Chicago decided to ban E-Cigs now

[Uma]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." X Hitler

 

[dimo]

(EDITED)

I agree with Visus. Vapor leaves a fog that sticks around for a little bit. It doesn't just disappear into nothing at a rapid clip. I can easily make my living room look foggy if I chain vape hard enough. If there's 2 or 3 of us my living room will look like a fog machine went off. And it lingers for a bit too.

Every single vape shop I have ever walked into has a vapor floating in the air the entire time I'm in there from the amount of people and vaping that goes on.

Maybe outside in an open space it can appear to vanish quickly, but in enclosed areas that changes real quick. Vapor does linger. While it may not smell bad, it doesn't mean its not visible.

 

[bluecat]

(EDITED)

That just ain't right.

 

[Funk Dracula]

That just ain't right.

Oh, that goes without saying.

 

[Racehorse]

If we claim our PV's are "medical inhalers" the FDA can and will get involved in regulating them.

Then you also need to call out every single vaper here who talks about *quitting* stinkies by using an ecig because then the FDA can classify it pharmacologically more like a Nicorette inhaler rather than tobacco.

 

[JMarca]

Stop saying ban, no city in this nation would do such a thing. They regulated it, every city wants the same thing they want these products to keep going it's already a sucess they just want a big piece of the pie. Regulate it as Tobacco and tax it as such. No ban here never will be, too much money to be made.

 

[Funk Dracula]

Then you also need to call out every single vaper here who talks about *quitting* stinkies by using an ecig because then the FDA can classify it pharmacologically more like a Nicorette inhaler rather than tobacco.

Exactly.

There is a great new podcast coming out of Canada called "What does the Law Say?", and one of the hosts makes a great argument against throwing around the word *quit* when it comes to vaping.

We didn't *quit* smoking, we *switched* to a safer alternative. Believe it or not, if we are not more careful with our choice of words, we're just making it all to easy for the ANTZ.

 

[kristin]

It doesn't matter if consumers say "quit smoking." Say it all you want. The only folks who CAN'T say "quit smoking" are manufacturers and retailers. CASAA was started for exactly that reason. Consumers can say it, so someone had to be telling the truth that companies can't - e-cigarettes help people quit smoking. Even if they "switched" that still means they've quit smoking. The general public needs to understand that and the only way they'll hear that truth is if WE (consumers) say it.

 

[ericm12121977]

The ban on indoor use is fine, but there are to many loopholes, to many open doors for the zealots to use against us. The only way to win this battle is not to march, not to protest, not to try to change their minds. It is all about how hard you are willing to fight.

Are you willing to take a ticket from a public servant officer and fight it in court and demand a trial by jury? are you willing to tie up court time and therefore cause the county government to take a look at their budgets over the expense to prosecute tax paying citizen's over e-cig's? Do you realize the answer is in the one thing they don't want to happen! Imagine getting a ticket for lets say 50-100 dollars and instead of paying it you fight it in court, you start tying up the system, you start making the county budget get tighter and tighter and they are forced to look at what is costing them.

No matter how hard we protest, no matter how hard we voice our opinion, they won't/can't listen. The only thing that makes them listen is when it affects their budget's. Fight for your rights every day. Don't take offense when going into a building and not being allowed to vape, just respect the law there, as ex-smoker's you have dealt with that in the past.

The smoke anywhere was a nice gimmic to get you to purchase a product that has helped millions, but it was never really the truth. But if you are walking down the street, in open air and you get a ticket for using your e-cig please politely take the ticket, don't get upset at the officer, just smile and say thank you and I will see you in court. Go to court and fight for your right, don't back down. Before to long the lawyers will line up and fight for the right to represent you and the governments will have to face the fact, that we aren't going quietly into the night, we are going to fight and we are not going to bow down.

Just remember, Those who turn their guns into plows will plow for those who do not! (Thomas Jefferson)

 

[umanbean]

It doesn't matter if consumers say "quit smoking." Say it all you want. The only folks who CAN'T say "quit smoking" are manufacturers and retailers. CASAA was started for exactly that reason. Consumers can say it, so someone had to be telling the truth that companies can't - e-cigarettes help people quit smoking. Even if they "switched" that still means they've quit smoking. The general public needs to understand that and the only way they'll hear that truth is if WE (consumers) say it.

Thank you!

A ray of sunshine (and sanity)...

 

[Funk Dracula]

It doesn't matter if consumers say "quit smoking." Say it all you want. The only folks who CAN'T say "quit smoking" are manufacturers and retailers. CASAA was started for exactly that reason. Consumers can say it, so someone had to be telling the truth that companies can't - e-cigarettes help people quit smoking. Even if they "switched" that still means they've quit smoking. The general public needs to understand that and the only way they'll hear that truth is if WE (consumers) say it.

Kristin,

I support CASAA and appreciate all the hard efforts, but I disagree nowadays with this particular subject. It's an easy distinction and vernacular for vapers to adapt and pick up on early on; Switch vs Quit. I know it seems trivial, but in the world of legislation and legal jargon it carries a lot of weight. Remember Bill Clintons infamous "It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is..." ?

It does matter what consumers say, in any sort of official correspondence outside of a casual conversation. It's important to be on the same page.

There is a very important distinction between the term "quitting" and "switching". It doesn't matter how innocent it seems coming from a consumer, it's just as easy for ANTZ to hang on to these word distinctions as it is for them to "save the children" and use it to their advantage.

At the end of the day, in the room full of legislators where the final say and arguments that count take place, the ANTZ will have the contradictory statements that e-cig manufacturers have to adhere to and the testimonials with the medical claims from the consumers. "Who can we trust? Who is lying? The vendors or the vapers?"

Just because the e-cig industry won a battle to be regulated as a tobacco product does not set that in stone. The FDA can turn around and say "Ya know what? NO. Clearly this is being used as a medical drug delivering product. The vendors can't say it, but it is clearly implied and used as such." They can turn around, and petition Congress to change the whole thing. Then those Congressman are going to look at everything before them and say "Hey you know what, I've got this stack of emails and testimonials from my constituents claiming "I quit" so...."

That's a worst case fantasy scenario on a Federal level. This is happening locally in municipalities across the nation every month. I sat through and watched the whole debacle here in Chicago. Even though vendors can't claim it helps you quit, I watched an Alderman speak of commercials for class-action lawsuits against medications, and then proceed to refer to e-cigs as some sort of medication from that point forward. It doesn't matter what vendors say, the mind perception of somebody who actually votes on legislation had been influenced and made up.

You stopped smoking cigarettes and switched to a safer alternative. You didn't give up the recreational use and enjoyment of nicotine. It's not safe. It's a safer alternative to smoking.

I realize CASAA is an organization representing consumers, but even your mission statement is wisely and carefully worded as such:
Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives.

I would hope CASAA would in some sort of official capacity take a closer look at the issue of "quiting".

 

[Racehorse]

It doesn't matter if consumers say "quit smoking." Say it all you want. The only folks who CAN'T say "quit smoking" are manufacturers and retailers. CASAA was started for exactly that reason. Consumers can say it, so someone had to be telling the truth that companies can't - e-cigarettes help people quit smoking. Even if they "switched" that still means they've quit smoking. The general public needs to understand that and the only way they'll hear that truth is if WE (consumers) say it.

Oh well.

I seem to have gotten my language from the tobacco harm reduction readings, because they always seem to use the term "switched".

Like: "But many of them probably could be persuaded to switch to a low-risk source of nicotine, and the health benefits would be almost as good as quitting entirely".....

Most every magazine article I read uses the term "switch" as well, so I got in the habit of using that term.

Guess I'm just one of those people who are increasingly "confused" as to what the message is.

So I'll stick to switched though....like to use my own words. I don't know for sure if I quit smoking or not. I may very well pick up a cig next week, I can't say for sure. Right now, I've merely "switched" over to vaping though.

All thru my journey I have pretty much stuck with the "harm reduction" mind-set. (That allows me not to get into all the unproven side commentary that people argue about whether it is "safe" or not. I just say vaping is harm reduction. Not necessarily harm "less". )

Works for me, and what and how I personally believe. YMMV

Tobaccoharmreduction makes the difference clearer here, I think: Quitting or Switching:
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/quittingsmoking.htm

 

[Funk Dracula]

Guess I'm just one of those people who are increasingly "confused" as to what the message is.

Nah I think your grasp on it is spot on!

 

[kristin]

I'm not saying "don't say switched." CASAA uses that all of the time, too. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm saying that what consumers say about quitting has absolutely no bearing on what the FDA can do. The FDA only has regulatory powers over companies. If I use cranberry juice to help treat a UT infection and think it works, I can tell anyone and everyone to try using cranberry juice for their UT infection. Just because I use it that way, the FDA cannot go after cranberry juice companies for selling unapproved drugs. It can only do that if the company claims its juice treats UT infections. A lot of people use toothpicks or bubblegum to quit, but the FDA cannot regulate those as drugs or cessation therapies unless the companies make that claim.

The legislators need to hear from us that "switching" also means "quitting." The ANTZ are lying to them and saying "they aren't really quitting, because they still have the behavior and use nicotine." If thousands of people testified to Congress that bubblegum helped them quit, would Congress decide to deem bubblegum a drug that needs regulation?

CASAA isn't going to stop telling people that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking by allowing them to switch to a safer alternative. As I explained earlier, that was one of the main reasons we were formed. We need to tell the truth that companies cannot: switching to e-cigarettes IS quitting. (But that doesn't make it a "drug treatment" anymore than using bubblegum instead of smoking is a drug treatment.)

This may seem a reversal of what we were saying a few years ago and there is a reason for that. Back when the FDA was arguing its case in Sottera vs. FDA, it was still very much up in the air about e-cigarettes being regulated as drug. So, we were encouraging people to avoid any reference to e-cigarettes being used as a treatment for smoking. The warning was aimed more at vendors than consumers, but we thought (to be safe) we should all just avoid any association with smoking cessation drugs. Once the FDA lost its case, that need for caution was gone for consumers. Today, vendors still need to avoid it or the FDA will go after them as making health and therapeutic claims.

But as consumer advocates, we still need to get the truth out that vapers who have switched to e-cigarettes have also quit smoking. (Not a "treatment" for nicotine addiction but the end result is still that the person is no longer smoking.) CASAA also explains to legislators WHY companies can't say it helps people quit smoking, but it actually does.

Otherwise, legislators are being convinced by ANTZ that vaping is still "technically" smoking, albeit a "little safer." So, they treat them the same as smoking by banning them in public and taxing them.

 

[MD_Boater]

I never say either. I started vaping, and I just happened to stop smoking. One did not cause the other.

I always wanted to quit smoking but never tried for fear of failing. I didn't want to face the fact that I wasn't able to do it if my quit attempt failed. When I started vaping, I found that I simply forgot to take the time to smoke.

 

[Visus]

IDK seems there were negative posts to my behalf.

I say they can kiss my backside otherwise, they can pry it from my cold dead hands, The douche I refer to is me, I blew a cloud in our local stop and go went outside forgot some items came back in the store and the cloud had gathered around the lights in the store. A real eye opener, I felt like a total douche..

Some of you may not have set-ups that billow clouds and are like what is he talking about -- but those who do have cloud maker set-ups maybe understand better.. Its absolute imperative not to make others upset about this new technology as cigarettes were once thought as harmless.

Annoy some bigwigs with a cloud at a restaurant and things get a little more tight.
That law helps us keep on helping others lose the habit of analogs, and its common sense and courtesy..

 

[BillyWJ]

I am not sure why people ban stuff before they do any research. It is disturbing to me that our government is so worthless and cant even get an extension on unemployment on the federal level but a city can decide to ban something that helps people in such a short time.

City Council passes tougher e-cigarette regulations | abc7chicago.com

It's not about research. Don't fool yourself that this has anything to do with health, or common sense.

 

[BillyWJ]

Otherwise, legislators are being convinced by ANTZ that vaping is still "technically" smoking, albeit a "little safer." So, they treat them the same as smoking by banning them in public and taxing them.

Another wrinkle is that the guy at the FDA who's in charge of tobacco-related issue is "consulting" on the side with GlaxoSmithKline, one of the biggest manufacturers of Nicorette and the patches. So, we have a man who is clearly on the side of the cessation products that don't work, but make Big Pharma a lot of money, as the go to guy for legislators to get information on this subject - and who will most likely be cited by legislators to rationalize and explain their voting and stance on e-cigarette legislation.

It's all a very tangle web of distortion and hidden agendas.

 

[BillyWJ]

Then you also need to call out every single vaper here who talks about *quitting* stinkies by using an ecig because then the FDA can classify it pharmacologically more like a Nicorette inhaler rather than tobacco.

The FDA classifies nicotine gum differently? News to me. As far as I can tell, nicotine gum is classified as a "smoking cessation aid", the same as ecigs. In fact, i found some articles last night that are very interesting and somewhat irritating, like they're easing the restriction on what the labels on the gum can contain, and through research have found that they don't have to warn of smoking while on the gum, and that the gums don't present any threat of addiction or abuse.

Say WHAT?

Here's one. Have fun reading this, and substitute ecigarettes for gum, because that's what it SHOULD read.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

"One of the ways FDA works to reduce tobacco-related death and disease is to review and approve safe, effective therapies for consumers trying to quit smoking," says Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). About 70 percent of smokers want to stop smoking, and nearly half of all smokers make an attempt to quit each year."

So, lets look at this. Gum delivers nicotine through the mouth. So do ecigs. Gum reduces the risk of cancer by not inhaling smoke from burning something. So do ecigs. Nicotine gum comes in all kinds of nice flavors, like mint, cinnamon, and fruit. So do ecigs. You have to be 18 to buy gum. Same for ecigs.

Why are ecigs magically different?

Oh, that's right - GlaxoSmithKline don't have a patent on them.

Edited to rant a little more:

Here's what the FDA is saying about nicotine gum now.

"FDA is allowing the companies who make these OTC products to make several changes to the warnings and limitations in the directions for use on their labels to allow some flexibility on how they are used and for how long. These changes mean the following for consumers:

There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette.

If you are using an OTC NRT while trying to quit smoking but slip up and have a cigarette, you should not stop using the NRT. You should keep using the OTC NRT and keep trying to quit.

NRT users should still pick a day to quit smoking, and begin using the OTC NRT product on their "quit" day, even if they aren't immediately able to stop smoking.

Users of NRT products should still use the product for the length of time indicated in the label—for example, 8, 10 or 12 weeks. However, if they feel they need to continue using the product for longer in order to quit, it is safe to do so in most cases. Consumers are advised to consult their health care professional if they feel the need to use an OTC NRT for longer than the time period recommended in the label.

So, according to the FDA, using the same nicotine that the gum uses is perfectly safe, and poses NO health risk, like cancer, as has been touted in the press. Yet our nicotine is deadly dangerous and is going to addict and kill everyone.

Anyone else getting a little angry here?

 

[Equality 7-2521]

is this a real quote from Hitler.....as i recall you live in germany so I'm gonna say you'd probablly knowif it is.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." X Hitler