Email from King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert

[Demarko]

Pretty generic response, but not as lame as the one from the head:

December 23, 2010

Dear _____,

Thank you for contacting King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert regarding the recent action by the Board of Health to regulate the use of electronic cigarettes. As a member of the Board of Health, she reviewed this proposal and found many concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes that remain unanswered.

In particular, she supports restricting the availability of electronic nicotine delivery devices to those at least 18 years old, which is the same as restrictions on tobacco products. This regulation bans the sale of these devices to youth younger than age 18 to discourage nicotine use and addiction.

Because of the many unanswered questions about the safety of these new, unregulated electronic products, the Board of Health agreed to take this step while federal authorities continue to review these products and determine how they should be regulated.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact Councilmember Lambert about this issue. Please keep us informed about your concerns and contact us any time we can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Grace Reamer
Legislative Aide
King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert

District 3
(206) 296-0331
grace.reamer@kingcounty.gov

This email and any response to it constitute a public record and may be subject to public disclosure.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Same e-mail from her.

I think she was one of the 4 people who voted to amend the legislation to only ban sales to people under 18.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Don't you just love pouring heart, soul and energy into reaching out to the mind of someone who's fixing to affect your life without your approval or consent and getting a form letter for your trouble?

 

[esdel]

Well she's obviously staying away from the board's main stated reason for the ban (people will see someone vaping and think it's OK to smoke). I'd like to know what all these "unanswered questions" about safety are.

 

[rothenbj]

"while federal authorities continue to review these products and determine how they should be regulated."

Don't see much review happening. If the contributed to IVAQS we'd have some solid info on second hand vape but I don't think they want that. Probably a couple hundred hours less lawyer time and they could have funded the whole project.

 

[hairball]

Don't you just love getting automated responses? Typical of any government on all levels.

 

[Vocalek]

"while federal authorities continue to review these products and determine how they should be regulated."

Don't see much review happening. If the contributed to IVAQS we'd have some solid info on second hand vape but I don't think they want that. Probably a couple hundred hours less lawyer time and they could have funded the whole project.

If by "federal authorities" the council members mean the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and by "review these products" they mean subject the products to scientific study, they are sadly mistaken. The council members appear to be ignorant of the court case going on between Sottera Inc. (dba NJOY) and the FDA. Had they read any of the courts' opinion documents, they would know the following:

Two levels of the federal court system, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Appeals Court, have stated that:

• The FDA has no authority to regulate electronic cigarettes under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.
• The FDA has failed to produce evidence showing that electronic cigarettes “harmed anyone.”
• The FDA has authority under the Tobacco Act to regulate electronic cigarettes, enabling it to mitigate or perhaps extinguish any harm to public health.

If there were any potential harm to users or bystanders, the FDA would have produced evidence to the courts. Rather than proceeding to regulate e-cigarettes under the Tobacco Act, the FDA stubbornly insists on wasting time and taxpayer money on legal costs and court fees filing one appeal after another.

NJOY's response to the FDA's request to the appeals court sheds light on the FDA's possible motive.

Finally, the FDA’s repeated assertions of unfounded claims of supposed threats to public health should remove any doubt that the FDA’s end game in asserting jurisdiction to regulate electronic cigarettes under the FDCA is securing the ability to ban electronic cigarettes. Whatever the agency’s policy preferences, this Court correctly recognized that Congress has not given it that far-reaching authority.

Feel free to use any or all of the above text in your response to Ms. Lambert.

 

[Luisa]

Pretty generic response, but not as lame as the one from the head:

DEMARKO,you are in the council members" district. Could you reply to her using all of Volkaleks" suggestions on this thread? Lambert sounds a little more sensible than Patterson. She or her Legislative Aide might actually read it and who knows--it might have a good effect. It is worth a try.

 

[Demarko]

DEMARKO,you are in the council members" district. Could you reply to her using all of Volkaleks" suggestions on this thread? Lambert sounds a little more sensible than Patterson. She or her Legislative Aide might actually read it and who knows--it might have a good effect. It is worth a try.

The very first email I got before they got swamped was from a live person - before the vote. I was thinking of mailing them personally as well. I'm working on drafting something up, and brainstorming it. Suggestions more than welcome!

 

[CBiz]

This is the email that I recieved from Julia Patterson.

Thank you for your email regarding the recently adopted e-cigarette regulations. As Chair of the Board of Health, I carefully reviewed the proposal and am confident that the unanimous Board decision is in the best interest of the public.

The new regulations do not ban the adult use of e-cigarettes in King County. Instead, the regulations:
·restrict the sales of e-cigarettes or any other unapproved nicotine delivery devices only to people 18 and older;
prohibit free or highly discounted electronic smoking devices or unapproved nicotine delivery products;
prohibit the use of e-cigarette devices in places where smoking is prohibited by law.

I support efforts to discourage youth from using nicotine devices such as e-cigarettes. In a recent test in Spokane County, 28 of 31 attempts to purchase e-cigarettes by minors were successful. These devices are sold in convenience stores and mall kiosks and come in candy flavors, making them even more tempting for youth. The FDA has warned that e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead youth to try conventional tobacco products. The new regulations ban the sale of these devices to youth under 18 in an attempt to discourage nicotine use.

The new regulations also prohibit the use of e-cigarette devices in places where smoking is prohibited by law. E-cigarettes are virtually indistinguishable from the use of traditional tobacco products in public, increasing the likelihood that people will break the law by lighting up cigarettes because they see what appears to be someone smoking. This results in more people being exposed to secondhand smoke, which the Surgeon General recently announced has immediate health impacts. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack.

The Board of Health convened a Tobacco Policy committee in June 2010 to review the evidence and develop new tobacco policies that respond to current policy opportunities and disparities in King County. The recent e-cigarette regulations were endorsed by the committee members.
There are many unanswered questions about the safety of these unregulated, black market e-cigarette products. The Board of Health took a reasonable step to protect youth in King County while federal authorities continue to look into these products.

Thank you again for your email. Please feel free to contact me with additional questions regarding this or any other matter in King County.

Sincerely,
King County Councilmember Julia Patterson – District 5

 

[Vocalek]

This is the email that I recieved from Julia Patterson.


[SNIP]

The new regulations also prohibit the use of e-cigarette devices in places where smoking is prohibited by law. E-cigarettes are virtually indistinguishable from the use of traditional tobacco products in public, increasing the likelihood that people will break the law by lighting up cigarettes because they see what appears to be someone smoking.

[SNIP]

Sincerely,
King County Councilmember Julia Patterson – District 5[/I]

Apparently they have smarter inspectors in Iowa.

"The customer that complained didn't think it was fair that somebody gets to smoke an electric cigarette inside, and they can't smoke a regular cigarette," said Paul Anderson, Owner of Firehouse Bar.

In addition to complaints from envious smokers, people could easily mistake e–cigarettes for regular cigarettes.

Should a complaint come, the Department of Health says its investigators are trained to tell the difference between real and electronic cigarettes.

Legal To Smoke Electronic Cigarettes Indoors