The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Vaping Ban Proposed in Kansas City, MO

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by bigdancehawk, Nov 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    I received a CASAA alert notifying me that the Kansas City Neighborhoods and Public Safety Committee was going to take this up this morning. I wasn't able to attend, so I expressed my views via email. I have learned that they recommended passage by a vote of 3-0 (the fourth member didn't attend), and they also recommended an increase in the legal age for buying BOTH cigarettes and e-cigarettes to 21. I have no idea who appeared to oppose passage. Most who attended the meeting testified in favor of the ordinances.

    This now goes before the full city counsel tomorrow at 3 pm. There will be no opportunity for public comment at that meeting.

    The city counsel of Kansas City consists mostly of liberal Democrats.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    The vote is in 1-1/2 hours. There will be no public discussion. The stated official basis for passing this is as follows:

    Vapor products remain unregulated. After testing a number of e-cigarettes from two leading manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that various samples tested contained not only nicotine but also detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including tobacco-specific nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, a toxic chemical used in antifreeze. The FDA’s testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent. (“Summary of results: Laboratory analysis of electronic cigarettes conducted by FDA, “Food and Drug Administration (FDA), July 22, 2009; http://www.fda.gov/NewEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm )
    Vapor products produce a vapor of undetermined and potentially harmful substances, which may appear similar to smoke emitted by traditional tobacco products. Their use in workplaces and public places where smoking of traditional tobacco products is prohibited creates concern and confusion and leads to difficulties in enforcing the smoking prohibitions.
    Is it good for the children?
    Yes. An ordinance prohibiting the use of potentially harmful products in enclosed public spaces benefits children as well.

    A majority of the council is listed as sponsoring this ordinance. As far as I can determine, there has been no organized opposition to this and the only disorganized opposition has been me writing some e-mails.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 2, 2009
    E-mails of KC City Council are
    <Heather.Hall@kcmo.org>, <Quinton.Lucas@kcmo.org>, <Katheryn.Shields@kcmo.org>, <Alissia.Canady@kcmo.org>, <scott.wagner@kcmo.org>, <Teresa.Loar@kcmo.org>, <Dan.Fowler@kcmo.org>, <Jermaine.Reed@kcmo.org>, <Jolie.Justus@kcmo.org>, <Lee.Barnes@kcmo.org>, <Scott.Taylor@kcmo.org>, <Kevin.McManus@kcmo.org>, <LeShyeka.Roland@kcmo.org>

    Below is the letter I sent to them yesterday.

    Banning vaping in workplaces is public health malpractice because it would:
    - encourage some/many vapers to switch back to lethal cigarettes,
    - discourage smokers from quitting smoking (by switching to vapor products),
    - deceive the public to believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, and
    - impose counterproductive and costly mandates on employers whose employees quit smoking by switching to vaping.

    According to the growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence, nicotine vapor products (aka e-cigarettes):
    - are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes, and pose no risks to nonusers,
    - have never been associated with any disease or disorder,
    - are virtually all (i.e. >99%) consumed by smokers and by ex-smokers who switched to vaping,
    - have replaced more than 4 Billion packs of cigarettes worldwide in the past eight years,
    - have helped several million smokers quit smoking, and have helped several million more smokers sharply reduce their cigarette consumption,
    - are more effective for smoking cessation than FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges and patches (which have a 95% failure rate),
    - pose fewer safety risks than FDA approved Verenicline (Chantix),
    - have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker (youth or adult),
    - have never been found to be a gateway to cigarette smoking for anyone,
    - have further denormalized cigarette smoking (as youth and adult smoking rates and cigarette consumption have declined every year since 2007 when vapor sales began to skyrocket).

    Besides, all of the following things emit more indoor air pollution than vapor products, but vaping opponents nor Kansas City politicians are complaining about or trying to ban any of them:
    - every exhale by every smoker for more than an hour after smoking every cigarette,
    - smoker’s clothes and hair,
    - cooking,
    - plywood and other building materials,
    - glues and paint,
    - carpeting and most furniture,
    - printers and photocopiers,
    - household cleaning products,
    - dry cleaned clothes,
    - hair sprays, perfumes, nail polish and remover,
    - air fresheners, and even
    - a cup of coffee or tea.

    Bill Godshall
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218
    412-351-5880
    BillGodshall@verizon.net
     
    • Like Like x 15
  4. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Thanks, Bill!

    Here's mine. This went to the co-sponsors and, in slightly modified form, to the others. The mayor, my friend and former next door neighbor, a sometime smoker, is a co-sponsor. My email to him was a bit more, uh, forceful.

    I see you are a co-sponsor of this ordinance. I believe you have been misinformed on this issue. I beg you to table it until we've at least had a chance to discuss it.

    This proposed ordinance is a serious mistake based on false information and groundless "concerns." It appears that the only cited scientific basis for this ordinance is an FDA test performed on two products in July of 2009. Those products have not been sold in years. The vapor exhaled by users of electronic cigarettes poses no danger. See current, comprehensive research by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Essenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr. Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dro Igor Burstyn of Drexyl University, etc., etc. Even the FDA, despite its misleading press release, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or dangerous levels of any chemical in the vapor.

    Electronic cigarettes are not a gateway to cigarette smoking and do not "normalize" smoking. Rather, they are a gateway away from smoking and denormalize cigarettes.

    For years, smokers have been demonized and marginalized, forced outside to brave the vicisitudes of our Midwest winters. Yet, when smokers finally find something that enables them to quit, that's still not good enough and even the appearance of exhaling something that merely resembles real smoke is an anathema to certain puritanical control freaks.

    The ability to use e-cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99%. Many smokers first try e-cigarettes because they can use them where they cannot smoke. In that way, they often become "accidental quitters." That was true in my case. After over 40 years of trying, I had given up trying to quit cigarettes. But I enjoyed the company of my non-smoking friends after work at the local bar, so I tried e-cigarettes. I ended up quitting cigarettes altogether without even really trying. It would be a shame if others were denied the same incentive. Let business owners decide whether or not to allow e-cigarette use.

    I am merely a private citizen with no ties to the e-cigarette industry or Big Tobacco. I urge you to vote against this ill-advised ordinance.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 11
  5. KentA

    KentA Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    May 5, 2015
    Adirondack Mountains
    The people that proposed this ordinance planned their political strategy very well. It's called a sucker punch.

    The anti-tobacco board members should applaud your efforts to have it tabled until more recent studies have been considered & debated.

    I hope you succeed in getting their attention.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    It passed. I don't believe there was serious opposition. The proponents were well organized and well funded. We are losing.

    EDIT to add: It passed 11-1.

    FURTHER EDIT: Here's an email I sent to the sole dissenter:

    Dear Council Member Shields:

    I am writing to applaud your lone vote against the ordinance banning e-cigarettes in all places where combustible cigarettes are banned. I wish I knew the process whereby this came to gain nearly unanimous support, as it is based on junk science and fear mongering promoted by those who stand to gain monetarily, by useful idiots, and by a handful of misguided zealots.

    In modern America, smokers have come to be regarded with loathing and disgust. There has been a well planned, well financed campaign to marginalize smokers from the rest of society. For decades, public health organizations encouraged smokers to quit using their approved methods (patches, gum, counselling, etc). After trying all that with no success, when we, on our own, finally did find something that worked, they want to treat us exactly as before. Gee, I naively thought quitting cigarettes might garner a little pat on the back instead of an ongoing campaign to marginalize us. After all, didn't we do what they wanted?

    If you can spare a moment to discuss this, please give me a call on my cell phone
     
    • Like Like x 6
  7. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Too late.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    Really good letter. I hope she takes you up on discussing it further.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Thank you, Nic. I just wish I'd known about this sooner. Maybe I could have organized some opposition.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Well, that explains the sudden paralysis of my diaphragm.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    I note that Kansas City, KS passed an identical ban on the very same day as the KC, MO ban. Of course, this is pure coincidence and should not be viewed as evidence of a highly coordinated ANTZ plan.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  12. mattymatt82

    mattymatt82 Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 14, 2012
    Kansas City
    Great, I am from KC. Just heard of this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Jul 23, 2009
    Green Lane, Pa
    Their technique is mastered. No advance notice (or extremely little) and slam dunk it in short order. Forget science.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  14. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Indeed. This ordinance was introduced only 7 days before it came before the committee for the first and only hearing where public testimony was allowed and it was voted on by the full council on the very next day, with no further public discussion allowed. Obviously, the rails were thoroughly greased beforehand. There is a procedure in the Missouri legislature intended to derail this sort of thing. To simplify, bills must be read in open session at least 3 separate times before they can be voted on.

    Incidentally, only one of the 12 council members has responded to my emails and the mayor, my former next door neighbor, also has yet to respond. As this thing has already passed, maybe they figure it's too much of a bother to justify or explain anything to their constituents.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. mcol

    mcol Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    May 5, 2013
    Missouri
    There's a petition, I think due today, to get this on the ballot tho right?
     
  16. 440BB

    440BB Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 19, 2011
    The Motor City
    The show me state had a show me the money, not the facts moment. These little local pieces of ambush regulation is happening everywhere. The game is truly nasty.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Yes, BRAVE is circulating a petition. 3,400 signatures will be required and it must be completed and filed within a month or so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. mcol

    mcol Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    May 5, 2013
    Missouri
    Good. Let the people decide.
     
  19. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 27, 2010
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Here's what we're facing in trying to convince the people: a very well organized and financed campaign to SAVE THE CHEEEELDREN from the evils of nicotine addiction backed by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, Clean Air KC, Tobacco Free Kansas, Tobacco Free Missouri, Tri-County Prevention, the Metropolitan Healthy Communities Coalition, the KCMO Health Commission, Healthy KC, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association.... and so forth. They all cite junk science which "proves" that e-cigarettes are "unregulated," are dangerous because they target young people, keep people hooked on "addictive" nicotine, threaten to "re-normalize" tobacco use, and emit carcinogens, heavy metals and God knows what else.

    I will be astonished if, in face of that well-oiled propaganda machine, a majority of voters could be persuaded that the indoor ban is actually harmful and an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty--particularly the latter, which most people pay lip service to but don't actually act on unless the intrusion directly affects them.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  20. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Diego
    I hope when people read your post above they understood exactly where the problem lies.
    But it takes years of understanding the issues involved to fully understand.

    And that's the uphill battle we face.

    I just wish people could understand it quicker.
    And by people I mean the "average vaper" who hasn't the slightest clue yet.
     
    • Like Like x 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice