CASAA Call to Action opposing proposed e-cig usage ban in New York City

[Bill Godshall]

CASAA: NYC CTA Indoor Use Ban Hearing 12-4-13

[h=2]FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2013[/h][h=3]NYC CTA Indoor Use Ban Hearing 12-4-13[/h]Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook










[h=3]Call to Action! New York City E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- Local Law 7248 (Hearing Wednesday, December 4th!)[/h]

​

UPDATED 12/2/13 to provide correct address for hearing--it will be held at the Council Chambers in City Hall (NOT at the 250 Broadway building).

[legislative tracking + full text]


If enacted, these ordinances would:

• Include e-cigarettes in New York City's "Smoke-Free Air Act
• Ban e-cigarette use in all locations where smoking is prohibited in New York City, including bars, restaurants, private workplaces, outdoor dining areas and parks.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and Councilman James F. Gennaro are both just a few weeks away from the end of their terms as NYC officials. Bloomberg and company, having failed in their push to enact a de facto ban on flavored e-cigarette sales in the city, have decided to again bully ex-smokers in NYC by attempting to push through an ordinance that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in all indoor and outdoor areas of the city where smoking is banned.


The NYC Council announced this hearing shortly after 12 PM Noon on the day before Thanksgiving. The sponsors hope to rush this ordinance through the Council and have it voted on December 19th. In other words, the sponsors could have brought this ordinance forward six months ago (after over 30 harm reduction advocates spoke before the NYC Council Health Committee), but chose instead to wait until the day before a major holiday.


It is critically important that vapers and non-vapers attend the hearing before the NYC Health Committee on Wednesday, December 4th at 10 AM at City Hall in City Hall Park 250 Broadway in City Hall Park. See here for directions.
New York City Residents: We recommend that in addition to contacting the members of the Health Committee that you also contact your own representative in the New York City Council. Click here to find out who represents you.

---

NYC and Nearby Residents: Please Contact the Members of the New York City Health Committee Below



1. You would like them to OPPOSE the proposed ordinance to falsely redefine "smoking" to include use of a smoke-free electronic cigarette.

2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life.

3. Explain how smoking bans are enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but e-cigarettes have not been shown to cause harm to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e-cigarettes is comparable to other smokeless nicotine products.

The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

A comprehensive review by a Drexel University professor based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.


Additionally, a study by the Roswell Park Center that was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that the levels of chemicals and toxicants in the vapor produced by 12 different e-cigarettes 9-450x less than in cigarette smoke. The authors noted that the trace levels of chemicals present were comparable to what is found in a FDA-approved nicotine inhaler.


4. Detail how electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e-cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette from the smell of smoke. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Additionally, e-cigarette users can decide whether to release any vapor ("discreet vaping"). With so little evidence of use, enforcing indoor use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.

5. Inform them that the ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch. Surveys of thousands of users indicate that the majority of those who switch, completely replace tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%.


6. Tell them that by switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.

7. Direct them to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.

---

Members of the New York City Health Committee





While e-mails are easier, phone calls will have a larger impact, even if you are simply leaving a message after hours.

Comma delimited email list:
mathieu.eugene@council.nyc.gov, albert.vann@council.nyc.gov, jotero@council.nyc.gov, helen.foster@council.nyc.gov, joel.rivera@council.nyc.gov, rosie.mendez@council.nyc.gov, jferreras@council.nyc.gov, peter.vallonejr@council.nyc.gov, jvanbramer@council.nyc.gov, drose@council.nyc.gov


Hon. Mathieu Eugene (District 40) (D - Brooklyn)
212-788-7352
Mathieu.eugene@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Albert Vann (District 36) (D - Brooklyn)
212-788-7354
albert.vann@council.nyc.gov


Hon. Maria Del Carmen Arroyo (District 17) (D - Bronx)
212-788-7397
jotero@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Helen D. Foster (District 16) (D - Bronx)
212-788-6856
helen.foster@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Joel Rivera (District 15) (D - Bronx)
212-788-6966
joel.rivera@council.nyc.gov


Hon. Inez E. Dickins (District 9) (D - Manhattan)

212-678-4505
[no e-mail address available -- please call]

Hon. Rosie Mendez (District 2) (D - Manhattan)
212-677-1077
rosie.mendez@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Julissa Ferreras (District 21) (D - Queens)
212-788-6862
jferreras@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Peter F. Vallone, Jr. (District 22) (D - Queens)
212-788-6963
peter.vallonejr@council.nyc.gov


Hon. James G. Van Bramer (District 26) (D - Queens)
212-788-7370
jvanbramer@council.nyc.gov

Hon. Deborah L. Rose (District 49) (D - Staten Island)
212-788-6972
drose@Council.nyc.gov

Hon. James F. Gennaro (District 24) (D -- Queens) **SPONSOR**
212-788-6956
jgennaro@council.nyc.gov

 

[PaulaNG]

I'm in Florida, but that seems pretty cruel to me. The public parks - outside dining areas? Seriously?? Are the big tobacco companies getting their panties in a wad is my question. We are comparing apples and oranges here folks.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Sent out a tweet; starting to like twitter

 

[PaulaNG]

Sent out a tweet; starting to like twitter

Dave do you think there's something we can do, as we don't live in NY, but if they start this crap there then it could lead to other states.

 

[AgentAnia]

R Street Institute Senior Fellow Dr. Joel Nitzkin has weighed in on the issue:

R Street warns NYC e-cigarette ban would be harmful to public health R Street warns NYC e-cigarette ban would be harmful to public health | R Street Institute | Free Markets. Real Solutions.

 

[Vocalek]

I'm in Florida, but that seems pretty cruel to me. The public parks - outside dining areas? Seriously?? Are the big tobacco companies getting their panties in a wad is my question. We are comparing apples and oranges here folks.

Think it through. Why would big tobacco be in favor of a law anything like this? If you think BT fears e-cigarettes will take away its business, think again. BT is in the un-cigarette business now. Lorillard bought out Blu eCigs late last year, and the other big US companies are bringing their own products to market--they are in test marketing right now.

The folks behind this incredible web of lies would be the the Anti-Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots (ANTZ). That's what we call them. They call themselves "Tobacco Control." Who do you think urged the FDA to get e-cigarettes off the market late in 2008.

You'll be surprised. It was the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society (Cancer Action Network), and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Other players include the American Legacy Foundation, American Medical Society, and government agencies like the CDC and the FDA. That's right.

The very organizations that scream the loudest about the hazards of smoking (although now they call it "tobacco") are the ones that are putting up roadblocks at every step to try to get smokers to NOT switch to a low-risk alternative that has an estimated 1% of the risk of continuing to smoke.

Why? It's a combination of moralistic controlling urges and the almighty dollar. Big Pharma is the industry that has the most to lose if too many smokers quit. We vapers aren't buying their Chantix, their Zyban, and are not buying as much of their nicotine products. Furthermore, if we quit smoking too soon and don't develop any of the smoking-related diseases, they would be able to charge families hundreds of thousands of dollars for drugs and devices to treat the diseases. And would you like to guess where the non-profits like the ALA, AHA, and ACS get a lot of their money? Yup. Donations from Big Pharma.

Here's a recent news story on the subject: Big Pharma, not tobacco companies, wages war on electronic cigarettes | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Dave do you think there's something we can do, as we don't live in NY, but if they start this crap there then it could lead to other states.

Yes I do think that if we help to show / educate through the use of social media in our small circles those messages will begin to grow in size until they shout down the other side. Of course I could be wrong but if we do nothing I know they will win.

 

[Vocalek]

Dave do you think there's something we can do, as we don't live in NY, but if they start this crap there then it could lead to other states.

Yes. See this Daily Action Plan started by a CASAA member: https://www.facebook.com/VapingDailyActionPlan

And you are absolutely right, it would spread. And also, what if you have to go to NYC for a business trip or on vacation? Law like this affect many more people than just the residents.

 

[Vocalek]

CASAA's letter to the NYC Health Committee:

New York City - Don't make the same mistake that New Jersey did

Dear Member of the New York City Health Committee:

While we appreciate the City Council’s desire to protect the health of the citizens of New York City, CASAA [1] respectfully submits that not only would banning the use of e-cigarettes in public places not further public health, it would actually work against the interests of public health by discouraging smokers from using a smoke-free product that, like smokeless tobacco, poses an estimated 1% of the risk of smoking [2]. Given that e-cigarette use poses no hazard to bystanders [3] and is unquestionable low-risk for the user, CASAA urges the Health Committee to reject the proposed ordinance as seeking a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Information has and will be presented to the Health Committee both in support of, and in opposition to, restricting the use of e-cigarettes in public places. Unfortunately, much of the information being presented by e-cigarette opponents in support of the ordinance is speculative, and, in some cases, is not only misleading, but demonstrably false. CASAA hopes that the Health Committee will carefully examine the evidence and conclude that e-cigarette use is not a problem, nor is it a threat to public health, and, in fact, placing roadblocks to e-cigarette use is not in the best interests of the citizens of New York City.

For example, proponents of the ordinance claim that e-cigarette use “may interfere with smokers’ attempts to quit.” It would be just as accurate to say that making e-cigarette use more difficult and less attractive for adult smokers “may interfere with smokers’ attempts to replace (“quit”) their smoking habit with e-cigarettes.” In fact, one might ask that if using e-cigarettes “may interfere with smokers’ attempts to quit,” why are smoking rates going down?

The number of adult smokers in the U.S. hovered right around 46 million from 1990 through 2009. E-cigarettes first became readily available in the U.S. in 2009. By 2010, the number of adult smokers had dropped to 45.3 million. By 2011, the number had adult smokers dropped again to 43.8 million.

Adult current smoking prevalence rates for the state of New York were 18.1% in 2011, and declined to 16.1% in 2012. Things are going in the right direction.

Please don't make the same mistake that New Jersey did.

New Jersey outlawed indoor use of e-cigarettes in 2010. In 2011, New Jersey's adult smoking rate was 16.8%. By 2012, that rate rose to 17.3%. In contrast, the Virginia Attorney General issued a legal opinion in 2010 stating that use of an e-cigarette is not included in the definition of smoking in Virginia's Clean Indoor Air Act. Seeing e-cigarettes in use has not served to renormalize smoking in Virginia. In fact,Virginia's adult smoking rate was 20.9% in 2011, but dropped to 19.0% in 2012.

By reducing the odds that New Jersey smokers would see e-cigarettes in use, New Jersey may have missed an opportunity to lower the state's smoking rates and to reduce the health risks of hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

Read more: CASAA: New York City - Don't make the same mistake that New Jersey did

 

[Bill Godshall]

Watch/listen to NYC Council public hearing on proposed e-cig usage ban
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/webcasts/

 

[Shopan]

If you all have time check out...http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/webcasts/ this is what we all have to be doing!!!

 

[patkin]

Watching it for ... oh, a half hour.... its pretty clear which way the Council is going to rule.

Don't know whether to laugh or throw something...1 Antz = lab results show dangers of second hand vapor. 2Antz = there is no conclusive research either way and they're sitting next to each other on the same panel!

 

[SeniorBoy]

Watched about one hour from the Chambers. Very educational to learn what the flawed arguments presented against vaping are.

QUESTION: Can someone please provide the exact URL to the "scientific study" about the contents of vapor? I remember reading it but cant find the url. It was completed by a credentialed scientist and was a year or two old.

Thanks in advance.

 

[StormFinch]

Watched about one hour from the Chambers. Very educational to learn what the flawed arguments presented against vaping are.

QUESTION: Can someone please provide the exact URL to the "scientific study" about the contents of vapor? I remember reading it but cant find the url. It was completed by a credentialed scientist and was a year or two old.

Thanks in advance.

This is the meta analysis that reviews all the current studies: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

And this is the the Clearstream study, comparing the product of vapor and tobacco smoke: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf. Although it's included in the meta analysis, you might want the whole text.

Also, there was another study comparing the above funded by the National Vapers Club: Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality

 

[Bill Godshall]

So far, the vapers have won this debate hands down.

And it appears that the only folks left to testify are all vapers.

 

[StormFinch]

I changed my sig in honor of one of those vapers. I don't remember his name, but he definitely made my day.

 

[AgentAnia]

I changed my sig in honor of one of those vapers. I don't remember his name, but he definitely made my day.

Well done, StormFinch! Love your signature!

 

[SeniorBoy]

Thanks so much @StormFinch and ditto on your sig.

I only watched about an hour of the live feed and NO ONE on our side or even "relatively neutral" quoted from these scientific studies you linked to. Maybe they did ? BUT if they did not then that's a crying shame since these studies obviously embolden our position and place the other side in a defensive posture which is basically show me your CURRENT study which refutes my scientific study.

 

[StormFinch]

I do believe at least one vaper mentioned the Drexel Study (meta analysis) and I'm guessing that it was submitted to the committee from what she said. Now if they'll just read it... the words horse and water springs to mind, but I can remain hopeful.

And thanks, though I do think the sig needs a little editing. I think a better qualifier would be "some zealots". There definitely a few out there that simply don't question the party line.

 

[Shopan]

Was a fGreat Day for Arguments!! I think that if if Mr. Kicklas makes a Statement it will be hard for them to "blanket" ban them indoors. But we need to keep up the Pressure...Send more Emails to the Members, stay motivated in your own area and do not let UP! This is the time when they are getting sneaky and I do hope we can play stall ball in NYC somehow. The 19th is 2 weeks away and if we can just flood the email boxes and get some good Press we might be able to get this shelved for another few months!
Thank you to everyone that was there, I hope next time we do not have so many Vape sensitive People, that kinda hurt us. but We Need More people there next time as Numbers Matter to thoses who vote.

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association