Ecig ban in public places looming in Michigan County.

[Linden]

Genesee County looks at restricting use of electronic cigarettes | MLive.com

This is also the home of Ahlusion. I will be contacting Vlad after this.

 

[Eric A. Blair]

I am not sure that my fellow vapors understand the enemy.

This is a racket and nicotine is the drug. Big government wants tax money from the sale of cigarettes. Big Pharma wants 700% profits on the sale of flavored gum and candy with nicotine. We are stuck in the middle of a gang battle between the bloods and Crips.

They read these blogs. They read ECF. You have to know your enemy. And for them we are the enemy. We are standing between them and billions of dollars.

They think that the same tired bans will coerce sheeple to Either give their money to the government by going to 7-11 and buying cigarettes or give their money to big pharmaceutical companies by buying cherry flavored Nicorette gum.

I have said it before and I will say it again… These vaping bans are meaningless and laughable.

It's odorless so nobody can stop you from vaping in your office or a hotel room. You don't even have to exhale any vapor. If you are in a restaurant just inhale the vapor and hold it in for two seconds.

I don't care what any of these part-time state legislators/realtors/personal injury lawyers do.

My health and my freedom is not subject to negotiation.

 

[Jonibrasco]

Im from michigan. The comments on that article are great. 99% of the people on there support vaping including non smokers!

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

[auTONYmous]

I'll be attending any public meetings they hold about this. The proposal reeks of misinformation, not to mention the commissioner is a known opponent of smoking on any form. I'm pretty sure they might be interested in hearing something besides his misguided vitriol lumping vaping in with the perceived harm of 2nd-hand smoke

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[2coils]

Quoted from the article:
"We're investigating, legally what are our options (and) what's been done in other jurisdictions."

I have a novel idea, legally, do nothing and leave us alone!

Another Quote:
"We can't prevent it from being made. We can't prevent it from being sold. But we can prevent it from being used" in some places, Bailey said. "I think we need to take a look at this. I think it's our time to step up."

Classic power trip from governments finest! They gotta show us who is boss!

 

[rothenbj]

Quoted from the article:
"We're investigating, legally what are our options (and) what's been done in other jurisdictions."

I have a novel idea, legally, do nothing and leave us alone!

Another Quote:
"We can't prevent it from being made. We can't prevent it from being sold. But we can prevent it from being used" in some places, Bailey said. "I think we need to take a look at this. I think it's our time to step up."

Classic power trip from governments finest! They gotta show us who is boss!

Yup, not a word about the health reasons for needing to control, just the power to control.

 

[Eric A. Blair]

I'll be attending any public meetings they hold about this. The proposal reeks of misinformation, not to mention the commissioner is a known opponent of smoking on any form. I'm pretty sure they might be interested in hearing something besides his misguided vitriol lumping vaping in with the perceived harm of 2nd-hand smoke

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

You are their worst enemy. Crony capitalists and special interest groups get their way because regular people are too busy to say anything.

 

[auTONYmous]

Yup, not a word about the health reasons for needing to control, just the power to control.

This is exactly why I'm going. I'm pretty certain if nobody poses the point that there is no scientific proof of health danger from 2nd-hand nicotine inhalation (and there is currently none, and 2nd-hand smoking studies never accounted for nicotine itself, only cancerous smoke), then the health board needs to be reminded that crafting legislation at this point is jumping the gun in a damaging way to public freedom.

 

[Linden]

I'll be attending any public meetings they hold about this. The proposal reeks of misinformation, not to mention the commissioner is a known opponent of smoking on any form. I'm pretty sure they might be interested in hearing something besides his misguided vitriol lumping vaping in with the perceived harm of 2nd-hand smoke

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Sounds like the meeting is sometime next week. There is a posting regarding that information in the comments section.
"The Genesee County Board of Health will be the first group to consider any recommendations on electronic cigarettes.
The group's first meeting of the year is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Jan. 28, in the library of the county Health Department, which is located in the McCree Health & Human Services Building, 630 S. Saginaw St., Flint."

 

[2coils]

This is exactly why I'm going. I'm pretty certain if nobody poses the point that there is no scientific proof of health danger from 2nd-hand nicotine inhalation (and there is currently none, and 2nd-hand smoking studies never accounted for nicotine itself, only cancerous smoke), then the health board needs to be reminded that crafting legislation at this point is jumping the gun in a damaging way to public freedom.

Thank you in advance for going. May I suggest bringing materials to validate your points? Involved Citizens is "their' biggest threat! Thanks agian

 

[auTONYmous]

Sounds like the meeting is sometime next week. There is a posting regarding that information in the comments section.
"The Genesee County Board of Health will be the first group to consider any recommendations on electronic cigarettes.
The group's first meeting of the year is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Jan. 28, in the library of the county Health Department, which is located in the McCree Health & Human Services Building, 630 S. Saginaw St., Flint."

That's next Tuesday, to be exact. Already cleared my calendar. I've talked to the guys from Wild Bills in Burton who were interviewed by ABC12 yesterday. Just happened to stop in their 10 minutes after the camera crew left.

I hope to get their regional manager and someone from Ahlusion to join me next week at the meeting.

 

[440BB]

Subscribed to this thread. I'm about an hour away and will try to make the time to be present for the meetings. This is ridiculous, based on ignorance and lobbying by big pharma, I expect. Our work in Michigan is just beginning, and I hope it can help get information and common sense in front of both the decision makers and the public.

 

[auTONYmous]

Thank you in advance for going. May I suggest bringing materials to validate your points? Involved Citizens is "their' biggest threat! Thanks agian

I'm open to any and all discussion here, as well as suggested materials, so that I may be fully prepared to present the load and clear voice of reason at this probable farce of a "meeting"

 

[2coils]

I'm open to any and all discussion here, as well as suggested materials, so that I may be fully prepared to present the load and clear voice of reason at this probable farce of a "meeting"

After work today, I will start going through some materials. Hopefully, someone from CASAA could chime in as well.

 

[2coils]

a good place to start..

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

I believe the Burstyn/CASAA study is now peer reviewed.

From Page 11 Exposure of bystanders to the listed ingredients, let alone the contaminants, does not warrant a concern as the
exposure is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than exposure experienced by vapers. Further research employing
realistic conditions could help quantify the quantity of exhaled aerosol and its behavior in the environment under
realistic worst-case scenarios (i.e., not small sealed chambers), but this is not a priority since the exposure experienced
by bystanders is clearly very low compared to the exposure of vapers, and thus there is no reason to expect it would
have any health effects.

 

[y cherry y]

Studies and Articles on the pluses of vaping and ecigs

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0066317

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2013.793439

http://www.la-press.com/evaluating-...d-patterns-of-electronic-cigare-article-a3858

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/EUROECHO2013-ecigs.pdf

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/12/7272

http://casaa.org/uploads/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

real world study of NRT use
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12429/abstract

http://casaa.org/uploads/Study_TSNAs_in_NJOY_Vapor.pdf

http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-t-kozlowski-phd/e-cigarettes_b_4550443.html

http://www.endsmoking.org.nz/IJCMecigsDepressionJuly2011.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358230

Casaa funded study
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460313003304

http://casaa.org/uploads/Totally_Wicked_Lab_report.pdf

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/10/1/19

CDC lies
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-cdc-abuses-facts-about-e-cigarettes.html
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-cdc-abuses-facts-about-e-cigarettes_11.html


http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/legacy-tells-truth-tobacco-harm.html

nicotine absorption
http://mattgluggles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/nicotine-equivalence-why-20mg-in-ecigs.html

passive vaping
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/do-e-cigarettes-cause-passive-vaping.html

http://acsh.org/2013/12/sad-destructive-embarrassing-anti-climax-e-cigarettes-nyc/

http://www.theparliament.com/latest...m-blog-gilbert-ross-ecigarettes/#.UtI3EmRDuBz

http://acsh.org/2013/11/new-study-shows-vaping-promotes-quitting-smokers-ex-smokers/

http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

List of THR experts to ask questions of
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/a-directory-of-tobacco-harm-reduction.html

 

[Sundodger]

All the positive links are a great thing, but, with meeting times usually limited you should make a list of the talking points that are negative that the ANTZ and their supporters MIGHT use. They will usually be the first to talk because it is on their behalf that the legislation is being proposed.
By making this list you can reference ahead of time on the list to the positive/opposite studies or opinions. As they go through their talking points you can highlight what was talked about, have your references ready. That way you aren't covering a bunch of stuff that might not even come up. Also saving time like this may indeed allow you extra time to bring out any major points that were not addressed.
Good luck!

 

[auTONYmous]

What I'd like to see is a real measurement of actual nicotine in airborne suspension for a cigarette compared to an e-cig. I get the feeling that's what this ban is seeking to demonize, but that's the proof that is actually lacking as well. Not knowing just yet what particular angle they're going to argue, I don't want to leave the "even airborne nicotine is bad" argument dangling.

Someone get me that, I'll send you some Dogecoin! (j/k, but I might)

Edit: Found something interesting - Safety of cotinine in humans: physiologic, subjective, and cognitive effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9258989

"This study demonstrates that short-term administration of cotinine to humans at levels as high as 10 times that attained from cigarette smoking is safe with no observable acute or withdrawal effects from cotinine in this setting."

Given that recent studies shows that SHS (second-hand-smoke) has approx 1/10th the nicotine of a directly inhaled cigarette, and that e-cigs emit approx 1/10 the amount of airborne nicotine as a cigarette, I'd say there's zero cause for alarm. Like 1/100 the the cause for alarm of tested safe levels of nicotine exposure.

And that number falls in line with the number of VOC's found in vape as well.

 

[auTONYmous]

Oh, and we know for sure the commissioner is looking to make a "Big Tobacco" statement, so I need to compile some industry figures pre and post-FDA vs. NJoy, since BT hadn't really bought into the industry until that case went downhill.

We're still using essentially the same devices and the same liquid concentrations since before BT ever made a dime directly, so the commissioner saying "I don't trust BT" doesn't hold water.

 

[Sundodger]

What I'd like to see is a real measurement of actual nicotine in airborne suspension for a cigarette compared to an e-cig. I get the feeling that's what this ban is seeking to demonize, but that's the proof that is actually lacking as well. Not knowing just yet what particular angle they're going to argue, I don't want to leave the "even airborne nicotine is bad" argument dangling.

Someone get me that, I'll send you some Dogecoin! (j/k, but I might)

Edit: Found something interesting - Safety of cotinine in humans: physiologic, subjective, and cognitive effects. Safety of cotinine in humans: physio... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

"This study demonstrates that short-term administration of cotinine to humans at levels as high as 10 times that attained from cigarette smoking is safe with no observable acute or withdrawal effects from cotinine in this setting."

Given that recent studies shows that SHS (second-hand-smoke) has approx 1/10th the nicotine of a directly inhaled cigarette, and that e-cigs emit approx 1/10 the amount of airborne nicotine as a cigarette, I'd say there's zero cause for alarm. Like 1/100 the the cause for alarm of tested safe levels of nicotine exposure.

And that number falls in line with the number of VOC's found in vape as well.

The Drexel study that 2coils linked gives a lot of information on what is in the air after vaping....basically nothing. Being that it is basically nothing I wouldn't worry about comparing it to a cig because it isn't a cig and is not comparable. But having that info on hand may help. Biggest thing is to have the info on what OSHA considers safe for an 8 hour work day, that's in the Drexel study.