Cattaraugus County, NY Health Department proposes e-cig indoor use ban

[Thulium]

I got me one of those them there personal vaporizers that looks like a screwdriver that I use as a personal anti-bacteria device.

I've been known to enjoy some recreational germaphobia myself!

It's kind of funny that the ANTZ think they're being cautious, when in reality we are the ones who are so "paranoid" that we're sanitizing air before we inhale it.

 

[orkira]

Very sad to see something like this. My family lives in Cattaraugus County and I was born there. Gosh dang. Most of my family smokes too and I have been trying to get them to switch off of analogs. Ugh!

 

[mostlyclassics]

On October 19, in message #21, I stated,

Cattaraugus County is now on my personal boycott list.

What difference would someone living in Illinois boycotting Cattaraugus County, New York, have?

Well, I finally went back through my internet purchase records: it turns out that, over the last eight years, I've spent over six grand with www dot smokes-spirits dot com, which is headquartered in Salamanca. They have plenty of non-cigarette items for sale on their website, some of which I've bought in the past. Sadly for smokes-spirits and Cattaraugus County, I'll be looking elsewhere for such items now.

 

[firechick]

@mostlyclassics, I believe the store you are buying from is on an Indian Reservation, and not a tax paying business in the county. Withholding your money wont hurt the county a bit.

 

[mostlyclassics]

That's true, firechick. But the folks employed by the Indian reservation's enterprises aren't kept behind a big, electrified fence, are they? They spend money in the county.

Smoking gamblers in Illinois have, in effect, boycotted Illinois casinos because of the Illinois Indoor Clean Air Act. They go to casinos in neighboring states. As a result, since January 1, 2008, when the IICAA went into effect, it's estimated that the State of Illinois has lost abotu three quarters of a billion dollars in gambling tax revenues. The casinos here have laid off lots of workers. Some of them have moved to the neighboring states. But a fair number of them are now unemployed in Illinois.

 

[rothenbj]

Mostly, I "liked" firechick's comment, then I read yours. I double like yours since it makes sense. If 20-30%? of the population (the tobacco users) would cease transaction benefiting companies/governments that have treated them like second class individual on a massive scale, the self righteous may just re-think their position.

 

[firechick]

They likely spend what minimum wage jobs allow. The Native stores sell many millions of dollars in tobacco, tax free. I was there a week ago, and every store was so full, that they were locking the doors to clear out the customers already inside before they allowed more in. NY and PA residents drive 2 hours or more to get the tax free smokes on a regular basis. I saw an average of 5 employees at each store I visited, and dozens of customers.

I have never run the numbers, but I would think the tax loss to NY far outweighs what the 4 or 5 minimum wage employees at each store are spending outside the rez. These stores and the tax revenue loss are a serious issue for NYS, the counties, towns, and the tax paying businesses who are losing customers.

Spending your money in a manner that makes your point is a good way to protest. I just don't think the county will suffer for it. They are trying to shut down the place you are purchasing from as it is. Any loss of revenue to the store will benefit the county in the end. JMHO

 

[rothenbj]

I'm just happy I've stopped paying cig taxes anymore. Plus I'm curious to see where they'll try to tax next. There was outrage in Philly when they propose a nickle tax on soda. I wonder how they'd feel about something that doubled or tripled the cost of a soda?

 

[Placebo Effect]

http://ww2.cattco.org/files/meetings/agendas/20111122-agenda.pdf

There is an ordinance to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors (good) and ban its use where smoking is prohibited (bad).

The Legislature of Cattaraugus County will meet in adjourned session at the County Center, Little Valley, New York, on Tuesday, November 22, 2011, for the transaction of such business as may properly come before the meeting.

We need Cattaraugus County residents to request a public hearing on this ordinance ASAP. This has been on previous agendas, but it had to go through 2 committees. It's not clear if they'd be voting on it tomorrow.

The ordinance also includes herbal cigarettes, so make sure to note you don't oppose banning them indoors due to preexisting bans on smoking.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Here's the actual legislation -- http://ww2.cattco.org/files/meetings/agendas/20111005-prefile.pdf

 

[Jacinda222]

Here's the meeting agenda from last week which contains the legislation (Was it updated from the October 5th one? They're calling it Local Law Number 16 now instead of Local Law Number 12) as well as their plan to get it implemented. The legislation starts on page 39 and their plan to authorize a public hearing is on page 43 - looks like it will be scheduled for the 14th of December.

http://ww2.cattco.org/files/meetings/agendas/20111116-prefile.pdf

 

[Jacinda222]

Here's the Cattaraugus County Representatives info, for anyone wanting to call or send letters. Their area codes aren't given on the website... the main area code used in the county is 716, I've tried to track down and note which ones use the less common 585 area code, but it was a little unclear for a couple of them.

District 1
Paula J. Stockman - Republican SPONSOR
PO Box 195, 13 Third Street
South Dayton, NY 14138
Home Phone: 988-7740

District 2
E. James Ellis - Republican
7869 Ellis Road
Cattaraugus, NY 14719
Home Phone: 257-9765

District 2
Patrick J. Murphy - Republican
7491 Lovers Lane Road
Cattaraugus, NY 14719
Home Phone: 257-5357

District 3
Norman L. Marsh - Republican
121 First Street
Little Valley, NY 14755
Home Phone: 938-6620

District 3
Robert E. Neal, Sr - Republican
222 Spring Street
Randolph, NY 14772
Home Phone: 358-3810

District 4
William E. Sprague - Democrat
3222 Taylor Rd., P.O. Box 659
Yorkshire, NY 14173
Home Phone: 492-4623

District 5
Donna M. Vickman - Republican
971 Back St. PO Box 5
Farmersville, NY 14060
Home Phone: 676-3209

District 5
Charles F. Hebdon - Democrat
6028 Beaver Meadows Road
West Valley, NY 14171
Home Phone: 699-2808

District 5
Jerry E. Burrell - Republican
2361 Lyndon Road
Franklinville, NY 14737
Home Phone: 676-2925

District 6
Joseph C. McLarney - Republican
70 N. Main St. PO Box 805
Portville, NY 14770
Home Phone: (585) 933-7079

District 6
Michael T. O'Brien - Republican
12 Riley Rd.
Portville, NY 14770
Home Phone: (585) 933-8178

District 7
Vergilio L. Giardini, Jr. - Democrat
4050 Mediterranean Dr.
Allegany, NY 14706
Home Phone: 373-3353

District 7
James L. Boser - Democrat
97 North First St.
Allegany, NY 14706
Home Phone: 373-0006

District 8
Mark J. Ward - Democrat
6123 Fairview Lane
Great Valley, NY 14741
Home Phone: 945-4934

District 9
Kenneth W. McClune - Democrat
51 South Main St.
Salamanca, NY 14779
Home Phone: 945-4150

District 9
Carmen A. Vecchiarella - Republican
P.O. Box 296
Salamanca, NY 14779
Home Phone: 244-7891

District 10
John J. Padlo - Democrat
438 Fountain Street
Olean, NY 14760
Home Phone: 373-4078

District 10
James J. Snyder - Republican SPONSOR
PO Box 1
Olean, NY 14760
Home Phone: 373-6352

District 10
William J. Aiello - Republican SPONSOR
725 Bishop Street
Olean, NY 14760
Home Phone: 373-1859

District 10
Steven H. Teachman - Republican
138 N. Fifteenth Street
Olean, NY 14760
Home Phone: 372-7730

District 10
Linda M. Edstrom - Republican
408 Laurens Street
Olean, NY 14760
Home Phone: 372-6687

 

[Hambone68]

Sorry I haven't been around here lately, things have been very hectic! I'm sad to note that you out-of-county folks have managed to get much more info about this whole thing than I have - every time I tried to contact anyone about it, I either got no response (email) or was told that they didn't have any available information (phone) and couldn't connect me with someone who did. Essentially, I got the run-around.
I will definitely be attending the hearing on 12/14, and will contact my rep (Bob Neal) today to discuss it. On a side note, all of the phone numbers listed above are in the 716 area code.

 

[Vocalek]

If the ANTZ show up to testify, they will be claiming that the FDA found dangerous chemicals in the vapor, that nicotine is delivered from cartridges labeled zero nicotine, and that the products are targeted at children.

Be prepared to refute these claims.

The FDA's press release conflated their findings. The lab report shows that their tests found nothing whatsoever that might be harmful in the vapor. I suggest that you download and print the FDA's report: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

Use a highlighter on the two sentences that start at the bottom of page 2. "Nicotine was detected in both products for all cartridges containing low, medium and high levels of nicotine but was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine. Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative."

The so-called carcinogens that FDA found in the liquid of some cartridges are not found in the vapor. Furthermore, the quantities in the highest strength liquid are no higher than found in an FDA-approved nicotine patch -- around 8 nanograms.

I would not bring it up unless they do, but if antifreeze is mentioned you can explain that the quantity of 10 mg of diethylene glycol the FDA measured in one of 18 cartridges tested could not harm a mouse. The "No Observable Adverse Event Level" is 850 to 1000 mg per kg of body weight for a mouse.

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed 16 lab studies of e-cigarettes and concluded, "A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products." Dr. Siegel states that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. A copy of this article is attached.

Regarding children as the target market, you can point out that several surveys of e-cigarette consumers show that more than half are over the age of 40. Nevertheless, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association favors laws that prohibit sales to anyone under the legal smoking age.

If flavors are brought up, you can mention that surveys of consumers (average age of 41) show that over 70% use fruit, beverage, or candy flavors at least occasionally, and that more than 1 in 3 use such flavors "often" or "always". Most consumrs report that they no longer enjoy the taste of tobacco, which might be an important factor in remaining smoke-free. (CASAA's survey results can be viewed at https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d)

Finally, mention that emerging research is showing that switching to e-cigarettes are a much more effective way to become smoke-free than traditional smoking-cessation products and methods, with success rates ranging from 30 to 80% among smokers who want to quit, and as high as 22% in people who had no intention of quittting when they tried an e-cigarette.

Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them being used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that can reduce their risks of smoking-related disease. Furthermore, forcing former smokers to go into a smoke-filled area to use their smoke-free devices is inadvisable.

You can print this document that lists research articles and give a copy to the council secretary.

View attachment Electronic-Cigarette-Research.pdf

Final tip: If at all possible, try to not be the first to speak. Hearing what the ANTZ have to say first will let you know where you need to focus your comments.

 

[Mooninmyeyes]

Dr. Watkins needs to go back to school to be schooled in what he is talking about. My doctor is happy i stopped smoking tobacco -i had the start of emphazema. i am off 2 meds now. my doctor rather me using e cigs then tobacco. Next they will be taking our coffee and soda away and burning books and our evil rock and roll albums =arrghhhhhh There are to many edjucated idiots in this world for my taste

 

[DC2]

Be prepared to refute these claims.

Elaine, that was an outstanding summary of the "talking points" needed to fight these battles.
Not that I would expect anything less from you.


So is this essentially what CASAA gives people who are going to be interviewed?

Should I bookmark this post so that I can access it as needed?
Or is there somewhere else this is stored where it is updated as needed?

Thanks!
DC2

 

[Vocalek]

DC2: There are a number of links in the post on "Are you going to be interviewed" that could be used when talking with legislators as well: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...you-going-interviewed-about-e-cigarettes.html

Also, the CASAA Call to Action pages provide some specific talking points for proposed bans. CASAA.org

 

[Hambone68]

Just a quick status update, I had a long discussion with Bob Neal (my district's representative) about the legislation. He is totally on board with me and will oppose it, and also mentioned that none of the other legislators had done any research on the bill and were merely relying on Dr. Watkins' say-so that it's a good thing. I believe that this can be a point in our favor and have provided Bob with copies of the CASAA E-Cigarette FAQ (the tri-fold brochure) and the "E-cigarettes and Smoke-Free Policies" 2-page paper (don't remember where specifically I got that one) to distribute to the rest of the legislators.

Unfortunately, due to scheduling conflicts, right now it's looking like I won't be able to attend the hearing, although I am still working to shuffle things around so that I can be there. In the event that I can't go, I have prepared a statement that Bob has agreed to present at the hearing on my behalf. I borrowed heavily from Vocalek's talking points, hopefully you won't mind I'll follow up this post with that text, let me know what you think and if there are any changes I should make. Again, this is just a contingency in case I can't get to the hearing...

 

[Hambone68]

Here's the letter:
----------------

I would like to voice my concerns about Local Law Number 16 – 2011, “A Local Law Regulating Electronic Cigarettes and Herbal Cigarettes.” Unfortunately, scheduling conflicts prevent me from being able to attend the hearing today, but Mr. Neal has graciously agreed to present this on my behalf.
Let me start by saying that there are portions of this law that I fully endorse. I support and applaud efforts to reduce the harm caused by smoking tobacco products in confined public spaces, and I also stand behind efforts to restrict availability of any nicotine delivery products to persons under 18. However, there are assumptions and “findings” about e-cigarettes used in the law that are misleading or simply wrong.
In Section 1a, the law states that the exhaled vapors are a “cloud of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.” This is a patently false statement. E-juice is a liquid solution consisting of mostly propylene glycol, and optionally vegetable glycerin, water, flavoring, and a small amount of nicotine. Specifically, for e-juices labeled as “high strength,” the nicotine content is 1.5% - 2% of the total solution. There are also many varieties of e-juice that do not contain ANY nicotine. I should also note that this mixture (minus nicotine and flavoring) is exactly the same mixture that is used to produce theatrical fog and haze for lighting effects. When this liquid is heated, it vaporizes in much the same way that water turns to steam when heated. Research has shown that the vapor, as one would reasonably expect, is made primarily of propylene glycol, and that it contains almost no nicotine. Furthermore, unlike cigarette smoke, this vapor dissipates quickly leaving no residue or foul odors, and is not harmful to bystanders.
Section 1b states that that the nicotine content in e-cigarettes “presents a significant risk of rapid and or continual addiction.” Yes, nicotine is an addictive stimulant. So is caffeine. Should we then also ban coffee and caffeinated sodas to protect the public from the potential harm of caffeine addiction? For that matter, should we ban the use of nicotine gum or patches? They represent the same level of risk as stated in the law. Instead, we should focus on harm reduction. Emerging research shows that switching to e-cigarettes is a much more effective way to become smoke-free than traditional smoking-cessation products and methods, with success rates ranging from 30% – 80% among smokers who want to quit, and as high as 22% in people who had no intention of quitting when they tried an e-cigarette!
Section 1c states that “it is not in the best interests of the County or its residents to permit the use of e-cigarettes in public places,” while section 1d states that protecting the public from an “untested” nicotine product represents sound public health and fiscal policy. Again, these concepts are fundamentally flawed. There is continuing research into the short-term and long-term effects of e-cigarette use both on the user and to bystanders. This research is increasingly showing that the benefits heavily outweigh any perceived detriments. For example, over 90% of users report beneficial health effects, citing improved breathing, less coughing, and better fitness. Also, many e-cigarette users first discover these safer-than-cigarettes devices when they see them being used where smoking isn’t allowed. Banning indoor and public use removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that can reduce their risks of smoking-related diseases, and it is inadvisable to force former smokers to go into a smoke-filled area to use their smoke-free devices. Therefore, it actually IS in the County residents’ best interests to explicitly permit the use of e-cigarettes in areas where smoking is prohibited.
I also want to touch on the potential unintended consequences of this law. As I have already mentioned, with the exception of the optional nicotine content, e-juice is identical to the liquid used for theatrical fog, and the method of vaporizing it only differs in scale. While I am not a lawyer, it would seem to me (and many others I have spoken with) that this law would wind up prohibiting the use of theatrical fog and haze effects. This would have a negative fiscal impact in the county, causing productions that make use of the effect to either not perform in Cattaraugus County, or be forced to put on a sub-standard show.
In closing, I want to stress again that I do not oppose the restriction of the sale of e-cigarette devices and e-juices containing nicotine to persons under 18, nor do I oppose the law in regards to herbal cigarettes (both sale and use). However, to lump e-cigarettes in with cigarettes and ban their use based on faulty reasoning and failure to do even cursory investigation into their risks and benefits is disingenuous at best, and at worst can cause substantial damage to the public’s health and safety. Do not ban the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is not allowed. I strongly urge you to vote against this law as it is written.
I have provided some information about e-cigarettes including links to the research I’ve referenced. If you have any questions or would like more information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
John Oberg
(address and phone number redacted)

 

[Placebo Effect]

John, that's wonderful. Thank you so much for taking action.

If you have the time in the next couple days, please consider calling up other representatives and asking them to vote against this, or to merely support an amendment to remove e-cigarettes. If you have friends or acquaintances or even family members in other districts, please ask them to just take a minute to call their legislator.

Cattaraugus County Government - Legislative Map