CASAA: Smoking ordinance also banning e-cigarettes for Macon vetoed
- Thread starter kristin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So glad that they've got something good going here in Georgia for us vapers.... trying to find information about the DeKalb County meeting earlier this week but no luck. I'd really love to know as that's my home and I vape like crazy everywhere I go, spreading the joy and love of the e-cig.... will be tough to do that if I'm stuck outside with the stinky smokers. 
Found the Summary of the 4/26 Board of Commissioners meeting. No mention of smoking or "electronic cigarette." Also did a document search on their web site and found no results. http://agenda.co.dekalb.ga.us/cache/00002/830/APRIL 26, 2011 BOC Summary.pdf
No documents posted within the past year mention smoking.
What led you to believe that something was going on in DeKalb county?
No documents posted within the past year mention smoking.
What led you to believe that something was going on in DeKalb county?
So glad that they've got something good going here in Georgia for us vapers.... trying to find information about the DeKalb County meeting earlier this week but no luck. I'd really love to know as that's my home and I vape like crazy everywhere I go, spreading the joy and love of the e-cig.... will be tough to do that if I'm stuck outside with the stinky smokers.
All due respect Cynnamin.....but those "stinky smokers" to which you refer.......that's US. Very few, if any, of us have been smoke free all that long and some still smoke occassionally - and that is fine, that is their right to do so and I will support them and their rights to their choices as long as I live. We are, most of us, former-smokers and it is more than unwise to ever forget where you came from lest we risk becoming the judgemental, demonising, self-righteous zealots we currently fight against.
The very concepts of democracy and the danger of "slippery slope" teach that I must fight for everyone's right to choose for themselves, whether I agree or approve of those choices or not, or risk losing my own. People who are overweight, people who like soda and people (in the UK and probably eventually the U.S.) who like to drink alcohol are now currently learning those lessons and any with insight will regret standing silent while smokers have been persecuted over the last several decades.
Their regret will not only be for their failure to help protect "ALL peoples rights" but will also be because their lack of support has allowed the fanatics, the moralistic bullies to sharpen their tactics and strategies on smokers making them all the more clever, deceptive, skillful and determined to futher their agendas.........in essence, lack of standing up for each other has only made the zealots all the more dangerous. Remember the old and wise adage: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
An aside: Not that I want them to ban indoor e-cig vaping.......but you referred to "spreading the joy and love of the e-cig...." Well, among "fellow humans" who happen to be smoking.....not a bad place to talk with people about the love and joy of e-cigs.
Last edited:
Pardon me for being politically incorrect and calling smokers stinky but they *do* stink and I, as you are probably more than unaware as you do not know me from Adam, have always complained about the smell of smoke, even while I was a smoker for nearly 15 years. Also pardon for no longer considering myself a smoker, as I am a vaper. I started vaping to avoid the harmful effects of tobacco and the smoke but an ordinance passed for reasons of "health" would put me at risk to my health - e-cigarettes should not be included in that ordinance because they are not smoke.
Passing an ordinance banning indoor smoking and lumping e-cigarettes in with that is wrong. There is already a blanket law in my city that bans smoking indoors. This is a county law that will be coming up for a vote and e-cigarettes are included.
I receive more interest about my e-cig when indoors using it than I have while outdoors with smokers because the vapor is apparently mistaken for smoke, which is it is clearly not, and that comes back to the entire problem with the ordinance that will be coming up for a vote soon in the county - vapor is not smoke and should not be counted as such, nor included in laws against smoke.
I really don't think D103 meant any disrespect. We all agree that banning indoor vaping is ridiculous and counter-productive. It's really awesome that you are willing to step up for vapers in your area and fight - most people just grumble and do nothing! 
It's just that we (as long-time vaping activists) have been trying lately not to "throw smokers under the bus" so-to-speak, when trying to advocate for vaping. Calling them names insults them and one thing we want to do is convert smokers, not make them think that we are no better than those PIA ex-smokers who usually act all high and mighty (remember those when you were still smoking?) or the antis who want to ban both smoking AND vaping. Smokers are brother-in-arms in a way, because even though they are fighting on a different front, we all have the same enemy. So, we try to focus on the SMOKE and not the SMOKERS, if that makes sense?
So, everyone agrees that you would be a better advocate using your e-cig inside, but please consider attacking the SMOKE and not the SMOKER instead. It will help us not alientate potential "converts" and really, smokers are already so vilified and denegrated, we as former smokers fighting the same antis should be a little more empathetic to their plight, don't you think? If you listen to a lot of smokers who have checked out vaping sites, they already think a lot of us are condescending ninnies who are jumping on the "hate the smokers" bandwagon just so we can get preferential treatment. Not exactly a good image when we'd like them to consider switching to vaping!
I think that is all D103 was trying to say.
Also, the argument that vapers "forced outside with the smokers" would be endangering our health is a bit disingenuous, I feel. I don't know too many people who support banning smoking outdoors, because there really isn't any health risk to bystanders outside like there may be inside. Using that excuse just implies that we support the extremists who want to ban outdoor smoking, too. Then it's just a short leap to banning outdoor vaping! (They are already claiming that just the nicotine in our e-cigs will cause bystanders to drop dead from heart attacks or our liquid has anti-freeze in it, so they don't care if it's real smoking or not - they won't have any of it.) So, we cannot seem to support their efforts in any way, even against smokers, because it could easily come back to bite us in the ....!
It's better to use your first reason - that smokers who see you using your e-cigs inside will have greater incentive to try e-cigs themselves, you have more of a chance to tell them about it and that would increase their likelihood of switching to these much safer alternatives. You can also add that there have been no incidences of illness or injury related to e-cig use in the 7 years that they have been on the world market, so if actual users have experienced no harm, the likelihood that bystanders will be affected is negligible!
Anyhow, please just take it into consideration.
It's just that we (as long-time vaping activists) have been trying lately not to "throw smokers under the bus" so-to-speak, when trying to advocate for vaping. Calling them names insults them and one thing we want to do is convert smokers, not make them think that we are no better than those PIA ex-smokers who usually act all high and mighty (remember those when you were still smoking?) or the antis who want to ban both smoking AND vaping. Smokers are brother-in-arms in a way, because even though they are fighting on a different front, we all have the same enemy. So, we try to focus on the SMOKE and not the SMOKERS, if that makes sense?
So, everyone agrees that you would be a better advocate using your e-cig inside, but please consider attacking the SMOKE and not the SMOKER instead. It will help us not alientate potential "converts" and really, smokers are already so vilified and denegrated, we as former smokers fighting the same antis should be a little more empathetic to their plight, don't you think? If you listen to a lot of smokers who have checked out vaping sites, they already think a lot of us are condescending ninnies who are jumping on the "hate the smokers" bandwagon just so we can get preferential treatment. Not exactly a good image when we'd like them to consider switching to vaping!
I think that is all D103 was trying to say.
Also, the argument that vapers "forced outside with the smokers" would be endangering our health is a bit disingenuous, I feel. I don't know too many people who support banning smoking outdoors, because there really isn't any health risk to bystanders outside like there may be inside. Using that excuse just implies that we support the extremists who want to ban outdoor smoking, too. Then it's just a short leap to banning outdoor vaping! (They are already claiming that just the nicotine in our e-cigs will cause bystanders to drop dead from heart attacks or our liquid has anti-freeze in it, so they don't care if it's real smoking or not - they won't have any of it.) So, we cannot seem to support their efforts in any way, even against smokers, because it could easily come back to bite us in the ....!
It's better to use your first reason - that smokers who see you using your e-cigs inside will have greater incentive to try e-cigs themselves, you have more of a chance to tell them about it and that would increase their likelihood of switching to these much safer alternatives. You can also add that there have been no incidences of illness or injury related to e-cig use in the 7 years that they have been on the world market, so if actual users have experienced no harm, the likelihood that bystanders will be affected is negligible!
Anyhow, please just take it into consideration.
Last edited:
I totally get that, Kristin. Believe me; I get it from first-hand experience. When I got my sense of smell back after making the total switch, I admit I became one of those "ex-smoking ninnies". That was a problem because I live with a smoker and also have several other family members and dear friends who smoke. My ex-smoker status (and admitted obnoxiousness) was a point of contention for a while. But we all moved past it and made peace soon enough.
But I'm now struggling with what should be our best argument against the banning of vaping indoors or, rather, the forcing of vapers to go to the designated smoking areas.
We can offer common sense and logic that vapor is not smoke. That's a no-brainer. However, we all know that using common sense and logic with legislators is oftentimes a fruitless endeavor. But we can't yet offer definitive proof that the vapor is completely harmless, can we? We always argue that there is no evidence that it has or can harm anyone. But is "no evidence of harm" enough? I think they're going to argue that "until we know for sure, you can go to the designated smoking areas with the smokers" argument, in addition to the other drivel we've heard before: it looks like smoke, so it might encourage others to actually smoke... blah blah blah.
Is it safe (or even possible) to demonize the designated smoking areas without vilifying the smokers in them?
The problem with most designated smoking areas at public venues is that they are too small and confining. A lot of them are suffocating, especially when over 100 smokers are actively puffing away in there. For example, the smoking room at the Atlanta airport (if it even exists anymore) is so bad, that I couldn't even go in it the last time I flew. And that was when I still smoked and was about to board an international flight. The problem is that smokers have been put down for so long, that they really don't (or can't) complain about it. Every smoker in the country knows what the response would be: "You're lucky to have that. So shut up and go."
For me, personally, that's what I'm hoping to escape. It's not the smokers inside the little pens. It's the little pens themselves.
But I'm now struggling with what should be our best argument against the banning of vaping indoors or, rather, the forcing of vapers to go to the designated smoking areas.
We can offer common sense and logic that vapor is not smoke. That's a no-brainer. However, we all know that using common sense and logic with legislators is oftentimes a fruitless endeavor. But we can't yet offer definitive proof that the vapor is completely harmless, can we? We always argue that there is no evidence that it has or can harm anyone. But is "no evidence of harm" enough? I think they're going to argue that "until we know for sure, you can go to the designated smoking areas with the smokers" argument, in addition to the other drivel we've heard before: it looks like smoke, so it might encourage others to actually smoke... blah blah blah.
Is it safe (or even possible) to demonize the designated smoking areas without vilifying the smokers in them?
The problem with most designated smoking areas at public venues is that they are too small and confining. A lot of them are suffocating, especially when over 100 smokers are actively puffing away in there. For example, the smoking room at the Atlanta airport (if it even exists anymore) is so bad, that I couldn't even go in it the last time I flew. And that was when I still smoked and was about to board an international flight. The problem is that smokers have been put down for so long, that they really don't (or can't) complain about it. Every smoker in the country knows what the response would be: "You're lucky to have that. So shut up and go."
For me, personally, that's what I'm hoping to escape. It's not the smokers inside the little pens. It's the little pens themselves.
From the text of the ordinance, here are the very important points which I take issue with.
Finding and purpose -
The ordinance is passed for reasons of health. I won't get into the secondhand smoke debate here, as that is a completely different issue than what I am trying to tackle now.
From Definitions -
Section 16-105. Smoking in outdoor areas.
-- My opinion follows below --
If you're going to pass legislation for everyone under the guise of health, it needs to be correct. As GregH has said, there is no definitive proof that it's harmless. However, there's no proof yet and thus, it should not be included until there is proof. I will be 100% behind a ban of usage indoors once there is hard, concrete proof that it is harmful. It obviously will need to be better than the proof that secondhand smoke is harmful, which, again, is a whole 'nother can of worms.
There's actually several clinical trials happening right now evaluating e-cigarettes - Search of: e-cigarette - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov
They all end in May 2011 - so very, very soon there will be more data, even if they are all in Italy. I do what little I can medically by informing all of my physicians that I use an e-cigarette and hopefully one of them will take notice (especially since I go to a hospital/university!).
I, as a former smoker and now a vaper, can happily provide anecdotal evidence that vaping is not harmful and has been completely beneficial to me, my lifestyle and my health (as I am sure that many, many others can from ECF as well!). My anecdotal evidence is only important to those whom are supposed to represent me. They can't represent me if they don't understand the issue, which I am hoping to very quickly remedy over the next few days by sending letters and information packets, phone calls, etc. I also plan to compose a petition and get signatures for it when I attend a vape meet next weekend.
There is no plan to "throw smokers under the bus", nor would I even want to. I have quite a few friends who still smoke, some who smoke and vape. I also have family members that smoke or vape. It'd just be really, really, really, really nice if when I spend time with family and friends somewhere other than my home, those of us who choose to vape can choose whether or not we want to go stand around while they burn little sticks of paper and tobacco, creating a fragrant smoke, pleasant or otherwise depending upon your preferences, judgements, opinions, etc.
Finding and purpose -
The ordinance is passed for reasons of health. I won't get into the secondhand smoke debate here, as that is a completely different issue than what I am trying to tackle now.
From Definitions -
Having been recently established by the FDA that e-cigarettes are not tobacco, this will be my main point on excluding e-cigarettes from the ban.
Section 16-105. Smoking in outdoor areas.
Not even when you sit on a patio at a restaurant, which is always where the smokers gravitate to when the weather is nice anyway. You have to be more than 20 feet away from an entrance. Being that far from a doorway is not really even possible since a large number of major "entertainment" places in Dekalb County are all old buildings immediately next to streets. Apparently we get to stand in traffic! Awesome! That'll work great, we'd all be dead!
-- My opinion follows below --
If you're going to pass legislation for everyone under the guise of health, it needs to be correct. As GregH has said, there is no definitive proof that it's harmless. However, there's no proof yet and thus, it should not be included until there is proof. I will be 100% behind a ban of usage indoors once there is hard, concrete proof that it is harmful. It obviously will need to be better than the proof that secondhand smoke is harmful, which, again, is a whole 'nother can of worms.
There's actually several clinical trials happening right now evaluating e-cigarettes - Search of: e-cigarette - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov
They all end in May 2011 - so very, very soon there will be more data, even if they are all in Italy. I do what little I can medically by informing all of my physicians that I use an e-cigarette and hopefully one of them will take notice (especially since I go to a hospital/university!).
I, as a former smoker and now a vaper, can happily provide anecdotal evidence that vaping is not harmful and has been completely beneficial to me, my lifestyle and my health (as I am sure that many, many others can from ECF as well!). My anecdotal evidence is only important to those whom are supposed to represent me. They can't represent me if they don't understand the issue, which I am hoping to very quickly remedy over the next few days by sending letters and information packets, phone calls, etc. I also plan to compose a petition and get signatures for it when I attend a vape meet next weekend.
There is no plan to "throw smokers under the bus", nor would I even want to. I have quite a few friends who still smoke, some who smoke and vape. I also have family members that smoke or vape. It'd just be really, really, really, really nice if when I spend time with family and friends somewhere other than my home, those of us who choose to vape can choose whether or not we want to go stand around while they burn little sticks of paper and tobacco, creating a fragrant smoke, pleasant or otherwise depending upon your preferences, judgements, opinions, etc.
Exactly.
Last edited:
Just want to mention that CASAA is in touch with the Italian researcher, Dr. Riccardo Polosa, who is running the clinical trials and we will be coordinating with him to get media coverage in the U.S. when he announces his results in Italy.
Also, a thought about not sending vapers to the smoking area. I can stand in the smoking area and not feel any urges whatsoever to bum a real cigarette. I have lost all urges to smoke the real thing. But I know from talking to others that some don't want to smoke any more, but still feel triggered to do so by the usual cues, such as smelling smoke. So I don't think we would be lying by stating that the powers that be should not be leading former smokers into the path of temptation.
Also, a thought about not sending vapers to the smoking area. I can stand in the smoking area and not feel any urges whatsoever to bum a real cigarette. I have lost all urges to smoke the real thing. But I know from talking to others that some don't want to smoke any more, but still feel triggered to do so by the usual cues, such as smelling smoke. So I don't think we would be lying by stating that the powers that be should not be leading former smokers into the path of temptation.
I look forward to seeing the results, although I just read the study guidelines and I have some problems with it, e.g. "E-Cigarette loaded with 7.2 mg nicotine cartridges (high nicotine group)"
Excellent points! Furthermore, I would submit that Vapors are NOT Smokers, and that it is wrong, and counter to the public good, to force non-smokers(in this case vapers), who are making an effort to do something(quit smoking) that will dramatically improve their health while doing NO harm to others, to be subjected to second hand smoke(as well as the temptation), because of the irrationality and ignorance of policy makers.
Which other non-smokers should be forced to go to the "smoking area" - people on the nicotine patch? nicotine inhaler? asthma inhaler? diabetics?
These studies all seem to be using Categoria a cigarette look alike with a max of 7.2 mg of nicotine and no nicotine. Interesting that they seem to be getting the same results with and without nicotine. That is if I am reading it right.
Yes, you stick to the science - even on these forums. I realize no one would go to a legislators and say "Don't send me out by the stinky smokers." I was just supporting D103 that we shouldn't say things like that at ALL, even on the forums. Especially on the forums - it's just counter-productive and alienates smokers further.
As far as advocating - stick to the science and personal experience. I guess it also comes down to whether or not you believe all of the claims about the risks of second-hand smoke and think the government should have the right to tell private business what they can do on private property. If you want to support those things, then I suppose my comments will fall on deaf ears. But if you aren't buying it anymore than you believe that the nicotine in your e-cig will cause bystanders to drop dead from a heart attack or get DEG poisoning as the antis claim, then you may want to stop and consider how what you say may be inadvertently supporting the anti cause against nicotine users.
I personally like smokeless restaurants (yes, I agree it smells better to me) and smokeless bars are nice - I go home smelling better and my eyes aren't burning from all of the smoke. But I feel I could choose a smokeless bar then or stay home. In my case, I would speak FOR MYSELF and not lump everyone in together:
"Smoke is irritating to MY eyes and lungs and not having to go into an ENCLOSED smoking area or out into the elements were two of the many incentives for me to make the switch to smoke-free e-cigarettes. When I use my e-cigarette where smoking is prohibited, especially when it is cold or raining outside, I am frequently approached by smokers interested in my e-cigarette. No one has ever confused it for a real cigarette (I'd then hold up my black eGo) nor has anyone said they were bothered by the vapor.
Using my e-cigarette indoors gives me a wonderful opportunity to educate smokers that while yes, e-cigarettes are more convenient than being forced outside, FDA and other testing have shown they also don't contain harmful levels of any toxic chemicals or carcinogens as cigarettes do and they are even available without nicotine. Surveys show that many e-cigarette users were introduced to e-cigarettes in this way and the vast majority of those users no longer smoke traditional cigarettes anymore. Isn't it a much better example for a health-conscious adult to be seen occasionally puffing on a smoke-less, odorless alternative inside than a group of people forced to be smoking out on the street?
One of the main purposes of indoor bans was to create an incentive to get smokers to quit. If smokers are told they would be forced outside or into smoke-filled areas, whether they choose a traditional cigarette or a modified risk, smokeless e-cigarette, where is the incentive for them to even switch? Legislators and health professionals who are truly concerned about public health should be encouraging behavior which lowers the health risks of ALL citizens. Allowing indoor use of e-cigarettes encourages smokers to switch, which would help both smokers and bystanders alike."
Anyhow, that is something like what I would say.
The anti-nicotine zealots (and that is what most are - it has nothing to do with the health risks to smokers from smoking anymore) have not been able to get people to quit consuming tobacco/recreational nicotine products and they have turned to deamonizing smokers with junk science to apply social pressures to get them to quit. They are so anti-tobacco/nicotine that any non-pharma nicotine product is called "poison" (or "incesticide) and all use should be stopped, even if it creates little or no health risk to users and bystanders. Comments like mine above attempt return the focus to the smoker being someone whose health should still be a concern and not just making smokers just the "villians" exposing "innocent bystanders" to their evil smoke. The risks to smokers themselves are much greater than any research has been able to show it is to bystanders. Our focus should be back on helping those at greatest risk, IMO, and supporting antis with their war on SHS just takes the focus off of those at greatest risk, because indoor bans have NOT been showing to increase quitting with any real significance.
Anyhow, like I said - how much someone buys into the SHS "science" and their feelings about property rights are probably going to greatly influence how they view this whole topic. I guess I pretty much made my feelings known, lol!
At first I was going to agree with you, but after thinking about it a little more, one of our best arguments for e-cigarettes is the amazing majority who seem to very quickly lose any urge to smoke traditional cigarettes and how they no longer even enjoy the taste - a significant result that NRTs and cold turkey didn't seem to create by most reports. I don't know if I would want to minimize the importance that great argument over the apparent few who may still be tempted by smelling cigarette smoke in smoking areas? Especially when it's not the strongest argument in our arsenal?
Last edited:
Your post made a lot of good arguments and I addressed a possible dialog in my last post.
Except this one quoted above. The FDA actually just decided they WILL regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, so they ARE "tobacco."
But this doesn't really lessen the argument against indoor bans of e-cigarette use. Indoor smoking bans are implimented and justified by supporters because of research which has suggested that bystanders are at risk from SMOKE. There are a lot of tobacco products which are NOT included in indoor use bans - smokeless tobacco products - because they do not expose bystanders to smoke. E-cigarettes may now be classified as a tobacco products, but they are also SMOKELESS and they also do NOT expose bystanders to any smoke nor is there any evidence to suggest potential danger to the public. On the contrary, research done to date (see Health New Zealand reports and FDA report showing no harmful levels of toxins or carcinogens), the lack of reports of any injury or illness related to e-cigarette use in the past 7 years and large numbers of users reporting improved health strongly suggests that there is no risk of harm to users or bystanders. Because there has been no research or reports to suggest that users or bystanders are at risk from anything in e-cigarettes, there is no scientific justification for banning indoor use.
I meant to say that they do not contain tobacco, it was very early in the morning.
The ordinance specifies things containing tobacco and lumps e-cigarettes in with it. I wanted to make the point that though they are tobacco products, they do not contain tobacco.
I meant to say that they do not contain tobacco, it was very early in the morning.
I'm not sure I understand the need to make the distinction unless you think there is something bad about tobacco. Tobacco does not cause lung diseases, but repeatedly inhaling the byproducts of combustion from smoking cigarettes can. The "antis" have blurred the line between smoking and all forms of tobacco, we don't need to encourage this misdirection by giving to the lie that tobacco is morally inferior to other addictive plant products like coffee or chocolate.
IMO, it doesn't matter if a product contains tobacco nearly as much as it matters if a product burns tobacco--or anything else!
Last edited:
I think she wanted the distinction because of the definition used in the ordinance? A "cigarette," per their definition, contains actual tobacco maybe? So, it could be argued that e-cigarettes don't meet the local definition of "cigarette."
The danger of pointing that out, of course, is that they'll see the loophole and just vote to change the definitions, as we've seen happen elsewhere.
The danger of pointing that out, of course, is that they'll see the loophole and just vote to change the definitions, as we've seen happen elsewhere.
Exactly. If the city council overrides the veto without removing smoke-free products from their smoking ban, the poorly written definitions can work to vapers' benefit: On the off chance that someone actually attempts to enforce the smoking ban on someone who isn't smoking, the fact that they are using a product that doesn't even fit the complete definition of the law will make the nearly impossible to enforce smoking ban completely impossible to enforce. If Macon City Council isn't smart enough to give fair consideration to tobacco harm reduction, we shouldn't give them any hints on how to write accurate definitions.
This isn't about the Macon ban, this is about the proposed ordinance for Dekalb County, GA, that was recently put together by the Board of Health and will be coming up to the County Commission for a vote. It's all listed on the first page of this thread. The ordinance, as it is written, is somewhat different than the vetoed Macon one as I understand.
If you're going to focus on the wording of the ban, focus on the the term "lighted" (and object to the use of "heated"--what does that mean? Is it illegal to carry a pack of cigarettes in the summer??). E-cigarettes are not lit and do not produce smoke, therefore it defies reason and logic to include battery-powered fog machines in restrictions on smoking.
The fact that they use the word 'smoking' in the definition of smoking only adds to the confusion, but the fact remains that e-cigarettes are not "oral smoking devices" as they do not produce any smoke. Judge Leon called this "Bootstrapping run amok."
The smoking ban isn't meant to stop people from carrying or using tobacco, they're meant to stop people from BURNING tobacco in certain places. There are legitimate reasons to disallow burning tobacco indoors, but none of those reasons apply to tobacco that is not burned.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked