City ordinance ban looming in Chicago

[Berylanna]

My blood boils when I read this. Where are the studies or data that can back this statement?

There is plenty of evidence that it's not WATER VAPOR, that's why I keep saying Hey Folks It's Food Vapor!!! Food vapor contains all of that except the metals, and the metals will be there if pots, pans, and grills are also used. In other words, cooking.

Volatile Organic Compounds means has carbon and you can smell it or see it in the air. Nicotine, is in potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant and peppers. pg and vg are long-since FDA-approved for use in foods. Caffeine is like nicotine in the body, ban hot coffee? Frappuchinos only?

We pollute the same way chefs and grill cooks pollute. BAN CHEFS IN ALL RESTAURANTS! See how that idea goes over. Oh, and flavored alcoholic drinks.

When WE get it wrong, we leave the door wide open for the other side to turn it to lies. SO STOP SAYING IT'S WATER VAPOR.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

This^^^^^^^ It's cooking vapors, water has no odor.

 

[tombaker]

“Having worked with the FDA, having encouraged them to take steps to protect individuals and children, they are usually an agency that leads from behind,”

I believe that is a good indication of where the FDA will go once they finally act against e cigs. This as well as the activity in NYC and LA is just the fireworks before the grand finale. Hold on to your seats, it's going to be a rocky ride.

Glantz realizes the FDA is going to be no where for years at best.
"Indeed, when the FDA tried to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug (nicotine) delivery device, e-cigarette companies sued and blocked the FDA in court. When, eventually, the FDA tries to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products (what the companies claimed in their first lawsuit), e-cigarette companies will sue again, which will delay any federal regulation for more years."

The local bans, can be put into place long before years of waiting on the outcome from the FDA. On the legal side, the FDA will never be able to ban tobacco products (which the FDA wants E-Cigs to be), unless a major bill passes Congress, and whatever President is in office. Yes you will be able to vape in your home, your car, but on the local level they are trying to treat vapers as smokers, and as everyone knows, in public, smokers have no rights.

 

[Sundodger]

The quote you quoted (“Having worked with the FDA, having encouraged them to take steps to protect individuals and children, they are usually an agency that leads from behind,”) is not from Stanton Glantz, it is from Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was nose deep with the FDA while serving at the White House.

 

[tribe84]

#onetermmayor.

 

[kristin]

There is plenty of evidence that it's not WATER VAPOR, that's why I keep saying Hey Folks It's Food Vapor!!! Food vapor contains all of that except the metals, and the metals will be there if pots, pans, and grills are also used. In other words, cooking.

Volatile Organic Compounds means has carbon and you can smell it or see it in the air. Nicotine, is in potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant and peppers. pg and vg are long-since FDA-approved for use in foods. Caffeine is like nicotine in the body, ban hot coffee? Frappuchinos only?

We pollute the same way chefs and grill cooks pollute. BAN CHEFS IN ALL RESTAURANTS! See how that idea goes over. Oh, and flavored alcoholic drinks.

When WE get it wrong, we leave the door wide open for the other side to turn it to lies. SO STOP SAYING IT'S WATER VAPOR.

I don't think saying it's "food vapor" will help us much fighting bans, though. ANTZ can always point out that chefs work in an area separate from the public and have industrial venting. And the level of nicotine is far, far less in vegetables.

It's a great point (heck, there's actually far more hazardous chemicals in cooking emissions!) but it's honestly a non-starter as a powerful argument against public use bans. If nothing else, people will look at you like you have three eyes if you try to make that argument. The ANTZ have just done too good of a job convincing the public that the tiniest amount of nicotine exhaled into the air is deadly, addictive and if it can be avoided, it should be. Also, they can argue that cooks have to cook in their restaurant, but vapers don't need to vape there.

 

[Berylanna]

I don't think saying it's "food vapor" will help us much fighting bans, though. ANTZ can always point out that chefs work in an area separate from the public and have industrial venting. And the level of nicotine is far, far less in vegetables.

It's a great point (heck, there's actually far more hazardous chemicals in cooking emissions!) but it's honestly a non-starter as a powerful argument against public use bans. If nothing else, people will look at you like you have three eyes if you try to make that argument. The ANTZ have just done too good of a job convincing the public that the tiniest amount of nicotine exhaled into the air is deadly, addictive and if it can be avoided, it should be. Also, they can argue that cooks have to cook in their restaurant, but vapers don't need to vape there.

It's not going to cut it with ANTZ or even scientists but I've found it DOES cut it with laypeople, who, after all, cook in their own kitchens and go to restaurants where the chefs are not THAT separated.

This is NOT meant to be a logical argument, we already know that nobody but us is using logic anyway. It's meant to be a visual that calls up images of common-sense risks to the average person's mind.

Right now, the "it's just vapor" people are saying WATER VAPOR for crying out loud, saying it's food vapor is at least truthful-enough to make us a harder target for the ANTZ. Also, in the West BBQ is very common, smoke and all, and in the South it is KING. We're not afraid of smoke, we're afraid of POISON. (Though I admit gas BBQ's are taking over in the Bay Area due to the $250 fine for making smoke on Spare The Air days.)

 

[kristin]

Agreed.

nobody but us is using logic anyway.

Amen to that!

 

[aikanae1]

nobody but us is using logic anyway.

That's true for ANTZ and this is a war of messaging against them.

However I think average public is more logical. I've actually had some luck when I pointed out that 85% of the price of cigs are taxes = they don't want us to quit. Some non-smokers can relate to that, which is also key in this fight. We need non-smokers too.

 

[Berylanna]

That's true for ANTZ and this is a war of messaging against them.

However I think average public is more logical. I've actually had some luck when I pointed out that 85% of the price of cigs are taxes = they don't want us to quit. Some non-smokers can relate to that, which is also key in this fight. We need non-smokers too.

Oh, I don't mean to make "It's Cooking Vapor" our only rallying cry. But we need to replace "It's water vapor" with "It's food vapor."

I work with a lot of people who come from China, India, and Vietnam. If I use the money argument they 'get it' before I can even finish the sentence.

 

[aikanae1]

This may not be the write place for this question, but is there a speakers or writers bank?
Ppl that are good with framing a message for the public without getting too detailed.

 

[aikanae1]

Food vapor / water vapor or ecigs / pv's is immaterial at this point. Confusion is not our friend.

I do think it's important to link up phoney plastic looking cigs with big tobacco and NOT the ecig industry. All too often people are voting against big tobacco when they are really voting against ecigs and delivering the industry to big tobacco. I've seen this done in ANTZ messaging on purpose, specifically from the public health groups. So when a politician comes out against ecigs, average public thinks they are bucking big tobacco when the reverse is true. Some politicans may even believe the same as the public.

I think the industry needs to seperate themselves from big tobacco marketing in a very BIG way.

 

[Daisey Moonshine]

Here is another subscription-only editorial in the Chicago Tribune to share with the forum:

Government going overboard in ban of e-cigarettes

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hicago-band-oped-01-20140119,0,1672180.column

Clarence Page
January 19, 2014

As a recovering nicotine addict, the rising tide of local bans against puffing in public on electronic cigarettes makes me wonder what lawmakers have been smoking.

By an overwhelming 45-4 vote last week, Chicago's City Council followed New York, Los Angeles and other cities that have passed or are considering limits on e-cigarettes that banish their use in restaurants, bars and most other indoor public places. Retailers also are required to sell e-cigarettes from behind the counter so that it's harder for minors to get their hands on them....

{MODERATED}

 

[sonicdsl]

Sorry, Daisey, but we cannot allow that entire article to be posted, particularly since it's behind a paywall.


http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-forum-rules/51178-forum-rules.html

6. Copyright
You must not post material on this Website that you do not own the copyright to, unless it is done so under a Fair Use agreement. Only one paragraph or 300 words may be posted, whichever is the greater, and a link should be given to the original source.

 

[Orb Skewer]

"A lazy and short sighted approach" says Matthew Glans

City Council Bans Indoor Use of Electronic Cigarettes - Gapers Block Mechanics | Chicago