Some public comments in opposition
And some ridiculous comments in favor of the indoor use ban:
And some ridiculous comments in favor of the indoor use ban:
I find Bridget Vandeventer's 4/14/11 email particularly interesting:
It's a shame that some of the Tacoma officials see this as a battle involving strategy instead of an opportunity to have an informed discussion leading to a better understanding of the issue. This attitude is evidenced in quite a few of the emails, and I find it troubling.
Kirsten Frandsen (again, in reference to Kim from The Vaporium) noted:
It's kind of strange to me that Kirsten criticizes Kim's arguments as being "not proven," and then goes on to say, "We don't have the data to counter argue the points." In other words, their arguments aren't proven, either?
And that's kind of where it all breaks down, doesn't it? We have government and health departments trying to prohibit activities without any scientific proof of harm to bystanders.
I don't suppose it's occurred to Ms. Henson that someone who successfully transitioned from smoking to vaping wouldn't be at one of her meetings?
But be it as it may, I do agree that multiple unsuccessful quit attempts take a toll. I got to the point where I felt like a complete failure after trying to quit with no success. That's why I'm gobsmacked that the antis are so dead set against e-cigarettes. While they don't work for everyone, all indications are that they are far, far more successful than any of the crap NRTs on the market.
But I guess the mindset is that we're still smoking because it kind of sort of looks like we're smoking and most of us continue to use nicotine. Once again, another professional confuses nicotine cessation with smoking cessation.
Julie, we are somewhat jaded by all the success we've seen on ECF. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of success stories about E Cigs. That being said, there are millions that haven't gotten it and we don't see them here. I personally know more failures than successes. Many haven't listened to me and went out and bought your typical overpriced mall units, realized that they weren't like real cigarettes or didn't want to be bothered with the effort and inconvenience and went back to smoking.
I almost don't try to help anymore and just tell them before they buy that they should get on here, investigate and ask questions. I'll normally mention manual 510s because you can get them cheap and for a starter unit they seem to be a good inexpensive approach.
The biggest positive for E Cigs is this forum. You don't have to leave your house to get "counseling", you can be educated for no monetary outlay and you have the world's largest support group. I have a gal that I play poker with that just bought something. I still haven't seen it since she hasn't brought it to poker and is still smoking. I told her yesterday, AGAIN, to get on here and ask questions. I think this is her second E Cig, but unless she starts asking questions and finding out a taste that she likes, she may not like it. Here's a woman that SHOULD be motivated having had heart issues and wearing a pacemaker. I personally think, based on what she's talked to me about, that she would be a great candidate for Swedish snus but haven't been willing to take her there just yet.
The one thing I'm quite sure of, regardless of quit/failure rates, E Cigs can't be any worse than NRT and drugs. These people that sell a product that has single digit success in less than two years are selling no more than a placebo in my mind. If E Cigs are also just placebos, they are a darn better one than anything Pharma has brought to the table.
The enemy isn't nicotine. The ememies are the chronic conditions these folks are fighting. The enemies are the self-righteous prigs who view those who become ill from nicotine abstinence as weak-willed scum.
Very interesting that it seems they almost have to beg and plead for people to come support the legislation on their behalf!
I only wish Thad was a confrontational law student, because then he would've pointed out to the vapers that no county or city code prohibits e-cigarette usage indoors, and that the Health Department cannot opt to make rules out of thin air.
Predictably, the comments on the TNT site are opposed to the e-cigarette regulation and snarky in nature. We might consider asking some proponents and tobacco prevention supporters to chime in and help balance out the online conversation.
I’m wondering if we can/should provide Pat McCarthy with some talking points in support of the e-cig public places component? I’m not sure that the “duck” comment is very strong and that message will hold much weight.
Actually, no, an e-cigarette does not have the potential to emit harmful particles. The health board appears to be confused over the difference between smoke and vapor. Smoke is created when a substance is burned. The process of combustion creates harmful tar, poisonous gasses such as carbon monoxide, and particles of ash. When tobacco is burned, about 4,000 new chemicals are created, many of which are toxic or carcinogenic. In contrast, vaporization is a physical process, not a chemical process like combustion. No particles are created, and no new chemicals are created. It's a basic rule of physics: vaporization changes the state of matter from a liquid into a gas. The liquid begins with 3 simple substances that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA: propylene glycol (the chemical used in fog machines), water, and flavoring. Nicotine is optional. If present, it makes up perhaps 2% of the 1/4 teaspoon of liquid in the cartridge. The nicotine is 99% absorbed by the user before being exhaled. Bottom line: vapor is not dangerous to bystanders. Effect on users? Over 90% of consumers report improved breathing, lung function, and stamina. For links to surveys, research, and lab tests visit casaa.org.
Hmm... Now I'm a "smarty pants."