URGENT Call to Action, Calhoun, Mississippi

[JustJulie]

URGENT! Letters needed in Calhoun, Mississippi. Calhoun will be voting on a smoking ban ordinance tomorrow night (8/2) at 6:30 PM that would ban smoking, as well as e-cigarettes, in all public businesses. Please send e-mails to cccityclerk@tds.net and ask that they be forwarded to the Board of Alderman.

The actual proposed ordinance wasn't finalized until today. The ordinance's 'Findings and Intent' section includes a couple falsehoods about e-cigarettes that are easily rebutted, including the TSNAs and DEG found in the e-cigarette by the FDA and that e-cigarettes create confusion because the vapor resembles smoke.


(Posted by Placebo Effect on CASAA's Facebook Page at Log In | Facebook)

 

[Pandy]

What is the ordinance called?

 

[JustJulie]

What is the ordinance called?

This is all I've got:

ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING
IN ALL WORKPLACES AND PUBLIC PLACES
IN THE CITY OF CALHOUN CITY, MISSISSIPPI

No number that I know of.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I sent mine. Please send yours. The deck is stacked against us, but remember that Delaware County, Indiana amended their proposed smoking ordinance to exclude e-cigarettes despite no e-cigarette user attending the hearing.

 

[JustJulie]

From the CASAA Facebook page:

For reference, it is Section 3 of the proposed ordinance which states, "'Smoking' also includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article."

Sorry, guys . . . there isn't an online source for the proposed ordinance, and it was just finalized today . . . never a single bit of publicity of the fact that it would include e-cigs.

 

[JustJulie]

Not too late to get your letter in.

Here's a link to the letter CASAA sent:

CASAA.org

 

[Bill Godshall]

View attachment 47985

Text of proposed ordinance is attached.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I sent the following letter the Calhoun City Clerk at cccityclerk@tds.net


Please forward this to the Calhoun City Board of Aldermen regarding ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN ALL WORKPLACES AND PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF CALHOUN CITY, MISSISSIPPI

Calhoun City Board of Aldermen:

Since tobacco smoke pollution poses public health risks, I encourage you to ban smoking inside workplaces and public places, and at outdoor public locations near building entrances and where people congregate in close proximity, as delineated in the proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking.

But since electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) emit ZERO smoke, it is inaccurate and disingenuous to include the use of e-cigarettes in the proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking's definition of "smoking". And since there is no scientific or empirical evidence indicating that e-cigarettes have ever harmed anyone, and since e-cigarettes have helped a million smokers quit smoking and/or sharply reduce cigarette consumption, there is no public health justification for banning usage of these smokefree products at locations where smoking is banned.

Therefore, please delete the second sentence of the definition of "Smoking" (on page 8 of the proposed ordinance) because it falsely claims ""Smoking" also includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates vapor, in any manner or form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article." Also, please delete the paragraph (on pages 4/5 of the proposed ordinance) that cites intentionally misleading and legally invalidated allegations made by the FDA about e-cigarettes during its failed attempt to win a lawsuit.

Approximately one million smokers have quit smoking or sharply reduced their cigarette consumption by switching to or substituting smokefree e-cigarettes. To date, there is no evidence that e-cigarette usage has harmed any consumers (nor anyone else), which is logical since the smokefree products emit just a tiny amount of vaporized nicotine (similar to nicotine inhalers that are marketed as smoking cessation aids) and water vapor.
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf
CASAA.org
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
SEIKATSUEISEI : Vol. 55 (2011) , No. 1 p.59-64

Published surveys have confirmed that e-cigarettes satisfy the cravings of smokers, and have provided many health benefits to users who switched from cigarettes.
Sign In
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf
THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (see chapter 9)

E-cigarettes have been found to contain/emit similar or lower levels of nicotine than nicotine gums and lozenges
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eissenberg-study-vindicates-e-cigarettes.html,
indicating that e-cigarettes emit enough nicotine to satisfy the cravings of smokers, but probably not enough to addict nonsmokers.

The dozen plus laboratory tests conducted on e-cigarettes have been very consistent, with only one test (conducted by the FDA in 2009) finding a trace level of one so-called toxic chemical (at well below the toxic level) in just one of eighteen samples tested. The FDA's test also found levels of so-called carcinogenic nitrosamines in e-cigarettes that were nearly identical to those in nicotine gums and patches. These grossly misleading fearmongering allegations made by the FDA (and repeated in Calhoun City's proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking) were legally invalidated by a federal court at Electronic Cigarettes, which the FDA subsequently agreed to abide by at Electronic Cigarettes.

Other public health organizations that have extensively studied e-cigarettes have also endorsed their use by smokers, including the American Association of Public Health Physicians Regulations.gov and the American Council on Science and Health FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes - Washington Times.

In 2006, I coauthored a comprehensive scientific report "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers" at HRJ | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers and in 2007 the Royal College of Physicians
issued a similar report "Harm reduction in nicotine addiction; Helping people who can't quit" at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf Epidemiology studies have consistently found that cigarette smoking poses 100 times greater morbidity and mortality risks than use of smokeless tobacco products in the US and Sweden, and the available evidence indicates that all noncombustible tobacco/nicotine products (including e-cigarettes, nicotine gums, lozenges, patches) are also about 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Smokers who switch to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduce their health risks nearly as much as smokers who quit all tobacco/nicotine usage, and several million smokers have already switched to smokeless tobacco products, e-cigarettes and/or NRT products.

Finally, in contrast to indoor smokefree policies/laws (which are largely self enforced because of broad public support), enforcing an e-cigarette usage ban is impossible since the products can be used discreetly without anyone else knowing (as e-cigarettes emit no smoke, and they emit no visible water vapor unless immediately exhaled).

Once again, please remove e-cigarettes from the definition of "smoking" in the proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking, eliminate the paragraph (on pages 4/5 of the proposed ordinance), and then vote to approve the rest of the proposed ordinance.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[Jacinda222]

Nice letter Bill!

I sent my email off yesterday--I hope it helps!

 

[Pandy]

.....ing letter Bill.

 

[BlueMoods]

I fail to see the big deal. So you can't vape indoors if you can't smoke. Most of the country is that way. Yes marketer do say you can vape where you can't smoke but, in general, that is not the case except in truck stops that sell e-cigs and even then, not in the restaurant or near the fuel island.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I fail to see the big deal. So you can't vape indoors if you can't smoke. Most of the country is that way. Yes marketer do say you can vape where you can't smoke but, in general, that is not the case except in truck stops that sell e-cigs and even then, not in the restaurant or near the fuel island.

Actually, no. In most of the country it's up to the individual business to make that decision, and there are plenty of businesses that allow vaping.

 

[Michael Curry]

I just have to wonder tho - Does the name "E-Cigarette" somehow make things a bit harder? I mean - those who know nothing of e-cigs think they're like cigarettes. Well, I wonder what could have given them that idea?

Maybe if they were referred to as Personal Vaporizers, there would be fewer rabid anti's trying to ban them because many of them look like a cigarette, and they are even called a cigarette.

Way too late to matter, and hindsight is always 20/20 - but food for thought. I don't smoke an e-cigarette. I partake of and enjoy vapor from a personal vaporizer.

(Too late as in the image is already tarnished by the unfortunate choice of a name that has come back to haunt many times over)

 

[Nicko]

I fail to see the big deal. So you can't vape indoors if you can't smoke. Most of the country is that way. Yes marketer do say you can vape where you can't smoke but, in general, that is not the case except in truck stops that sell e-cigs and even then, not in the restaurant or near the fuel island.

The whole point of smoke-free places was to protect people from second-hand "smoke". If PV's produce no "smoke", what possible reason would there be for including them in the smoking bans? Sure, a business owner can choose to ban anything on their premises, but it's a totally different thing if law-makers decide to ban something for no good reason at all. That's tyranny.

 

[Nicko]

I just have to wonder tho - Does the name "E-Cigarette" somehow make things a bit harder? I mean - those who know nothing of e-cigs think they're like cigarettes. Well, I wonder what could have given them that idea?

Maybe if they were referred to as Personal Vaporizers, there would be fewer rabid anti's trying to ban them because many of them look like a cigarette, and they are even called a cigarette.

Way too late to matter, and hindsight is always 20/20 - but food for thought. I don't smoke an e-cigarette. I partake of and enjoy vapor from a personal vaporizer.

(Too late as in the image is already tarnished by the unfortunate choice of a name that has come back to haunt many times over)

It would not make the slightest difference what we called them. The anti-everything brigade have decided they are evil and we could call e-cigs anti-smoke machines but they would still hate them (and us). This has been discussed SO many times. Your comment is good, but, a name change is virtually a non-issue. E-cigs already have several names, and the haters hate all of them.

 

[Vocalek]

The whole point of smoke-free places was to protect people from second-hand "smoke". If PV's produce no "smoke", what possible reason would there be for including them in the smoking bans? Sure, a business owner can choose to ban anything on their premises, but it's a totally different thing if law-makers decide to ban something for no good reason at all. That's tyranny.

Absolutely right. The entire reason for indoor smoking bans in the first place is the claim that inhaling 2nd-hand smoke is very unhealthy. How do these governments justify sending former smokers to the smoke-filled area to use the non-smoked product that helps them remain former smokers?

Two more reasons PVs should not be included in smoking bans:

1. Some people who have switched to PVs are still tempted to smoke the real thing when they are around smokers. The government that forces them to go to the smoking area to relieve their withdrawal symptoms in effect urges these former smokers to relapse.
2. When continuing smokers see PV users remaining safe and dry indoors, it's an incentive for them to put down their smokes and give e-cigarettes a try. Some of them will permanently switch. Removing this advantage is a disincentive to quitting smoking.

 

[ByStander1]

Absolutely right. The entire reason for indoor smoking bans in the first place is the claim that inhaling 2nd-hand smoke is very unhealthy. How do these governments justify sending former smokers to the smoke-filled area to use the non-smoked product that helps them remain former smokers?

Two more reasons PVs should not be included in smoking bans:

1. Some people who have switched to PVs are still tempted to smoke the real thing when they are around smokers. The government that forces them to go to the smoking area to relieve their withdrawal symptoms in effect urges these former smokers to relapse.
2. When continuing smokers see PV users remaining safe and dry indoors, it's an incentive for them to put down their smokes and give e-cigarettes a try. Some of them will permanently switch. Removing this advantage is a disincentive to quitting smoking.

Just so you know, Miss Elaine, I'll be using this at the Wheeling, WV, board of health meeting on Thursday. Hope you don't mind... lol!

 

[Vocalek]

You know my motto: Steal freely.

OH, please also let them know that there have been zero problems in their neighboring state Virginia, where the attorney general has determined that e-cigarettes are not included in the statewide indoor smoking ban. It is easy to tell vapor from smoke. No odor.

Many bars ward off problems with smoking customers complaining by offering disposable e-cigarettes for sale, so that the smokers don't have to go outside, either.

 

[rothenbj]

You know my motto: Steal freely........

Now what type bike did you say you had in your garage and would you mind leaving the keys in it?

 

[Vocalek]

It's a Honda Shadow...but it isn't mine. It's the property of my DH. He is a firm believer in his Second Amendment rights, if you get my drift.