Steve Heilig at it again

[cookiebun]

Follow up to "Pack Of Lies"
: Steve Heilig : City Brights

 

[jtpjc]

Hiding behind authorities now are we? SF authorities no less.

 

[Stosh]

Interesting, one pig-headed government diatribe citing another pig-headed government regulation is now regarded as scientific truth.......

 

[JustJulie]

Well, for what it's worth, I responded . . . the comment is kind of hidden because I replied in response to John Polito's post.

 

[bjannr]

I just basically skimmed the article, but the one "Where As", aactually made me laugh out loud. It was the one that stated something to the fact an e-cig resembles a regular cigarrete. Well I hope no one tries to light my REO.

 

[JustJulie]

I just basically skimmed the article, but the one "Where As", aactually made me laugh out loud. It was the one that stated something to the fact an e-cig resembles a regular cigarrete. Well I hope no one tries to light my REO.

I know . . . I doubt my Darwin or my HeliX would be mistaken for an e-cigarette. In fact, I used to worry about my Fistpack being mistaken for a detonator.

While there are some devices out there that do resemble "regular" cigarettes, I doubt they'd really cause all that much confusion once you noticed that (1) the "smoke" was dissipating quickly, and (2) there was no tell-tale smell of burning tobacco.

 

[ec!gg]

I just basically skimmed the article, but the one "Where As", aactually made me laugh out loud. It was the one that stated something to the fact an e-cig resembles a regular cigarrete. Well I hope no one tries to light my REO.

Yea this guy obviously doesn't know what he is talking about!

 

[Thulium]

I fixed it for "The Next Step"!

Health Commission City and County of San Francisco Resolution No. of 7-11

Endorsing the San Francisco Department of Public Health Proposal to Regulate Electronic Cigarettes Sugar-Free Sodas.

WHEREAS the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet issued any regulations regarding electronic cigarettes, also called e-cigarettes, sugar-free soda and these products are available for purchase in this city; and

WHEREAS the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued a decision that e-cigarettes sugar-free caffeinated beverages and other products "made or derived from tobacco coffee" can be regulated as “tobacco products" “coffee products” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but that these products cannot be regulated as drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes; and

WHEREAS electronic cigarette sugar-free soda manufacturers and retailers are making unproven health claims about their products by asserting that they are safe or safer than traditional cigarettes sodas and that they can be used as an aid to smoking cessation obesity reduction; and

WHEREAS the FDA has warned the public about the potential health risks of using electronic cigarettes diet sodas; and

WHEREAS initial FDA studies found that electronic cigarettes sugar-free sodas contain known carcinogens; and

WHEREAS the FDA issued a statement on April 25, 2011 that it intends to propose a regulation that would extend the Agency's "tobacco “coffee product" authority under the Family Smoking Obesity Prevention and Tobacco Weight Control Act to other categories of tobacco products energy drinks that meet the statutory definition of "tobacco product" “Energy Drink” under the Act; and

WHEREAS electronic cigarette Energy Drink packages do not supply any warnings about possible adverse effects on health comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products pyschostimulants or conventional cigarettes caffeinated beverages; and

WHEREAS there is no scientific evidence that electronic cigarettes diet sodas can help smokers to quit smoking reduce obesity; and

WHEREAS the World Health Association does not consider electronic cigarettes sugar-free sodas to be a legitimate therapy for smokers caffeine addicts trying to quit tobacco lose weight; and

WHEREAS FDA studies found that certain electronic cigarettes sodas misrepresent nicotine calorie content on their labels and sometimes contain far more nicotine calories than FDA-approved smoking cessation products weight loss drugs; and

WHEREAS FDA studies found that certain electronic cigarettes emitted sugar-free sodas contained a markedly different amount of nicotine calories with each puff sip; and

WHEREAS the Surgeon General has found that the chemical nicotine caffeine is a powerful pharmacologic agent that acts in the brain and throughout the body and is highly addictive; and

WHEREAS withdrawal symptoms from nicotine caffeine include cognitive and attention defects, cravings, inability to sleep, and sleep disturbance; and

WHEREAS use of nicotine caffeine may cause or contribute to cardiovascular disease, complications of hypertension, reproductive disorders, cancer, and gastrointestinal disorders, including peptic ulcer disease and gastro esophageal reflux; and

WHEREAS electronic cigarettes diet sodas may not be legally sold to minors in California; and

WHEREAS some electronic cigarette diet soda producers market their product to children by flavoring their products with candy, fruit, and other flavors popular with children; and

WHEREAS the FDA has raised concerns that electronic cigarettes sugar substitutes, including but not limited to flavored electronic cigarettes beverages can increase nicotine caffeine addiction among young people and may lead youth to try conventional tobacco products coffee and energy drinks; and

WHEREAS according to the 2009 San Francisco Unified School District High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 10.4% [a large percentage] of San Francisco high school students reported current cigarette use obesity; according to the 2009 California Health Interview Survey, 11.9% [a large percentage] of San Francisco adults were current smokers obese, and according to the 2008 California Adult Tobacco Survey, 17.6% [a large percentage] of California adults 18-24 years of age were current smokers obese; and

WHEREAS there is no evidence that the vapors released into the air through the use of an electronic cigarette caffeinated beverages do not present a danger to others who breathe them; and

WHEREAS electronic cigarettes' diet sodas’ resemblance to conventional cigarettes soda has caused the San Francisco Airport Health and Safety Office and Department of Public Health Secondhand Smoke Obesity Prevention and Enforcement Program to observe that the use of electronic cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited diet sodas by people with diabetes increases the likelihood that people will break the law by lighting up cigarettes diabetics will gain weight because they see what appears to be someone smoking drinking soda, undermining compliance with existing smoking diet regulations; and

WHEREAS the use of an electronic cigarette diet soda in public is virtually indistinguishable from the use of traditional tobacco products caffeinated beverages in public, prompting confusion and concern by the owners of establishments seeking to comply with the City's laws prohibiting smoking obesity in certain locations; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation has banned the use of electronic cigarettes cell phones on U.S. carrier and foreign carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, interstate, and foreign air transportation; and

WHEREAS on April 5, 2011 the San Francisco Airport Commission amended its Rules and Regulations regarding smoking obesity to include a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes diet soda due to the problems associated with electronic cigarette use diet soda drinking in public outlined above; and

WHEREAS the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and American Lung Association support including electronic cigarettes in smoke-free laws are supported by corporations that market and sell drugs and devices to treat the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic obesity; and

WHEREAS electronic cigarettes sugar-free sodas have been banned in indoor public places and workplaces by King County (Seattle), Washington, New Jersey and Suffolk County, New York while electronic cigarette diet soda sales have been banned increased throughout Canada; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Health Commission endorses the policies proposed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health to

1. Prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes diet sodas (and other nicotine caffeine delivery devices not approved by the FDA as smoking cessation aids weight loss drugs or devices) in those areas where smoking obesity is prohibited in the San Francisco Health Code.

2. Require a tobacco permit for the sale or furnishing of electronic cigarettes sugar-free sodas and other nicotine caffeine delivery devices not approved by the FDA as smoking cessation aids weight loss drugs and devices.

 

[Michael Hocks]

revised: this is sad

 

[Demarko]

Here's the link to the full article and comment thread, by the way, if people want to comment.

Electronic Cigarettes Revisted: Public Health and Medical Opinion : Steve Heilig : City Brights

 

[hairball]

This guy is a complete idiot. If a kid is going to smoke, they will. If a kid is going to use an ecig, they will. Bottom line, where are their parents? Most kids these days are educated enough to stay away from nicotine in any form. My daughter from little up, hounded the hell out of me to stop. 2 years ago, she showed me ecigs and I was the one that stuck my nose up at them. Now if a kid is going to smoke, would they do this for their parents? Nope. I even had many of her friends after me to quit...hmmm...so kids are going to use ecigs? I don't think so. This is just a way to try to place more bans and regulations on us.

 

[Stosh]

Dear Hairball, if you would simply write a check for the cigarette taxes you haven't paid since starting e-cigs and send it to your local state govt., they would be more than happy to leave us alone.....

 

[Vocalek]

Dear Hairball, if you would simply write a check for the cigarette taxes you haven't paid since starting e-cigs and send it to your local state govt., they would be more than happy to leave us alone.....

I don't think so. The more we give them, the more they spend, and then the more they want from us.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I just basically skimmed the article, but the one "Where As", aactually made me laugh out loud. It was the one that stated something to the fact an e-cig resembles a regular cigarrete. Well I hope no one tries to light my REO.

My e-cig glows green. Does that make it OK or does it indicate a radiation risk? After all, toxic sludge glows green right?

 

[rothenbj]

I don't think so. The more we give them, the more they spend, and then the more they want from us.

And that isn't just a statement about E Cigarettes or money. The number of laws past in my lifetime seem incredible and that tax freedom day keeps getting later. With the current deficit, that date has moved a month in 40 years, from about Apr 22 to May 22 and I don't believe that includes medical "taxes". Of course there's a heavier burden on those that incur excise taxes. Those 20% of smokers have to cover for the 80% of non-smokers.

 

[Thulium]

Dear Hairball, if you would simply write a check for the cigarette taxes you haven't paid since starting e-cigs and send it to your local state govt., they would be more than happy to leave us alone.....

Cigarette taxes barely scratch the surface. What if too many of the 8.6 million smokers who have a chronic disease that is caused or worsened by smoking have their symptoms disappear after they switch to a smoke-free alternative? What will happen to funding for the new Oncology wing at the local hospital if there was a sharp decrease of lung and oral cancers? Worse yet, what if people stop smoking and realize that smoking is not the ONLY cause of cancer, heart and lung disease? No industrial polluter, drug or junk food seller would be safe!

 

[rothenbj]

Actually, Mr. Heilig may have done us a favor with this article. Had he not published it, we would not know that anything is going on in the bay area. It might be a good time to have a call to action to make contacts with those responsible for decision based on the health department's proposal.

Maybe if we start soon enough, we can impact the outcome. Of course, they did ban kids toys in McDonalds so who knows.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Yes, you're right rothenbj.

We need a legislative list for San Francisco. Any volunteers? You may be able to find a recent one by searching.

I also recall an article was written about the proposed ban a couple months ago that mentioned that the ordinance would have to go through 2 separate departments in the San Francisco government before it could be voted upon. Can someone find and link that article?

 

[River]

people should probably just ignore this guy in the future.

the only reason he wrote a second story was because he finally recieved a bit of attention.

i do have to say it's pretty funny to see a SF "intellectual" jump on the "but what about the children" bandwagon.

you would think a person like that would know what idiocy follows that battle cry.

 

[hippiebrian]

One statement bugged me. Are any kids getting e-cigs and then deciding to smoke? I started smoking when I was 13, and remember what it was like. Really, I barely had enough cash to buy smokes. What kid in his or her right mind would order an e-cig kit on line for 45 or more dollars when he/she can get a pack of smokes around the corner for 8 bucks (or less)? This guy has been smoking something, and it obviously isn't cigarettes!