to seek a ban on e-cigarette sales to adults, but does seek to radically (and expensively) alter SE's marketing practices in CA.

 

[BigJimW]

What a tool. Guy was not even hiding the fact that he was reading something, it was so obvious.

Remember, these anti-smoker nazis will say ANYTHING at this point, even if it is a bold faced lie. Look at what Senator Gordon of NJ said about electronic cigarettes not too long ago. That they may be more dangerous than the real ones.

Tools.

 

[The Mosh]

You know, you can pass damn near anything in the US under the banner of saving children. When are we going to wise up to this kind of pandering, and tell these idiots that enough is enough? Okay, stupid question.

 

[ChipCurtis]

So far so good... comments on his page are 100% opposite of his own position. Must be a sad and lonely life these pontificators lead.

 

[BARENETTED]

I am a little confused - I thought the Governor had refused to sign that bill some time ago??? Has this resurfaced?

 

[Vocalek]

I was having problems posting a comment. Plus comments are very length-limited. So I went to the Breath California Web site and subsequently sent Mr. Katz this email:

[FONT=times new roman,times,serif]Dear Mr. Katz: I am writing today to suggest corrections to erroroneous and misleading statements by removing this paragarph from the main page of your Web site.[/FONT]

Another important bill, SB 400, by Senator Ellen Corbett, would have made it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors. E-cigarettes have been red-flagged by the Food and Drug Administration because they contain known cancer-causing chemicals, and deliver nicotine – a highly addictive drug. Despite the effective marketing campaign by several e‑cigarette companies' suggesting that e‑cigarettes are a replacement for tobacco products, the replacement cigarettes have not been found to be safe or effective by the FDA, and should be kept out of kids' hands for obvious health reason, but also because it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. Breathe California testified in support of SB 400 in the legislature.

While SB 400 started out as a bill to make it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors, Senator Corbett chose to amend that bill to make it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to California citizens of any age. That is why the bill was vetoed. It is extremely likely that if the bill had been passed as originally proposed—to prohibit sales only to minors--the Governor would have signed it into law.

I agree that the products should not be sold to non-smoking minors; however you stated in your U-Tube video that it is already illegal to sell products containing nicotine to minors. So it would seem that the legal groundwork to protect youth is already in place.

Now, let’s discuss product safety. Rather than taking the FDA’s statements about e-cigarettes at face value, I did some research. Did you know that the cancer-causing chemicals that the FDA “red flagged” are present in the FDA’s own approved nicotine replacement products? I have also learned that the quantities are approximately equal – about 8 nanograms in a day’s supply of cartridge liquid, and 8 nanograms in a 4 mg. nicotine patch. I was also curious to know how this compares to the quantities in tobacco cigarettes. I learned that tobacco cigarettes deliver from 6,600 to 11,000 nanograms per day. So which one sounds more likely to cause cancer?

Thousands of former smokers, as you should know by now, have managed to set aside their tobacco cigarettes by switching to e-cigarettes as an alternative. Why does your statement about nicotine sound so accusatory? The product is marketed to adult smokers, and it is the presence of nicotine that makes this an acceptable alternative.

I smoked for 45 years and was unable to give it up because tobacco cigarettes were the best source of sufficient nicotine to control my Attention Deficit Disorder. Thanks to this product, I have been smoke-free since March 27, 2009. If Breathe California is, indeed, interested in lung health, then it is antithetical for the organization to oppose e-cigarettes. Here is why.

Tobacco smoke does its damage by subjecting the lungs to tar, particles of tobacco and paper ash, carbon monoxide, hundreds of carcinogens (as opposed to the 4 found by FDA), and thousands of toxins. Thanks to replacing all of these harmful substances with propylene glycol vapor, those of us who have switched to inhaling vaporized nicotine are seeing tremendous improvements in our lung health, as well as measures of heart health.

I’m an excellent example. My wheezing and morning cough have disappeared. Before, I was “prehypertensive.” Now my BP is 177/79. My story is typical

Last June the FDA called upon users to report problems to MedWatch. Apparently, the FDA received no reports that the product is unsafe, becuase it failed to present any evidence to the U.S. District Court. Judge Richard Leon ruled that the FDA cannot regulate e-cigarettes as a drug-delivery device. In calling on the FDA to determine the product safety and effectiveness, Breathe California is, in effect, asking FDA to defy a Federal court order.

In the interests of honesty, and in the interests of public health, I urge you to remove the paragraph I quoted from your Web site.

I will be very surprised if I receive any response from him. I have found in the past that when I write messages containing verifiable facts and irrefutable logic to the "powers that be" and they want to insist on doing things their way --regardless of who is harmed-- they find it easier to ignore my message than to try to come up with a rational explanation for their misbehavior.

I did not accuse him of telling lies. I took the view point that he was lacking sufficient information and provided that information. (But isn't it strange that he never noticed that SB 400 had been changed to outlaw sales to adults? How did he miss that?)

 

[Lothar]

Continue your good work and awesome efforts, Vocalek. Two thumbs up !