Dear Illinois, [Please Chime In, Guys]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Belletrist

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 21, 2009
2,756
1
Virginia
I'm hoping (well, I'm reasonably certain, actually) that V4L is planning their strategy to oppose the potential ban on distribution of e-cigarettes/related in their home state. Of course I think letters and phone calls are good; I also think it helps to share our messages to IL here--with V4L. Our messages might not seem like much ammunition as individuals, and even flooding the officials there might not seem like enough. But maybe they can also help V4L in their plans--or at least, cheer the guys and gals on. ;)

So, yeah. Please post your take on the ban, here, in a relatively organized way, so that V4L's people can better represent us, their customers, when they oppose the ban and in doing so better represent themselves.

eta: Contact info for Governor Quinn: http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm


Dear Governor Quinn,

I'm not a constituent. I'm not a resident of Illinois. I've never voted for you, and I'll probably never have an opportunity to.

So I can only appeal to you as one human being to another.

The Senate just voted on a bill that, if passed by the House, will effectively ban the distribution of e-cigarettes by companies in your fine state and to the citizens of that state.

Please veto this ban.

I understand the wording of the ban; I understand that it addresses the fact that there is concern regarding nicotine containing products which are classified neither as tobacco products nor as FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy or similar.

I understand that grey-area products containing an addictive substance can raise concern. But I ask that this concern generate interest in learning the truth, rather than what looks like a knee-jerk reaction in the form of an outright ban.

E-cigarettes don't fall into a neat category yet, legally. But considering the issues surrounding nicotine addiction in this country as a whole, I think there's room for a new category, don't you?

The dangers of tobacco smoking can't be overestimated. The success rates of traditional nicotine replacement therapy are dismal. I believe that alternatives to these two extremes can transform the way nicotine addiction affects the citizens of the United States, including the citizens of Illinois, in a way that is dramatically beneficial for our collective well-being.

Maybe it's too early to know that--it's too early, perhaps, to prove it. But if state bans like this one are put into effect, we may never find out.

You have an opportunity here, Governor Quinn, to truly win one for the little guy. Powerful lobbies on all sides will benefit from a ban that affects e-cigarettes, whereas I, personally, cannot even offer you my vote. It's a fact I'm painfully aware of--just as I'm painfully aware of the fact that if e-cigarette bans sweep the country, I'll be lighting up again. So will my mom. My cousin. My husband. And many citizens of Illinois.

Please take that opportunity to do what relatively few politicians seem to have time for. Win one for us.

And yes, I have a personal interest in how the ban affects Illinois in particular. My very first package containing an e-cigarette starter quit--the package which contained such an effective alternative to smoking that I have never looked back--came postmarked from your state.

This ban affects real people, their health, their well-being, their life expectancies, Mr. Governor. Please, please understand that.

Thank you,

Belle X
Cross Junction, VA
 
Last edited:

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
Thanks Belle, very well said. Could the best addresses be posted in here, and guidelines, to make it easy for everyone to do the same? What if that letter, or something like it, were made into a petition, circulated throughout the forum at large, and sent with many signatures? CASAA is probably doing that; I haven't had time to check yet. Someone else would know better than I what's most effective. I wish I were more optimistic. I was for a bit, on the fed level, but the plan seems to be that each state bankrupts the businesses or forces a move (I live in NY, receipt of products could soon be banned as well as sales), and if that happens there won't be anywhere left to relocate - it's clever. Lots of power and $ to tip the scale. Excellent letter, in any case.
 

Belletrist

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 21, 2009
2,756
1
Virginia
absolutely, angus. i'm not implying that i only care about v4l by posting in this subforum, just hoping to motivate the super-active crew here... and yeah, i started with v4l, quit smoking thanks to one of their business cards that kismet put in my path, too.

it just sux. :( i'll certainly try to (and probably succeed at) continuing to vape, bans be damned, but... i'd really like to do it with pretty batteries and without having to distill my own nicotine, heh.
 

CES

optimistic cynic
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 25, 2010
22,181
61,133
Birmingham, Al
I'm willing to jump on this bandwagon.....


Dear Governor Quinn,
While I understand the desire for regulation to make sure that e-cigs are made to reputable standards, as well as the need to make sure that e-cigs are not available to minors. I strongly urge you to withhold support for proposed legislation banning the sale of e-cigs. I am not a currently a resident of Illinois, but I wanted to add my voice to those who wish for you to have enough evidence to make a fully informed decision about e-cigs. While the potential dangers of e-cigs have not yet been well studied, the proper comparison is to the known dangers inhaling the products of combustion, due to the over 4000 chemicals and known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. I suspect that your first thoughts in response to this letter are that there are so many approved products, I should be able to use one of them. NRTs are woefully ineffective. Chantix, a partial agonist for high affinity nicotine receptors, has major side effects, as does Zyban. The anti-nicotine vaccine that is currently in fast track clinical trials sequesters the nicotine bound by the antibodies in other tissues of the body with unknown consequences. The limited studies that have been done suggest that the dangers of e-cigs are comparable to NRTs. Reading of the studies, including the study publicized by the FDA, demonstrates this. In fact, the FDA strongly misrepresented the findings of the study that it publicized. Please read these carefully and as you consider your stance. For me, the transition to e-cigs was fairly easy, effective, and I have not smoked a combustible cigarette for more than 3 months. I have never been able to do this before. My blood pressure and hemoglobin levels have decreased, and I can now breathe deeply without coughing. Very strong anecdotal evidence shows me that I am not alone in this. Informal polls show that more than 80% of adults who have tried e-cigs have completely shifted from smoking combustible cigarettes.

I've also commented on the NY State bill, and sent a similar letter to the American Cancer Society.
 

Doña Waits

Full Member
Mar 15, 2010
13
0
Chicago
I really appreciate you guys appealing to Gov. Quinn, but we need people from IL to that. In all honesty, They don't give a damn about human beings that can't vote for them. We need people that can to voice their opposition and have the power both put them in office and take them out.

Dear Gov. Quinn,

I started smoking regular cigarettes when I was 14. I am now 26 and I have not had any success quitting until now! The personal vaporizer method has worked wonders for me. My lungs and over all well being has improved. The idea that this product is somehow more dangerous than traditional cigarettes is completely false. I attend Depaul University and I see students (much younger than I am) smoking cigarettes all the time.

To attempt to ban an alternative that have been such a huge success is ridiculous. These personal vaporizers are not dependent on nicotine. They are available in varying levels of nicotine. This allows for those addicted to nicotine to gradually and efficiently break their addiction nicotine. These personal vaporizers have the potential to save lives. They have the power to prevent others from becoming addicted to cigarettes that cause certain physical harm and threaten their lives.

I am a constituent of yours. I have the choice to vote for you or not. I will not vote for someone that does not have my best interest at heart. It is up to you.

Thank you,
Chicago Resident, 60608
 

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
Not so sure that those of us not living in Illinois have NO weight - sometimes sheer numbers are at least provocative. And state looks to state for precedent, and justification. So I also chimed in.

Mr Governor,

I'm not a resident of Illinois, but as a US citizen I share the concerns of citizens in every state, and am appealing to you as such.

I'm sure that you're aware of recent Senate passage in your state of a bill that would ban the distribution of e-cigarettes. As this issue is currently being decided through pending litigation at the federal level, I would urge you to remember that items defined as “tobacco products” are currently legal for anyone over the age of 18 in all states.

The recent federal ruling on this matter, which is awaiting further ruling on appeal, declared:

"(The e-cigarette companies in question) have sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has the FDA cited any evidence that electric cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."

In truth, there IS no such evidence. And there is much informal evidence to the contrary.

No reports of related health damage among users have been substantiated. No laboratory findings concluding that the parts and ingredients used in e-cigarettes (beyond readily available and legal nicotine) are more harmful than cigarettes exist. The effects of smoking traditional cigarettes are extremely well-documented.
There is also a very substantial and growing body of persuasive anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes can provide a truly desirable alternative.

To be consistent in its legislation, fair to citizens, and congruent with common sense, the state of Illinois would have to ban distribution of all cigarette distribution in Illinois along with this pending ban.

I applaud the balanced decision of the Governor of California, who vetoed similar legislation. He stated:
"While I support restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18, I cannot sign a measure that also declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is currently being decided through pending litigation. Items defined as “tobacco products” are legal for anyone over the age of 18. If adults want to
purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they
should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco
products."

E-cigarette users (virtually all of us are ex-smokers, and we are very grateful to be quit of the hundreds of known toxins delivered by burning tobacco and myriad additives) agree that minors should be prohibited from using any nicotine product. In my own avid perusal of many, many anecdotal reports in open internet forums, I have not yet encountered one person who was initiated into nicotine use by e-cigarettes, nor have I heard anyone promote that idea. (Theoretically it could happen, of course - but so could a child be initiated into alcohol use by tasting cherry flavored liquor. Many claims and arguments presented by those opposed to ecigarettes are hyperbolic, hysterical, ill-informed or shamelessly dishonest.) The numbers of persons on those forums who report that their health has benefited by replacing cigarette use is very impressive.


We're just ordinary people, many of whom who have either stopped or significantly cut down cigarettes and much prefer ecigs for a number of reasons, and we have seen family members and friends do the same. We hope most fervently that you will sensibly forbid minors to use this product, and then veto this bill if the House passes it.

Please take the time to inform yourself deeply on this somewhat complex issue, Mr Governor. Large corporate interests and lobby-choked governmental bodies have the experience, motive and money to override both good law and common sense. Small, very vigorous "prohibition" groups who want the use of nicotine banned altogether do not have avid general support, or the principles of civil liberty on their side.

This is not good bill, on numerous counts.

Sincerely,
 

curiousJan

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 20, 2009
887
696
Central IL
SB3174 - Amendment to the Tobacco Accessories and Smoking Herbs Control Act

Dear Governor Quinn,

I am writing to strongly urge you to veto this amendment if/when it comes to your desk. I have zero (0) opposition to requiring proof-of-age for the sale of nicotine containing products but am seriously disturbed by the rush to ban e-cigarettes/personal vaporizers/electronic nicotine inhalation equipment and supplies.

Allow me to provide a bit of background:
I began smoking when I was 17. I am now fast approaching 41. Over the 20+ years that I smoked combustible cigarettes, I tried multiple times using multiple FDA approved cessation products -- patches, gum, Wellbutrin, cold-turkey -- and _failed_ each and every time. The longest I was able to remain quit was a 2.5 year period that was motivated by my desire to provide a healthier role model for my child. The fact of the matter is, though, that I am one of the many people who utilize nicotine to address anxiety/depression and cognition issues. When I have an appropriate level of nicotine intake, I am more calm, have more patience, and am more able to think and communicate clearly ... without it I struggle.

Nicotine is a toxin, in sufficient concentration a dangerous one, but the same can be said for caffeine and alcohol. There are many, many things in this world that are dangerous to us as human beings. There is inherent danger in my getting in my car and driving to work every morning, but I still do it every day. There are necessary risks in the lives we lead, and it is our responsibility as adults to assess those risks and make necessary day-to-day decisions.

Please don't take my decision to embrace a potentially healthier alternative to combustion cigarettes away from me. I've followed the SE/NJOY vs. FDA case for a while now, and I want to take the time to ask that the 2009 FDA study's details be reviewed closely before blindly falling in line behind them. The FDA, in my honest opinion, is derelict in their stated mission in this particular case. They do not appear to be making decisions based upon concern for my health and that of other's using these devices. Apparently they are more concerned about control, the protection of Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical interests, and the free flow of the sin-tax monies that have been placed upon the backs of smokers for years.

I realize that these devices have yet to be proven 'safe', but is the FDA definition of safe the appropriate one to use in this case? The more appropriate comparison to determine safety for the devices is one made to combustible cigarettes. This device provides an alternative to inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, and thousands of other hazardous chemicals. Yes, more testing needs to be done in both the short and long-term. Short terms tests regarding the composition of the vapor should be performed. Long term tests regarding the health effects should be performed. Is it necessary to force me back to smoking combustibles while these things occur? I say no; there is ample anecdotal evidence regarding the 'safety' of these devices, yet no one making these decisions seems to be exploring it. I understand that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for hard scientific study results. The fact is it doesn't have to be as there are studies out there that support this as a reasonable alternative to smoking combustibles (links can be found at CASAA.org)

Again, I support age restrictions on the sale of nicotine, and I fully support the application of a reasonable level of tax on the purchase of nicotine containing products. I do not support them being taxed to the level of combustibles specifically due to the supporting reasoning used when those taxes were implemented, which were related to the severely detrimental health effects of smoking combustibles. Tax, yes; sin tax, certainly not.

I realize that this has been quite long, and I thank you for hearing me out. The proposed ban contained in SB3174 seems a knee-jerk reaction that hasn't been fully investigated and should not be passed. I'm very disappointed that my senate representative voted in favor of this bill and that has cost him my vote in the next election; I will be in contact with my house representative as he happens to be on the committee reviewing this bill currently and will be making that point to him as well. I voted for both of them in the last election and will be making my determination regarding my votes for each of you in the next election based heavily on how this matter is handled. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
<Real Name here>

Jan
 

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
(I'm not sure where we are in the "cessation" argument angle, as we'd be far better off if Leon's argument, which rests on the legality of "tobacco products", which no one is going to effectively challenge, takes the day.
But the cat is long out of the bag on that one.
Who gets ecigs? Philip Morris, Pfizer, or nobody?

FEH

Oh, Steve, I so much want to be optimistic...
 

Fishin' Cricket

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 29, 2010
107
10
Missouri, USA
I'm hoping (well, I'm reasonably certain, actually) that V4L is planning their strategy to oppose the potential ban on distribution of e-cigarettes/related in their home state. Of course I think letters and phone calls are good; I also think it helps to share our messages to IL here--with V4L. Our messages might not seem like much ammunition as individuals, and even flooding the officials there might not seem like enough. But maybe they can also help V4L in their plans--or at least, cheer the guys and gals on. ;)

So, yeah. Please post your take on the ban, here, in a relatively organized way, so that V4L's people can better represent us, their customers, when they oppose the ban and in doing so better represent themselves.

eta: Contact info for Governor Quinn: State of Illinois - Pat Quinn, Governor


Dear Governor Quinn,

I'm not a constituent. I'm not a resident of Illinois. I've never voted for you, and I'll probably never have an opportunity to.

So I can only appeal to you as one human being to another.

The Senate just voted on a bill that, if passed by the House, will effectively ban the distribution of e-cigarettes by companies in your fine state and to the citizens of that state.

Please veto this ban.

I understand the wording of the ban; I understand that it addresses the fact that there is concern regarding nicotine containing products which are classified neither as tobacco products nor as FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy or similar.

I understand that grey-area products containing an addictive substance can raise concern. But I ask that this concern generate interest in learning the truth, rather than what looks like a knee-jerk reaction in the form of an outright ban.

E-cigarettes don't fall into a neat category yet, legally. But considering the issues surrounding nicotine addiction in this country as a whole, I think there's room for a new category, don't you?

The dangers of tobacco smoking can't be overestimated. The success rates of traditional nicotine replacement therapy are dismal. I believe that alternatives to these two extremes can transform the way nicotine addiction affects the citizens of the United States, including the citizens of Illinois, in a way that is dramatically beneficial for our collective well-being.

Maybe it's too early to know that--it's too early, perhaps, to prove it. But if state bans like this one are put into effect, we may never find out.

You have an opportunity here, Governor Quinn, to truly win one for the little guy. Powerful lobbies on all sides will benefit from a ban that affects e-cigarettes, whereas I, personally, cannot even offer you my vote. It's a fact I'm painfully aware of--just as I'm painfully aware of the fact that if e-cigarette bans sweep the country, I'll be lighting up again. So will my mom. My cousin. My husband. And many citizens of Illinois.

Please take that opportunity to do what relatively few politicians seem to have time for. Win one for us.

And yes, I have a personal interest in how the ban affects Illinois in particular. My very first package containing an e-cigarette starter quit--the package which contained such an effective alternative to smoking that I have never looked back--came postmarked from your state.

This ban affects real people, their health, their well-being, their life expectancies, Mr. Governor. Please, please understand that.

Thank you,

Belle X
Cross Junction, VA

Pretty much exactly what I would have said.. Hope you don't mind if I cut and paste it and email it to the Illinois Governor and to all of my friends ad family in Illinois..
 

curiousJan

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 20, 2009
887
696
Central IL
(I'm not sure where we are in the "cessation" argument angle, as we'd be far better off if Leon's argument, which rests on the legality of "tobacco products", which no one is going to effectively challenge, takes the day.

Which is why I went to great lengths to use "alternative to combustibles" ... hope it's worth something!!

Jan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread