Thursday, February 6, 2014

Call to Action! San Francisco, California, E-Cigarette Usage Ban

UPDATE 3/4/14:  On 2/28/14, Ordinance No. 131208 was transferred to the Rules Committee, and has been set for a hearing at the Rules Committee's meeting on THURSDAY, March 6th, 2014.  The meeting is scheduled for 2:00 P.M. at City Hall (1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA  94102), Room 263.

Please (1) Contact members of the Rules Committee (contact information immediately following) asking that the Committee vote not to recommend Ordinance 131208 to the Board of Supervisors, and (2) attend the Committee meeting on THURSDAY, March 6th, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. and offer testimony on why this ordinance should be rejected (talking points contained in body of this Call to Action).  As a sign of respect, we ask that you refrain from vaping during the Committee meeting.

Rules Committee:


Norman Yee, District 7
Phone: (415) 554-6516
Fax: (415) 554-6546
Norman.Yee@sfgov.org

Katy Tang, District 4
Phone: (415) 554-7460
Fax: (415) 554-7432
Katy.Tang@sfgov.org

David Campos, District 9
Phone: (415) 554-5144
Fax: (415) 554-6255
David.Campos@sfgov.org

(Send a copy of all correspondence to Alisa Miller, Clerk of the Rules Committee, at alisa.miller@sfgov.org to ensure that your email and any attachments are included in the legislative folder and are available to all supervisors if the ordinance comes to them for a vote.)

Agenda for Rules Committee's 3/6/14 Meeting




UPDATE 2/15/14:  We've received word that the ordinance may be scheduled for the Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee's March 6th, 2014 meeting.  We will continue to update this Call to Action as more information becomes available.  

Ordinance No. 131208

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance, sponsored by Sup. Eric Mar,  that would (i) prohibit e-cigarette use wherever smoking is prohibited, (ii) require a tobacco permit to sell e-cigarettes, and (iii) prohibit sales of e-cigarettes wherever tobacco is not permitted to be sold.  


The ordinance has been referred to the Neighborhood Services & Safety Committee (members of this committee are highlighted in green below). The committee is scheduled to next meet on February 20th, at 10:00 a.m. and it is possible that the matter may be included in the agenda for that meeting. If so, members of the public will be permitted to offer testimony at that time. We will update the Call to Action as soon as we receive confirmation of when this matter is set for a hearing.


Please take this opportunity to send the members of the Board of Supervisors (with particular attention focused on the members of the Neighborhood Services & Safety Committee, highlighted in green) accurate information about e-cigarettes and your story about how the product has improved your life. 
 
CASAA strongly encourages vapers to call and email the mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors.

What to say:

1. You are a San Francisco, San Francisco-area, or California citizen and while you support banning sales of e-cigarettes to minors, you OPPOSE banning e-cigarette use where smoking is banned.   (If you are responding to this Call to Action and are not a state resident, please mention any connection you have to the area, for example, you travel to San Francisco on vacation or have friends/family in the area.)
  
2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life.

3. Explain that:


  • 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 are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products.
  • The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, 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.
  • comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.  
  • 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 ("discreet vaping").  With so little evidence of use, enforcing use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.
  • 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 an estimated 99%.
  • By switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.
4. Direct them to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.



Contact Information for the Mayor and Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (green denotes members of the Neighborhood Services & Safety Committee):

Comma delimited e-mail:  
mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org, john.avalos@sfgov.org, london.breed@sfgov.org, david.chiu@sfgov.org, malia.cohen@sfgov.org, mark.farrell@sfgov.org, jane.kim@sfgov.org, katy.tang@sfgov.org, scott.wiener@sfgov.org, david.campos@sfgov.org, eric.l.mar@sfgov.org, norman.yee@sfgov.org, derek.evans@sfgov.org, board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org

Mayor Edwin M. Lee
City Hall,
Room 200,
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

John Avalos, District 11
Phone: (415) 554-6975
Fax: (415) 554-6979
John.Avalos@sfgov.org

London Breed, District 5
Phone: (415) 554-7630
Fax: (415) 554-7634
London.Breed@sfgov.org

David Chiu. District 3
Phone: (415) 554-7450
Fax: (415) 554-7454
David.Chiu@sfgov.org

Malia Cohen, District 10
Phone: (415) 554-7670
Fax: (415) 554-7674
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org

Mark Farrell, District 2
Phone: (415) 554-7752
Fax: (415) 554-7843
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org

Jane Kim, District 6
Phone: (415) 554-7970
Fax: (415) 554-7974
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org

Katy Tang, District 4
Phone: (415) 554-7460
Fax: (415) 554-7432
Katy.Tang@sfgov.org

Scott Wiener, District 8
Phone: (415) 554-6968
Fax: (415) 554-6909
Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org

David Campos, District 9
Phone: (415) 554-5144
Fax: (415) 554-6255
David.Campos@sfgov.org

Eric Mar, District 1
Phone: (415) 554-7410
Fax: (415) 554-7415
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org

Norman Yee, District 7
Phone: (415) 554-6516
Fax: (415) 554-6546
Norman.Yee@sfgov.org

Copy to Derek Evans, staffer, at derek.evans@sfgov.org and to full board at board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org.



9 comments:

  1. A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure. ecigs

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll just say this and be done. Too many people vape now, take away the right and plan on a black market emerging.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Might as well ban smoke machines at concerts too. It's the same stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  4. E-Smoke has been the best thing that happened to me. Was a tobacco smoker for over 45 years. Using e-smoke now for 8 months, and have not touched a cigarette since. E-smoke is "vapor" and not smoke. Second hand smoke does not apply here. Biggest complaints I hear are the "tobacco" companies. Stop trying to ban this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ..Any word on what's going on at this point? Two of my favorite vapor stores are in the Bay area, with one in San Francisco proper. I order from them online and this could effectively shut at least on of them down:(

    Also, is there any way for people like myself (who no longer reside in California) to help (outside of the obvious...Twitter, etc...)?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have vapeshops all around but i order online from san francisco . That would suck if banned but hoprfuly not. I have faith it wont be banned

    ReplyDelete
  7. I smoked for 15 years two packs a day and I haven't touched a cigarette since I started vaping. I get teary just thinking about it cause I had pretty much Had given up on quitting. If this was approved it would only prove the level of corruption thats in the bay area. Long term studies do need to happen and are a good thing but if you were really concerned about our health, focus on shutting down cigarette's all together and stop politicians from lining their pockets with tabacco company donations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is government always looking for the bad in everything. It appears that if it is not government regulated, it must be bad for you. Smoking for over 15 years and making the switch to vaping has increased my lung capacity, and actually cleared the tar out of my lungs according to my doctor. The patch did not work for me. Gum did not work for me. 4000+ harmful chemicals in traditional cigarettes vs. 4 non harmful chemicals in vapor products seems like the better alternative. Even big tobacco is jumping on the electronic cigarette bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After smoking 2 packs a day of American Spirits for 7 years I switched to vaping and started tapering down my nicotine level. Within months people were commenting on the fact that I had gone back to looking my age, my skin less sickly pale, my eyes less blood shot, the bags under my eyes less pronounced. My girlfriend had to start checking the peephole when I knocked because she couldn't identify me by my cough any more. I regained the ability to enjoy responsible levels of alcohol with out experiencing 24 hour hangovers. Lifes good, don't take this away from us because it "looks weird"

    ReplyDelete