Please read - action needed - New Jersey E-Cig Ban!!

[Skwerl]

I sent my email earlier today. I kept it brief:

Dear Senators of the formally Great State of NJ,

I shall keep this brief. It has come to my attention that there is a push to ban the public use of the e-cigarette in NJ. I beg you to reconsider. The e-cigarette [also know as vaping] has given me my life back. I can breathe again. I now produce no second hand smoke or inhale 70 or so known carcinogens.

I am no longer a slave to a product that is completely legal, regulated by the state and federal government, yet will kill me if given enough time.

The fact of the matter is you have more pressing issues on your plate.

I beg you all to turn your attention to the more critical matters that plague New Jersey, like the rampant corruption, wasteful spending, pay-to-play, nepotism, and usurious taxes. When these afflictions are finally eradicated, then and only then will this be the great state that I know it to be, not the ....**d child born of Tammany Hall & Chicago-style deep dish politics.

If you can't, we will elect someone who can.

Shannon Spillane
Vaper, Libertarian and rabid voter.

 

[zapped]

Is it just me that finds it funny that New Jersey of all places wants to ban e cigarettes? How many millions of tons of pollutants do their factories produce every year?

 

[Thulium]

I completely agree! Why is it SO necessary for anyone to be able to vape where they would not normally be permitted to smoke???

To put it simply: The reasons for indoor smoking bans are not valid reasons to ban the use of smoke-free products in all public workplaces. There is no evidence or reason to suspect that e-cigarettes present any risk whatsoever to non-users.

 

[Skwerl]

[...]Why is it SO necessary for anyone to be able to vape where they would not normally be permitted to smoke???[...]

Your point is valid, but as a resident of the Peoples Republic of New Jersey history has shown it only takes a crack in the dam to cause a flood. If they pass this, in a very short time they will either tax/fine me retroactively on any e-cig related purchases, or just outright ban them with a giant fine all together. NJ politicians hunt rabbits with a bazooka and a flame thrower. Logic is a faerie tale here.
Trenton does stuff here that is illegal in 49 states!

 

[sbphotog]

my letter sent.

 

[ThaLadyD]

E-mails Sent!

Good Luck New Jersey!!!

 

[kristin]

To put it simply: The reasons for indoor smoking bans are not valid reasons to ban the use of smoke-free products in all public workplaces. There is no evidence or reason to suspect that e-cigarettes present any risk whatsoever to non-users.

True - banning a vaper from using an e-cig indoors is like banning someone for drinking a beer indoors.
Neither activity hurts anyone else - they just don't like that vaping "looks" like smoking!

Are they going to start banning drinking liquor indoors, because someone could breathe liquor fumes on your kids and get them drunk??

The logic is just as ridiculous with e-cigs.

 

[jimR]

Done- I hope that with that many Senators we get atleast half to listen

 

[Vocalek]

I completely agree! Why is it SO necessary for anyone to be able to vape where they would not normally be permitted to smoke???

Sherry

Actually, Sherry, I addressed that very question in my email, which carries the subject line: Prevention of Smoking Cessation

Dear Senators:



Here are some important facts you should know before you vote on S-3503.

• Approximately 100,000 Americans have succeeded in smoking cessation by substituting electronic cigarettes for their tobacco cigarettes. I am one of them. I smoked for 45 years!
• The devices produce no smoke.
• Researchers at Health New Zealand have studied one brand extensively and have concluded "Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders." http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
• Forcing those who have successfully stopped smoking into zones containing tobacco smoke endangers their health--needlessly.

Picture this scenario. A New Jersey smoker walks into a bar, sees someone staying inside, warm and dry, enjoying the use of their electronic cigarette. Curious, the smoker asks the electronic cigarette user about the device, decides to get one for himself, and subsequently stops smoking tobacco cigarettes. Every time this happens, at least one life is made healthier.


If you want to be a part of helping more New Jersey citizens stop inhaling tobacco smoke, then REJECT S-3503.


A vote FOR this bill is equivalent to voting for the prevention of smoking cessation.


Elaine D. Keller
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

 

[skinnie]

I am not a resident of NJ but sent emails just the same. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[HokieSmokie]

New Jersey is going to be tough because they are crazy. I read that they wanted to also ban smoking in cars because it causes accidents.

 

[TheGreen]

Emails sent.

 

[youtubecommercial]

E-mails sent yesterday

 

[johnny bobcat]

i wonder if any of the senators read my emails, if they did there's no way they could pass that bill with a clean concsience

 

[BARENETTED]

Hi All,

I have not been around for a while. Unfortunately, I only found out about this because of an email that was sent out today from Rob at Altsmoke.
(I am a customer of his). I have been trying like crazy to send emails, but they just arent going thru. Any suggestions???

 

[smiley7]

Hi All,

I have not been around for a while. Unfortunately, I only found out about this because of an email that was sent out today from Rob at Altsmoke.
(I am a customer of his). I have been trying like crazy to send emails, but they just arent going thru. Any suggestions???

Barenetted go to post 3 by Ski, click on link & do a copy & then past into your email program & send.

 

[smiley7]

E-mails sent. Got several auto replys back immediately. LOL

 

[ACM]

Well, here's the letter I sent. I hope it's clear. I doubt it will even get read. The decision to ban e-cigs indoors in public spaces has no doubt already been made. The vote will be little more than a formality.

Dear Senators:

I am imploring you to push for fair legislation regarding the sale and use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) as viable options for those wishing to stop using tobacco, but who have been unsuccessful in their efforts to quit smoking. I respectfully ask that you do not pass the proposed legislation to ban e-smoking in indoor public places in New Jersey at this time. More research must be conducted into the possible heath effects of e-smoking before such laws are even considered.

The current, popular call for the banning of these alternatives to smoking is largely a knee-jerk reaction to an inadequate July 2009 "report" by the FDA. In this report, the FDA questions the safety of e-cigs without sufficient testing to back up its concerns. It has created a firestorm of controversy, leading to emotional bans of e-cigs in various states and local municipalities throughout the U.S.

Recently, Suffolk County, New York, lawmakers included e-cigs in its public smoking ban. It did this without any scientific testing to determine if the vapor produced by electronic cigarettes is actually harmful. The State of Oregon flatly banned sales of e-cigs altogether. Again, with no real science to back up claims of potential health hazards. Similar, wrongheaded legislation is in the pipeline in Dallas and many other cities and states.

However, in California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger employed reason and logic when he vetoed a law that woud have banned e-cigs in California for essentially the same reason I am asking you to draft legislation that would preserve, for the time being, the sale and use of these smoking alternatives in New Jersey and, ultimately, the rest of the country.

With the significant health dangers of tobacco well-researched, proven, and documented, how can anyone in government truly justify its continued legal production and sale in the U.S. while banning a product that currently has no proven health dangers and which might actually save lives, reduce smoking-related disease rates, and lower heath care costs for many Americans? It's hypocrisy.

I implore you, as logical, reasonable people, to hold off on any legislation that would ban the sale and/or use of e-cigs anywhere in New Jersey until their safety is properly determined. Let science be the primary factor in the decision to ban or allow e-cigs, not emotion.

Please step up and be the voice of reason on this issue. Many thousands of adult (and I stress "adult", not teenagers or minors) smokers should have the legal right and option to switch to what is quite possibly a much safer alternative to the known dangers of tobacco.

Respectfully yours.

 

[VictorySpeedway]

I copied and pasted parts of some of the excellent letters that were sent to NJ legislators, and emailed a "hybrid."

With all the problems New Jersey faces, it is mind-boggling that the imbeciles in Trenton would choose to take the time for an issue as trivial as this.

But, I suppose, it looks good to the ignorant citizenry, who couldn't tell you who's Vice President, but know who won American Idol four years ago.

 

[skydragon]

Okay, here is the e-mail I want to send. Input is welcome but know that I am tired of saying pretty please. I am not real good at punctuation. Oh I will take out the no more cupcakes and alcohol part but it felt good writing it.

Dear Senators,

I am not an e-cig user who is going to beg you to let me keep my e-cig and be able to vape it in a smoke free area but I am an e-cig user who would like to point out a few facts to you.

First and foremost, there is nothing in an e-cig that has not already been FDA or U.S.A. governmentally approved.

Propylene Glycol? FDA approved in cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, perfume, toothpaste, mouthwash, commercial fog machines, artificial flavorings. The list goes on and on. Cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash and perfume are all absorbed into your body. The smell from hair spray, shampoo and perfume is inhaled by others around the person wearing the aforementioned which often leads to feeling ill. Commercial fog machines emit an artificial fog which is inhaled by the audience. Artificial flavors include most candies, bakery goods and anything else that is “artificially” flavored. Again all FDA approved. That means no more frosted cupcakes for you or breath mints to cover the smell of alcohol on your breath after lunch.
If you ban e-cigs due to propylene glycol without also banning the above, that is discrimination.

By all means prohibit the sell of e-cigs to kids under nineteen although in reality there is nothing in them that they don’t already use. Refer to above comments. But if you are going to use the excuse that they are being catered to in order to ban e-cigs, then you must also ban all cosmetic commercials, all perfume commercials, all deodorant commercials, all…..well I think you get my drift. If you don’t, you are discriminating against e-cig users.

So, do you understand that it is a matter of discrimination just because an e-cig resembles a tobacco cigarette? You people have not done your research well. If, as you say, health benefits are the driving force behind this proposed ban, there is no way you can approve bill S-3053.

If on the other hand you do approve the bill, we will know that once again you are liars who do not have our best interests at heart, but only your own.

Sincerely,