I suppose one way would be to get ticketted for doing it, and then fight the ticket in court.
County wants to ban public e-cigarette smoking
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I suppose one way would be to get ticketted for doing it, and then fight the ticket in court.
I've only been a member for a few months...
Would enjoy hearing from some of the veterans giving their overview including personal insights into the implications of this decision. We are going to be fighting a lot more battles and what happened today could lead to the domino effect. Considering our frustrations...some "Sarcasm" would be welcome and appreciated.
Would enjoy hearing from some of the veterans giving their overview including personal insights into the implications of this decision. We are going to be fighting a lot more battles and what happened today could lead to the domino effect. Considering our frustrations...some "Sarcasm" would be welcome and appreciated.
"I tried splenda last night, and it's just sugar." Felt like sharing that, that's the most ignorant post I've seen in a long while
Commented
It's hard to say what implications this action may have. Apparently King county gives the BOH a lot of leeway in passing regulations. The meeting was interesting because they started it, then went into "Executive" adjournment to discuss some legal issue involved with the proceedings. They could not meet with a quorum which they decided was seven but as I indicated there were only ten votes so there could have been as few as seven of the board members there and three could have controlled the voting.
I personally can see this scenario playing out across the country. Quick strike opportunities. It kind of reminded me of a time I wanted to get a variance to improve the kitchen on a property I owned. I contacted the borough, they were very helpful and explained the process and told me that there would be a hearing to determine if there were any objections to the request. I think it was something like $300 for the variance. I checked with all the neighbors that might be affected and I got all favorable reactions. The immediate neighbors loved the design and saw the benefit.
I get to the meeting, present my plans and they open the floor to discussion. Three of the neighbors were there and all offered favorable comment. After they were done, the borough counselor took the mike and voiced an objection, by the borough. They got my money, I wasted my time and I learned how local government works.
I'm not real confident that these local efforts can be stopped once they get moving without some hard facts IVAQS would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the supposedly unknown about second hand health effects.
It's hard to say what implications this action may have. Apparently King county gives the BOH a lot of leeway in passing regulations. The meeting was interesting because they started it, then went into "Executive" adjournment to discuss some legal issue involved with the proceedings. They could not meet with a quorum which they decided was seven but as I indicated there were only ten votes so there could have been as few as seven of the board members there and three could have controlled the voting.
I personally can see this scenario playing out across the country. Quick strike opportunities. It kind of reminded me of a time I wanted to get a variance to improve the kitchen on a property I owned. I contacted the borough, they were very helpful and explained the process and told me that there would be a hearing to determine if there were any objections to the request. I think it was something like $300 for the variance. I checked with all the neighbors that might be affected and I got all favorable reactions. The immediate neighbors loved the design and saw the benefit.
I get to the meeting, present my plans and they open the floor to discussion. Three of the neighbors were there and all offered favorable comment. After they were done, the borough counselor took the mike and voiced an objection, by the borough. They got my money, I wasted my time and I learned how local government works.
I'm not real confident that these local efforts can be stopped once they get moving without some hard facts IVAQS would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the supposedly unknown about second hand health effects.
Understand...However, when the "Other Side" in the battle is only concerned
with "Emotions" focused on "eroding social norms", science means nothing.
Or am I missing something?
I believe so, they constantly use the term smoking and the image of smoking I think the Board Chairperson had her mind make up on the social norms that she has battled for for many decades. This tells me that she is in charge of Social Norms.
Jeff
Questions about the hearing
1) Who is the man who is the first councilmember to suggest (after public comments had been finished) that the science that had been presented was weak?
2) Who is the woman speaks a lot in favor of regulation? She's speaking 57 minutes in and refers to Board member Nicola quite often.
3) This same woman said that Phillip Morris was in the electronic cigarette market. Is she making a mistake based on the fact that, like 10-15 years ago, PM did an unsuccessful test run of an electronic cigarette product?
1) Who is the man who is the first councilmember to suggest (after public comments had been finished) that the science that had been presented was weak?
2) Who is the woman speaks a lot in favor of regulation? She's speaking 57 minutes in and refers to Board member Nicola quite often.
3) This same woman said that Phillip Morris was in the electronic cigarette market. Is she making a mistake based on the fact that, like 10-15 years ago, PM did an unsuccessful test run of an electronic cigarette product?
Last edited:
1. David Hutchins, Mayor of Lake Forest Park
2. that was Sally Clark, Council Woman
3. I believe she was talking about the Nicotine Inhaler made by Philip Morris
Thanks,
Jeff~
Hutchinson was the man that wanted to take the ban out, Kathy Lambert spoke out against the amendment and I believe the chair, Julia Patterson also spoke of social engineering. If those to did in fact vote against the amendment, that was 4 of the 6 against since their votes, for some reason, count as 2 each. Joe McDermott is the other 3 vote member but I don't recall him speaking. There was the man that spoke after Hutchinson who was negative but I didn't catch his name.
Two members of the board weren't there and it was strange that they had this meeting at 9:30 when it's a standard 2:30 PM meeting. I picked up the PM comment also. Hoping someone else has info.
Two members of the board weren't there and it was strange that they had this meeting at 9:30 when it's a standard 2:30 PM meeting. I picked up the PM comment also. Hoping someone else has info.
I had an great conversation with Board member Nicola after the hearing. I clarified for him a few things that were left quite murky during the hearing and he agreed that it was a shame the amendment to remove the usage ban was not passed. I gave him a rundown of some of the history with the FDA, including the fact that they have had the ability to regulate e-cigarettes for almost 2 years but have not yet moved on their new authority because they are too busy trying to shoehorn them into a drug classification. When I pointed out that there is really no way to effectively enforce this (and IMO this actually makes it more difficult to enforce the indoor smoking ban if the BoH can't tell the difference between cigarettes and smoke-free products). Nicola said, "Right, we won't enforce it."
When I mentioned that this "regulation" doesn't technically include non-electric vaping devices like the Ploom (which reminds me that I forgot to retrieve my Ploom from security after the meeting. Ironic that they kept that one, had a really hard time understanding that the battery on my Inferno PT doesn't have any secret compartments, but didn't bat an eye at my bigger mods..go figure!) and showed him that many e-cigs look absolutely nothing like cigarettes, I think a light went on for him. I think that he knows this regulation will be challenged in courts and that it is unlikely to stand--the entire board seems *mostly* aware that there is no scientific rationale for this move, but only 4 (of 8 as I counted, but still not a majority...I'm still unsure why it went down as a 4-6 vote when there were only 8 board members at the podium) voted to remove the ban when Chair Patterson came out against it saying that she thought that "maintaining the social norm" was more important. (Nevermind that the "social norm" they are protecting is that smokers are second class citizens)
I think my favorite moment was as Member Nicola was getting ready to leave....I was kinda on a roll at this point--too bad I didn't have an opportunity to say this to the rest of the BoH. Even though he'd been mostly on our "side" all morning, I saw a look of stunned realization when I told him a bit about how I quit smoking *accidentally* and then explained: "The idea that e-cigarettes could possibly encourage children and nonsmokers to start smoking is preposterous. First there is no evidence that children are even interested in electronic cigarettes (the CASAA and Etter surveys tell a VERY different story) in the first place. But even if a they tried an e-cigarette, there is really no reason why they would use nicotine if they aren't addicted it only gives it a "peppery" flavor that a non-smoker would not appreciate. ...Even if they did use nicotine, there is no reason to expect them to become addicted since research shows that Nicotine without the reinforcing properties of MAOIs in smoke is not particularly habit forming--that's why you don't hear about people getting addicted to nicotine from NRTs. And even if they DID develop a nicotine addiction, there is no reason to think that someone who was attracted to the flavors available in e-cigs would have any interested in the burning taste of smoke."
I am still pretty sad about the whole thing. I'm feeling a little embarassed for being nervous and stumbling over my words, but moreso I am embarassed for the King County Board of Health. I'm kicking myself for not speaking out of turn a few times to straighten them out...but all is not lost in King County. This issue has gathered enough attention that I think a legal challenge is inevitable, and this poor excuse for a regulation has no basis in science so I don't think it can hold up against any scrutiny. In the final analysis, they have passed a worthless "ban" that will not stand up to scrutiny and their only real rationale is that "maintaining the social norm". Apparently, "denormalizing" smokers is more important than giving them a reason to use a smoke-free alternatives.
I suspect that the best way to fight against this worthless ban is to jump all over the bannedwagon until it falls apart! If enough people in King County start calling in to complain about establishments not doing anything to stop people from vaping, eventually they'll have to investigate and the lunacy of this regulation will be made plain. (Keep in mind this regulation does not actually impose any fines on the person using the "electronic smoking device" but rather a warning, then a $100/day fine for property managers who allow it to happen. It could be fun to watch them try: "Sir, you need to put out that electronic smoking device." "What electronic smoking device? All I have is this smokeless tobacco product in my pocket. I didn't smoke anything. Prove me wrong." Or as a Chris Snowden so eloquently put it: "Sue me, fatso."
When I mentioned that this "regulation" doesn't technically include non-electric vaping devices like the Ploom (which reminds me that I forgot to retrieve my Ploom from security after the meeting.
Ironic that they kept that one, had a really hard time understanding that the battery on my Inferno PT doesn't have any secret compartments, but didn't bat an eye at my bigger mods..go figure!) and showed him that many e-cigs look absolutely nothing like cigarettes, I think a light went on for him. I think that he knows this regulation will be challenged in courts and that it is unlikely to stand--the entire board seems *mostly* aware that there is no scientific rationale for this move, but only 4 (of 8 as I counted, but still not a majority...I'm still unsure why it went down as a 4-6 vote when there were only 8 board members at the podium) voted to remove the ban when Chair Patterson came out against it saying that she thought that "maintaining the social norm" was more important. (Nevermind that the "social norm" they are protecting is that smokers are second class citizens)I think my favorite moment was as Member Nicola was getting ready to leave....I was kinda on a roll at this point--too bad I didn't have an opportunity to say this to the rest of the BoH. Even though he'd been mostly on our "side" all morning, I saw a look of stunned realization when I told him a bit about how I quit smoking *accidentally* and then explained: "The idea that e-cigarettes could possibly encourage children and nonsmokers to start smoking is preposterous. First there is no evidence that children are even interested in electronic cigarettes (the CASAA and Etter surveys tell a VERY different story) in the first place. But even if a they tried an e-cigarette, there is really no reason why they would use nicotine if they aren't addicted it only gives it a "peppery" flavor that a non-smoker would not appreciate. ...Even if they did use nicotine, there is no reason to expect them to become addicted since research shows that Nicotine without the reinforcing properties of MAOIs in smoke is not particularly habit forming--that's why you don't hear about people getting addicted to nicotine from NRTs. And even if they DID develop a nicotine addiction, there is no reason to think that someone who was attracted to the flavors available in e-cigs would have any interested in the burning taste of smoke."
I am still pretty sad about the whole thing. I'm feeling a little embarassed for being nervous and stumbling over my words, but moreso I am embarassed for the King County Board of Health. I'm kicking myself for not speaking out of turn a few times to straighten them out...but all is not lost in King County. This issue has gathered enough attention that I think a legal challenge is inevitable, and this poor excuse for a regulation has no basis in science so I don't think it can hold up against any scrutiny. In the final analysis, they have passed a worthless "ban" that will not stand up to scrutiny and their only real rationale is that "maintaining the social norm". Apparently, "denormalizing" smokers is more important than giving them a reason to use a smoke-free alternatives.
I suspect that the best way to fight against this worthless ban is to jump all over the bannedwagon until it falls apart! If enough people in King County start calling in to complain about establishments not doing anything to stop people from vaping, eventually they'll have to investigate and the lunacy of this regulation will be made plain. (Keep in mind this regulation does not actually impose any fines on the person using the "electronic smoking device" but rather a warning, then a $100/day fine for property managers who allow it to happen. It could be fun to watch them try: "Sir, you need to put out that electronic smoking device." "What electronic smoking device? All I have is this smokeless tobacco product in my pocket. I didn't smoke anything. Prove me wrong." Or as a Chris Snowden so eloquently put it: "Sue me, fatso."
Wow several thoughts are running through my mind right now- among them is how the hell did hear nothing about this? & I really should check the forums more often. But the main thought I am having is Thank God I'm in Jefferson County.
After yesterdays announcement from the Gov. about ending our Basic Health thus leaving thousands without health insurance (myself included) hearing about the King County ban has left me with a bit of a defeatist attitude- But give me a day or two to bounce back and I'll jump in with both feet and fight.
This means too much to me to sit back and do nothing.
After yesterdays announcement from the Gov. about ending our Basic Health thus leaving thousands without health insurance (myself included) hearing about the King County ban has left me with a bit of a defeatist attitude- But give me a day or two to bounce back and I'll jump in with both feet and fight.
This means too much to me to sit back and do nothing.
Thanks All who took the time to go! I would of loved to meet some of the People on the board. And I applaud you all for your efforts. I really just started my PV journey and I'm learning a lot here at e-cig. We have lost the battle but not the war. I don't mean to sound medieval.... I'm with Kalekona another hard blow for Washington, the state is great it's the government that sucks.
I noticed the following comment and thought some would find it amusing.
Posted by Cameron08 (12/16/2010 11:31 p.m.)
Well since you felt compelled to remove the earlier post I will repeat it. King County and Seattle host Hempfest for three days a year in absolute defiance of all smoking and drug laws. What is the Department of health's response?....Silence. Political and moral cowards. If it was Cigarfest would they get the same treatment? Health department you are a JOKE.
Above comment on page 6: Click Here
View all comments: Click Here
The overwhelming numbers of comments are “anti” King County
and most are very amusing.
I posted a couple of my typical (less than politically correct) comments
for no other reason than to relieve some tension.
Posted by Cameron08 (12/16/2010 11:31 p.m.)
Well since you felt compelled to remove the earlier post I will repeat it. King County and Seattle host Hempfest for three days a year in absolute defiance of all smoking and drug laws. What is the Department of health's response?....Silence. Political and moral cowards. If it was Cigarfest would they get the same treatment? Health department you are a JOKE.
Above comment on page 6: Click Here
View all comments: Click Here
The overwhelming numbers of comments are “anti” King County
and most are very amusing.
I posted a couple of my typical (less than politically correct) comments
for no other reason than to relieve some tension.
+1 for Petrodus (and others) comments to Thulium, you've done a great job!!!
I watch these things from the other side of the globe because I know that we will be faced with similar challenges.
I'm presently in dialogue with our own ACCC (Australian Consumer & Competition Commission) re the article last week in Victorian newspapers. The information that you and others from the forum provide is invaluable!!
I know these guys in my professional capacity. They have no sense of humour when it comes to regulation. I want to ensure that our suppliers are complying with our unique circumstances.
Good fortune & Cheers
I watch these things from the other side of the globe because I know that we will be faced with similar challenges.
I'm presently in dialogue with our own ACCC (Australian Consumer & Competition Commission) re the article last week in Victorian newspapers. The information that you and others from the forum provide is invaluable!!
I know these guys in my professional capacity. They have no sense of humour when it comes to regulation. I want to ensure that our suppliers are complying with our unique circumstances.
Good fortune & Cheers
Thad you're too hard on your self. If you wanted to hear stumbling, listen to David Fleming again. He didn't seem well versed on all the ?non-profit?"health" association propaganda.
The reason you were confused on the vote was that the BOH is made up of 10 members meaning that two weren't at the meeting. I was wondering about that since this was a "special" meeting held on the regular monthly meeting date, third Thursday of the month, but not held at the normal 2:30PM time slot. Do you know if Joe McDermott was there? He, along with the chair, Julia Patterson and vice chair, Kathy Lambert, get 2 votes compared to everyone else. Why? who knows. I know those two were the most "social engineering" vocal during the discussion. So the vote on the amendment was 4-4 with the deciding votes coming from the two that got additional leverage on what's going on. It seems strange to me if Joe had been there and he voted with the other two in a block with only eight members of the board there. The three would have outvoted the other five, 6-5 on any issue. What a way to run an legislative body.
One other thing, they mentioned that there was a PM E Cig there, was that true? If so, did you get a look at it?
The reason you were confused on the vote was that the BOH is made up of 10 members meaning that two weren't at the meeting. I was wondering about that since this was a "special" meeting held on the regular monthly meeting date, third Thursday of the month, but not held at the normal 2:30PM time slot. Do you know if Joe McDermott was there? He, along with the chair, Julia Patterson and vice chair, Kathy Lambert, get 2 votes compared to everyone else. Why? who knows. I know those two were the most "social engineering" vocal during the discussion. So the vote on the amendment was 4-4 with the deciding votes coming from the two that got additional leverage on what's going on. It seems strange to me if Joe had been there and he voted with the other two in a block with only eight members of the board there. The three would have outvoted the other five, 6-5 on any issue. What a way to run an legislative body.
One other thing, they mentioned that there was a PM E Cig there, was that true? If so, did you get a look at it?
Thanks "Mate" for your comments and observations
A lot of food for thought...
We should never loose sight of the Global war for Freedoms. It truly is a small world.
We all bring to the table our talents and offer what we can to benefit our cause. Many (including myself) wish we had the communication skills of Bill, Kristin, and others.
We all can participate when the opposition raises their snake heads posting articles with lies and misinformation. We participate by posting Comments and sending emails to the editors. Obviously, posting comments gets the truth out there.
Keep in mind the Internet search engines archive, not only the ECF threads, but also the comments we make on the Anti articles. Truth will get out there! The more active we are with contributing comments the better.
In time less will print articles with misinformation and lies...Knowing full well the ECF and others will overwhelm the Comments section and send emails to the authors pointing out the truth.
Post lies and misinformation…OK. We believe in Freedom of Speech. But they will not be able to do so and sit back all smiley face and smug with a sense of immunity.
I’ll never be able to see another anti e-cig article with out
hearing Kristin’s voice…"Go get 'em guys"
The fight in King County continues...
Proof positive: Posting Comment makes a difference
Below is a copy of a comment just posted
Posted by pessimist at 12/17/2010 10:57 a.m.
Cigarettes killed both my parents early, and nastily. I would love to have been able to buy them ecigarettes, to help them quit, after reading posts that they work pretty good at helping people quit.
I have two employees who smoke; this avenue for them to quit has been taken from them by the King County Health department. After I get done writing this, I am getting on the phone to find out where I can direct an email to complain about this ruling.
The rest of you might consider doing the same. I have read your eloquence, bravo, bravo; now try it out on the officials at the King County Health Department.
We can change this, as citizens, if we complain loudly enough.
Above comment on page 6: Click Here
View all comments: Click Here
Proof positive: Posting Comment makes a difference
Below is a copy of a comment just posted
Posted by pessimist at 12/17/2010 10:57 a.m.
Cigarettes killed both my parents early, and nastily. I would love to have been able to buy them ecigarettes, to help them quit, after reading posts that they work pretty good at helping people quit.
I have two employees who smoke; this avenue for them to quit has been taken from them by the King County Health department. After I get done writing this, I am getting on the phone to find out where I can direct an email to complain about this ruling.
The rest of you might consider doing the same. I have read your eloquence, bravo, bravo; now try it out on the officials at the King County Health Department.
We can change this, as citizens, if we complain loudly enough.
Above comment on page 6: Click Here
View all comments: Click Here
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Instead of posting comments on the news article at King County bans public e-cigarette smoking (there's already 90 comments posted), I suggest folks go to Letters to the Editor | seattlepi.com and send a letter to the editor of the newspaper (but no more than 600 words).
Regarding the comment by Thad (Thulium) about a lawsuit, while I'm not a lawyer, it appears to me that the only way someone could successfully sue the King County BOH is if they can prove to the court that the regulation actually harmed them (i.e. an e-cigarette consumer or business would have to be fined by the health department for violating the regulation, or an e-cigarette vendor would have to demonstrate that the regulation harmed their business).
But if the King County Health Department doesn't issue any fines against anyone for violating the regulation, it is unlikely that anyone will sue the BOH.
Probably a better way to get the BOH to rescind the regulation is to:
- Expose the many false statements in the BOH regulation,
- Publicly criticize, ridicule and mock the BOH,
- Flaunt the new regulation, and
- Find out which politician (e.g. county executive) appointed the BOH members in Seattle/King County, and urge them to replace the 6 who voted against the amendment to eliminate that clause from the regualtion (and also urge them to rescind it).
Regarding the comment by Thad (Thulium) about a lawsuit, while I'm not a lawyer, it appears to me that the only way someone could successfully sue the King County BOH is if they can prove to the court that the regulation actually harmed them (i.e. an e-cigarette consumer or business would have to be fined by the health department for violating the regulation, or an e-cigarette vendor would have to demonstrate that the regulation harmed their business).
But if the King County Health Department doesn't issue any fines against anyone for violating the regulation, it is unlikely that anyone will sue the BOH.
Probably a better way to get the BOH to rescind the regulation is to:
- Expose the many false statements in the BOH regulation,
- Publicly criticize, ridicule and mock the BOH,
- Flaunt the new regulation, and
- Find out which politician (e.g. county executive) appointed the BOH members in Seattle/King County, and urge them to replace the 6 who voted against the amendment to eliminate that clause from the regualtion (and also urge them to rescind it).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
