Alameda County (CA) Board of Supervisors considering vaping ban

[Bill Godshall]

Alameda County (CA) Board of Supervisors is considering a proposed ordinance by its Health Dept to ban vaping by falsely redefining smokefree vapor as “smoke”, smokefree vaping as “smoking” and smokefree vaporizers as “smoking devices”, says dozens of false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs and vaping are facts.
http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_cale... SERVICES/Regular Calendar/PUBHLTH_209002.pdf

The bill would also ban vaping outdoors within 20 feet of building entrances.

The only good news is that the ordincance would exempt vape shops (from the vaping ban), but the bill would also ban self service displays and the distribution of free vapor product samples.

The bill was introduced on at the Board of Supervisors' October 7 meeting.

An allied organization (whose name and purpose are not allowed to be mentioned on ECF) is mobilizing their members to oppose the bill's ban on vaping products that aren't allowed to be mentioned on ECF, and they provided the following contact info for the Alameda County Board of Supervisers.

<image001.jpg>Scott Haggerty Contact: district1@acgov.org
The First Supervisorial District includes the cities of Dublin and Livermore; most of the city of Fremont; a portion of the unincorporated community of Sunol; and most of the unincorporated area of the Livermore-Amador Valley. District Map (PDF - 3.6Mb)


<image002.jpg>Richard Valle Contact:Ginny.DeMartini@acgov.org
The Second Supervisorial District includes the cities of Hayward, Newark and Union City; the northern portion of the city of Fremont; and a portion of the unincorporated community of Sunol. District Map (PDF - 2.9Mb)


<image003.jpg>Wilma Chan – Contact: Wilma.Chan@acgov.org
The Third Supervisorial District includes the cities of Alameda and San Leandro; a portion of the city of Oakland, including the Chinatown, San Antonio, Fruitvale and Melrose areas; the unincorporated communities of San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres; and a portion of the unincorporated community of Ashland. District Map (PDF - 2.9Mb)

<image004.jpg>Nate Miley Contact: Eileen.Ng@acgov.org
The Fourth Supervisorial District includes the city of Pleasanton, including the adjacent unincorporated Castlewood and Happy Valley areas; the Lower Hills, South Hills and Elmhurst areas of Oakland; the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley, Cherryland, and Fairview; and most of the unincorporated community of Ashland. District Map (PDF - 4.3Mb)

<image005.jpg>Keith Carson Contact: dist5@acgov.org
The Fifth Supervisorial District includes the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont and a portion of Oakland including West Oakland, North Oakland, and the North Hills areas. District Map (PDF - 2.4Mb)



​

 

[DrMA]

I'm so sorry for our fellow vapers in Cali. I can't help but feel that CA is all but lost to the forces of the evil desk murderers manipulated by the ANTZ terrorist network headquartered at UCSF.

The vapers of {other stuff} might stand a chance, though...

 

[Bill Godshall]

One thing is certain, if vapers, vape shop owners and e-cig companies don't mobilize opposition to the proposal, it will be enacted into law.

Seems like CA NORML is generating more calls, letters and testifiers than the combined efforts of CASAA, AVA, ECF, Vaping Militia, vape shops and e-cig companies to oppose local vaping bans in CA.

 

[Nate760]

California is already enforcing (through harassment and intimidation of legitimate vendors who have broken no law) a de facto ban on mail order sales of flavored cartomizers. There wasn't any law passed making such sales illegal. The AG's office simply decided it was a crime.

 

[bigdancehawk]

One thing is certain, if vapers, vape shop owners and e-cig companies don't mobilize opposition to the proposal, it will be enacted into law.

Seems like CA NORML is generating more calls, letters and testifiers than the combined efforts of CASAA, AVA, ECF, Vaping Militia, vape shops and e-cig companies to oppose local vaping bans in CA.

It's astonishing to me that most vape shop owners seem blithely unaware of the sharp axe poised overhead.

EDIT: I went to a local vape shop a few days ago to buy some very nice banana nut muffin juice. They were bragging about how they'd anticipated FDA regulations governing the production of their many different flavors and strengths of e-juice and expressed complete confidence that they would have no problem whatsoever complying. I didn't have the heart to describe what was probably in store for them.

 

[Benjamin Jewell]

Greetings,

I would like to update this thread to reflect the current unreported state of affairs on this.

It is going back to all committee's at the reccommendation of the ANTZ. They know they won't win this one and are regathering their forces. No mistakes made in this battle, we enlisted groups that can't be mentioned here because the ordinance is so broad, brought tens of people to the fight on the side of vaping things that can be mentioned and pointed out that the ordinance is verbatim copy of a template funded by the RJWF. ChangeLabSolutions called out in the bay area and are running scared.

The next time the supervisors would even consider this issue is early next year. If you have any questions about how to help on this one or would like more information about it in general I'm pretty plugged in on it. Thanks for your time.

 

[cafecraig]

^ subscribed. Please keep me posted. Alameda County resident/vaper here. Thanks for your and your coalition's efforts! PM me if there are ways I may help. I will try to be out and about vaping more often to spread the science/education/reg issues.

 

[csardaz]

pointed out that the ordinance is verbatim copy of a template funded by the RJWF. ChangeLabSolutions called out in the bay area and are running scared.

How much do you think that helped? Makes it seem foreign, outside special interests pushing pre-written laws. Bothers me, but some local legislators might see it as saving on legal costs to use ready-made verbage.