E-Cig Ban/License Requirements Proposed in Boston!

[DC2]

You don't know how right you are, DC. So many bans on personal behavior start in this area.

I must say, though, many of them also start on your side of this land mass. We all have to find some kind of common line in the sand before the winds start to blow in the other direction. I fear things will get much, MUCH worse before they get better.

Fear not my friend on the other side of the country.
America IS starting to wake up to this crap.

We will turn things around.
And I think it may even be before I myself travel off to the Rainbow Bridge.

But then I'm only 46 so I think I have 30 years still to witness the turnaround.

Society is, and always has been a pendulum.
And it is definitely starting to swing the other way.

 

[Rickajho]

Here's the misinformation issued by the Boston Public Health Commission
Top Stories View

That release, and the "logic" behind it is such a load of (words I cannot say here.) To quote:

"The board also approved prohibiting the sale of low-cost, single-sale cigars that have become an attractive option for price-conscious youth looking for less expensive alternatives to cigarettes..."

What smoke are they blowing up which skirts? "Price-conscious youth" buy single-sale cigars to hollow them out, stuff them with weed, and smoke them. Hiding behind such politically correct garbage in a statement like that is the truth. And this is yet another example of why we cannot trust public officials - they simply cannot speak the truth.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

 

[rothenbj]

That release, and the "logic" behind is is such a load of (words I cannot say here.)......

I think the words that escaped you were, "Male Bovine Fecal Material".

 

[Rickajho]

I think the words that escaped you were, "Male Bovine Fecal Material".

Why yes, that would have sufficed. But you know - it's kinda hard to get your mind to jump into thesaurus mode when one is so... what you said.

 

[Tull]

From the Boston Globe today:

“A whole generation is not going to start using tobacco and nicotine products,’’ Margaret Reid, who oversees the commission’s tobacco control program, said in an interview after the vote. “Cheap cigars aren’t going to be cheap anymore, and unregulated nicotine products won’t be sold to kids.’’

This level of ignorance is unbelievable!!!

 

[Placebo Effect]

The National Center for Public Policy Research, a group at which Jeff Stier is a senior fellow, put out this press release:

For Release: December 2, 2011
Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org
David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org


ObamaCare-Funded Federal Program Leads to Crackdown on E-Cigarettes

Devices that Help Smokers Quit Smoking Now to Be Heavily Regulated in Boston

Which City is Next? Federal Program Funding Pro-Regulation Effort Set to Spend $2 Billion Tax Dollars a Year by 2015

Washington, D.C. - Following lobbying from the federal government through an effort funded by ObamaCare, the city of Boston voted Thursday to ban the use of e-cigarettes in workplaces and to impose other restrictive regulations on their use and sale.

To discuss this with Jeff Stier, Director of Risk Analysis at the National Center for Public Policy Research, who addresses below the controversy surrounding the new rule, contact Judy Kent at 703-759-7476 or David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727.

A Boston Globe story about the ban is available here: BostonGlobe.com Log In

A National Center story about the lobbying link to ObamaCare is available here: ObamaCare's Taxpayer-Funded Social.Engineering - Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog - A Conservative Blog

"Boston has now joined a small but growing list of cities that are forcing e-cigarette users, many of whom are ex-smokers, back into the smoking section based on nothing but pure hype and conjecture," says Stier. "The new rule will make it harder for those trying to quit smoking cigarettes with the help of the non-tobacco e-cigarettes."

"What's worse," says Stier, "is that federal money is paying localities to produce these regulations, and neither the Centers for Disease Control, nor the BPHC, have responded substantively to repeated written requests for the science behind the ruling."

Adds Stier, a tobacco policy expert who has frequently written on the topic, including recently with Gregory Conley for National Review Online, "There is no evidence whatsoever that e-cigarette vapors contain anything more harmful than small amounts of nicotine, which is not a carcinogen."

In National Review Online, Stier and Conley wrote, "Published surveys suggest that e-cigarettes have helped a significant number of people remain abstinent from traditional cigarettes." See the full NRO piece here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277484/war-e-cigarettes-jeff-stier

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Its 2010 revenue exceeded $12 million. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

 

[Uma]

Believing that kids would prefer a safer alternative tobacco product over the original is equivalent to believing that kids would prefer to drive Mom and Dad's Volvo station wagon over their Uncle's Ferrari.

 

[Drumonron]

Just wanted to jump in...been following this load of crap regulatory story and THIS is a horrible distortion of facts...I will continue to vape whereever I want...I'll just go to my special vaping place or hold it in my lungs a bit longer...To H*E*L*L with the regulatory whores of Boston.

OCCUPY ALL STREETS

 

[Vocalek]

People have a tendency to scoff at laws that make no sense or that were forced down their throats without true representation. I give you as examples, Prohibition, and "Stay Alive Drive 55."

So now they are passing anti-vaping laws and regulations that will also be ignored by a large segment of the affected population.

 

[DC2]

They are messing with the wrong people this time...

Smokers are 20% of the population, and if we can reach them, we will have a very loud minority voice.
And if we can successfully expose "them" for what they are, and loudly proclaim it from all rooftops, their house of cards will fall.

And with it, so too will fall their credibility.

If they know what's good for them, they will back off immediately, or we will crush them eventually.
And I will be proud to be in the minority that finally does them in.

It can happen, and it might very well happen.
Or is this just a dream I have?

 

[rothenbj]

From the Boston Globe today:



This level of ignorance is unbelievable!!!

Looks like it will be left to the underground to add new products to their inventory.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, there's an editorial up, but I can't read the whole thing, just as I can't read the entire Boston Globe article that was published yesterday.

Banned in Boston, for now - The Boston Globe

The Boston Globe wants people to pay for a subscription to access to their stories online. It's not as if there aren't a gazillion ads on the site...

 

[Placebo Effect]

Well, there's an editorial up, but I can't read the whole thing, just as I can't read the entire Boston Globe article that was published yesterday.

Banned in Boston, for now - The Boston Globe

The Boston Globe wants people to pay for a subscription to access to their stories online. It's not as if there aren't a gazillion ads on the site...

If you arrive at Boston Globe stories from Google News (i.e., search 'Boston e-cigarette'), you will be able to (or at least I can) read the stories for free.

Most of the blame, however, must rest on the manufacturers of the product itself, who have resisted efforts at regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration by labeling e-cigarettes as devices for smoking pleasure, not therapeutic devices for nicotine replacement. Boston Public Health commissioner Barbara Ferrer said the commission would reconsider the workplace ban if, and when, the products are thoroughly tested, regulated, and approved by the FDA.

. . .

The commission has good cause to take a wait-and-see attitude on the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes. But the doors of employers should be open to their use if e-cigarettes are found to be as safe as lozenges, gum, patches, and other forms of nicotine replacement.

 

[Luisa]

If you arrive at Boston Globe stories from Google News (i.e., search 'Boston e-cigarette'), you will be able to (or at least I can) read the stories for free.

Has she not read Judge Leons" ruling?!

 

[rothenbj]

That's a strong stance by the Health department, translated- "If the E Cig industry sells out their interests to BP, we will gladly acknowledge that they are "safe and effective" and we'll encourage their use anywhere and everywhere. In fact we may buy supplies and offer them to our citizens."

 

[Drumonron]

Banned in Boston, for now

December 03, 2011

Article
Discuss

Print
Reprints
E-mail
Share via e-mail

To

Add a message

Your e-mail
Cancel
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Essdras M Suarez/Globe Staff

PUBLIC HEALTH officials in Boston have been ahead of the curve with their aggressive efforts to curb smoking in the city. But the recent decision of the Boston Public Health Commission to forbid the use of battery-operated e-cigarettes in the workplace may unintentionally undermine the commission’s wider public health goals.

The e-cigarettes now catching on among some health-conscious smokers allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without fire, smoke, ash, or carbon monoxide. Unlike other nicotine replacement products, such as gum and patches, this one is shaped and manipulated like a cigarette, allowing users to better satisfy their cravings.

The research on the health effects of e-cigarettes is not exhaustive. The city’s Public Health Commission wisely required retailers to apply for permits to sell e-cigarettes. The commission also asked retailers to keep the product behind sales counters, and allow purchases only to people age 18 and above. But banning the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace could keep smokers ducking outside for their hourly fix instead of opting for a safer product.

Most of the blame, however, must rest on the manufacturers of the product itself, who have resisted efforts at regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration by labeling e-cigarettes as devices for smoking pleasure, not therapeutic devices for nicotine replacement. Boston Public Health commissioner Barbara Ferrer said the commission would reconsider the workplace ban if, and when, the products are thoroughly tested, regulated, and approved by the FDA.

Still, one member of the health commission, Harold Cox, thinks the workplace ban was too hasty. He pointed to public testimony from smokers who said that e-cigarettes helped them to quit. And he cites health advocates who find a dearth of evidence linking e-cigarettes to cancer or any other health risks normally associated with smoking.

The commission has good cause to take a wait-and-see attitude on the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes. But the doors of employers should be open to their use if e-cigarettes are found to be as safe as lozenges, gum, patches, and other forms of nicotine replacement.

 

[Vocalek]

The Globe published my Letter to the Editor.

E-cigarette makers have devised smoking substitute that works - Letters - The Boston Globe

 

[Bill Godshall]

An excellent editorial in the Boston Herald

City blowing smoke - BostonHerald.com

City Blowing Smoke

December 5, 2011

Just when we think the nanny state might be running out of overreaching ideas, the city of Boston moves to regulate electronic cigarettes, which contain nicotine but no tobacco, in the same way it does regular cigarettes. New regulations approved by the Boston Public Health Commission would ban their use in the workplace and restrict their sale to adults.

We’re expecting the Menino administration to pursue government regulation of candy cigarettes next.

Think we’re joking?

They contain sugar! They appeal to children! And we know how public health advocates feel about that.

Battery-operated e-cigarettes are designed to simulate the smoking experience, without the same harmful effects of inhaling tobacco. They produce nicotine in mist form, and some studies have suggested they contain cancer-causing ingredients (though in vastly smaller quantities than actual cigarettes). Many medical professionals recommend them as a smoking cessation tool.

And if public health officials want to keep them out of the hands of kids, well, we won’t put up a big fight about that (even though plenty of 16- and 17-year-olds may be looking for help quitting the habit).

But not a single study has determined that “second-hand nicotine,” which is apparently driving the city’s ban on their use in the workplace, poses a public health threat.

So in the absence of data we have . . . immediate government action!

The workplace ban amounts to a “just-in-case” regulation, and is entirely unjustified. It may even force some smokers back to the real deal if the nicotine fix isn’t available in the electronic form. Hey, doesn’t the commission have a pigsty encampment they could investigate?

 

[Running Wolf]

The Globe published my Letter to the Editor.

E-cigarette makers have devised smoking substitute that works - Letters - The Boston Globe

Way to go, and right on the money in your Op Ed piece!

 

[rothenbj]

The Globe published my Letter to the Editor.

E-cigarette makers have devised smoking substitute that works - Letters - The Boston Globe

Elaine, I had the same issue you had. I had to remove cookies to get in.