CASAA calls to action.

[Ken_A]

My search did not find anything on ECF for something like this.

I recently got a call to action for a local county here in FL. I thought I would share the e-mail I sent to the council. Maybe other people could do the same and we can let each other know how effective the mails are.

so anyway, here is my email:

Greetings,
I am a resident of Lake Mary, FL. and I have heard about your latest e-cigarette legislation. Prohibiting the sale of vaping products SHOULD be banned to anyone under the age of 18. vaping is an adult activity and should be restricted to adults. However, I oppose banning the activity and restricting it only to those places where smoking is permitted. I vape for my health, and you would be forcing people like me to be exposed to second hand smoke, and the associated health risks.
Bans on smoking are set forth to ensure public health but all research to date shows that there is no risk to bystanders and vapor products are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products where nicotine is used. The ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99%.

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.

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.
If you would like more information on how vaping saves lives you can go to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.

I began vaping to replace Tobacco smoking on Friday November 2 2012. I have lost weight, regained my ability to breath and generally improved my health as a result. I visit friends in Ocala frequently and we frequently go to local restaurants and public parks. I would not feel comfortable in an environment of restriction that the current proposal puts forth and urge you to remove the parts that restrict me only to areas where my health is at risk.

Ken Anderson
<address omitted for forums>

EDIT: this was the call to action
http://blog.casaa.org/2014/03/local-alert-ocala-florida-e-cigarette.html

 

[stevegmu]

No one is forced to vape anywhere. People choose to vape with smokers or wait.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

Very good letter. Keep sending it. And thanks.

 

[Ken_A]

No one is forced to vape anywhere. People choose to vape with smokers or wait.

No one is forced to smoke either. One is bad for bystanders and the other is not.

The first step to a sin tax is to make something a sin by restricting it's use to designated areas only.

I have no problems with the owner or manager of an establishment making the choice for that establishment. I don't vape in stores or restaurants. I also don't like vaping in smoking areas.

 

[Tealady12]

Keep up the good fight Ken, you are not alone! Many of us are fighting also. Now please go sign my petition LOL

 

[stevegmu]

No one is forced to smoke either. One is bad for bystanders and the other is not.

The first step to a sin tax is to make something a sin by restricting it's use to designated areas only.

I have no problems with the owner or manager of an establishment making the choice for that establishment. I don't vape in stores or restaurants. I also don't like vaping in smoking areas.

I don't understand what the problem is then...

 

[bluecat]

I don't understand what the problem is then...

The issue is that the government is banning it. This does not allow the individual business/place/organization to apply the rules.

The business (or whatever) should be imposing the rules. Then you, as an educated citizen, can then make a conscious choice to either enter the establishment or not.

Not having a government ban at willy nilly. Which they have been doing for the better part of 2 or 3 years now. Fed State and local governments. Soon the government will be telling you how many pieces of toilet paper you can use to wipe your ...

If you, as an educated citizen, cannot make a educated decision..... this country is worse of than I once feared.

 

[Mutescream]

I don't understand what the problem is then...

The problem is legislation making the decision for business owners. Imagine a vape shop that can't let people sample their juice... Because vaping is illegal inside public access buildings. A reality in Marion County. A vape shop was recently run out of the mall for just that (it was a kiosk).

I think proprietors should have the final say. It certainly would be easier to filter vape out of the air, than cigarette smoke.

If we are going to do this (make vaping outside of designated locations illegal), then it's high time we looked into making it illegal to coat one's body indiscrinatally with perfumes/colognes/lotions that have strong smells. Some people find that offensive, too. Have you ever smelled cabbage that is being cooked? How about cauliflower? Those stink, too.

The point is the government is overtly intruding into our lives in unnecessary ways to make us accomodate our fellow human beings.

Sometimes I wish it were illegal for people to stink places up, whether from natural body function or choices one makes for personal scenting. But, then I think about what that would mean.

The same thing with equating vape to smoking, and thus making it illegal to vape in public. It's flippin scented steam, and no more harmful for secondary vapers than a cup of coffee.

 

[Ken_A]

I don't understand what the problem is then...

One problem is that after the government vilifies it, they can declare it bad for you and tax it out of existence.

Another problem is that if I want to vape outside my house and I live in a banned area, I'm forced to go to a smoking area and expose myself to the same dangerous chemicals I started vaping to avoid.

A third problem is that if you allow ANY government to take away your "right" to a safe activity, then it's not a right, it's a privilege. Like owning a house. Or having an IRA/retirement account they don't control. Or even having the job YOU want rather than the one they want to ALLOW you to have.
And yes, the Government is planing on solicilazing retirement, since social security is so "successful".
Fighting for your freedom to vape is just the start for many people. And a continuing fight for freedom for many others.

 

[stevegmu]

I'm all about laissez-faire government, but I'm a realist. It's just too late. Smoking has been demonized to the point vaping has been caught up in smoking prohibitions, because it looks like smoking.
I believe the Benefactor set the tone when he said, "If you've got a business—you didn't build that"...

 

[Ken_A]

All that negativity aside...
Any one else want to share letters and emails with the rest of us wanting fight for this good cause?

 

[~Sue~Feb2012]

I like your OP. I'll borrow when I need one it if you don't mind

 

[Ken_A]

Yes. That is the purpose of the thread. Give each other many examples to use so we can sound more intelligent and be more successful.

 

[searcher]

If I read it correctly, the op's post was a local govt restriction. This week in Louisiana it will be a state wide restriction to the smoking areas. I wish I was a better writer but at least I am trying. This is what I sent to all the members of the health and welfare committee.

First, let me thank you for your service to the state and your support of Gov. Jindal's agenda.

I have just become aware that Senator Heitmeier will offer an amendment to Senate Bill 491 which would restrict the use of e-cigarettes to the same areas set up currently for the authorized use of tobacco cigerettes. Support for this amendment would be a serious mistake in my opinion. These areas were designated in order to protect the public from the effects of 2nd hand tobacco smoke. No such 2nd hand dangers exist with the e-cigarette. In fact
A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health 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. Much research has been done on the safety of e-cigarette use by many university and health-care centers (a few of which are 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. These researchers (with the exception of the FDA) point to the benefits of the e-cigarette over the tobacco cigarette and the safety of the general public due to the absence of contaminates in the exhaled vapor. As a mater of fact, If the user of the e-cigarette desires, there is no exhaled vapor. This is called stealth vaping where the user holds the vapor in for a couple of extra seconds.

I am sure you are aware that the liquid used in e-liquid is made up of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerol, flavorings, and a small amount of liquid nicotine (sometimes omitted by people who don't need it any longer). Propylene glycol was used in inhalers for asthmatics and is the product used to make fog at concerts. Vegetable glycerol is a recognized safe food additive. The flavorings are the same ones you inhaled growing up in Grandma's kitchen. That leaves the nicotine. Most e-liquids do contain it at a minuscule proportion of between 6 and 24 milligrams per milliliter. Assuming that the user retains a large percentage of this nicotine, there isn't a great danger to the bystander. There is not any evidence I can find that vaping causes even as much harm to the public as starting up my truck does. By and large there isn't even a smell to annoy anyone. I can vape (e-cigarette term for smoke) in my truck with the windows rolled up and heater on high (rough winter) with no smell or irritation (try that with a tobacco cigarette). There are simply no pollutants in the exhaled steam from the e-cigarette.

The only remaining reason to place a partial ban on the use of e-cigarettes is that they look like your smoking. Have we really reached that point in our great state? I wouldn't consider vaping inside Walmart or in an elevator but I do when I am outside or jogging in the park. However it would be better if people would vape more openly. The best thing that can happen is for a smoker to see a vaper using his device outside a designated smoking area and think to themselves "I really should try that and see if it will work for me". Another life saved by the power of vaping.

In closing please allow me to relay my story. I received my initial e-cigarette kit on Sep. 11, 2009. I took it outside (force of habit and Wife's demands for tobacco cigarettes) and said to myself "after spending enough to purchase 2 cartons of cigarettes on this thing, I am gonna give it a try." I have never smoked another tobacco cigarette since. I had smoked for over 43 years prior to that and tried very hard to quit after being diagnosed with coronary artery disease in 2002. Since I switched to e-cigs, my health has improved dramatically. My lungs are clear, my endurance has really improved, my cholesterol has dropped to the normal range, and my cardiologist says that my cardiovascular disease has not only not worsened but has actually improved. There is no way that a product that can improve my health could actually hurt someone else. However you can hurt the vapors who have used this product to get off tobacco by condemning them to a life of 2nd hand smoke in the smoke pit.

Please consider a vote against this amendment. There is an absence of scientific evidence of any harm to the general public from the 2nd hand vapor. A point further is that I would like to suggest that your health and welfare committee could really improve the health of Louisianians who smoke if you found a way to nudge them toward vaping instead (telling a smoker not to vape because it might be bad for you is equivalent to telling a drowning man not to get on the raft because it might have a leak).

I am sending this to all republican members of the health and welfare committee. Unless I am mistaken, facts make a difference in our party and I don't think wasting electrons on the Dem's would accomplish much. If you get a chance, Yall come spend some time with us in Bossier City.

 

[Ken_A]

Very good letter searcher. I like the way you separated each point into it's own paragraph.
I would leave the party politics out of it for the time being, and send to everyone on the comity.
I would use one paragraph to introduce the valid researchers and the next for your specific example(s) including attributing to the researcher.
Try to leave out relative danger comparisons other than being 95% to 99% safer than smoking.

I have not see the specific legislation, but I have seen in the past couple of days where we might want to mention that adding anti-vaping to current anti-smoking regulations sends the wrong message and voters in the future may mistakenly assume that the proposers are trying to cover the benefits of vaping by associating it with a much more harmful activity.
I plan on figuring a way to add that to any next letters I will send.

Since you are in LA, you may also want to point out the harmful impact to the state as people decide not to come for large events based on biased legislation

Overall, I like your letter and feel it is a heartfelt message to the legislators that you appreciate their work and are concerned about possible negative consequences to this action.

Very well done!