Hey Alabama Vapers (I know you're out there)

[hulsey76]

Thanks for the bump.

We need everyone to contact their senators, the health committee, and the spondors of the bill. CASAA is putting together a call for action - thansk to hunstvappin for getting that ball rolling.

We have two battles on our hands
Please also contact the Birmingham city council, and any Birmingham residents who can should try to come to the public hearing that is scheduled for wednesday!

I had overlooked Birmingham since I don't live there, but I do spend a good bit of money there, so I think that entitles me to give them my opinion. After all, if the Birmingham/Jefferson council doesn't want my vapor, then they won't get my money. I'll contact them.

 

[CES]

Thanks! every contact will help.

 

[CES]

The CASAA call to action has been posted!

CASAA.org

 

[brandondparris]

Hey guys, just letting you know I put in my Here is my letter.

I am writing to you about Alabama Smoke-free Air Amendment of 2012 SB197 and SB198. I would like you to amend definition (17) SMOKE or SMOKING to replace the last sentence of the definition with this text, "The term does not include the use of an e-cigarette or any other type of smoke-free product."

Switching to an e-cigarette has changed my life dramatically. I no longer feel the ill effects of smoking cigarettes on a daily basis. I was a heavy smoker for 17 years and had tried numerous times to quit. Though nothing ever seemed to work for me. I bought my first E-cigarette to try and cut down my consumption of tobacco, with no intention of quitting. Before I knew it, I was no longer a tobacco smoker.

Electronic cigarettes are easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Many do not even resemble real cigarettes. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette, from the smell of smoke, and side stream smoke coming from the end of a lit cigarette. E-cigarettes do not produce this side stream smoke. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. There is also no ash or litter. With so little evidence of use, enforcing indoor use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.

I believe that the ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to make the switch. I personally have converted many smokers to electronic cigarettes, mainly through their interest in the one I was using. Many who only intend to supplement their smoking end up completely replacing tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%. I urge you to vote no to SB197 and SB198 unless the definition of smoking is amended.

Please visit the CASAA.org website for more information.

Thank you,

Brandon Parris

Hanceville, AL

 

[CES]

Yay Brandon! thanks!!!

here's my email (first round) I'll send a letter and handouts by snail mail and make phone calls too...

Alabama Senate Health Committee Members
Sponsors of SB197 and 198,

As a registered Alabama voter, I am writing to urge you to amend SB 197 and 198 , section (17) SMOKE or SMOKING, to replace the last sentence of the definition with this text, "The term does not include the use of an e-cigarette or any other type of smoke-free product."

I began using an electronic cigarette/personal vaporizer (PV) in October 2009. I did not begin using the PV to circumvent indoor smoking bans, but as a method for allowing myself to continue to utilize nicotine without the harm associated with smoking combustible cigarettes. After 30+ years of smoking, I have now been smoke free since December 2009, more than 26 months. I have experience significant health benefits from making this switch. My blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) has decreased 10 points, my hemoglobin has decreased to the middle of the normal range, and I no longer cough or get easily winded.

The references used for the model legislation that these bills are based upon are out of date. In fact, all evidence to date suggests that PVs are orders of magnitude safer than combustible cigarettes, that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products, and experts have reported that there should be no significant risk to bystanders. The harm associated with smoking is due to the smoke from combustion. There is no firsthand or second hand smoke from PVs because there is no combustion. This is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth and Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

These products are arguably no more dangerous than a fog machines used concerts and at children’s parties, the scent of the vapor arising from the steaming hot coffee in a local coffee shop, and much less noxious than perfume or aftershave used in an enclosed space. Yet, rightly, none of these are considered to e a threat to public health.
Including PVs in indoor smoking bans serves no public health protection purpose. In fact, raising barriers to use of an arguably safer alternative to smoking has the potential to harm public health.

I have included links to some current research below and will follow up with additional information by mail. I strongly urge you to look at the references and data and to amend the bill so that it can serve its stated purpose of protecting the public health
Thank you for your time and consideration

 

[hulsey76]

Hey guys, just letting you know I put in my Here is my letter.

I am writing to you about Alabama Smoke-free Air Amendment of 2012 SB197 and SB198. I would like you to amend definition (17) SMOKE or SMOKING to replace the last sentence of the definition with this text, "The term does not include the use of an e-cigarette or any other type of smoke-free product."

Switching to an e-cigarette has changed my life dramatically. I no longer feel the ill effects of smoking cigarettes on a daily basis. I was a heavy smoker for 17 years and had tried numerous times to quit. Though nothing ever seemed to work for me. I bought my first E-cigarette to try and cut down my consumption of tobacco, with no intention of quitting. Before I knew it, I was no longer a tobacco smoker.

Electronic cigarettes are easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Many do not even resemble real cigarettes. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette, from the smell of smoke, and side stream smoke coming from the end of a lit cigarette. E-cigarettes do not produce this side stream smoke. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. There is also no ash or litter. With so little evidence of use, enforcing indoor use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.

I believe that the ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to make the switch. I personally have converted many smokers to electronic cigarettes, mainly through their interest in the one I was using. Many who only intend to supplement their smoking end up completely replacing tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%. I urge you to vote no to SB197 and SB198 unless the definition of smoking is amended.

Please visit the CASAA.org website for more information.

Thank you,

Brandon Parris

Hanceville, AL

Good deal, Brandon!

 

[hulsey76]

Yay Brandon! thanks!!!

here's my email (first round) I'll send a letter and handouts by snail mail and make phone calls too...

Alabama Senate Health Committee Members
Sponsors of SB197 and 198,

As a registered Alabama voter, I am writing to urge you to amend SB 197 and 198 , section (17) SMOKE or SMOKING, to replace the last sentence of the definition with this text, "The term does not include the use of an e-cigarette or any other type of smoke-free product."

I began using an electronic cigarette/personal vaporizer (PV) in October 2009. I did not begin using the PV to circumvent indoor smoking bans, but as a method for allowing myself to continue to utilize nicotine without the harm associated with smoking combustible cigarettes. After 30+ years of smoking, I have now been smoke free since December 2009, more than 26 months. I have experience significant health benefits from making this switch. My blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) has decreased 10 points, my hemoglobin has decreased to the middle of the normal range, and I no longer cough or get easily winded.

The references used for the model legislation that these bills are based upon are out of date. In fact, all evidence to date suggests that PVs are orders of magnitude safer than combustible cigarettes, that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products, and experts have reported that there should be no significant risk to bystanders. The harm associated with smoking is due to the smoke from combustion. There is no firsthand or second hand smoke from PVs because there is no combustion. This is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth and Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

These products are arguably no more dangerous than a fog machines used concerts and at children’s parties, the scent of the vapor arising from the steaming hot coffee in a local coffee shop, and much less noxious than perfume or aftershave used in an enclosed space. Yet, rightly, none of these are considered to e a threat to public health.
Including PVs in indoor smoking bans serves no public health protection purpose. In fact, raising barriers to use of an arguably safer alternative to smoking has the potential to harm public health.

I have included links to some current research below and will follow up with additional information by mail. I strongly urge you to look at the references and data and to amend the bill so that it can serve its stated purpose of protecting the public health
Thank you for your time and consideration

You're a champ too, CES!

 

[CES]

thanks!

BTW, i also used the letter as a model to get caught up on sending emails for other CASAA calls to action.

 

[CES]

There is a public hearing, as part of the technology committee meeting, (tomorrow) Wed Feb 15th 2pm. City Council chambers. I'm planning to be there. Can anyone else in Birmingham attend?

They have a couple of liquor licenses to review, and then will take public comments on the proposed smoke-free ordinance. I've been told that all you need to do is show up and provide your name and address, then line up to speak. 1-3 minutes per person (probably depending on how many people are there to speak). There should also be a mechanism to get supporting documentation to the council members.

Contact info for the Birmingham city council is here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gham-proposed-resolution-includes-e-cigs.html ...Please call or email!!!

here's what i plan to say...feedback anyone? I wrote it as I plan to speak...so it reads differently than a letter would

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’m here to speak to you in to request that you oppose or amend the proposed ordinance to repeal and replace Title 11, Chapter 9, Section 10, City of Birmingham Smoke Free Ordinance of 2011

First off I think that it is unnecessary. There are sufficient smoking restrictions currently in place to protect the public.

Secondly, the research that the ordinance is based upon is outdated and incorrect, so that the ordinance will not serve its stated purpose of protecting the public. There are others here today to speak about the ordinance in general. I am going to focus on the erroneous inclusion of smokefree cigarettes, that is electronic cigarettes in the proposed ordinance.

This issue is very important to me, as e-cigs are the reason that I have not smoked a cigarette in more than two years, after 30+ years of smoking.

You may not know much about smokefree ecigs, so I sent you current references in an email over the weekend. In short, reviews of the available evidence by experts such as Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health -including the testing conducted by the FDA in 2009- concluded that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders.

The impression that you’ve probably been given is that the vapor from an electronic cig is like smoke. It’s not. Smoke comes from combustion. Burning results in the release of several thousand chemicals. . Ecigs work by heating a drop of liquid on a heating coil. The liquid contains propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine, flavorings and can also contain nicotine. The warm vapor is then inhaled. There is no side stream smoke, and no second hand smoke because nothing is burning.

Think about it this way. How many of you have ever walked into the kitchen in the morning and smelled fresh coffee brewing? The vapor from an e-cig is much closer to the vapor arising from a steaming cup of coffee. Do you worry about the hazards to bystanders because of the smoke from your coffee? Has anyone ever said- oh no the smoke from your coffee is dangerous? Of course not, they’re more likely to say “wow, that smells great”. Yet the vapor from your coffee likely contains trace amounts of caffeine and other impurities, even flavoring – all at concentrations too low to cause harm.

You want people to quit smoking, and to protect the public. I get that. But the inclusion of electronic cigs in this bill doesn’t do that. It restricts individual free choice and restricts access and use of reduced harm alternatives.

Please vote to either oppose or amend this proposed Ordinance.

 

[hulsey76]

There is a public hearing, as part of the technology committee meeting, (tomorrow) Wed Feb 15th 2pm. City Council chambers. I'm planning to be there. Can anyone else in Birmingham attend?

They have a couple of liquor licenses to review, and then will take public comments on the proposed smoke-free ordinance. I've been told that all you need to do is show up and provide your name and address, then line up to speak. 1-3 minutes per person (probably depending on how many people are there to speak). There should also be a mechanism to get supporting documentation to the council members.

Contact info for the Birmingham city council is here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gham-proposed-resolution-includes-e-cigs.html ...Please call or email!!!

here's what i plan to say...feedback anyone? I wrote it as I plan to speak...so it reads differently than a letter would

I think it sounds good CES. You might add that e-cigs operate the same way a nebulizer that is used to treat respiratory illnesses operates. Get it into their heads that this is not some "head-shop" gimmick - it is viable, safe technology that is medically effective at helping people quit smoking.

 

[CES]

Thanks! good point.

Though i hate to go too far down the medical/quit smoking road. Designation as a tobacco product isn't ideal, but we fought for that designation, because unapproved medical device meant instant ban.

 

[hulsey76]

Thanks! good point.

Though i hate to go too far down the medical/quit smoking road. Designation as a tobacco product isn't ideal, but we fought for that designation, because unapproved medical device meant instant ban.

Ah...I see your point.

 

[msqun]

Ok, I'm not in Alabama, but I'm looking for anyone around the Ozark, AL area that may have some Fusion 801's or eGo stardust, or a 306 atty... that someone could buy off of someone's personal stash OR if you know of anywhere within 30-40 miles of Ozark that carries them... feel free (PLEASE do) PM me, if anyone knows of anyplace or anyone that may be able to help.... emergency stash is a priority... (asking for a friend in Ozark, since I'm in NW MS myself, I'm kind of useless)

Thanks!

 

[CES]

Hey Ms Quinn,

I wish i could help but I'm not nearby. you could also try posting your request here http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/groups/alabama-vapes.html it doesn't get a lot of traffic, but it can't hurt

 

[msqun]

CES,

Thanks, Yeah I thought about it... I hate to ask to join for ONLY asking for a NEED... Thank you so much though! I will probably try that IF nothing turns up before tomorrow. Thanks again!

 

[CES]

I hope that you've gotten a response Ms Quin!

in the meantime, I'm going to harp again on the two battles we have going on to keep vaping from being included in definitions of smoking.

CASAA just posted a call to action for the city of Birmingham
CASAA.org

The call to action for the senate bills is still crucial as well.
CASAA.org

Please contact the Birmingham city council even if you don't live in Birmingham- it was clear at the first public hearing that whatever passes in Birmingham will be pushed on other municipalities by the Birmingham city council.

It sounded like that the next step for the city ordinance will be revision and posting an amended version with a second public hearing. That hearing is likely to be front of the full council for a final vote. The first was during the public safety and technology committee meeting.

My guess is that the they may reduce the 30 ft distance from buildings and may allow smoking on some outdoor patios. It's possible that they'll remove e-cigs (I hope, I hope I hope) and may allow exemptions for cigar bars. There's no way that the ordinance won't pass. our best bet is to make our voices heard now while they're considering revisions. Once it comes up before the whole council it's a done deal - their minds are made up. They may allow some exemptions assuming the state bill will be passed and supersede any exemptions made in the city ordinance.

Which makes it doubly important to respond to both calls to action.

Thank you!

 

[CES]

Woo Hoo! We now have a subforum for Alabama vapers!!!

Alabama Vapes

(Thanks OldSoldier and player30!)