Fantastic initial success in illinois - more action needed next week.....

[Rocketman]

My guess is that the cloud of vapor drifting across the room and settling to the floor is representative of the invisible cloud of bacteria and viruses a sick person exhales. Only we can see e-cig vapor. Maybe that's why we catch things when we are around sick people. Is our PG clearing the air in front of us (and no I'm not referring to that stupid 1946 article)?
tobacco cloud=bad, e-cig cloud=good?
Sneeze=bad

 

[mpetva]

Vote on electronic cigarettes ban postponed in Ill. House committee | Political Fix | STLtoday

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

xhaled vapor. Suppose I'm riding in a car, windows up, and vaping away. It seems unreasonable to assume the other occupants aren't getting a little nicotine dose as well. A very addictive substance as we all know.

I do not do this when riding with non-smokers, I either don't vape or crack the window if it's a long ride. I do not vape at all when there is a child in the car.

If nicotine were as addictive as all that - then anyone who EVER got a noseful of cigarette smoke would be hooked into addiction. That's the fearmongering going on - that casual, accidental exposure to nicotine will result in addiction...and it's absolute and utter hogwash.

How many people do you know who do the 'fake cough' complete with the little hand wave and the disgusted look on their faces. I'll bet those people have smelled cig smoke a lot of times, and they're still not 'sucked into the evils of nicotine addiction.'

Yet another example of the sensationalization of the anti's.

 

[StormFinch]

Well, you're right - more testing is need. Real testing.

I would point out that the gum or lozenge do not produce clouds of vapor which do visibly hang in the air.

Suppose I'm vaping big clouds out of my PV. Which I love to do!

It seems reasonable to assume that nicotine is present in the exhaled vapor. Suppose I'm riding in a car, windows up, and vaping away. It seems unreasonable to assume the other occupants aren't getting a little nicotine dose as well. A very addictive substance as we all know.

I do not do this when riding with non-smokers, I either don't vape or crack the window if it's a long ride. I do not vape at all when there is a child in the car.

I am certainly not apposing being careful here, but we have also got to look at the fact that even the second hand smoke reports from the EPA, the ones that all the enviromental/health groups are using, are suspect at best. Several independent researchers have cried foul. The EPA researchers themselves admitted that they had to do some "pretty complicated footwork" to come up with their report, even admitting that they threw out at least 2 studies before getting their numbers.

According to one study by the Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, an individual would have to stand in a low concentration smoky room for 465 to 764 minutes to get the same levels of nicotine that they could ingest with 1 pound of medium sized potatoes. We also get nicotine every day from tomatoes, several types of peppers including green, and black and instant tea. Low levels of nicotine have even been found in drinking water. I have the distinct feeling that when more businesses start testing their new hires for nicotine, you will find that many people will start showing up with nicotine in their systems that don't use tobacco products or NRTs.

Numbers state that a smoker absorbs 98% of of the nicotine they inhale. Although I have no way to prove it, I would guess that, due to several circumstances, the amount we exhale is well below that 2% from smoke. And, we of course have the advantage of not producing primary mainstream smoke.

 

[jiff]

If this bill is shot down in Illinois, then it is a big step for vapers nation-wide. It'll show legislatures in other states that we're a more organized group than they thought and that we WILL speak up.

Good job, Illinois.

 

[targetdirect]

If this bill is shot down in Illinois, then it is a big step for vapers nation-wide. It'll show legislatures in other states that we're a more organized group than they thought and that we WILL speak up.

Good job, Illinois.

Unfortunately, many times our government servants don't care what we the bosses tell them. To wit; the new federal health care "reform" scheme.

Nevertheless, yes - good job Illinois... keep their feet to the fire!

 

[Lucy05]

Thank you to all who went to Springfield, IL because our voice was finally heard! We are grateful to you!

 

[basic_atheist]

"Sponsoring state Rep. Marlow Colvin, D-Chicago, said the FDA hasn’t approved the products yet and have found examples of carcinogens and other chemicals in the cartridges. He and lobbyist Kathy Drea with the American Lung Association said the state should prevent people from buying the e-cigarettes until the FDA has ruled on their safety."

Correct!

There should be a temporary ban until everything is squared away. Better safe than sorry.

 

[jeffree]

Thanks to all of you making the time and effort to shed some light.

 

[targetdirect]

There should be a temporary ban until everything is squared away. Better safe than sorry.

Yes. Everything on earth (and in the heavens too) should be banned until proven safe. I'm for banning trees. They are very unsafe. Kids climb in them and fall and break their necks. They get in the way of cars that veer off the road and kill people. I've got a long long list of things that need to be banned, but rather than go through all of that, let's just ban everything until proven safe. The sun? Hell yes, ban that too! Damn thing burnt me last summer!

 

[Joejokin]

My husband and I have scheduled our time off at work and babysitters for our kids in order to attend on wed. Come on guys we still need to go even if we cant speak!!!!

 

[gigleo]

Couldn't make it last week (and I live here) but I'll be there Wednesday.

gig

 

[JustJulie]

We have received written confirmation from the office of the sponsor (Rep. Marlow Colvin) of the Illinois bill to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes that the bill will NOT be called at the Human Services Committee hearing on 4/21/10.

That means it will not be discussed or voted on, so we do NOT need to be there.

The deadline for the House to hear Senate bills is 4/23/10.

That means that, unless Rep. Colvin calls this as an emergency hearing (not at all likely), the bill is dead!

We won't know for absolutely 100% sure that he won't call an "emergency hearing" until Thursday afternoon ... but again, there's almost no chance of this happening. Remember--the head of the Committee, Naomi Jakobsson, removed her name as a co-sponsor.

We'll wait until Friday to break out the champagne, but a few beers now would be appropriate.

Way to go, Illinois!

I'll post more later, but wanted to get this out there so that people could adjust their plans since they will NOT need to be in Springfield Wednesday.

 

[curiousJan]

We have received written confirmation from the office of the sponsor (Rep. Marlow Colvin) of the Illinois bill to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes that the bill will NOT be called at the Human Services Committee hearing on 4/21/10.

That means it will not be discussed or voted on, so we do NOT need to be there.

The deadline for the House to hear Senate bills is 4/23/10.

That means that, unless Rep. Colvin calls this as an emergency hearing (not at all likely), the bill is dead!

We won't know for absolutely 100% sure that he won't call an "emergency hearing" until Thursday afternoon ... but again, there's almost no chance of this happening. Remember--the head of the Committee, Naomi Jakobsson, removed her name as a co-sponsor.

We'll wait until Friday to break out the champagne, but a few beers now would be appropriate.

Way to go, Illinois!

I'll post more later, but wanted to get this out there so that people could adjust their plans since they will NOT need to be in Springfield Wednesday.

Don't know how often the bill's web page is updated, but it still states that it's scheduled for meeting on Apr. 23 at 9:00am.

Any political/legal process people know if Colvin could send written notification that it's no longer up for discussion ... but then still call it?

Jan

Edit: Oops ... that would be April 21 not 23

 

[JustJulie]

Don't know how often the bill's web page is updated, but it still states that it's scheduled for meeting on Apr. 23 at 9:00am.

Any political/legal process people know if Colvin could send written notification that it's no longer up for discussion ... but then still call it?

Jan

Ahh, Jan, you are as paranoid as I am.

We have an email in writing from his secretary stating that Rep. Colvin stated that he did not intend to call it for a hearing on Wednesday.

And, of course, being the paranoid gal that I am, we called around. The Clerk of the House Committees informed us that it would still stay on the calendar on the website regardless. He also indicated that if Rep. Colvin were to request an emergency hearing of Rep. Jakobsson (Chair of the Human Services Committee), as soon as it was scheduled, the Clerk would know and he'd post it on the website.

But to answer your question, yes, it would be possible for him to change his mind, and we do intend to call his office tomorrow morning to confirm . . . and then again and again until Friday morning.

But we're mindful that people have really gone to extraordinary lengths to make plans to be there--babysitters, time off work, carpooling, etc--and we want people to know what we have been told.

Honestly, I think Colvin knows he doesn't have the votes for anything other than an amendment to ban sales to minors, and unless that kind of amendment is offered, it would be a waste of his time and the time of the Committee to pursue a full out ban.

But it's not over until it's over . . . hence the recommendation to enjoy a beer, but save the champagne for Friday.

 

[curiousJan]

Ahh, Jan, you are as paranoid as I am.

We have an email in writing from his secretary stating that Rep. Colvin stated that he did not intend to call it for a hearing on Wednesday.

And, of course, being the paranoid gal that I am, we called around. The Clerk of the House Committees informed us that it would still stay on the calendar on the website regardless. He also indicated that if Rep. Colvin were to request an emergency hearing of Rep. Jakobsson (Chair of the Human Services Committee), as soon as it was scheduled, the Clerk would know and he'd post it on the website.

But to answer your question, yes, it would be possible for him to change his mind, and we do intend to call his office tomorrow morning to confirm . . . and then again and again until Friday morning.

But we're mindful that people have really gone to extraordinary lengths to make plans to be there--babysitters, time off work, carpooling, etc--and we want people to know what we have been told.

Honestly, I think Colvin knows he doesn't have the votes for anything other than an amendment to ban sales to minors, and unless that kind of amendment is offered, it would be a waste of his time and the time of the Committee to pursue a full out ban.

But it's not over until it's over . . . hence the recommendation to enjoy a beer, but save the champagne for Friday.

Thank you, Julie!!

Yep, I can be a little paranoid ... BUT ... I've always been told that if someone really is after you, you are not paranoid. This man is figuratively holding a knife to my throat right now with this darn bill, so I'm gonna have to say I'm being smart in this case rather than paranoid.

Jan

 

[Joejokin]

Yep, I can be a little paranoid ... BUT ... I've always been told that if someone really is after you, you are not paranoid.
Jan

HAHAHA I love that!

 

[Safira]

Justjulie and everyone else that has worked so hard to kill this bill, if it's all true I'd love to give everyone of you a big huge kiss. This is great news, now who would be next, New York still in the picture?

 

[Nightowl4272]

I'm hesitant to post this because I'm afraid it might influence people to relax on this issue. So I'll say this first...no matter what, if you haven't yet...CALL ALL 7 MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE UNTIL WE'RE SURE THIS BILL IS DEAD!

Ok, I've just called the offices of all 7 members on the committee. They were all polite and listened to what I had to say (even though they've been getting calls about this all day...yaaaaay!!!). But Rep Howard's secretary stopped me and told me that Howard has decided NOT to "call" this bill. I asked her what "call" means and basically it means that Rep Howard will not call the bill to a full vote before the House.

She continued to say how that means the bill is dead in the water and that it will stay in committee until Friday the 32rd where it will die.

I'm hesitant to cheer at this news because it sounds too good to be true. Does the Human Services Committee have to be unanimous in their decision to "call" the bill before the house for a vote? Or can just one opposing voice in the committee put the kabosh on the whole thing?

[edit] Uhhhh....maybe I should have read some of today's earlier posts before I posted myself. LOL

 

[Jimbo52]

FYI - Dead emails from original post.

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
choward32@worldnet.att.net

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
n.jakobsson@worldnet.att.net

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
staterep.flowers@comcast.net

"As an Illinois resident and (directly or indirectly) one of your
constituents, I urge you to take a stance against this bill in its
current form; specifically on the section which bans "electronic
cigarettes".

I smoked traditional, cancer causing cigarettes for 45 years. I tried
many times to quit over the years. I tried gum and patches to no
avail; however, I completely quit tobacco in a two (2) month period
after starting to use an "electronic cigarette" or Personal Vaporizer.
I have not used a traditional cigarette in over 8 months and have had
a significant improvement in my overall health as a result. I breathe
easier, I no longer cough, my sinus problems have all but disappeared
and I have an improved sense of taste and smell.

While I fully support prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes to minors,
to take away this life-saving choice from adults is clearly wrong. The
American Association of Public Health Physicians estimates the risk of
electronic cigarettes to be less than 1% of the risk from smoking
traditional cigarettes, so it makes no sense to ban the safer choice
while leaving the deadliest product on the market.

I hope that you will take the time to educate yourself on this matter
so that you can help protect the health of your constituents who use
this device instead of smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Thank you for your consideration."