Indoor use ban in Dekalb County, Georgia (includes parts of Atlanta)

[Vocalek]

Nice work, guys. Although this kind of disturbs me:



So all of the scientific studies we sent them are anecdotal? And you're going to protect the total health of everyone by ignoring me? Farking government. I want to give him a call now.

I see a double-standard. They can't make health decisions based on our anecdotal evidence, but their evidence--which does't even rise to the level of anecdotal--is being used to make health policy? You know the "evidence" I'm talking about: They are concerned that children become e-cigarette users and then graduate to smoking tobacco if the kids see these in use. There might be deadly substances being exhaled by vapers. etc., etc.

So the bottom line is that they are making health policy based on no evidence whatsoever because they don't have a shred of it to support the idea that their concerns might be valid.

And they are ignoring the evidence we have that rises above anecdotal. Testimony at a public hearing about one's personal experience is anecdotal. But populaton surveys are aggregated data that should be taken into consideration. So are toxicology studies by independent scientific labs. And so are results of clinical trials reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 

[DataPhreak]

I hope I run into this guy at the meeting. I think i'll have to edit in something about this anecdotal claim into my piece.

 

[Vocalek]

I hope I run into this guy at the meeting. I think i'll have to edit in something about this anecdotal claim into my piece.

You might say something like, "You will hear testimony from those who claim that seeing e-cigarettes in use will turn non-smoking children into smokers. I urge you to ask those who make these claims, 'Exactly how many children has this happened to? How old are they? What are their names?' You will hear people state that exhaled e-cigarette vapor might contain toxic substances that would endanger the health of bystanders. Ask them to explain the mechanism by which this could possibly be the case, when 90% of those who inhale supposedly toxic e-cigarette vapor are experiencing improvements in their health."

 

[kristin]

The group is not opposed to smoking bans

We don't support them, either??

proposed amendment would now ban smoking...outdoor servies areas, such as the waiting line at an ATM.

How the heck are they going to enforce that one?? Who gets the fine - the smoker or the owner of the ATM??

 

[DataPhreak]

In all honesty, I'm as opposed to smoking bans as i am to e-cig bans. If the machine wants it, you're not going to be able to stop it. In arkansas, they tried 3 times to ban cigarettes. It was voted down twice, by the public. Then the state passed it, in the same dirty, underhanded manner that it did in macon, ga. The governor vetoed that. Finally they passed it as a health code, which the public doesn't get to vote on, and the governor could not veto. It all comes down to citizen rights and the comming police state if there's not a significant change soon.

 

[Vap0rJay]

In all honesty, I'm as opposed to smoking bans as i am to e-cig bans. If the machine wants it, you're not going to be able to stop it. In arkansas, they tried 3 times to ban cigarettes. It was voted down twice, by the public. Then the state passed it, in the same dirty, underhanded manner that it did in macon, ga. The governor vetoed that. Finally they passed it as a health code, which the public doesn't get to vote on, and the governor could not veto. It all comes down to citizen rights and the comming police state if there's not a significant change soon.

"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain

 

[DataPhreak]

Profound. I'm going to be posting this on my facebook.

 

[novasteve]

Nanny staters know no boundaries.

The thing ecig manufacturers should do is stop making any that look like cigarettes. These ban proposals are merely due to the fact it looks like you are smoking a cigarette, and they hate that activity, so they want to stop it.

 

[DataPhreak]

So we are going to prevent them from stomping on our rights by hiding it from them? Nah, i think i will fight sir.

 

[Thulium]

These ban proposals are merely due to the fact it looks like you are smoking a cigarette, and they hate that activity, so they want to stop it.

I wish it were that simple. Because it "looks like smoking" prohibitionists are able to play on the fears of the ignorant, but if ignorance was the only issue then simply using anything other than an amber LED indicator would fix it. The problem is that corporations that sell drugs to treat the symptoms of smoking-related diseases need smokers to believe that they should either quit using recreational nicotine (aka tobacco) completely or they might as well continue buying heavily taxed cigarettes and expensive COPD meds.

The real reason for the ban proposals is because legislators think the public is stupid because, of course, some people are. We need to remind them that vapor is not smoke so any justification they may have to restrict or otherwise discourage smoking cannot be applied to products that aren't smoked.

Really, what is hurting us internally are retailers who want people to think that there's some big secret about how e-cigarettes work and they're "new technology" so we must not know what is in them or what long term effects might show up....but that is simply not true! Liquid glycol vaporizers have been used in indoor public spaces for a very long time without any serious side effects. Although good quality rechargable batteries and the battery powered atomizers we use in e-cigs are somewhat new and constantly being improved, the underlying technology of heating a propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin to create a vapor that looks like smoke is nothing new.

 

[Placebo Effect]

The local DeKalb chapter of the Libertarian Party is likely going to be assisting us with phone calls to legislators and maybe even a speaker when the hearing + vote occurs on June 14th.

Thanks to them!

 

[DataPhreak]

THANK GOD! I'm suprised they haven't jumped on the band wagon sooner. We need to get a contacts list from them so we can sick them on other districts and other states. Surely there's a master list somewhere.

 

[sherid]

Nanny staters know no boundaries.

The thing ecig manufacturers should do is stop making any that look like cigarettes. These ban proposals are merely due to the fact it looks like you are smoking a cigarette, and they hate that activity, so they want to stop it.

If the e cig companies stop making e cigs that look like cigarettes, I will stop using them. Others will never start using them. On this forum, it appears that most people want mods. In the real world, that is not the case. Bowing to the anti-smokers' desire to eliminate whatever "looks" like smoking is another step toward the prohibition of all tobacco products. Please think beyond and instead attack the idea that anyone has a right to ban anything that "looks" like smoking.

 

[kingcobra]

Overall I like the speech, although I'd focus a little more on the real issue here, which is whether or not there are good enough reasons to include e-cigarettes in smoking bans. So for instance, this ban involves the act of smoking, where smoke is created which may be inhaled by others. E-cigarettes do not produce smoke of any kind. However, it may be claimed that the vapor emitted may pose enough risk to the health of others to warrant prohibiting its use. The onus must be on those seeking to prohibit, and they aren't entitled to do so simply out of ignorance. It has not been shown that vaping is harmful to even the health of the user, and moreover, the vapor emitted, being heavier than air, unlike smoke, does not linger in the air in the first place. In any case, until there is good evidence to believe that others are harmed to a degree that it would make sense to ban use of this product, we cannot rightfully do so. In particular, we certainly cannot do so out of paranoia bred by vacuous assumptions of risk based upon nothing other than a lack of understanding of the facts involved or the product that's sought to be banned.

 

[Placebo Effect]

E-Cigarette Users Battle Smoking Ban - News Story - WSB Atlanta

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. -- A proposed smoking ban in DeKalb County plan is finding opposition from an unlikely group -- some non-smokers.

A growing number of people have begun using electronic cigarettes as a way to kick the tobacco smoking habit. E-Cigarettes use a battery to heat up a nicotine-laced liquid. Users inhale the vapor, and exhale a water vapor that they claim is harmless to the environment and other people nearby.

Greg Hester first tried e-cigarettes two years ago, his last effort to kick a 21-year smoking habit.

. . .

Greg is CASAA's regional rep for the Atlanta area -- great job Greg!

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Just caught this on the noon news, great job Greg. I'm glad to see that WSB treated it this way and actually told both sides of the story. Also noticed that the Doctor could only point to nicotine addiction as their main problem and the lack of science pointing to safety and had nothing to point to any known science pointing to damage caused by them. Pure nicotine anti as far as I could see.

 

[Vocalek]

Just caught this on the noon news, great job Greg. I'm glad to see that WSB treated it this way and actually told both sides of the story. Also noticed that the Doctor could only point to nicotine addiction as their main problem and the lack of science pointing to safety and had nothing to point to any known science pointing to damage caused by them. Pure nicotine anti as far as I could see.

The annual death rates from using non-smoked nicotine (e.g., long term use of snus, NRT) must be weighed against the annual death rates attributed to smoking.

When I stop to think about it, I guess it isn't that surprising that so many health departments and medical practioners don't know about the research - it is scattered across numerous venues. Most doctors subscribe to just a few medical journals, and the articles about e-cigarettes have spanned many different journals. Also, only the FDA had the power to publish their toxicology report and get any attention whatsoever. Dr. Laugesen and the web sites of numerous vendors have published results of toxicology studies that have received no attention whatsoever from main stream media. Many of the Population Surveys have not been published in journals at all. At least two surveys and one toxicology report have been delivered at conferences. I am in the process of updating CASAA's comprehensive list of research results.

 

[DataPhreak]

When did Savannah sneak a ban in?

 

[Vocalek]

When did Savannah sneak a ban in?

August of 2010. We could not find a member anywhere near Savannah to go and speak, so NVC put up half the money and CASAA put up the other half to pay for me to fly in for the day to address the City Councel for the public hearing portion. I made the mistake of being the first to go up to the microphone. I was the only one asking to have e-cigarettes excluded from the ordinance. A few bar owners asked that their businesses be excluded. I was followed by at least half a dozen antis who spouted the usual ration of lies: The FDA found carcnogens and antifreeze in them, kids are buying these, they will attract new nicotine addicts, former smokers will try these and then relapse to smoking, we don't know what's in them, there is no evidence....

I tried to go back to rebut some of what was said but was not permiitted to do so. When I returned home, I followed up with this email:

Dear Mayor and Members of the Savannah City Council:

Thanks you for the courtesy you showed in allowing me to address the council regarding the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the proposed City of Savannah Smoke-Free Air Act of 2010. I urge you to amend the ordinance to remove all mention of electronic cigarettes for the following reasons:

The point of passing a Clean Air ordinance is to protect public health

• Former smokers should not be banished to the smoking area.
• Vapor presents no danger to the health of the user or bystanders.
• Allowing indoor use of electronic cigarettes provides encouragement for continuing smokers to quit.

Every reason for enacting a Clean Air ordinance does not apply to smoke-free products. The council cannot claim to be acting based on science or in the interest of clean air if they are banning smoke-free alternatives without any evidence of hazards to users, much less bystanders. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence on the safety of these products.

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested the Ruyan brand of e-cigarette and issued his report in October 2008. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

“Findings: Ruyan® e-cigarette is designed to be a safe alternative to smoking. The various test results confirm this is the case. It is very safe relative to cigarettes, and also safe in absolute terms on all measurements we have applied.”

In the August 2010 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University reported on a clinical trial comparing health effects of subjects’ own brand of cigarettes to two brands of electronic cigarettes and to sham smoking. Both brands of electronic cigarette significantly decreased tobacco abstinence symptom ratings, but had no significant impact on plasma nicotine levels, heart rate, or exhaled carbon monoxide.

http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf

In addition, we have logic and common sense. If directly inhaling the vapor improves health (reported by 90% of users), it defies imagination that exhaled vapor could harm bystanders. If the council believes that exposure to second-hand smoke endangers the health of bystanders, why subject electronic cigarette users to that danger by banishing them to the smoking area?

I leave you with this thought from Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at Boston University School of Public Health:

“We in tobacco control should be trying to do everything we can to help smokers quit. Thus, we should be embracing electronic cigarettes rather than putting obstacles in the way of people using this product. The best way to reduce secondhand smoke exposure is to reduce cigarette smoking. Encouraging smokers to quit is the best thing we can do to reduce secondhand smoke, and the use of e-cigarettes to quit smoking seems to be a very effective and popular strategy.”

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

Please contact me if you need any further information.

My arguments fell on deaf ears. I have the feeling that several council members already had their minds made up, judging from the expressions on faces while I spoke.

 

[Vocalek]

I have an updated list of research articles on E-cigarettes posted here: Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

Please review and double-check that links are working. Thanks!