Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Call to Action! California E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 648 (UPDATED -- Hearing Canceled!)

IMPORTANT UPDATE (3/30/2014): In 2014, California is not only still facing SB 648 (the e-cigarette usage ban), but also AB 1500 (banning all Internet sales of e-cigarettes and tobacco products).  Please take action by clicking HERE to see CASAA's new Call to Action. 
 

----

UPDATE (8/14/2013): Today's hearing on SB 648 before the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization was canceled just an hour before it was set to begin.  Word on the ground is that SB 648 is dead until at least January.  Those in California should continue to respond to this Call to Action.

UPDATE (8/9/2013): The hearing for SB 648 is scheduled for Wednesday, August 14th at 1:30 P.M. in the State Capitol Building at 10th Street and L Street in Sacramento. The hearing will be held in Room 437. If you can attend, please plan to be there 30 minutes early.


UPDATE (7/30/2013): SB 648, which has already passed the California Senate, has been assigned to the California Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization.  Please see below for how to submit testimony directly to the committee.

The hearing on SB 648 has been set for Wednesday, August 14th at the California State Assembly in Sacramento, California.  If you can attend this hearing, please e-mail us at board@casaa.org.  This is a critical hearing and we are encouraging all California vapers to attend.
 
California citizens should not only submit testimony in opposition to SB 648, but you should also begin the process of contacting your own California State Assembly representative directly to encourage a NO vote on SB 648.  In these communications, make sure to include your address and phone number.  If possible, CASAA recommends asking for a face-to-face meeting with your Assembly member about this bill.

Vapers must remain vigilant against this legislation every step of the way. 

---

California: Attempt to Add E-Cigarettes to "Smoking" Ban -- SB 648

 
[full text] [legislative tracking]

If enacted, this bill would: 
Ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned. Among those provisions most likely to impact users are those that would:
  • Ban e-cigarette use in virtually all workplaces in California, including in hospitals. Violations would be punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500. (Section 12)
  • Ban e-cigarette use inside or within 20 feet of any public building or in a vehicle owned by the state. (Section 4
  • Declares that the use of electronic cigarettes “may be a hazard to the health of the general public,” and would include e-cigarettes in all future smoking bans passed in California. (Section 11)
  • Ban e-cigarette use in railroads and air carriers. (Section 13)
You can watch the April 17, 2013 meeting of Senate Health Committee hearing here (beginning at the 34-minute mark). Featured speakers include CASAA Legislative Director Gregory Conley and Father Jack Kearney of the California Association for Alcohol & Drug Educators (CAADE). CASAA would like to thank the 40+ others turned out to oppose the bill, as well as the California Senators who opposed this bill when it was in the Senate.

If you are in California and can travel to Sacramento to attend a future hearing, please e-mail us at board@casaa.org with the subject line "California Testimony." We are going to need vapers throughout California to organize trips to Sacramento. Please help out in any way you can.

Please call or write the members of the California Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization

What to say:
1. You would like them to vote NO on SB 648.

2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life.

3.
Explain how smoking bans are enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but e-cigarettes have not been shown to cause harm to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e-cigarettes is comparable to other smokeless nicotine products.

The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eisse
nberg of Virginia Commonwealth,
Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

At the April 17th meeting of the Health Committee, Senator Corbett cited a study finding trace levels of metals in e-cigarettes as a reason to support banning e-cigarettes in public places.  Please urge the legislators to read Dr. Michael Siegel's two articles on that study (here and here). 

4. Detail how electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e-cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette, from the smell of smoke. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Additionally, e-cigarette users can decide whether to release any vapor ("stealth vaping").  With so little evidence of use, enforcing indoor use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.

5. If you are a California resident and currently vape in public, talk about your experience.  Do businesses you frequent allow you to vape?  What about your office? Be sure to include your address and full name.

6. Inform them that the ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch. Surveys of thousands of users indicate that the majority of those who switch, completely replace tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%.

7. Tell them that by switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.

9. Direct them to the CASAA.org website for more information.

How to Submit Testimony to the Committee on Governmental Organization

Please submit testimony on SB 648 directly to Eric.Johnson@asm.ca.gov with the subject line "SB 648 Testimony."  If you have already submitted testimony, please resubmit it to ensure that members of the Governmental Organization Committee are sent it.

CASAA also encourages California citizens to call and e-mail the representatives on the Governmental Organization Committee. 

Rep. Isadore Hall (D-Los Angeles) [Chair]
Office Phone: (916) 319-2064

Email

Rep. Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert) [Vice Chair]

Office Phone: (916) 319-2042
Email

Rep. Franklin E. Bigelow (R-O’Neals)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2005
Email

Rep. Nora Campos (D-San Jose, Santa Clara) 

Office Phone: (916) 319-2027 
Email
 

Rep. Wesley Chesbro (D-North Coast)
Office Phone: (916) 319-2002
Email


Rep. Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova)
Email 

Office Phone: (916) 319-2008

Rep. Adam C. Gray (D-Merced)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2021
Email

 

Rep. Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills) 
Office Phone: (916) 319-2055
Email

Rep. Roger Hernández (D-West Covina)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2048
Email

Rep. Brian W. Jones (R-Santee)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2071
Email
 

Rep. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles)
Office Phone: (916) 319-2059
Email
 

Rep. Marc Levine (D-San Rafael)
Office Phone: (916) 319-2010
Email

Rep. Jose Medina (D-Riverside)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2061
Email


Rep. Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2031
Email

Rep. V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2056
Email

Rep. Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield)

Office Phone: (916) 319-2032
Email

Rep. Marie Waldron (R-Escondido)  

Office Phone: (916) 319-2075
Email

84 comments:

Jennifer Askew said...

The title states "SB 684" when the bill is "SB 648." I had to double check before sending my email.

BXCellent said...

You also wish to include that Vapers should not have to be subjected to second hand smoke from regular cigarettes. As a former smoker that has not touched a regular cigarette since the day I started vaping 8 months ago, I find it offensive that this bill would force me to stand next to regular smokers. I quit smoking in order to improve my health and I do not wish to inhale dangerous second hand smoke while I vape.

Strick Nyne said...

Vaping has changed my life and made it better. It has created jobs and businesses. There is no second hand smoke from an e-cigarette. If you want to restrict this you need to restrict, fog machines, pop tarts and anything else that had pg/vg in it because I vape a 0 nic for the vapor.

Joe Former said...

You can't get caffeine fron coffee vapor and you can't get calories from food vapor so why would someone think they could get nicotine from vaping?

Lindsay Fox said...

This is completely outrageous. We shouldn't let them take our freedom.

Allowing landlords to ban the use of e-cigarettes in our homes, even though e-cigs are essentially harmless to bystanders, is nonsense.

Banning the use of e-cigs from public places (restaurants, bars, theaters, etc.) will benefit no one. As a matter of fact e-cigs should be promoted in these places (read: http://ecigarettereviewed.com/why-restaurants-and-bars-should-promote-e-cigarettes).

How can e-cigs be considered "a hazard to the health of general public" while they have been proven to have no risk to the environment (http://ecigarettereviewed.com/environmental-vapor-exposure-pose-no-risk)?

Whoever is behind this bill must be feeding off the deep pockets of big tobacco.

-Lindsay

Ted Green said...

Outstanding point!

Ted Green said...

Vapers, even if your Senator is not voting on SBA 648, there's no harm in writing your Senator asking him/her to use their influence to discourage this e-cig ban.

greg zonker said...

I may be wrong, but u have all these California legislators named "senator" john Doe etc...aren't there only 2 senators of Cal (and every other state) the rest would be members of the house, and both senators and house members are congressman?

greg zonker said...

plz disregard my post above, I was vaping the wrong thing, sry :)

Christina Auck said...

Have a heart, save a lung, NO on SB 648. was my subject line.

I'm not from California, but legislation from New York and California especially have a way of influencing every other state. So I sent my emails. I hope LOTS of others do the same.

I find the whole ban attempt so ridiculous really. Frustratingly, dishearteningly ridiculous!

Jaime Cordoba said...

I agree!
I can't stand the smell of cigarettes and I definitely refuse to be standing or sitting next to someone who smokes regular cigarette!

Digimancer said...

It was only a matter of time before this happened. So sad.

Alex Agyagos said...

I have tried cold turkey, nicorette losingers and gum, the patch, and chantex. None of them worked till I met the store Vapure wich worked for me for more than 5 1/2 months now. I was smoking black n milds 5 to 7 a day inhailing pipe tobacco and getting very sick resulting in numerous tests at the ER and couldn't find anything wrong with me. Going to ER every other month sometimes every month. Well haven't been sick since. I have no urge ro smoke just vape my e-cig. They have played an important roll in my healrh and quiting smoking. I can go on and on, but I think I got my point accross. Unless you know something I don't about this I think you should leave it alone. I know a lot of people that have stopped smoking those harmfull cigs.

Doug Wright said...

Have you considered starting a petition? They are easy to make and circulate....signing is simply a click of a button and some very basic info.
https://www.change.org/

Jaime Cordoba said...

It's stupid that they're banning vaping.. Do they realize that vaping is a lot safer than smoking a regular cigarette or second hand smoke? This is retarded! I've been smoking for 19years. And ever since I started vaping last year November I haven't touched a cigarette.. And it feels good to not smoke a regular cigarette!
So it saved my life from harming myself!

Theodore jr Carpenter said...

I like your stance but why would Big Tabacco want E-cigs ban when 2 of the top 3 now own Ecig brands themselves. whos the real enemy is big Pharma that doesn't want compition for there useless Nicorette patches and devices that have less than a 10% success rate. Just saying. But yah Banning E-cigs is as much banning Nicorette Gum or the patch in public places for being hazardes and this needs to be stopped by. We cannot have ignorant masses determing what is appropriate for our consumption.

Linda Magargle said...

well if they are to ban vapors from e-cigs. then we must also ban coffee and tea cause they also emit steam. which is what vapor is really. just steam. i want to see how many senators and congressmen would like to give up their morning coffee because of dangerous vapors!

Libertarian News said...

Apparently you all don't understand what is going on here. E-cigs are costing the state a lot of lost tax revenue. Since they are not taxed like tobacco products, the state must ban them to keep smokers puffing on tobacco.

The state is a gang of thieves writ large, never forget that.

Pete Petepete said...

"Hazard to the health of the general industry experiencing decreased profits as a result of this product, who happens to have a lobbying presence"

That's more accurate.

Dick Puddlecote said...

You do realise, I hope, that the passive smoking myth was precisely how powerful lobbyists managed to get tobacco banned in all indoor places? And now you want to legitimise their deception when they use the same against vaping?

Passive vapour is a serious problem, according to the same people who got smoking banned. Use that argument and they'll throw it back in your face.

Good grief.

Deejay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deejay said...

I simply think its ridiculous, i've been vaping for almost a year, i vape everywhere. Yes people ask me what it is and guess what? that question they have for me turns into an interest, and i end up converting them to this safer alternative of vaping. Tobacco companies are just mad because they are losing money proving their GREED and SELFISHNESS not caring about peoples' health...

There is nothing more in these juices other than vegetable glycerin which is completely organic, pharmaseutical food grade propylene glycol, and distilled water... This bill is completely unnecessary.

Kristin Noll-Marsh said...

I personally agree, Dick.

There is a good reason why they avoid that argument in CASAA Calls to Action.

Kristin Noll-Marsh said...

Folks,

After 3 1/2 years fighting these bans, I can ensure you that it is NOT the tobacco industry behind them. It is the pharmaceutical industry and the ANTI-smoking industry (otherwise known as "public health organizations and experts") that get funding from Big Pharma. These laws are being written and pushed on legislators by the likes of the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Those groups are obviously NOT working for "Big Tobacco."

The tobacco industry is mostly embracing electronic cigarettes - two tobacco companies already sell them (after buying existing e-cig companies) and a third is developing its own device.

Deejay said...

Still makes no sense, if they have doctors backing it up and preventing it being banned because they failed to find ANYTHING harmful in them. Why would they ban them? They should ban cigarettes if they are so "anti-smoke" cigarettes KILL people yet they are still being sold??? but they want to ban electronic cigarettes? why?... makes NO sense. sounds ass backwards to me

stevenswholesale said...

Another worthless paper not worth the ink on it. The legislators in California write "laws" to ban everything. We are almost out of things to ban, soon they will have to write their legislation telling us what we are allowed to do, since everything is now banned or not allowed. I wish they would get a real job.

Alicia C said...

My in-laws have been smoking for many, many years. They picked up their vapor cigs, and had no desire to smoke a regular cigarette again. They are so happy with them, they have shared the wealth with many others, spreading their positive experiences, and even buying kits for at least two people I know of, one being myself! I am, now, on a huge campaign to get others to switch as well, starting with family members, and anyone else who will listen!

I am a long term smoker, have asthma, as well as many other health issues. I am grateful that a product has finally come out that, like so many others have mentioned, actually works for me! I have tried all the other methods of quitting smoking, and none has had a lasting effect.

With the studies showing that there are no carcinogens, and the obvious fact that there is no second hand smoke, this just shows how ridiculous this movement is to ban the vapor e-cigs! I'm sure if they can't ban them outright, they'll be taxing our vaping liquid the way they do cigarettes, keeping more people from trying to make the switch, due to the cost, and this, in effect, will be keeping so many US citizens in the greater danger of smoking cigarettes, AND exposing others to secondhand smoke. Who is winning there? It certainly isn't the public that they are claiming to want to protect!

Debora Johnson said...

They are simply used to treating us as 2nd class and enjoy the power they have over us by switching to vaping instead they are loosing control and power over us since they can no longer claim we harm others. So now they chose to harm us instead.

I am tired of being 2nd class unable to enjoy parks, beaches so many things my tax dollars help pay for. They need to go by facts not made up heresay now. I am taking my life back. I chose to vape.

Scotty Höek said...

All will be ok. When the Government can tax it, and make people die from it in a timely manner, they'll push the hell out of ecigs. Farmers breathe methane in cow pastures, so I'm off to lobby against cows. But since restaurants serve cow, I'll just have to boycott those too... aww damn....there's beef in my fridge...now I have to march against kitchens and food altogether. California protesters won't be happy until the entire country is eating kelp and driving a Prius. Then they resort to lobbying against colors of shoes, that simply just don't match anything clothes-wise in one's wardrobe. Ever see LA from an airplane or a distance? That's not e-cig vapor...it's industry...oh, but wait...they need that stuff.

oceancityvapor . com said...

I agree with the above statement regarding the states blood lust need for tax money. The e-cig community is taking a bit out of that money but the benefits to the public who reside in the state should say more to them than making a buck. We as a community of formal smoker and non smokers are healthy and happy. We are promoting a lifestyle change that has never, before now, come to pass. People are literately sick and tired of smoking. I know was. I haven't smoked in close to 8 months and feel wonderful.. I am a United States Service member and they are always preaching health to us. Top physical form. The same government that claims to want me healthy wants to take that ability away from me. Its about people vs money bottom line and we mean less to them than gold lined pockets. We make big tobacco nervous and now, even they have dollar signs in their eyes looking at what we have created. Its a david vs galioth war are fighting those that wish to keep us sick and spending money on a delivery system that puts money in the pockets of the rich against those that choose to stand apart from that kind of thinking and have found another way. VAP on my friends - John Polinard USN

grasshopper said...

Land of the Free?

D Pimborough said...

Well some people love to discriminate they don't have their traditional targets based on race, sex, sex orientation so they just move to the next easy target.

The whole cigarette and e-cigarette debate has descended in to the madhouse.

It's quite clear there is a mix of vested interest at work here and down and out control freakery.

I don't hear the same clamour over gun control, diet etc.

Sean Brotherton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Horning said...

Would a Vape Shop be considered a workplace?

RE: "Ban e-cigarette use in workplaces."

Cyric The Mad said...

I wonder what they're going to ban next?

Van said...

I am using that. Thank you Joe.

Van said...

Thank you Kristin.

Stacy Lignell said...

Very well said!

Stacy Lignell said...

Lets let the landlords ban it just for fun... its not like they could EVER PROVE that their tenant "Vaped" in the residence without seeing it for themselves?

Cindy Allen said...

I have been using the e-cigarette for 3 years now. I was a 30+ years smoker. I will say that my lifestyle has change tremendously. To ban this would be a sin. I am retired and fully enjoy my e-cigarette probably more than I did a regular cigarette. My clothes don't smell of cigarette smoke, my taste buds have returned and my breath is much better. Also I am not one to condemn those that smoke regular cigarettes that is their choice. So many things are being taken from us I do not believe that the e-cigarette is harmful in any way.

We live in the USA not a Communist country.

Sweetvape Fiamma said...

I watched this proceeding today and I wonder how anyone can overlook the testimony of the black lady who kept saying tobacco companies were promoting and marketing e cigs and flavors. Until the advent of Lorillard selling Blu none of them were actively in the e cig business. She made it sound like they have been pushing them since day one. I understood she was talking about the black demographic and menthol but again, like many antz, she conflates tobacco with e cigs.

barb said...

Dyslexics of the world, untie!

barb said...

All mammals exhale water vapor.

So apparently, this bill will prohibit exhaling except in certain approved areas.

I can see how this might present a problem for the proponents of this bill.

gypsyrouge said...

Letters sent on a wing and a prayer.

Closing argument:
This ban is based on an uninformed association rather than fact. Just because it’s sometimes called an e-cigarette does not make it a cigarette. SB 648 declares that the use of electronic cigarettes “is a hazard to the health of the general public” without any proof to substantiate that claim.

karyyl said...

Passing this law will make a mockery of California's health and safety laws by equating cigarettes with harmless e-cigs. It becomes a law about appearances instead of safety.

We cannot control the actions of young people by lying to them! To do so costs us credibility -- credibility we NEED when we say "Don't text and drive"

Martin said...

You can stand 20 feet in a different direction from smokers :).

Qua Couron said...

This is seriously one of the most ridiculous and offensive laws to have ever been considered. There is literally no logical or LEGAL reason to ban e-cigarettes. There is no health risks to other people while being used, there's no smell other than maybe a sweet one that is pleasant, there's no damage to property, as cigarettes can cause, as the vapor is very different from smoke.
All of this shit is unbelievable, and I can bet that it's all due to tobacco companies paying people to do this.
However, I still do NOT see how they could pass a law like this legally, as it would literally be as ridiculous as banning lollipops in public use or in buildings. That's what it boils down to. Anyone who votes in favor of the ban, is either a puppet, taking money from people who are stupid a-holes that work for the tobacco company, or they are just so stupid and ignorant, they believe the nonsense some people have told them about e-cigarettes, and have not been reasonable and intelligent enough to do their own research! I really hope we can convince these people not to pass this.
I know I'll fight against it if it does get passed, and hell, there has to be more people out there in power who will do something to help us, considering it's beyond unconstitutional, beyond illegal, beyond unreasonable and just ridiculous. It's our right to do this, and especially since it doesn't affect any other people around us, there is NO reason to do this!

Seriously...this has made me more angry than anything in a long time. You'd think California wouldn't do something so stupid, but what do you expect these days with how stupid people have become. Next they'll be banning drinking coke because of some ridiculous reason, and to help make pepsi more money. Or maybe they'll ban something else equally ridiculous, like chewing gum. Idiots. >:[

Oh yeah...and what about the most important factor, the fact that it's fucking SAVING LIVES and helping people to finally quit smoking, while nothing has ever helped people so much in the past. Not to mention it's awesome. Too many people are misinformed about this subject, and I'm tired of not being able to vape wherever I want already because of their ignorance. I wish people would stop lying about it already and get with the program.

johnny said...

the test they refered to used cartomizers hooked up to machines right and that's where the trace metals came from .....if it doesn't look to swing in our favor maybe look at getting rid of cartos ....cartos have been unkind to me lol....I would assume there would be less trace amounts in clearos.....meh just a thought

Gregory Goodell said...

I was smoking a half to a full pack a day of camel wides up until my brother bought me my first ecig kit back in September 2012. I have since upgraded to refillable cartos and buy caffeinated nicotine liquid because i was drinking 2liters of mountain dew a day and have quit drinking them as well. i spend $20-30 a month on liquid, cartos and other accessories. When i smoked real cigarettes i was spending the same amount every week. Plus now my friends and family dont complain about me smelling.

Erick Broell said...

I recall a ban on bottled water. Truly, Good Luck, politics there are corrupt beyond repair.

dglsdxn said...

I am alive today because of E-cigs, and could go on and on about my lung problems and all the people that I've helped get started on e-cigs, but, there is something VERY WRONG with government if it tries to ban something that saves lives. I have been vaping for almost a year now, and feel great! Now, do they want to pay medical bills for 40 years of smoking? Or why not just leave us alone to get healthy again by vaping? Whenever something so ridiculous such as banning e-cigs comes along, all you have to do is FOLLOW THE MONEY! Who is stuffing MONEY in the pockets of our Senators and Legislators? BT as well as Big Pharma is who! Others are offended because they haven't found a way to tax it yet, or figured out a way to get their 'fingers in the pie'. It is a rare event in our history when something as marvelous as e-cigs comes along. So we need to make sure that whoever votes AGAINST e-cigs will go down in history as being one of the greedy politicians who tried to fuck it up! I love my e-jucises that I make! I consider e-cigs as a live-saving hobby that absolutely harms nobody, and NO BODY has any right to take that away from me! And if they manage to pull this shit off? I would take it as a personable threat to my well-being! Enough said.

Sankira said...

It seems to me that what we have here are typical politicians who want to make a name for themselves. What would be a quick and dirty slam dunk? Cigarettes! Everybody hates those, right? Trouble is they haven't bothered to do any research on the subject. They hear the word 'cigarette' as in 'e-cigarette' and stop listening. Or thinking. They just toss it into the same pot as tobacco. We of the vaping community should probably stop calling them e-cigs and start calling them something like vapor sticks.

I picked up my first vapor stick over two years ago and haven't had a cigarette since. Nor have I WANTED a cigarette. Now, they can shout all they want that there's no scientific proof that vapor sticks help people quit smoking, but I'd say the repeated testimony of the vapers on numerous forums (including this site) is proof enough without the need for a big, expensive, scientific study.

I, too, vape 0mg juice. I do it because I enjoy it. Does this mean I'm causing others to inhale Nicotine??? Or does vapor alone constitute a health risk? Then so is standing in the frozen food section of your grocery store. So is getting ice from your own fridge. As one poster said, don't go breathing in the delicious aroma of a warm Pop-Tart. And for goodness sake, don't walk into the steam room of your local health club! (Maybe they should be required to remove the word Health from their marquee.)

what about tehachapi PRISON?! said...

LINDSAY, I AGREE. SOMEONE IS GETTING PAID OFF BY BIG PHARMA. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BIG PHARMA RAKES IN BY PEOPLE WHO REQUIRE MEDICINE BECAUSE OF SMOKING RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS. THE LEVEL OF GREED THESE MAJOR INDUSTRIES SHOW IS ABSOLUTELY SICKENING. AMERICAN GREED IS OUT OF CONTROL, THESE PEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO LAST SEVERAL LIFETIMES OVER AND YET IT IS NEVER ENOUGH. JUST SICKENING AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I think the powers that be ought to get their word definitions in order. The "Smoke" you get from an E-cig is not Smoke it is categorically a Vapor, just the same as you get from boiling water from a kettle or saucepan. Smoke is a product of burning materials as with a normal cigarette. A vapor is produced by heating a liquid in this case (propylene glycol) close to or at its boiling point, there is no burning involved, I therefore I think it appropriate to not use the word Smoke when referring to E-Cigs. Propylene glycol is inert and safe and has been used in many medical inhalers for 50 years or more such as for asthma and the like, if the complainants are bothered about Propylene Glycol as a harmful chemical then maybe they should ban Asthma Inhalers in public.
Note: Dow Product Data Sheet: Propylene glycol (PG or MPG) is a colorless, odorless liquid1 which is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 21 CFR § 184.1666, for use as a direct food additive under the conditions prescribed

Erik Tangeros said...

Exactly

Kristin Noll-Marsh said...

We understand that states will be losing tobacco tax revenue (ironically, isn't that what they claimed was the goal - to get people to quit smoking? What did they expect to do once everyone quit?)

However, there are several forces at work here - it's not only tax revenue, but anti-nicotine and tobacco zealots who want to abolish all e-cigarette and tobacco use, regardless of how safe it is. They are as irrational and hateful about tobacco/nicotine as Westboro church is about gays! They are just as much prohibitionists as the ladies trying to ban alcohol in the 1920's. Even if e-cigarettes were proven to be 100% safe (even though nothing is 100% safe) they would want to ban e-cigarettes, because it "looks like smoking," "keeps people addicted" and "could temp kids." All of which are irrelevant if they can save the 440,000 people who reportedly die from smoking every year - but that doesn't matter to them. They will only be happy with no one ever using any tobacco or nicotine product. Not to mention the drug companies losing billions in smoking cessation products and smoking-related disease treatments and the anti-smoking organizations that get millions in funding for their crusade against tobacco.

So, if smokers switch to smoke-free products, there are many groups who either stand to lose billions in revenue or who have an ideological objection to anything even remotely related to tobacco use.

Philip Løvland said...

Now thats just rubbish. We run Dampguiden, a Danish site to fight back against the government (in Denmarks it's illigal to sell e-cigs with nicotine) and I can only imagine the fight'll be much harder if this bill goes through as it can start a domino effect. I really hope that you can convince them to vote against it!

gearhead1951 said...

legalize weed and tax it like tobacco so they lose no money and leave the vapes alone !

The US would have a balanced budget in 5 years

Unknown said...

You nailed it!

Unknown said...

Hey at one point SF supervisor tried to ban Plastic Water bottles. They wanted sf Residents to bring their own containers.

Anna S. said...

If a person is using a 0mg vapor, how can that harm the general public? How would the vapor police know if you are using 0mg or 24mg?

This entire invasion is maddening, feels like prohibition. We'll have to start stock piling batteries, hiding vapors under the house, visiting backroom vaping parlors and I would do all that, because I'm not going back to tobacco. I feel better, I smell great and I'm honestly happier, probably because I'm not the family pariah any longer.

So, thank you my government for trying to ruin my health again and possibly turning me into a criminal for the first in my life!!

Victor said...

Personally I think that this bill against e-cigarettes is just a disguise by the "puritist" just say no bunch. They look at e-cigs in public as influencing, encouraging teens/children. When first off we all know that teenagers who want to will always be able to get cigarettes,tobacco,alcohol & drugs at will. It's their parents responsibility to be involved with they're children

Victor said...

But regardless, this is an intrusion of liberty by the State. I use the Njoy e-cigs. They do not produce plumes of vapor into the atmosphere. The only vapor is what I inhale into my mouth. Therefore it's not possible to affect anyone else around. So this bill is unjust, overreaching and infringing on the same liberties in which I fought for in the US Marines, where I sustained lifelong injuries and 24/7 pain. Being as I don't like regular cigarettes, I don't drink alcohol or do drugs, these e-cigarettes I've found to be a nice little temporary kind of outlet, something to do. As these e-cigs do not affect anyone else, this ban/restriction is unjust & overreaching. The Forefathers of the US would have scolded these lawmaker for suggesting such unconstitutional restriction of the people.

keith lewis said...

Why would anyone want to live in California. Closest thing to Communism in the country. A tiny percentage of people are offended by harmless vapors so 36 million and decreasing are forced to appease them. "Ya'll" just stay away from Texas. We have plenty of Californians here. If we get many more it will turn into California.

Caren Wettlaufer said...

You all should read the actual bill.(No offense to people that did already) It mostly focuses on not advertising and prohibiting vaping around minors in school and near playgrounds who are easily influenced. And prohibiting the use of vaping and smoking while preparing food. I will admit I didn't read the whole bill but I did read through most of it and I couldn't really find much to argue with.
I do not want to encourage minors to start vaping like I'm sure none of you do either. It's not unrealistic to ask us to vape outside. I don't want to stand with the smokers because that stuff smells awful but I don't mind making small sacrifices so I can be smoke free. It doesn't matter if the cloud of vape is not toxic to anyone around us. We have all smoked. We all know it is rude to blow smoke into someone else’s face. That has not changed just because there is no smell to vaping…. At least in my opinion. So why should restaurants and businesses all of a sudden allow us to vape inside when it has never been allowed before. They are not taking away any rights. There were no rights to begin with. What would be better is to start a petition to local business requesting the privilege to vape in their outdoor or indoor areas.
My main concern with this bill was taxing and/or actually prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes. And from what I could tell this bill doesn’t have that anywhere in it.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.

And just for the records I have been vaping for 4 months now and no analog cigs at all. I do not think I will be quitting vaping anytime soon either. Just in case this sounded like it came from a non-smokers point of view.

Kristin Noll-Marsh said...

Caren, please read the Call to Action points. There are far greater implications to this bill than you believe.

- Ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned. This would include government housing, multi-unit housing, parks, beaches, campgrounds, bars (where there are no children) and any place else California decides to ban smoking in the future. This could include your own car o

- Ban e-cigarette use in virtually all workplaces in California, including in hospitals. Violations would be punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500. (Section 12)

- Ban e-cigarette use inside or within 20 feet of any public building or in a vehicle owned by the state. (Section 4)

- Declares that the use of electronic cigarettes “may be a hazard to the health of the general public,” and would include e-cigarettes in all future smoking bans passed in California. (Section 11)

- Ban e-cigarette use in railroads and air carriers. (Section 13)

And it does remove a right - the right of a property owner to allow a legal activity (in this case, vaping) in his or her own establishment or business. This includes adult-only venues where smoking is prohibited and even e-cigarette stores, where vaping most certainly SHOULD be allowed.

The more we allow them to treat vaping the same as smoking and take away our liberties, the more they will do it. And it may not matter in nice California weather if you have to go outside, but the rest of the country watches California and if colder states pass similar laws, it could be devastating to vapers.

Justin wilson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zhangliqun said...

Seems everything in life now is just an excuse to pile on "Big Pharma", "Big Tobacco", Big This and Big That. "Big Pharma" is never going out of business because even if they lose all these battles behind which they're supposed to be the shady characters pulling all the strings, people still get sick, people still need medication. And the longer they live, the more medical care, and thus prescriptions, they need. "Big Pharma" makes VASTLY more money off live 90-year olds than dead 60-year olds. So if anything, they would be in favor of e-cigs.

Kristin Noll-Marsh said...

You would think they would be, but they haven't been in favor of e-cigarettes at all.

E-cigarttes not only cut into their nicotine product profits (gums, patches, lozenges) but also their nicotine addiction products (Chantix, anti-depressants) and smoking-related disease treatments (cancer drugs, heart disease drugs, COPD drugs). The pharmaceutical industry funds the groups who have been trying to get e-cigarettes banned (American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, anti-tobacco researchers) by way of their "foundations," like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (which gets it's funding from thousands of shares of Johnson & Johnson - which makes treatments for smokers and smoking-related diseases.)

Drug companies don't make money off people who live longer. They make money off of SICK people who live longer. If smokers switch en masse to e-cigarettes, they not only don't need the quit smoking aids anymore, they also won't need expensive treatments for smoking-related diseases. Drug companies are HIGHLY motivated to squash the e-cigarette industry because of that ripple effect.

Shane Bonanno said...

Yes, you could assuming that the caffeine was vaporized with the rest of the solution. Also, calories aren't a chemical. They're a measure of energy and don't have anything to do with the respiratory tract. Nicotine is absorbed by the inner walls of your lungs and enters the blood stream directly. It's very much the same as injecting yourself with it.

John Doman said...

No, not big tobacco. They're just leftists.

Wayne Prunkard said...

Wanna BET???

vince vincent said...

What? we are going to have a Marlboro e-cig?? lol..

I Wonder said...

I wonder if these are the same people trying to take away law abiding citizens guns as well?

Luke Lee said...

Yes,I can't stand the smell of cigarettes and nobody does! I definitely refuse to be standing or sitting next to someone who smokes regular cigarette!

KMS said...

Lindsay, you are mistaken. Ecigs have not been "proven to have no risk to the environment". Before you make such statements, why don't you check the FDA website for more accurate information. You work for them....according to your profile...so you are paid to say that. Seriously, if a person is going to stand for something.....have accurate information to back it up.

KMS said...

You would save a lung by not using ecigs until they are deemed 100% safe. Currently, they are not.

KMS said...

There IS more to those juices than what you stated.....Warning Letters Sent to Electronic Cigarette Distributors
In September 2010, FDA issued a number of warning letters to electronic cigarette distributors for various violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act including “violations of good manufacturing practices, making unsubstantiated drug claims, and using the devices as delivery mechanisms for active pharmaceutical ingredients.”
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm

WAKE UP PEOPLE

Jebon Alan said...

As a tenant, there are certain rights you should be aware of to protect yourself.
California renters rights give you protection against landlords who wish to abuse the system.
Unfortunately, many tenants do not take the time to understand their rights and get taken advantage of.
The following explores some of the most important and most relevant rights tenants have in California.
This is only a small listing of information that can be found at our site to protect yourself.
Renters rights in Los Angeles are largely the same as in other California cities,
so this information is relevant regardless of where you live. First of all,
a landlord can never discriminate against a tenant. A landlord cannot refuse a room to or harass a tenant based on race,
color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, immigration status, religion, national origin,
disability, or if they are pregnant or have children. Landlords must also allow all service animals,
regardless of pet policies within the building. Your landlord also cannot try to retaliate against you if you take action against his unlawful actions. For example,
if you file a claim with an agency about your landlord, he cannot legally raise your rent, evict you,
or stop providing services because of it.
if you need more informacon check renters rights California

bipolarlessons.com said...

Excellent points. Are you aware that certain cities have laws against hiring smokers as public employees and make them get drug (nicotine) tests? And there are also hospitals and other places where people deal with children who are not hiring smokers due to "third-hand smoke" That is the smoke particles that cling to clothing and children who are held can inhale it. I am not aware of any proof that this is harmful.

So essentially if the same laws apply to e-cigs than there would be reason to discrimate against vapers as well.

A lot of this is just punative action and has no basis in reality. Even the argument that smoking and vaping set a bad example doesn't hold water. One can sunbathe too much, eat junk food (obesity is the newest deadly "epidemic" in America.), drink and no one is trying to ban those things because it sets a "bad example" Actually the latter probably was an argument used for the prohibition, look how well that turned out.

How about banning TV because of "couch potato syndrome" which contributes to adult and child obesity?

I could go on and on about that but thanks for your insightful observation.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Veto the FDA Restrictions on E-Cigarettes
The FDA has classified E-Cigarettes as "Tobacco Products" and will now severely restrict their use. These regulations are not like those of tobacco, but instead all manufactures will be required to complete a lengthy and expensive application just for putting new products on the market. This includes Mechanical Mods, Variable Voltage, tanks, drippers,etc. Any new "Model" after 2015 will be required to complete this application. The FDA has over stepped their boundaries. E-Cigarettes CAN NOT be classified as a "Tobacco Product" as there is no tobacco in it. They fret about the nicotine, but there is nicotine in many plants including tomatoes. They fret about the flavors, yet allow Smirnoff Vodka to advertise candy and fruit flavors. DoNot, allow the FDA to take control of a life saving prod SIGNATURES NEEDED BY MAY 24, 2014 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000
LINK:::
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/veto-fda-restrictions-e-cigarettes/kdKtpFH4

Anonymous said...

Your right. I can put coke in a beer can and appear to be drinking beer. Or water in a martini glass with an olive and appear to be drinking a martini.