CES sent this to me and wanted me to get it on here. If anyone can make it tonight it would help.
From: Gregory Conley <conley.gregory@gmail.com>
Date: July 9, 2012 12:44:07 PM EDT
To: <cstrang@uab.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Inclusion of smoke-free product in smoking ban
Date: July 9, 2012 12:44:07 PM EDT
To: <cstrang@uab.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Inclusion of smoke-free product in smoking ban
If you can get any public comments in, they should be sent to -- city.clerk@ci.vestaviahills.al.us. The clerk's name is Rebecca Leavings. Alternatively, the e-mail addresses of the 5 council members are below.
Thanks,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Conley <conley.gregory@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Inclusion of smoke-free product in smoking ban
To: ricemarylee@gmail.com, steve@steveammons.com, jimsharp@sharpcleaners.net, George@abc-alabama.org, lindavhcitycouncil@att.net
Dear Vestavia Hills City Council Members:
On behalf of the Jefferson County members of the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (CASAA), we urge you to follow Birminghams example and amend your proposed smoking ban ordinance to remove the prohibition on the use of smoke-free electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Simply stated, e-cigarettes do not produce any smoke and have never been shown to pose any risk to bystanders, which is exactly why the Birmingham City Council declined to ban their use earlier this year.
Even the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association recognize this. Earlier this year, those three organizations agreed to exempt smoke-free e-cigarettes from a smoking ban in Springfield, Missouri. Official Statement - 03.16.12 - FINAL PDF
While CASAA appreciates the Board's desire to protect its citizens, banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places is not warranted based upon the information currently available. In fact, CASAA believes that banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places may actually work against the councils stated purpose of promoting the health of its citizens.
The concept of tobacco Harm Reduction (THR)replacing tobacco cigarette smoking with less hazardous sources of nicotineis becoming increasingly recognized as a valid strategy in combating the crippling health problems associated with smoking. Smoke-free e-cigarettes are proving to be one of the most promising of the THR products. Both Indiana and Nebraska have passed proclamations embracing the concept of THR, recognizing that current strategies simply are not effective enough.
States such as Virginia that ban smoking but permit use of e-cigarettes indoors have had no problems with enforcement. Cigarette smoke has an unmistakable odor, and smoke lingers in the air. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless; but, even when detectable, the odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Any visible vapor begins to dissipate almost immediately. Smokers who see an e-cigarette used indoors dont light upthey ask, What is that? and Where can I get one?
Smoking bans were enacted for the purpose of protecting non-smokers from the potentially harmful effects of second-hand smoke. But electronic cigarettes have not been shown to harm bystanders or users. FDA testing of e-cigarette vapor did not find any toxic or cancer-causing substances. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless tobacco products and to the risks of using nicotine gum, lozenges, patch, and inhalers.
Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested e-cigarette vapor for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants. No such toxicants were found. Dr. Laugesen stated, Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential. [1] Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettesincluding the testing conducted by the FDA in 2009and concluded, A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products. Dr. Siegel states that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. [2] The majority of consumers use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for all their tobacco cigarettes, and most of the rest use e-cigarettes to reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke. These products are improving the health of their users, and could save the lives of many more smokersprovided their use is not discouraged. [3, 4] Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use and forcing e-cigarette users outside removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that could very well reduce their risks of smoking-related disease.
Sound public health policy surely would encourage smokers to replace or reduce their cigarette consumptionnot create obstacles to it. Banning the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is prohibited sends a message to smokers that they may as well continue to smoke, whereas allowing e-cigarette use indoors provides an incentive to switch to a far safer alternative.
CASAA urges you to amend Ordinance No. 2411: Specifically, in Section 2(a)(14), please delete the text Smoking also includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gregory Conley, JD / MBA (volunteer legal director)
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Conley <conley.gregory@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Inclusion of smoke-free product in smoking ban
To: ricemarylee@gmail.com, steve@steveammons.com, jimsharp@sharpcleaners.net, George@abc-alabama.org, lindavhcitycouncil@att.net
Dear Vestavia Hills City Council Members:
On behalf of the Jefferson County members of the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (CASAA), we urge you to follow Birminghams example and amend your proposed smoking ban ordinance to remove the prohibition on the use of smoke-free electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Simply stated, e-cigarettes do not produce any smoke and have never been shown to pose any risk to bystanders, which is exactly why the Birmingham City Council declined to ban their use earlier this year.
Even the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association recognize this. Earlier this year, those three organizations agreed to exempt smoke-free e-cigarettes from a smoking ban in Springfield, Missouri. Official Statement - 03.16.12 - FINAL PDF
While CASAA appreciates the Board's desire to protect its citizens, banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places is not warranted based upon the information currently available. In fact, CASAA believes that banning the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes in public places may actually work against the councils stated purpose of promoting the health of its citizens.
The concept of tobacco Harm Reduction (THR)replacing tobacco cigarette smoking with less hazardous sources of nicotineis becoming increasingly recognized as a valid strategy in combating the crippling health problems associated with smoking. Smoke-free e-cigarettes are proving to be one of the most promising of the THR products. Both Indiana and Nebraska have passed proclamations embracing the concept of THR, recognizing that current strategies simply are not effective enough.
States such as Virginia that ban smoking but permit use of e-cigarettes indoors have had no problems with enforcement. Cigarette smoke has an unmistakable odor, and smoke lingers in the air. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless; but, even when detectable, the odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Any visible vapor begins to dissipate almost immediately. Smokers who see an e-cigarette used indoors dont light upthey ask, What is that? and Where can I get one?
Smoking bans were enacted for the purpose of protecting non-smokers from the potentially harmful effects of second-hand smoke. But electronic cigarettes have not been shown to harm bystanders or users. FDA testing of e-cigarette vapor did not find any toxic or cancer-causing substances. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless tobacco products and to the risks of using nicotine gum, lozenges, patch, and inhalers.
Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested e-cigarette vapor for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants. No such toxicants were found. Dr. Laugesen stated, Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential. [1] Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettesincluding the testing conducted by the FDA in 2009and concluded, A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products. Dr. Siegel states that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. [2] The majority of consumers use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for all their tobacco cigarettes, and most of the rest use e-cigarettes to reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke. These products are improving the health of their users, and could save the lives of many more smokersprovided their use is not discouraged. [3, 4] Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use and forcing e-cigarette users outside removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that could very well reduce their risks of smoking-related disease.
Sound public health policy surely would encourage smokers to replace or reduce their cigarette consumptionnot create obstacles to it. Banning the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is prohibited sends a message to smokers that they may as well continue to smoke, whereas allowing e-cigarette use indoors provides an incentive to switch to a far safer alternative.
CASAA urges you to amend Ordinance No. 2411: Specifically, in Section 2(a)(14), please delete the text Smoking also includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gregory Conley, JD / MBA (volunteer legal director)
