Philadelphia City Council proposes adding electronic cigarettes to existing indoor smoking ban
- Thread starter hippieben
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The Philly Council is scheduled to consider the vaping ban and sales ban to minors tomorrow at 10AM
If you live or work in Philly area, please contact ALL Philly City Council members tonight or tomorrow morning.
CASAA: Call to Action! Philadelphia E-Cigarette Usage Ban
Smokefree Pennsylvania sent the following to all council members (and Mayor Nutter) today.
Since Smokefree Pennsylvania’s goal is to reduce the leading cause of disease and death (cigarette smoking), we strongly urge you to reject Bill No 140095 because it bans the use of lifesaving electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), threatens the health of vapers, discourages smokers from quitting, deceitfully defines smokefree e-cigs as “Electronic Smoking Devices”, imposes a $300 fine on employers and managers for violations, cannot be enforced, and because the bill is preempted by the PA Clean Indoor Air Act.
We also urge you to reject Bill No 140096 as long as it deceitfully redefines smokefree e-cigs as “electronic smoking devices” to scare people to believe they are as hazardous as smoking cigarettes.
In sharp contrast to many false and misleading fear mongering claims made by the Philadelphia Health Commissioner Schwarz at the March 13 Public Health Committee hearing, the scientific and empirical evidence has consistently found that e-cigarettes are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes, have helped several million smokers quit or sharply reduce cigarette consumption, and are consumed almost exclusively by cigarette smokers and by exsmokers who switched.
Since e-cigs are smokefree, public health benefits every time a smoker uses an e-cig instead of smoking. E-cigs have already replaced about 1 Billion packs of cigarettes in the US, and last year US cigarette consumption plummeted by 4.6% as e-cig sales skyrocketed.
E-cigs are proving more effective for smoking cessation than FDA approved gums, lozenges, patches and inhalers, which have a 95% failure rate.
E-cigs pose no risks to nonusers. Hundreds of common workplace and household products and activities emit far greater levels of indoor air pollution than an e-cig (including furniture, carpet, paint, printers, copiers, cooking, cleaning products, dry cleaned clothes, hair spray, perfume, nail polish, and even a cup of coffee), but the Philadelphia City Council isn’t considering banning any of those things.
Meanwhile, e-cigs have never been found to create daily dependence in any nonsmoker (youth or adult), and have never been found to precede cigarette use by any daily smoker.
Although a CDC survey found that e-cig use doubled among teens from 2011 to 2012, smokers accounted for the overwhelming majority. Among high school students, 7.6% of smokers and .4% of nonsmokers reported “past 30 day” e-cig use in 2011, increasing to 15.7% of smokers and .7% of nonsmokers in 2012.
Since CDC’s survey (and all others) found that teen smokers are at least 20 times more likely than nonsmokers to report use of an e-cig, and found that teen smoking has declined every year since e-cigs have been marketed, e-cigs are a gateway away from (not towards) cigarette smoking for teens, just as they are for adults.
Regardless, just as we don’t ban adults from consuming alcohol, smokeless tobacco, coffee or candy because some teens consume those products, it’s absurd to ban e-cig use by adults for that reason.
E-cigs benefit many employers and managements since workers don’t waste company time on smoke breaks, and customers don’t disrupt businesses by going outside. Some employers actively urge smokers to switch to e-cigs to improve employee health and save money, including health care costs.
While we support banning vaping at preschools and K-12 schools, other employers and businesses can and have set their own policies for vaping, just as for cellphone use.
Besides, it’s impossible to enforce vaping bans, and unfair to impose $300 fines on employers and businesses for violations since e-cig users can eliminate all visible vapor by simply holding their breath for two seconds. Illegal use of e-cigs has skyrocketed in the three states and several dozen municipalities that banned vaping, and we’re aware of just two citations issued (both against vape shops).
We oppose the text of Bill No 140096 because it appears to be preempted by the state law banning tobacco sales to minors, because it falsely defines smokefree e-cigs as “Electronic Smoking Devices” and creates a new derogatory category of “Unapproved Nicotine Delivery Products” to confuse and scare, and because it requires all e-cig retailers to post intentionally deceptive signs stating "SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND UNAUTHORIZED NICOTINE DELIVERY PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PHOTO I.D. WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS LAW WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED."
Please amend Bill No 140096 to make it is consistent with the language, requirements and penalties in Senator Tim Solobay’s bill (SB 1055) to ban the sale of “alternative nicotine products” to all PA minors that was unanimously approved by the PA Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since 1990, we’ve advocated local, state and federal policies to ban smoking in workplaces, stop cigarette marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, hold cigarette companies accountable in civil court, and help smokers quit.
During the past decade, we’ve been educating the public that cigarettes are 100 times more hazardous than all smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives, including smokeless tobacco, nicotine gums, lozenges, patches, inhalers, and e-cigarettes.
For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from any tobacco, drug or e-cig company.
Thank you,
Bill Godshall
Founder and Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
BillGodshall@verizon.net
If you live or work in Philly area, please contact ALL Philly City Council members tonight or tomorrow morning.
CASAA: Call to Action! Philadelphia E-Cigarette Usage Ban
Smokefree Pennsylvania sent the following to all council members (and Mayor Nutter) today.
Since Smokefree Pennsylvania’s goal is to reduce the leading cause of disease and death (cigarette smoking), we strongly urge you to reject Bill No 140095 because it bans the use of lifesaving electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), threatens the health of vapers, discourages smokers from quitting, deceitfully defines smokefree e-cigs as “Electronic Smoking Devices”, imposes a $300 fine on employers and managers for violations, cannot be enforced, and because the bill is preempted by the PA Clean Indoor Air Act.
We also urge you to reject Bill No 140096 as long as it deceitfully redefines smokefree e-cigs as “electronic smoking devices” to scare people to believe they are as hazardous as smoking cigarettes.
In sharp contrast to many false and misleading fear mongering claims made by the Philadelphia Health Commissioner Schwarz at the March 13 Public Health Committee hearing, the scientific and empirical evidence has consistently found that e-cigarettes are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes, have helped several million smokers quit or sharply reduce cigarette consumption, and are consumed almost exclusively by cigarette smokers and by exsmokers who switched.
Since e-cigs are smokefree, public health benefits every time a smoker uses an e-cig instead of smoking. E-cigs have already replaced about 1 Billion packs of cigarettes in the US, and last year US cigarette consumption plummeted by 4.6% as e-cig sales skyrocketed.
E-cigs are proving more effective for smoking cessation than FDA approved gums, lozenges, patches and inhalers, which have a 95% failure rate.
E-cigs pose no risks to nonusers. Hundreds of common workplace and household products and activities emit far greater levels of indoor air pollution than an e-cig (including furniture, carpet, paint, printers, copiers, cooking, cleaning products, dry cleaned clothes, hair spray, perfume, nail polish, and even a cup of coffee), but the Philadelphia City Council isn’t considering banning any of those things.
Meanwhile, e-cigs have never been found to create daily dependence in any nonsmoker (youth or adult), and have never been found to precede cigarette use by any daily smoker.
Although a CDC survey found that e-cig use doubled among teens from 2011 to 2012, smokers accounted for the overwhelming majority. Among high school students, 7.6% of smokers and .4% of nonsmokers reported “past 30 day” e-cig use in 2011, increasing to 15.7% of smokers and .7% of nonsmokers in 2012.
Since CDC’s survey (and all others) found that teen smokers are at least 20 times more likely than nonsmokers to report use of an e-cig, and found that teen smoking has declined every year since e-cigs have been marketed, e-cigs are a gateway away from (not towards) cigarette smoking for teens, just as they are for adults.
Regardless, just as we don’t ban adults from consuming alcohol, smokeless tobacco, coffee or candy because some teens consume those products, it’s absurd to ban e-cig use by adults for that reason.
E-cigs benefit many employers and managements since workers don’t waste company time on smoke breaks, and customers don’t disrupt businesses by going outside. Some employers actively urge smokers to switch to e-cigs to improve employee health and save money, including health care costs.
While we support banning vaping at preschools and K-12 schools, other employers and businesses can and have set their own policies for vaping, just as for cellphone use.
Besides, it’s impossible to enforce vaping bans, and unfair to impose $300 fines on employers and businesses for violations since e-cig users can eliminate all visible vapor by simply holding their breath for two seconds. Illegal use of e-cigs has skyrocketed in the three states and several dozen municipalities that banned vaping, and we’re aware of just two citations issued (both against vape shops).
We oppose the text of Bill No 140096 because it appears to be preempted by the state law banning tobacco sales to minors, because it falsely defines smokefree e-cigs as “Electronic Smoking Devices” and creates a new derogatory category of “Unapproved Nicotine Delivery Products” to confuse and scare, and because it requires all e-cig retailers to post intentionally deceptive signs stating "SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND UNAUTHORIZED NICOTINE DELIVERY PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PHOTO I.D. WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS LAW WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED."
Please amend Bill No 140096 to make it is consistent with the language, requirements and penalties in Senator Tim Solobay’s bill (SB 1055) to ban the sale of “alternative nicotine products” to all PA minors that was unanimously approved by the PA Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since 1990, we’ve advocated local, state and federal policies to ban smoking in workplaces, stop cigarette marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, hold cigarette companies accountable in civil court, and help smokers quit.
During the past decade, we’ve been educating the public that cigarettes are 100 times more hazardous than all smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives, including smokeless tobacco, nicotine gums, lozenges, patches, inhalers, and e-cigarettes.
For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from any tobacco, drug or e-cig company.
Thank you,
Bill Godshall
Founder and Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
BillGodshall@verizon.net
Yes, I did the same. However if you click on him to follow and see tweets, it says the account is suspended.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The Philly Council meeting will begin soon (it was scheduled for 10AM), but still hasn't started.
It will be broadcast live on the following radio station
900AM WURD - Philadelphia - Powered by MainstreamNetwork.com
During the past half hour, Greg Conley and I were interviewed by this same radio station (that covers City Council) opposing Greenlee's proposed vaping ban.
It will be broadcast live on the following radio station
900AM WURD - Philadelphia - Powered by MainstreamNetwork.com
During the past half hour, Greg Conley and I were interviewed by this same radio station (that covers City Council) opposing Greenlee's proposed vaping ban.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Can someone please obtain and post the weblink of today's Philly Inquirer editorial opposing the vaping ban.
It's available at philly.com (which hasn't allowed me access to Inquirer or Daily News editorials or op/eds ever since I changed my e-mail address).
It's available at philly.com (which hasn't allowed me access to Inquirer or Daily News editorials or op/eds ever since I changed my e-mail address).
I think Bill told us the results a couple days ago when he said they wouldn't bring it to the table unless they knew it would be approved.
Personally, my visits to Philly will be curtailed from this day forward. They don't need my money.
I am really interested to see how the NYC Lawsuit plays out. IF it goes well for vapers, maybe there is a chance to put a halt to some of this nonsense.
The only question that remains is if these people are driven by ignorant stupidity or pure malice. The odds look like 15 to nil in favor of the latter 
The only question that remains is if these people are driven by ignorant stupidity or pure malice. The odds look like 15 to nil in favor of the latter
I'd say stupid regressive control. I see little possibility of winning in any city barring a favorable outcome in NYC and even that case is based on a technicality. Perhaps science in the long run, but short term, Philadelphia was the last best chance.
That technicality is still the guidelines set forth to govern the powers of the city.
I realize that and I hope the case wins. However the real issue is municipalities and states legislation behavior based on unfounded health claims. "We just don't know" legislation doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's extend bans on unknown things such as no use of cell phones in public property because "we just don't know" if there is some long term risk to the user and those around them.
How about a ban on composite decking where there is a know risk of black mold forming, most composite handrails are not up to building codes and if composite decking joists are made 16 inches apart, which is normal, they will begin to sag under the pressure of weight. What about the children? This may be very dangerous, joist can break, children could fall and injure themselves. If one child is saved it's worth a ban. We still don't know the long term effects of this material.
The SHS case was more based on trying to control behavior than risk. This legislation takes it to a new level.
It's always good to put up a fight. If nothing else, legislators know that their constituents see things differently and there is evidence. I noticed that some said, "who cares". Those are the sheep of the world.
There are some good points raised and listed in this thread. I pulled some out for my own letter writing.
Thank-you all for your efforts, thank-you.
Jere
There are some good points raised and listed in this thread. I pulled some out for my own letter writing.
Thank-you all for your efforts, thank-you.
Jere
This still has to go to Mayor Nutter, I'm writing a letter to him and would suggest others do the same. It is a last resort, but still there is opportunity to change this. He is probably not very informed of things from our point of view.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
