Watch CASAA on HuffPost Live Wednesday!

[kristin]

CASAA will be appearing on HuffPost Live Wednesday, March 27th at 1 PM Eastern.

Legislative Director Gregory Conley and other guests, including Dr. Michael Seigel (author of the blog, "The Rest of the Story: tobacco News Analysis and Commentary") and Ms. Cynthia Hallett (executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights), will be discussing the Contra Costa County, California Board of Supervisors' proposal to include electronic cigarettes in its smoking ordinance. The Board of Supervisors will be voting on the amendment April 9th.

Catch the show live here: HuffPost Live

 

[Berylanna]

CASAA will be appearing on HuffPost Live Wednesday, March 27th at 1 PM Eastern.

Legislative Director Gregory Conley and other guests, including Dr. Michael Seigel (author of the blog, "The Rest of the Story: tobacco News Analysis and Commentary") and Ms. Cynthia Hallett (executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights), will be discussing the Contra Costa County, California Board of Supervisors' proposal to include electronic cigarettes in its smoking ordinance. The Board of Supervisors will be voting on the amendment April 9th.

Catch the show live here: HuffPost Live

Will it be replayable?

 

[kristin]

I honestly don't know. I'm not familiar with the show. If I find out it will be recorded I will post a link here.

 

[spaceballsrules]

Will it be replayable?

It should be, if it is archived. On the same page that Kristin linked in the OP, you can access all of the archived footage. Look on the left side of the top banner, where it says "Earlier." Hover over it, and a drop list will show. At the bottom of that drop list, click on "View Full Archive."

 

[Berylanna]

That was horrible! Why didn't he let anybody rebut Cynthia?


[Edit: I am really sorry for the way I answered here. I realize this morning that this was, overall, a media triumph, and our guys were a HUGE help. I had an anaphylactic allergic reaction to Cynthia and I was mad the host just let her ............ instead of letting one of us stab her argument in the heart. I wanted to see Virtual Blood! Thank you to all who spoke and all who watched! ]

 

[DC2]

Oh man, I was thinking I missed this until I found out there was a reply.

But then I read this...

That was horrible! Why didn't he let anybody rebut Cynthia?

And now I'm not even going to watch it because it sounds like it is likely to make me furious.
And me being furious is not a fun thing.

 

[Vocalek]

Yes, it is replayable. http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/county-bans-e-cigarettes/51505df102a760208300035b

 

[Vocalek]

Do watch. Siegel was great. Even David Abrams has mellowed a bit from his initial stance.

 

[Berylanna]

Oh man, I was thinking I missed this until I found out there was a reply.

But then I read this...


And now I'm not even going to watch it because it sounds like it is likely to make me furious.
And me being furious is not a fun thing.

He did let other people talk but he'd cut them off if they started to make a VALID rebuttal on the point of second-hand danger.

[Edit: My sister pointed out he was choosing sincere speakers that the audience would sympathize with. I'm really sorry I made it sound like I wasn't glad they spoke, I AM glad! I'm grateful for their sincerity and testimony for vaping. Audience reaction to them was very positive -- the TRUTH and sincerity of their testimony that vaping truly helped them came through loud and clear.

I just got MAD when he cut people off if they started to PROVE Cynthia wrong about studies. But he was going for audience impact instead of logic -- AND he was going for the "freedom" angle instead of the "no harm" angle.

I apologize for the way I worded my rant, and I THANK the other speakers!]

 

[kristin]

It was definitely a plus that the host obviously thought the ANTZ arguments were ridiculous. Too bad it wasn't a longer segment.

 

[DC2]

Okay, I'll take a Xanax and watch it after looking at some pictures of puppies and kittens.

 

[Trick]

I'm bummed. I actually got invited to join by the Huffington Post but couldn't make it work with my schedule. Everyone did a great job.

 

[kristin]

You can still post comments in the chat window, too.

 

[Berylanna]

It was definitely a plus that the host obviously thought the ANTZ arguments were ridiculous. Too bad it wasn't a longer segment.

No, because he thought they were ridiculous on LIBERTARIAN grounds! That's fine for pushing libertarianism, but the ONLY valid argument that can be made in a Democratic state has to be glued to Obama's "science before ideology" promises.

And the only one that can be made QUICKLY about the "Not FDA approved" claim is that restaurant food AND restaurant food odors and steam are also not FDA-approved. And we HAVE had a study that shows NOTHING in second-hand vapor that is NOT in restaurant steam.

So, to be safe, we need to ban hot food in restaurants and private homes.

THAT is the only argument that works with my Democratic relatives. Even the ones that 100% support my vaping have been hearing the ANTZ mantra "it's not FDA approved and they reflexively buy into it until I point out that the same applies to restaurant food.

I'm also horrified that the "your own home" aspect was not brought up.

 

[kristin]

I agree he brought a Libertarian viewpoint, but the host also made good arguments that have nothing to do with Libertarianism - like the ANTZ argument that e-cigarettes would confuse smoking bans, that it's not smoke regardless of what is in them and nicotine studies that show benefits of smoke-free nicotine and that nicotine itself is not a devastating drug. It definitely turned out to be a different discussion than what is happening specifically in Contra Costa, but it was still a good discussion and some great points were made. Dr. Siegel was awesome and said a lot of what Greg would have said if he'd been given the opportunity.

The FDA doesn't regulate restaurant food safety, because the USDA does that. But if that argument works to appease your relatives, that's cool!

 

[Berylanna]

I agree he brought a Libertarian viewpoint, but the host also made good arguments that have nothing to do with Libertarianism - like the ANTZ argument that e-cigarettes would confuse smoking bans, that it's not smoke regardless of what is in them and nicotine studies that show benefits of smoke-free nicotine and that nicotine itself is not a devastating drug. It definitely turned out to be a different discussion than what is happening specifically in Contra Costa, but it was still a good discussion and some great points were made. Dr. Siegel was awesome and said a lot of what Greg would have said if he'd been given the opportunity.

The FDA doesn't regulate restaurant food safety, because the USDA does that. But if that argument works to appease your relatives, that's cool!

That's my point. We NEED to do what it takes to appease people like my relatives. They know as well as I do that the USDA regulates the food industry but until I brought it to their attention, they hadn't thought of it -- the ANTZ mantra makes people think (EVEN when they know better!) that the FDA regulates everything we put into our bodies.

And another big difference: the USDA does not have prior approval rights over every single recipe change. If they had to do long-term studies on breathing every single recipe in every single kitchen in the country BEFORE it could be used, we couldn't eat. But that is what they are claiming the FDA needs for e-cigs. I want to bring peoples' attention to the fact that the Clear Stream study (and probably the Boston study) PROVE that SECOND-HAND vapor (not first-hand!!!!!!) is the same as restaurant hot food and should be regulated THE SAME WAY.

The issue of how first-hand vapor should be regulated is an entirely different issue and not up to cities, states, counties, and landlords.

 

[DC2]

Okay, I watched it and I thought it was absolutely fantastic.

Sorry you weren't so happy with it Berylanna.


I agree that Dr. Siegel was awesome.
And he really looks and sounds like someone people can trust.


I think this was a great debate, and it touched on almost every relevant point.
This might be the first time an ANTZ ever dared debate this topic in public, and it might very well be the last.

And as a final note, the host was excellent, and I seriously think he might be a vaper.
Either way, he was certainly well-prepared.

 

[kristin]

I agree with your premise of course, Berylanna, but unfortunately, the expelled vapor is not the ANTZ's only argument against public use. They also use: 1) it looks like smoking, so it will complicate smoking ban enforcement; 2) it looks like smoking, so it will undo all of the hard work we have done to denormalize smoking and encourage kids to use them; 3) it doesn't help smokers quit, because it gives them something to use when they cannot smoke; 4) the vapor smell and look may bother people; and 5) we don't have research to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vapor is 100% safe for bystanders. I suspect that we could win the "doesn't need FDA approval" argument and the other arguments would still be made by the ANTZ in earnest. Remember - cigarettes were never FDA regulated either and they still got use banned in public - even without any sound science showing that exposure to cigarette smoke in public spaces has ever harmed ANYONE.

A better argument would be that neither the FDA or any other agency has shown e-cigarette use in public poses any kind of health risk, so the products don't need FDA approval if they haven't harmed anyone and there is no reason to ever think they will. It's more like the natural supplement argument, as those aren't approved by the FDA either and they only get banned when one is shown to cause actual harm - like fen-fen.

 

[Berylanna]

I agree with your premise of course, Berylanna, but unfortunately, the expelled vapor is not the ANTZ's only argument against public use. They also use: 1) it looks like smoking, so it will complicate smoking ban enforcement; 2) it looks like smoking, so it will undo all of the hard work we have done to denormalize smoking and encourage kids to use them; 3) it doesn't help smokers quit, because it gives them something to use when they cannot smoke; 4) the vapor smell and look may bother people; and 5) we don't have research to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vapor is 100% safe for bystanders. I suspect that we could win the "doesn't need FDA approval" argument and the other arguments would still be made by the ANTZ in earnest. Remember - cigarettes were never FDA regulated either and they still got use banned in public - even without any sound science showing that exposure to cigarette smoke in public spaces has ever harmed ANYONE.

A better argument would be that neither the FDA or any other agency has shown e-cigarette use in public poses any kind of health risk, so the products don't need FDA approval if they haven't harmed anyone and there is no reason to ever think they will. It's more like the natural supplement argument, as those aren't approved by the FDA either and they only get banned when one is shown to cause actual harm - like fen-fen.

ANTZ's other arguments don't work on normal people but "It's not FDA-approved" IS working on EVERYBODY I talk to outside of this forum. And for public places, ONLY the second-hand issue is important. Let the ANTZ folks say all the other stuff when appearing before cities and counties, if we can counter the "second-hand" argument we'll win that part.

And my understanding is we DO have research proving beyond reasonable doubt that NOTHING gets EXHALED except food flavorings, steam, glycerine, and pg, ALL of which are ALREADY allowed in restaurant air. The food flavorings are the only real unknown here, hence the fajita argument.

Can someone ask Dr. Phillips? If we can just say right off the top that recent studies PROVE that second-hand vapor has no more risk than cooking odors, then we can say RIGHT AWAY that cooking odors are also not FDA-approved, and do they think those should be banned in restaurants and private homes?

The argument that no harm has been shown is very weak compared to the data we DO HAVE I think. Especially since no non-smokers think it is in any way a hardship to go out with the smokers. No harm has been proven is a good argument for allowing vapers to vape OUTSIDE, away from doorways, but not inside. Fen-fen didn't put visible vapor into the air.

[Edit: I think one reason the ANTZ keeps harping on all of those other issues is BECAUSE they know we'll win if we can focus on second-hand vapor safety instead of letting all their hand-waving distract from that issue.]

 

[kristin]

I sent Carl the link to this thread - hopefully he'll set us straight.

But I always keep in mind that there were plenty of studies showing ETS poses no significant health risk to bystanders in public places (and especially outdoors) and none that show it IS a real health risk in public, yet the ANTZ were still able to get smoking banned just about everywhere. Unfortunately, I think it will take much more than studies showing that the vapor isn't a threat to bystanders to keep the ANTZ from getting these bans passed.