Clark County Washington Board of Health Considers Ban on Sales to Youth

[Vocalek]

E-cigarettes give health officials a bad taste | The Columbian

CASAA was mentioned. At least they are only talking about a ban on sales to youth.

In addition to the kiosk at the mall, e-cigarettes are sold at convenience stores. Health officials worry the availability of the devices and the marketing of the flavored nicotine are aimed at kids — a concern echoed by county Commissioners Steve Stuart and Marc Boldt.

“The only thing you don’t have is a cartoon camel,” Stuart said.

Stuart said he was only interested in an ordinance to prohibit people younger than 18 from purchasing the devices. He does not want to regulate what businesses can sell or adults can purchase.

Commissioner Tom Mielke said he was opposed to the commissioners taking action. Any regulation of the devices should be left to the FDA, he said.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Apparently Tom Mielke is under the impression that state and local governments do not have regulations prohibiting sales of cigarettes to minors.

 

[JustJulie]

I really like the letter CASAA sent to the Board of Health before its meeting: CASAA.org

I thought the letter did a great job of giving the Board members some good, accurate information about e-cigarettes without talking down to them or putting them on the defensive.

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks, Julie. High praise coming from you.

 

[JustJulie]

Thanks, Julie. High praise coming from you.

Well, I don't know about that.

What I do know, though, is that getting the information into the hands of the decision- and policy-makers is only half of the battle . . . the other half is presenting it in such a way that they actually listen. While I know we can't *make* them listen, we can do our best to present the message in a way so that they don't immediately tune out. CASAA's letter accomplished that goal, imo.

I think it's important for us to remember that many of the people that we deal with are NOT lying. Lying means deliberately misleading . . . many of them are not. They, like so many of us were, are being duped by organizations that they trust and believe in. And even when they get presented with accurate information, it takes awhile to begin to understand that what you've been told by the organizations you trust isn't the truth.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, I don't know about that.

What I do know, though, is that getting the information into the hands of the decision- and policy-makers is only half of the battle . . . the other half is presenting it in such a way that they actually listen. While I know we can't *make* them listen, we can do our best to present the message in a way so that they don't immediately tune out. CASAA's letter accomplished that goal, imo.

I think it's important for us to remember that many of the people that we deal with are NOT lying. Lying means deliberately misleading . . . many of them are not. They, like so many of us were, are being duped by organizations that they trust and believe in. And even when they get presented with accurate information, it takes awhile to begin to understand that what you've been told by the organizations you trust isn't the truth.

True, they may expect "spin jobs" from politicians, but would never dream that an organization charged with preserving health would put a spin on medical or health facts for some nefarious reason. We don't know for sure what those nefarious reasons are--we can only speculate among ourselves, and it is best not to do the speculating while talking with someone whose favor we are trying to garner.

Whatever those reasons might be, IMHO they are not good enough to justify risking the lives of other people by feeding decision-makers disinformation. Nethertheless, we cannot afford to express our angry feelings to those we are tryig to persuade.

I took a journalism class or two, and we were taught a little about propaganda techniques. How many citizens recognize when they are only being told part of the truth or when their emotions are being toyed with by use of loaded words like "carcinogens" and "antifreeze."?

 

[robo2000]

As a citizen of Clark county I am quite pleased that the boards only action was to add what appears to be a redundant city ordinance to ban the sales of e-cigs to minors.

Now if only they would pass in ordinance that prohibits public places like work places, restaurants, and bars from banning their use indoors.

 

[Thulium]

As a citizen of Clark county I am quite pleased that the boards only action was to add what appears to be a redundant city ordinance to ban the sales of e-cigs to minors.

As a former resident of Clark County, I completely agree.

Now if only they would pass in ordinance that prohibits public places like work places, restaurants, and bars from banning their use indoors.

I'm not sure we'd really want that. One of our strongest arguments is that business owners should be allowed to make their own policies, so if they really want to ban the use of fragrances or electronic devices in their establishment that is their prerogative. I think our time would be better spent educating people about the fact that a ban on smoke-free tobacco products is basically unenforceable (since there is no way to prevent people from using a smokeless tobacco product discretely), but encouraging the use of smoke-free alternatives can be an effective way to reduce secondhand smoke exposure near the doorways and could encourage their customers to stay inside (potentially recovering from sales reductions due to smokers having to go outside or stay home to smoke). CASAA now has "No Smoking, Vaping Permitted" placards and door stickers available to help with exactly that! New Arrivals - "No Smoking" Sticker - CASAA