Indianapolis Area Residents - URGENT

[Vocalek]

I just have to say as just an ordinary ex smoking housewife who has lost multiple members of my immediate family to cancer from smoking. I am so incredibly saddened by governments attempt to make sure I die a smoker. To see that they would much rather see me standing outside smoking with smokers,( which sort of defeats the whole purpose because then I am the one exposed to second hand cancer filled smoke, which btw has not been proven, to my knowledge) than sitting inside with my benign pv filled with some tasty juice, sickens me.

If they are gonna make us go outside with the smokers, we should have our own vaping place!! In all reality no matter what they pass or don't pass, I will be vaping, and I will proli make sure I do it right next to a non smoking bigot, and they will never know

You might want to email this message to members of the council.

 

[Vocalek]

And in response I did a little research and I found that in fact the e-cigarette industry had put out more or less the exactly..lot of the verbiage that we received, so I think we're being lobbied by the industry. And in fact, coincidentally, this morning when I was at the gym I was read a magazine and in it was an advertisement for electronic cigarettes and in it no where in this ad is there a reference to health benefits or...um...protecting others or reducing your smoking intake.

Hmmm...

1. So if I purchase a gallon of milk, does that make me a member of the Dairy Industry?
2. Apparently Barth is ignorant of the fact that "the industry" (the real industry that is, vendors and manufacturers) cannot claim their product assists with smoking cessation or make any health claims or else they face the Wrath of FDA Enforcers.

 

[Hoosier]

Or Barth is fully aware of the fact and hopes/believes that everyone else is ignorant?

My reading of things makes me lean towards Vocalek's version, but some may believe Barth is more educated...

 

[VaporPhreak]

I should have written this much earlier, but better late than never. Thank you to all of you who made it out to speak up for the rest of us that could not make it to the committee meeting. You all did an excellent job, and I am proud of all of you. My most sincere of apologies that I could not make the meeting to add to the voice of the vaping community. I did what I could with emails and phone calls from here, but will all in my power to be there whenever possible to support my fellow vapers. Thank you so much for everything you do for the vaping community.

 

[DC2]

Hickman:

"I too have received a lot of emails. I too serve in the health industry. And today and yesterday I received the same email study from several constituents who are in favor of e-cigarettes. I did read it. And there is a paragraph on page eleven that says, "whereas electronic cigarettes cannot be considered safe, as there is no threshhold for carcinogens, they are undoubtably safer than tobacco cigarettes." I don't hink this committee is saying may not be healthier or aid a person in quitting smoking three packs a day. But let me give you a visual. Because I watched, in January, the gentleman who did the vapor that you were talking about - the demonstration. vapor is water content, correct? That travels further than air. Which means that once that vapor goes out - is expelled - once it has come through your lungs, through your throat, through mouth - collected all the germs that is there - is now going out and floating in the air. My visual of sitting in a restaurant and having 20 people blow vapors at me while it lands on my food, my utensils, my drinking equipment and myself is extremely, extremely horrible feeling. I think that having people smoke in a restaurant or a bar is as bad as having someone smoke a cigarette, as far as the unsafeness to the other people. I'm not trying to cause anyone to quit smoking. You may smoke all you want. Please just don't do it around me. Give me some liberties. Thank you."

Someone ought to tell this person that the vapor we exhale is actually CLEANING the air they breathe.
If she is so concerned about germs, she should be encouraging vapors to sit next to her and vape while she eats.

 

[capt.n.coke]

I sent my thanks to Mr. McQuillen and Lutz:
---
Hello Mr. McQuillen and Mr. Lutz,

My name is <capt.n.coke> (edited for ecf), resident of Marion county district 25, and I spoke last night at the Rules and Public Policy committee meeting on Prop 136.

I wanted to personally thank the two of you for your open mindedness regarding the e-cigarette debate. I can't tell you enough how refreshing it was to hear a local legislator give us a chance to speak specifically regarding e-cigarettes, and that an amendment was proposed to remove the e-cigarette verbiage. Thank you both so much.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the misinterpretation of the various studies and data by the other councilors. Many of the facts they stated were simply wrong or misunderstood. I cannot believe that they would make such sweeping public policy decisions based on such a limited understanding of the material at hand. I too have been studying this same material, not for days as some councilors stated, but for nearly a year now. When you really dig deep into the studies and material, you realize that e-cigarette vapor is less harmful to bystanders than the air by a busy street, or near a charcoal grill or campfire. Given those facts based on a deep understanding of the material, this legislation is preposterous.

Again, thank you both for your open minds and willingness to listen. I look forward to the day when Indianapolis recognizes the benefits of Tobacco Harm Reduction strategies and finally starts doing something more meaningful than banning what they do not understand to improve Hoosier's lives with respect to tobacco.

Thanks again,
---
I whipped that out fairly quickly and probably could have word-smithed it better, but meh...

-C

 

[Luisa]

I sent my thanks to Mr. McQuillen and Lutz:
---
Hello Mr. McQuillen and Mr. Lutz,

My name is <capt.n.coke> (edited for ecf), resident of Marion county district 25, and I spoke last night at the Rules and Public Policy committee meeting on Prop 136.

I wanted to personally thank the two of you for your open mindedness regarding the e-cigarette debate. I can't tell you enough how refreshing it was to hear a local legislator give us a chance to speak specifically regarding e-cigarettes, and that an amendment was proposed to remove the e-cigarette verbiage. Thank you both so much.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the misinterpretation of the various studies and data by the other councilors. Many of the facts they stated were simply wrong or misunderstood. I cannot believe that they would make such sweeping public policy decisions based on such a limited understanding of the material at hand. I too have been studying this same material, not for days as some councilors stated, but for nearly a year now. When you really dig deep into the studies and material, you realize that e-cigarette vapor is less harmful to bystanders than the air by a busy street, or near a charcoal grill or campfire. Given those facts based on a deep understanding of the material, this legislation is preposterous.

Again, thank you both for your open minds and willingness to listen. I look forward to the day when Indianapolis recognizes the benefits of Tobacco Harm Reduction strategies and finally starts doing something more meaningful than banning what they do not understand to improve Hoosier's lives with respect to tobacco.

Thanks again,
---
I whipped that out fairly quickly and probably could have word-smithed it better, but meh...

-C

Very positive and quite a nice letter. Whip more of those out quickly. Word-smithed could not have been better!

 

[mg7454]

I will not stand out-side in clouds of tobacco smoke!
In nice weather, I do not mind going outside
(there is plenty of room, I do not have to stand with smokers!).

When it is cold and I am at work, I will be stealth vaping...for now!

I believe that eventually vaping will be allowed.
We just cannot give up!

I believe that we all need to join and support CASAA.
That way we become a large united and organized force to fight together!
Remember..."United, we stand; divided, we fall!"

Until the day that we can vape anywhere...I will still be happily vaping
and
grateful for the alternative to tobacco cigarettes!



Thank You CASAA for being there for us!

​

 

[Placebo Effect]

Some news stories

Electronic cigarettes could be included in latest Indianapolis smoking ban

Electronic cigarettes could be included in city's smoking ban - fox59.com

The FOX story actually tries to distinguish between "harm" to the user and harm to bystanders, while WISHTV just repeated Barth and the FDA's statements as gospel.

 

[DC2]

The FOX story actually tries to distinguish between "harm" to the user and harm to bystanders, while WISHTV just repeated Barth and the FDA's statements as gospel.

WISHTV, such an appropriate name under the circumstances.

 

[capt.n.coke]

I sent my thanks to Mr. McQuillen and Lutz:
---
Hello Mr. McQuillen and Mr. Lutz,

My name is <capt.n.coke> (edited for ecf), resident of Marion county district 25, and I spoke last night at the Rules and Public Policy committee meeting on Prop 136.

I wanted to personally thank the two of you for your open mindedness regarding the e-cigarette debate. I can't tell you enough how refreshing it was to hear a local legislator give us a chance to speak specifically regarding e-cigarettes, and that an amendment was proposed to remove the e-cigarette verbiage. Thank you both so much.

I am frankly shocked and appalled at the misinterpretation of the various studies and data by the other councilors. Many of the facts they stated were simply wrong or misunderstood. I cannot believe that they would make such sweeping public policy decisions based on such a limited understanding of the material at hand. I too have been studying this same material, not for days as some councilors stated, but for nearly a year now. When you really dig deep into the studies and material, you realize that e-cigarette vapor is less harmful to bystanders than the air by a busy street, or near a charcoal grill or campfire. Given those facts based on a deep understanding of the material, this legislation is preposterous.

Again, thank you both for your open minds and willingness to listen. I look forward to the day when Indianapolis recognizes the benefits of Tobacco Harm Reduction strategies and finally starts doing something more meaningful than banning what they do not understand to improve Hoosier's lives with respect to tobacco.

Thanks again,
---
I whipped that out fairly quickly and probably could have word-smithed it better, but meh...

-C

I didn't mention this above but I also CC'd my actual representative on the council (not on the Rules and Public Policy committee), Aaron Freeman, and this is the reply that I got:
---
Thank you for the e-mail and taking time to let me know your position. I voted against the proposal last time and plan to again. I think we will wake up in 20 years and wonder where all of our freedom went.

Thanks again for taking the time to send me a note.

Sincerely

Aaron M. Freeman
---

I retract what I said in another thread about moving to Mr. McQuillen's district. I'll stay right here!

 

[capt.n.coke]

Mr. McQuillen also responded and basically said that the other six on the council obviously had their minds made up going into it.

Yup.

-C

 

[DC2]

If I was writing a letter to these ignorant folks, it would go something like this...

Dear dumbass,

I noticed that you voted against the amendment to remove electronic cigarettes from the smoking ban bill. I also noticed that you spouted a bunch of lies, misinformation, and hysterical and irrational fears in justifying your vote. In doing so, you have succeeded in proving that Indianapolis has a bunch of fear-mongering idiots running the show. Congratulations on joining a tiny list of government agencies at the state and local level that are stupid enough to remove freedoms for no valid reason, while simultaneously discouraging people from eliminating the scourge of smoke from their lungs and their lives. Perhaps you should join the current century, where a long list of intelligent state and local government agencies have taken the exact opposite approach as you .......

And then I'd include a list of state and local government agencies who removed or purposely did not include electronic cigarettes in such bans.
And then I'd list the couple of state and local government agencies who failed to do so.
I'm pretty sure the list would be around 85% in our favor.

And yeah, if I sound ......, it's because I am.

 

[mg7454]

The Food and Drug Administration has
responded to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban BFA in all food packaging.

The FDA’s verdict?
There isn’t enough research out there to conclusively prove that BPA is unsafe in food. The agency says they’ll continue to research the issue.

BPA is a chemical found in the packaging for many products, and has already been banned in children’s products (such as baby bottles) in Canada, the European Union, China, Malaysia, South Africa, and Argentina. Eleven US states have enacted similar legislation Australia and Japan have banned it outright.

The FDA’s decision comes despite thousands of studies demonstrating that exposure to BPA, even in minute amounts, can cause all sort of health problems. BPA is a known endocrine disruptor that’s been implicated in

Read more: FDA Won't Ban BPA In Food | Care2 Causes

​

 

[Hoosier]

And yeah, if I sound ......, it's because I am.

I liked your letter... (Maybe because I'm ...... off myself?)

 

[Vocalek]

So how come the FDA's standard for BPA removal is that it has to be proven UNsafe first, and the standard being used for e-cigarettes is that they have to be proven safe first?

 

[mg7454]

Very interesting,The cigarette smokescreen:

The Cigarette Smokescreen :: Jeff Stier​

 

[mg7454]

So how come the FDA's standard for BPA removal is that it has to be proven UNsafe first, and the standard being used for e-cigarettes is that they have to be proven safe first?

My answer: I suppose it was as Quoted from the article
The Cigarette Smokescreen by Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier:

"The FDA highlighted the finding of diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, in the e-cigarettes—which is of concern—but buried the fact that it was detected in just one out of eighteen cartridges; and the FDA did not report whether the levels detected could be deleterious to consumers. (With current spectrographic techniques, substances can be detected below the parts per-billion-range.)"

Again, here is the link to the article: The Cigarette Smokescreen :: Jeff Stier

 

[mg7454]

So how come the FDA's standard for BPA removal is that it has to be proven UNsafe first, and the standard being used for e-cigarettes is that they have to be proven safe first?

Although I was interested mainly in the fact that BPA had to be proven UNsafe before the FDA removed it, I have just been informed that their decision to allow it is deemed the right decision by Jeff Stier.



It seems that the FDA spent a lot of money investigating this issue!
Hmmm!

This article can be read at this link if it interests you:

It's Time for the NRDC to Stop Its BPA Escapade :: Jeff Stier​

 

[Vocalek]

Both Greg Conley and I (separately) contacted Dr. Seigel regarding how his article was being misinterpreted by members of the Indianapolis city council and he has responded by sending them (actually to the full council) the following message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Clearing the Air About Electronic Cigarettes

Dear Members of the Indianapolis City Council:

I am a professor, tobacco control researcher, and smoke-free air advocate at the Boston University School of Public Health. I am a physician with more than 25 years of experience in the area of tobacco science research. I have published numerous articles on the dangers of secondhand smoke and have testified throughout the nation in support of 100% smoke-free bars and restaurants. I am writing to correct some misinformation that has been circulating about the health risks associated with electronic cigarettes.

At the Rules and Public Policy Committee meeting on April 3rd, several councilmembers asserted that the FDA has detected cancer-causing agents in electronic cigarette vapor, and that therefore, these devices pose a cancer risk to users and potentially, to bystanders as well. This assertion is misleading. The truth is that the FDA detected only trace levels of carcinogens in electronic cigarettes. The level of these carcinogens was comparable to that present in all other nicotine delivery devices, including the nicotine patch and nicotine gum. The reason why products like the nicotine patch and nicotine gum contain trace levels of carcinogens (known as tobacco-specific nitrosamines) is that the nicotine is derived from tobacco, and it is impossible to obtain 100% pure nicotine from this process. There are going to inevitably be trace levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines.

In fact, the level of carcinogens in electronic cigarettes, as confirmed by the FDA and another laboratory study, was about 1400 times lower than that present in Marlboro cigarettes. And again, it was comparable to the level of carcinogens present in the nicotine patch and nicotine gum. In other words, what the FDA laboratory study confirmed is that electronic cigarettes are much safer than regular cigarettes, that they pose a drastically reduced carcinogenic risk, and that this risk is negligible (it is essentially the same as the risk of getting cancer from nicotine gum or the nicotine patch). Thus, the truth is that electronic cigarettes pose no known cancer risk, either to users or to bystanders.

I have attached my article, published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, which reviews the studies which have assessed the health risks of electronic cigarette use. From a scientific perspective, there simply is no evidence at this time that electronic cigarette use poses any significant risk to nonsmokers.

In my opinion, one of the necessary pre-requisites to enact government regulations that intrude into private business by regulating the conditions within those establishments is that scientific evidence must first be presented that documents a significant hazard. This has simply not been done yet with respect to electronic cigarettes.

Please understand that I am a strong supporter of 100% smoke-free laws and that I fully support the main ordinance, which bans smoking in all workplaces. In fact, I have repeatedly spoken out against the exemptions in the ordinance, although I agree that passing a bill that the Mayor will sign is better than having no protection at all for nonsmoking workers. Nevertheless, I do not see any scientific rationale for including electronic cigarette use in this ordinance.

One thing to remember is that people using electronic cigarettes are those who are trying to quit smoking and to reduce their exposure to tobacco smoke. By banning e-cigarette use in public places, we are essentially forcing these individuals to use them in places where smoking is allowed - possibly designated smoking areas or areas directly outside of bars where smokers congregate. This could expose them to secondhand smoke and to a powerful trigger to resume smoking. The proposed policy could actually have detrimental health effects.

Many thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share this information. Of course, if you have any questions about the science, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,



Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
801 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd floor
Boston, MA 02118