[ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser – the extra line doesn’t matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I’ve missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ] ***
1) Sunnyvale CA passes indoor/outdoor vaping=smoking ban.
2) West Deptford NJ bans vaping within 25 feet of muncipal buildings.
3) More detail on Santa Monica CA’s City Council decision to request staff info.
Coverage India, UK (nat’l & LA); US states: NY, NJ, PA, NC, IL, MN, UT, CA
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: EDITORIAL: An Open Letter to Mitch Zeller
(Convenience and Fuel store trade ‘zine)
<a href="http://www.cspnet.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/editorial-open-letter-mitch-zeller” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.cspnet.com/category-manag…r-mitch-zeller
Written by Melissa Vonder Haar, their tobacco ed. She has done some excellent reporting in the past – including breaking the story that community grants have been dangled in front of the noses of municipalities in return for passing vaping=smoking regulations, and that federal money has been used to fund anti-vaping and anti-smoking lobbying efforts (some of you might think that was Jennifer Palmer of The Oklahoman, who has done some great work as well). Vonder Haar astutely picked up the comment by Los Angeles City Atty Mike Feuer, in which he said that outdoor vaping restrictions would still be justified even if there was no harm to bystanders on the ground that it woiuld "renormalize smoking" (see this space on 2/25 as well). No fire-breathing rhetoric here, just generally well well done. And to her credit, she omits mentioning that Dir. Zeller is a Tobacco Control Industry lobbyist who was reported by the WSJ to be on Glaxo’s payroll as recently as a few years ago. Obviously this contains no junk.
Title: V for Vaping: e-cigarettes and the new smoking culture
(Delhi-based tech. site) http://gadgets.ndtv
This seems to be more about the trends in metropolitan India (specifically Delhi area) than about either science or regulation. No junk.
Title: The Future Of Smoking
(Southhamption HPH UK ind. web site) http://www.economicvoice
This piece seemed as if it would be original and interesting when I first started reading it, but it says – exactly – nothing. Noteworthy only for a poll that it cites which alleges that the UK public is overwhelmingly against vaping in public places: so much so, that 71% want it banned on sidewalks. Your Correspondent is a bit suspicious of this result, and wonders whether the poll was commissioned by ASH, and used questions that confused respondents regarding the difference between vaping and smoking. No junk, other than the conflation of vaping and smoking.
Title: e-cigs in taxis could be banned in Ribble Valley taxis
(Lancashire LA UK local paper) http://www.lancashiretelegraph
No indication of a date for a decision. Apparently the borough council’s licensing cmte "received a query." That’s all it takes these days to make elected officials say to themselves – "Whoops, we haven’t banned vaping yet, time to get to it!" If the ban is in effect, it would apply to both drivers and passengers, at all times. No junk.
Title: A New Study Has the Potential to Kill the e-cigarette Market
(US Nat’l Investment ‘zine) http://www.fool
The first few paragraphs of this piece appear to endorse the conclusions of Dutra & Glantz’s junk-statistics-based JAMA paper published just two weeks ago, in which they incorrectly claim that there’s a causal link between minors who have tried vaping and those who become regular tobacco smokers. But then the author backtracks and points out that "Still, critics say that while the study does show a correlation between smoking and e-cig use, there is no evidence to show that the use of e-cigs will directly lead to smoking." (Which is a much less wholehearted endorsement of the criticism than appeared to be associated with the paper). All of that said, we have to remember that this is a ‘zine for investors, and therefore it matters little to the author (and/or perhaps his audience) whether the Dutra & Glantz paper makes good sense as science or statistics. (Presumably if we were discussing hemlines and the stock market, the author would be a bit more careful.) His point, of course is that the study comes at a bad time, insofar as it helps provide cover to Mitch Zeller, the FDA‘s dir. of the center for tobacco products (who is once again identified as a former BP lobbyist). The bottom line here is that FDA regulation – when it comes – is likely to squeeze out the small firms, although the author seems to be a bit confused about why this might be so – mentioning only the application process and ingredient disclosure.
US: NEW YORK
Title: Unanswered questions put cloud over e-cigarettes
(Buffalo NY US local paper) http://www.buffalonews
And I thought we were rid of that horrible Consumer Reports "don’t try vaping for cessation or harm reduction" piece that first came out on Feb 4th. I’ve lost track of the syndications and knockoffs (it also comes in a video version which some local networks pasted on to their local reporting). But here we are seven weeks later, and it just won’t die.
[ NY has a vaping=smoking bill indoor ban now in the legislature. See: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/525978-new-york-bill-s-6562-would-ban-burning-e-cigs-contain-tobacco-all-workplaces.html” target=”_blank”>New York bill (S 6562) would ban burning e-cigs that contain tobacco in all workplaces also tax bill: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/520287-ny-bill-ab-8594-would-tax-e-cig-cartridges-75-wholesale-price.html” target=”_blank”>NY bill (AB 8594) would tax e-cig cartridges at 75% of wholesale price ]
US: NEW JERSEY
Title: e-cigarettes included in West Deptford smoking ban
.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2014/03/e-cigarettes_included_in_west_deptford_smoking_ban.h tml (Woodbury NJ US local paper)
As reported in this space on 2/23, West Deptford NJ was considering an ord. to ban the use of all tobacco products (including smokeless tobacco as well as vaping) from within 25 feet of any municipal building. Ord. passed unanimously:
"Resident Mary Iacopi-Schomer — who had puffed on her e-cigarette from the back of the township court room in protest when the committee first introduced the ordinance — returned Thursday to argue that the township ‘might as well also ban nicotine patches and gum’ if electronic cigarettes are no longer allowed. ‘My lung doctor is happy to see me using an electronic cigarette — you see the vapor, and you have the physical hand-to-mouth motion, and it helps people to quit,’ she said, reading from a hand-written statement before the committee. ‘There is no scientific proof that (electronic cigarettes) are harmful,’ she later added. ‘If you’re going to ban e-cigarettes, then under the same argument you should also ban the patches, gum, lozenges and everything else. ‘People are also irritated by perfume and cologne, and there is actual scientific proof that they can be toxic for people. Now, it bothers me, but I can walk away. I believe it’s my right to drag on an e-cig.’
However, Cathy Butler, a representative from Tobacco Free for a Healthy New Jersey, a statewide anti-smoking group offering resources to those trying to quit, pointed out that electronic cigarettes have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ‘We don’t know what’s inside them,’ she said. Another representative from the group offered programs for free signage the township could use to mark non-smoking areas around municipal buildings.
West Deptford’s smoking ordinance is largely in line with the statewide smoke-Free Air Act, which was adopted in 2006 and bans public indoor smoking. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Tax dollars are likely at work (at least for the signs). Might be interesting to contact Tobacco Free of A Healthy New Jersey and ask where they got the money. Hmm. Your Correspondent also couldn’t help noticing how much effort was exerted by the folks from Tobacco Free for a Healthy New Jersey. They must have stayed up all night to do the research. (What a tough slog.)
[ NJ’s house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. See: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/532440-nj-assembly-cmte-tourism-art-amends-bill-1080-ban-vaping-well-smoking-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761″ target=”_blank”>NJ Assembly Cmte on Tourism and Art amends bill (A 1080) to ban vaping (as well as smoking) at all public parks and beaches
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs:
<a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536504-new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-proposes-taxing-e-cigs-rate-equal-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301″ target=”_blank”>New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposes taxing e-cigs at rate equal to $2.70/pack cigarette tax
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey’s Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on e-cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes ]
Title: Why the government should ban cigarettes but ‘grandfather’ current smokers
(Lansdale PA US local paper) http://www.thereporteronline
"My reasoning is simple: Because virtually all smokers start smoking as children, and I can’t believe there’s one adult smoker who looks back on that decision and thinks, ‘Hey, you know what? That was a good choice I made back when I was a teenager. So glad I started smoking.’ In short: No reasonable adult would ever pick up the habit. People start when they’re young, and then spend the rest of their life fighting off an addiction many studies claim is even more powerful than ……. So yeah. Enough is enough. One in five deaths in America each year would be avoided if every smoker could turn back time."
Evidently this writer doesn’t know the difference between vaping and smoking. Nor is he apparently aware that not all e-juice contains nicotine. And this from someonewho describes himself as "a capitalist, as a libertarian-lite, as a ‘don’t tread on me’-type of character."
Readers will not be surprised to learn that he quit cold turkey some years ago. (What is it that they say about blood being thicker than water?) Let’s see if this one gets syndicated.
[ PA’s SB 1055 a simple minor sales ban, hasn’t passed the state sen. No other threats. ]
US: NORTH CAROLINA
Title: No longer blowing smoke? e-cigarettes could surpass traditional tobacco brands, experts say
(Chapel Hill NC US local paper) http://www.newsobserver
No junk here, but also rather little that you probably didn’t already know. The article is written from the point of view of NC tobacco farmers and/or the local business outlook. The writer correctly notes that BT has started getting into the vaping market in a big way, and has the expertise needed to gain a significant share (political connections weren’t mentioned). Your Correspondent found one tiny tid-bit of interest, and that is that a local NC St. U. prof believes that NC has an advantage in growing and breeding tobacco plants that produce more nicotine. (That assumes, of course, that tobacco will continue to be the most effective source of nicotine, and also that the long-term future of vaping is tied to it.)
Title: Police Say Some York Students Use e-cigarettes to smoke P0t
(AOL local news web site – Elhurst IL US) http://elmhurst.patch
[Note: change the zero in "p0t" to use the above URL.] No real junk in this article, although the headline was obviously selected over other possible choices, since the students were also caught putting the green leafy substance in baked goods. The writer doesn’t seem to be suggesting or implying that vaping technology is particularly to blame.
[ IL currently considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter, see: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/529410-illinois-bills-hb-5868-sb-3268-would-require-all-e-cigs-but-not-cigars-smokeless-pipe-tobacco-behind-retail-counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.html” target=”_blank”>Illinois bills ((HB 5868 & SB 3268) would require all e-cigs (but not cigars, smokeless or pipe tobacco) behind retail counter, exempts tobacco specialty stores and one bill that would require special packaging: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/529055-illinois-bill-hb-5689-would-mandate-special-packaging-all-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html” target=”_blank”>Illinois bill (HB 5689) would mandate special packaging for all e-cig products sold in IL to "protect the children" Also worth watching: SB2659, which would ban smoking in cars containing a minor – however the definition doesn’t currently include vaping (and is still in the Public Health Cmte, with a status of "postponed." See: Illinois General Assembly – Bill Status for SB2659 And HB 689, which would mandate special packaging in order to protect children (which only has one sponsor at the moment: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/529055-illinois-bill-hb-5689-would-mandate-special-packaging-all-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html” target=”_blank”>Illinois bill (HB 5689) would mandate special packaging for all e-cig products sold in IL to "protect the children" ]
Title: Steele County officials express concern over youth e-cigarette usage, unknown dangers
(Northfield MN US local paper collection site) http://www.southernminn
The first part of this piece contains extensive quotes from the MN Dep’t of Health’s press release, but then adds some local content by citing the two bills currently in the MN legislature, and quoting the Steele Co. Public Health Educator:
"Nyquist said the fatal risk of nicotine in e-cigarettes is alarming. ‘We are in the dark regarding potential consequences,’ she said. ‘We do not know exactly what is in the juice due to lack of regulations and the short- and long-term effects are unknown. The fear is that dangers, such as nicotine absorption in youth, could just be the tip of the iceberg.’" [boldface added, para breaks omitted]
The piece goes on to cite the CDC junk stats reports, but doesn’t include some of the classic ANTZ content (tin nanoparticles, volatile organic compounds, etc.). Finally, we end up discovering how tax dollars are at work in preventing tobacco – oops, nicotine – use:
"Tobacco-prevention work will continue in Steele County. Steele County is part of the 4 Corners Partnership that also includes Dodge, Goodhue and Rice counties, which advocates for state and local policies to regulate tobacco and secondhand-tobacco smoke. The group also educates and assists multi-unit housing owners in becoming tobacco-free. Members from the partnership’s coalition will attend ‘Day at the Capitol’ on April 8 in St. Paul to discuss e-cigarettes and other legislation with local legislators." (para breaks omitted)."
[ Threats in MN are: HF 1974: Minor sales ban and extends clean indoor act to cover vaping, still in 1st house cmte (health & human svcs), and may have ammended to remove the indoor clean air act ext (?).
SF SF 2027: Same as HF 1974, except indoor clean air act extension is still there. Out of sen. local gov’t cmte, now in sen. commerce cmte. (last: 3/13)
For MN vapers updates, see: <a href="http://mnvapers.com/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>Minnesota vapers Advocacy |Minnesota vapers Advocacy
and the MN vapers FB page for organizing: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/MNvapersAdvocacy/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.facebook.com/groups/MNvapersAdvocacy/
And: <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-minnesota-e-cigarette.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>CASAA: Call to Action! Minnesota e-cigarette Usage Ban ]
Title: Kids sneaking easily concealable e-cigarettes into northern Utah schools
(Ogden UT US local paper) http://www.standard
You have to read this piece carefully to pick out the lines that indicate the extent of the problem:
"This isn’t to say e-cigarette use is necessarily rampant in northern Utah schools. […] Rebecca Ellis, assistant principal at Ben Lomond High School, said e-cigarette use is relatively new at the school, but it has been increasing. ‘Truthfully, I wouldn’t consider it to be a big problem right now,’ she said. Ellis said they’ve had only one or two instances of students puffing on e-cigs in the school, although school officials have confiscated a number of the devices from backpacks and the like. ‘It is not … rampant,’ Ellis said. ‘When we do find them, it’s usually when we’re searching for another substance.’ [para breaks omitted]"
(Guess the editor was looking for a story about smoking in the schools? Legislative session in UT is over, but perhaps the Ogden city council is going to consider some kind of B&M licensing or other restrictions? You gotta wonder.)
Title: Santa Monica To Look Into e-cigarette Regulation
(Santa Monica CA local paper) http://www.smmirror
No date has been set. City Councilman Holbrook initially asked the staff to return to the council with a proposed ordinance. However there seems to be some resistance …
"’It’s no secret there has been concern about electronic [smoking] devices that imitate cigarettes. I’m really concerned these are precursors to the smoking habit,’ Holbrook told his colleagues. […] The motion did include a sense of urgency, as council members directed City staff to return back with a report on facts and potential options as expeditiously as possible. ‘The exercise of municipal police power to control individual behavior must be founded on facts,’ [councilman] McKeown stated. ‘There is medical research on both sides of this issue. I would like the chance to look at that research … and come up with an ordinance that protects people where necessary but doesn’t impinge upon individuals beyond what the science tells us is reasonable to do.’ During public testimony, resident Ian James Johnson said he was sickened by e-cigarette regulations that has been proposed or already enacted. ‘This is really sickening the way this is going around the country. There is absolutely no scientific … evidence to show there is damage being done by this, particularly the second-hand users,’ Johnson told the council. ‘We all have the right to put things in our body that aren’t good for us. If you spend the money on education as opposed to telling people what to do, they will make the right choices.’ Resident Kevin Kleiman said he hoped the council and City staff would properly research the pros and cons of e-cigarettes before regulating the devices. ‘There really hasn’t been any major study to show what these things can or cannot do,’ Kleiman told the council. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[It’s hard not to see how the local health dep’t and ANTZ orgs will be involved here, helpfully supplying research to the city staff. Will anything be provided to counter it? Your Correspondent is doubtful.
Title: Electronic cigarettes added to Sunnyvale’s smoking ban
(<acronym title="smokey Joe, forum founder”>SJ CA US local paper) http://www.mercurynews
Unanimous vote by City Council last week (3/18), no rationale was given. Although from the report, it appears that the city council viewed this as merely a technical correction. Apparently a local vape store owner was present. What we hear about him is this:
"Robert Jones, owner of Great vape Inc., an e-cigarettes store in Sunnyvale, said he wasn’t surprised by the addition of e-cigarettes to the ban and that he was pleased with the overall discussion about adding more regulation. ‘I think the city is going about it the right way with the community outreach, and I was happy to hear the mayor’s comments about the integrity of existing businesses,’ Jones said. ‘I’m in favor of some regulation from our local municipality.’"
The ban applies outdoors as well, yet it appears to exempt golf courses. No junk in the piece, other than the implicit assumption that vaping is smoking.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/513980-california-assembly-bill-ban-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html” target=”_blank”>***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA*** ]
to see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) –
rhode site:<acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI – you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don’t forget the : (colon), and be sure that there’s nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:<acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (<acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA doesn’t generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)