3/26/14 – BREAKING: MN Gov ‘no’ vaping=smoking, VT tax, Independence MO next?; Aus.,UK,Ca[SK],US: VT,NJ,PA,MN,MO,OK,TX,NE,CA

[ 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. ]

Although poison control center call stories continued as well as those centered around the Gana et al. junk "study" (JAMA letter), the flow of these has substantially diminished. I’ve decided to wait a day in order to see whether there are still stragglers left by tomorrow. (For those of you who haven’t been following these, I’ve provided summaries in the first two collections.)

The CLASH suit against NYC moved those two headlines off the front burner, although most of the scores of stories on the lawsuit said very little. I’ve collected samples in the last collection at the end.

In other develpments:

1) MN’s vaping=smoking extension to the indoor clean air act goes back to committee – Gov. Mark Dayton says he doesn’t support it because they’re not enough science to justify it.

2) VT’s 92% wholesale tax on vaping (H884) is now ready for the house floor.

3) City of Santa Cruz CA and Santa Clara co. CA move forward with vaping=smoking clean air act extensions on unanimous votes. Ditto Lancaster Co. NE (home of Lincoln NE).

4) Independence MO studying extension of clean air act to cover vaping, based on health dep’t advisory board request.

5) Plain packaging increases cigarette sales in Australia, according to Altria (PMI).

6) UK NHS Dr.s call for banning sales of cigarettes to anyone born after the year 2000.

Coverage: Australia, UK, Ca[SK], US States: VT, NJ, PA, MN, MO, OK, TX, NE, CA, AK

Also: Gary Cox on the age verification system developed/implemented by Aaron Frazier and UT <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers, and an interesting perspective on cessation studies in the snus context.



For those of you who haven’t been following the news, I’ve included the first two collections again today (the summary portions). While the tsunami of these stories is by no means entirely over, the number has been significantly reduced. I’ll begin covering the stragglers again tomorrow. If you’re interested in reading some of the sample stories that resulted, please see yesterday’s news roundup:
3/24/14 – Media tsunamiS re: poison stories AND junk cessation study; Ire., Ca., US states: NY,FL,LA,TN,MN,IN,NE,UT,CA






Title: Age Verification Progress
(ECF‘s InfoZone)
Age Verification Progress – ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on the efforts by Aaron Frazier and UT <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers to put an age verification system in place that would at least equal if not exceed the mechanisms normally used to verify age in the context of alcohol purchases.

Title: What the experience of Swedish snuff can teach us about e-cigarettes
(Stanford Med. School Blog) http://scopeblog.stanford
On 3/11, Your Correspondent reviewed a truly reprehensible hit job item on this blog, which pretended to be an "interview" (with canned questions, of course) with Prof. Robert Jackler, the Chair of Otolaryngology at Stanford. Needless to say, the content would make Glantz proud – it consisted of almost every piece of junk science and BT-related smear tactic imagineable. (But then, Prof. Jackler is a Tobacco Control Professional: so that’s just the sort of thing that he appears to think that he’s paid to do.) So I was expecting another despicable screed when I browsed to this link.
Needless to say, I was surprised to see a rather insightful and thoughtful analysis concerning the problem of designing and reporting cessation studies, which was applied to the topic of snus. Not every ECF reader might agree with Prof. Humphreys’ assessments, of course – but this is no "hit job."
The author’s key point here is that cessation studies are inherently difficult to design and interpret. Inquiring minds might ask (and the author of this blog post has quite likely done so) whether the public is well served by the emphasis on generating simplistic media-savvy sound bites driven by junk statistics, in order to shape legislation and other aspects of policy – which is an approach that has been whole-heartedly embraced by many American Tobacco Control professionals. After reading this post last night, Your Correspondent has to wonder whether its author made the conscious choice not to write just that.



Title: People smoke More In Countries Where Cigarette Packets Show NO Branding
(Some unknown Malaysian news site) http://malaysiandigest.com/features/494493-people-smoke-more-in-countries-where-cigarette-packets-show-no-branding
[Caveat: since I don’t know anything about this site, I have no idea whether this report is credible, however perhaps those of you who are interested can dig up some other citations.]
Altria (PMI) reports that Australian sales of cigarettes in unbranded packaging went up, not down with the declining number of smokers. Presumably Tobacco Control regulators in many areas will desire the same lack of branding for e-liquid and "cigalike" products in the future. Data should be coming from the UK in the next year or two, it will be interesting to see what it shows. Note: this story also contains an unrelated segment that cites yesterdays Gana et al. JAMA letter with junk statistics regarding vaping and cessation. See COLLECTION 1 below for more details, if you’re not already familiar with it.



Title: Ban sale of cigarettes to anyone born after 2000, doctors say
(UK nat’l paper) http://www.telegraph
Looks as if nicotine really is "the new tobacco." Presumably the same regulations would therefore be desireable in the case of vaping. And since vaping 0% nicotine leads to vaping non-0% nicotine (and that leads to smoking) … well, you get the idea. Let’s see if this notion as applied to tobacco cigarettes (or perhaps all forms of vaping) gains any traction either on the continent or on this side of the pond. Methinks it sounds as if it’s right up the alley of both the EU and the American Tobacco Control industry …
"Tim Crocker-Buqué, a specialist registrar in public health medicine with the NHS, said: ‘Humanity has never developed anything more deadly than the cigarette. ‘The combination of its addictive power and devastating health effects combined with historical social norms and powerful advertising campaigns killed 100?million people in the 20th century.’ ‘This is a highly addictive product that kills 50 per cent of the users and it is so patently over the balance of harm that we must now work to prevent the next generation from falling into the nicotine trap,’ he added. Mark Temple, a co-chairman of the BMA’s public health medicine committee, agreed, adding: ‘If we prevent access to a group that is growing older through time then gradually we will stop easy access to tobacco products.‘ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]

Title: Skycig To Spend £20m On New Brand Positioning
(UK managemant consulting firm’s web site) http://www.kamcity
SKYCIG, now owned by Lorillard (makers of Newports and recent purchasers of Blu) will rebrand itself as Blus in the UK. CEO speaks in expansive terms about the potential and the flavors in the product line, without mentioning the impact of the EU TPD. No junk.


Title: Sask. store sees e-cig sales spike
(Regina SK Ca. ind. radio station) http://cjme
Astonishingly, SK has no plans to regulate indoor vaping, and this <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vape store owner is being left peacefully alone to responsibly ply his trade. Ah, the Great White North. (No junk.)



Title: E-cig industry being unfairly targeted?
(Fox Business) http://www.bing
Cynthia Cabrera, of the smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, does a fairly credible job of dealing with the dreadful poison control center calls stories.

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-Cigarettes: What the Research Shows
(Nat’l US patient-oriented BP-influenced web site) http://www.webmd
The first four paragaphs of this pathetic piece are entirely focused on the minor-gateway-to-tobacco meme. So if the reader’s attention lags prematurely, at least they’ll know that "the reasearch shows" that teens are becoming tobacco smokers as a result of vaping (although the writer does grudgingly acknowledge that the study doesn’t show "cause and effect," apparently "the research shows" that there is a "strong link" between vaping and tobacco smoking among teens). So far, so good.
Next, we hear that vaping "may not be as dangerous." (Another grudging admission.)
Great, so does that mean that vaping is potentially a net plus for public health? Naah: "One recent study concludes e-cigarettes didn’t lead to quitting or less smoking." (So evidently they hook kids on tobacco, and also have no redeeming virtues in the aggregate.)
"Also worrisome [what? you mean there isn’t enough to worry about already?] is the rainbow of flavors added to make e-cigarettes taste like everything from mint to bubblegum. Although the FDA says these additives are safe enough to be eaten in food, ‘we don’t have enough data showing the potential risk from inhaling these flavors,’ says Maciej Goniewicz, PhD, PharmD. He’s an assistant professor at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. The sheer number of e-cig varieties on the market adds to the problem. ‘There are different models, different types, different brands,’ Goniewicz says. The chemicals in them can vary, too. That makes it hard to draw any conclusions about their safety.[para breaks omitted]
And now – surprise! – we hear that secondhand vaping may be dangerous because nicotine and perhaps other things are in it. Looks like only one study has been done there, right? (Guess which.)
The conclusion?
"For now, a lot of unanswered questions remain about electronic cigarettes, Goniewicz says. And though they are a safer option than regular cigarettes if you’re a smoker trying to quit, they’re not necessarily risk-free."
(We definitely do need more studies. After all, there have only been three, right?) All of that said, this piece could’ve been much worse given that WebMD is basically a BP shill site. It does appear that the quotes from Dr. Siegel have been carefully selected.

Title: E-Cigarette liquid Nicotine Poses Poison Risk [lengthy ACS position statement]
(Boston MA US NPR) http://hereandnow.wbur
I’m listing this poison control center calls story only because of this remarkable statement from Tom Glynn, director of Cancer Science and Trends at the ACS:
"’Our position on e-cigarettes are that they’re intriguing. In the short run, we know that they are going to be less harmful than a traditional burn cigarette; there’s virtually nothing that is more harmful than a traditional burn cigarette. And they may have a role in helping some smokers stop. But there are many, many scientific medical and social questions still surrounding e-cigarettes, and at this point we can’t actively encourage their use until we have more independent science-based information and FDA regulation.’ […]
Q: Is there any research that is promising on [vaping as a cessation tool]?
Absolutely, that this is what makes this such a difficult, vexing problem, is that we have information on both sides of the issue. So it’s difficult to say use e-cigarettes, [but] at the same time it’s also diffult to say don’t use e-cigarettes when we know we have such a problem with the combusted cigarette.’
[He goes on to criticize the Lancet study because it used an older generation of PVs.]
‘So certainly there are positive data concerning e-cigarettes, as well as negative.’
[dismisses arguments that BP has a monetary interest in NRT, and that this is the reason for negative vaping coverage]
‘They [NRT] have been moderately useful: they help maybe on the first try, maybe 10 to 15 percent of people quit smoking. People then need to recycle and try again and they become more useful – particularly if they’re used correctly. The limited data suggests that e-cigarettes are probably in the same range as the nicotine replacement products and the other two medications. So the question then arises: If they’re about equal, why use something that hasn’t been approved by the FDA? On the other hand – if they haven’t proved useful to someone – clinicians are not discouraging people from it — but basically saying do so with your eyes open. There is nothing more dangerous than smoking a burned cigarette, it kills half the people who use it. The ACS would like nothing more than to have another tool to help people stop using burned cigarettes. E-cigarettes may be that (and their derivatives), but we don’t know for sure right now.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
BTW the moderator repeatedly refers to feedback that the station has received from <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers who feel that only one side of the story has been presented in the past, although she does appear to keep trying to coax him into making anti-vaping statements.

Title: Senators: FDA Must Regulate E-Cigarettes and Other Nicotine Delivery Products
(Press Release) http://www.enewspf
The same US Sen.s who introduced the PCECAA are now using the NYT poision story as an additional justification for asking the FDA to act. Little in this chock-full-o’-junk press release is in the least bit surprising. What Your Correspondent finds remarkable is only that it hasn’t received a lot of coverage.


{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Panels advance tax and spending plans
(Montpelier VT US local paper) http://www.timesargus
H 884, which would tax vaping at 92% of wholesale (and raise the tax on snuff), is ready for the house floor. 1 VT H 632 would completely ban vaping. It’s still in comte. See: CASAA: Call to Action! Vermont Bill to Ban sale of E-Cigarettes (including to adults) Also see H 217 which bans tobacco burning in cars containing minors and smoking hotel rooms, but doesn’t presently apply to vaping: The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System [/COLOR] ]

Title: Vermont <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers cheesed off by tax proposal
(Conservative think tank) http://www.rstreet
.org/2014/03/25/vermont-<a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers-cheesed-off-by-tax-proposal/
Short article points out this the VT tax bill will damage public health, have a regressive impact, and encourage black market sales. No junk.


{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Poll: Should electronic cigarettes be included in outdoor smoking bans?
(Woodbury NJ US local paper) http://www.nj
.com/south/index.ssf/2014/03/poll_should_electronic_cigarettes_be_included_in_o utdoor_smoking_bans.html
Although nothing junky is stated in the lead up to this poll, it does mention Mary Iacopi-Schomer, who had <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vaped in protest when the West Deptford township was passing an indoor/outdoor vaping ban. On the 25th of last month, this space covered a rapidly anti-vaping junk-filled editorial, in which the <acronym title="smokey Joe, forum founder”>SJ Times’ editorial board had criticized a potential ord. by saying this: "If the intent is to keep Mary Iacopi-Schomer and others from blowing <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor at everyone’s faces, the wording [of future ordinances and legislation] may have to be more specific. [boldface added]."
IMO the <acronym title="smokey Joe, forum founder”>SJ Times ranks with the SacBee and the Twin Cities’ Star-Trib as one of the top ten shamelessly fact-free ANTZ newspapers in the country.
[ 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: 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, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
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 ]


{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Health: Changes May Soon Come For Electronic Cigarette Users In Philadelphia
Another compact hit job – in just 345 short words and 11 paragraphs, we learn that: (1) e-cigarettes "deliver nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals" (hmm, so 0% is always harmful, no matter what’s in it?); (2) "a new study shows smokers who use them aren’t more likely to quit or reduce cigarette use after a year [presumably this is a reference to Gana et al., although the article doesn’t specify a source]"; and (3) there’s "concern" that vaping is leading minors to smoke tobacco cigarettes. Wow – good job for 345 words, just what we’ve come to expect from the "On your side" series.
[ PA’s SB 1055 a simple minor sales ban, hasn’t passed the state sen. No other threats. ]


Title: Gov. Dayton has doubts about moves to restrict use of e-cigarettes
(Twin Cities MN US local paper) http://www.startribune
(H/t to JustJulie for posting this link in legislation.)
It’s not clear if this means that he’d veto the bills or whether he’d change his mind on them. SF 2027 is ready for a full vote in the MN sen., HF 1931 – the companion vaping=smoking indoor ban, is still in a house cmte. That said, many MN local gov’ts have already passed indoor/outdoor vaping bans.
"[Gov.] Dayton said that while he would sign a bill to restrict children’s ability to buy e-cigarettes, he is likely to oppose proposed restrictions on their use indoors. ‘After we came down pretty hard on smokers last session, that’s probably enough for this biennium,’ Dayton said. The state raised taxes on cigarettes last year. ‘We did enough to smokers last session.’ The governor’s position may quash the growing movement at the Legislature to restrict where Minnesotans can use the newly popular smokeless devices. […] Dayton said he does not know whether there is definitive evidence that secondhand <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapors pose a danger similar to secondhand smoke.[…] Dayton said if e-cigarettes cut down on the use of regular cigarettes, as some users maintain, that may be a boon. Dayton supported an increase in cigarette taxes partly as a way to curb smoking. ‘A lot of people are trying to quit smoking because of the higher price and are using this as a way of quitting smoking, which is what we want them to do,’ the governor said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"

Title: E-Cig Regulation Bill Reconsidered
.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25839&It emid=57 (Fargo ND Fox affiliate)
"Minnesota senators are considering a change in course on electronic cigarette regulations. A bill to put e-cigs in the same category as conventional cigarettes when it comes to prohibition of use in public spaces, was sent back to committee. The move was a direct response to Gov. Dayton’s comments that he would likely oppose restrictions on indoor use but support efforts to keep the <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor-emitting devices away from children. His stance has put him at odds with his health commissioner."
Note: Dayton is up for re-election this year. It’ll be interesting to see whether BP and the ANTZ orgs try to put someone up to run against him in the primary (or perhaps even the general), in order to "punish" him for taking this stance.

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Senate to consider indoor e-cigarette ban
(Twin Cities MN US News 12 affiliate) http://www.twelve
Note: This article was published before Gov. Dayton’s opposition to the indoor vaping ban was widely-known. But this argument from an ALA rep. caught my eye:
"’E-cigarettes look exactly like the real ones,’ said Bob Moffitt with American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest. The bill would ban e-cig vaping indoors and in public outdoor areas. ‘How can you expect business owners to be able to run across the room and check, is that an e-cig? Is that a real cigarette?’ said Moffitt. ‘I think this is just a real common sense, ground-level approach to give some structure and some regulation.’ […] ‘They market products that are bubble gum flavored, and strawberry flavored, and have Hello Kitty markings on them. Clearly these products were not marketed for adults, ‘said Moffitt. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(Catch that argument from the ALA rep? Does the bill requires business owners to permit vaping?)


{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: City urged to restrict e-cigarettes
(Independence MO US local paper) http://www.examiner
This is a great example of the process that health dep’ts around the country are using to lobby local officials:
"[Donald] Potts, a member of the Advisory Board of Health, gave the Council a presentation outlining the issues regarding e-cigarettes and provided a sample ordinance he advocates that would restrict the use of e-cigarettes to the same places as listed in the Independence Clean Air Act, as well as restrict the sale to and possession for minors. Most e-cigarettes consist of a battery, heating element or <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vaporizer, mouthpiece and liquid nicotine cartridge. The heating element warms the liquid to produce a <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor, which is then inhaled and exhaled, known as ‘vaping.’ ‘It has been touted as an aid to help people quit smoking, but it’s not approved by the FDA,’ Potts said. ‘Anybody can go to a kiosk in the mall and purchase it. I know some places (in Independence) are pretty good about not selling to those under 18, but they can get them off the Internet. ‘People will use them when they have to,’ he said, such as in non-smoking areas, ‘but then they go back to regular cigarettes.’ Potts also noted that the big tobacco companies have bought many of the small manufacturers of e-cigarettes and might claim they don’t advertise to minors, but he finds that hard to fathom when there are available flavors like ‘bubble gum.’ [..] ‘There’s 90 different flavors of nicotine,’ he said. ‘I’m getting more and more concerned about this. I’m concerned about the kids. If they get hooked on nicotine, they’ll go to cigarettes. It’s been shown.’ Mayor Don Reimal said he would like to see the city explore the issue, and City Manager Robert Heacock responded that he will have the law department review the possibility of such an ordinance. ‘We will be happy to work on it,’ Heacock said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
There are also a number of briefer stories on the city, all of them appear to be clones of this one:
Title: Independence looks at e-cigarette ban
[ Missouri presently only has a simple minor ban under consideration SB 841 = HB 1690 and: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/518588-missouri-bill-hb-1345-would-ban-sale-any-tobacco-derived-product-<a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor-product-minor.html” target=”_blank”>Missouri bill (HB 1345) would ban sale of any “tobacco-derived product and <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor product” to a minor ]


{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Nicotine poisoning on the rise among Oklahoma kids
(Enid OK US local paper) http://www.enidnews
Nothing noteworthy in this story, which appears not to have been initiated by the OK health dep’t. As usual, it describes "calls" as "poisonings." This piece’s stats will be added to the ANTZ lists nationwide, no doubt.
[ SB 1892 is a mixed bag for proponents of smoke-free alternatives, because it raises the tax on Snus and other smokeless products, but exempts vaping. See: Lots of e-cig bills introduced in Oklahoma, hearing held
and: Oklahoma — OK! – ECF InfoZone OK also has S1602 – is it ready for the sen. floor? Same Q about H3104 (also minor sales ban?) ]


Title: Electronic cigarette use sparks debate in the Big Country
(Abiline TX US CNN affiliate) http://www.ktxs
Features a local <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vape store owner, and has the usual debate with an ANTZ whose title is not specified. The game is played, as usual:
[I]"Linda Neill from Hendrick Medical Center said they could pose a risk because they have not been regulated and users don’t really know what they’re getting. ‘Until the safety data is out, they haven’t done the long-term studies on it, so until we really have all the data we can’t say that they’re 100% safe," Neill said. […] ‘Ninety percent of our customers are doing this to quit smoking,’ [<a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vape store owner] Hopkins said. ‘I’ve never had any walk into here looking for an introduction to smoking real cigarettes.’ Neill said, however, that she offers safer, proven options to people wanting to quit smoking. ‘Everything I do is evidence-based,’ Neill said. ‘We have evidence to prove that nicotine-replacement therapy such as gum, lozenges, they work and that’s what we recommend.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
(Could’ve been a lot worse. For some reason Ms. Neill didn’t get the memo on tin nanoparticles.) Abilene doesn’t presently have a vaping=smoking ord.
[ TX legislature is out of session until 2015. ]


Title: ‘E-cig’ use banned in [Lancaster] county buildings
(Lincoln NE US local paper) http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/e-cig-use-banned-in-county-buildings/article_3b06efbf-711c-5372-8081-6e8290e3cc9c
Story states (w/o attribution):
"There is not a lot of research yet on so-called "e-cigs," including whether they are hazardous to health. Nor is there scientific evidence that they’re a good way to quit the real thing."
No rationale for the decision was given. Also applies to outdoor areas around the buldings.
[ LB 861, a simple minor sales ban is ready for Gov.’s sig. <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/515673-nebraska-bill-would-ban-sales-<a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor-products-minors-but-also-ban-self-service-displays-hearing-jan-27-a.html” target=”_blank”>Nebraska bill would ban sales of <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor products to minors, but also ban self service displays, hearing on Jan 27 ]


Title: E-cigarettes included in Santa Cruz tobacco smoking regulations – Updated to city ordinance designed to lessen confusion
(Santa Cruz CA US local paper) http://www.santacruzsentinel
Vote was unanimous, after city staff incorporated health dep’t recommendations.
"Councilmember Pamela Comstock proposed updating the city’s tobacco smoking ordinances to include e-cigarettes due to her concerns about the product’s unknown health impact, perceived marketing to children and potential to create a new generation of smokers. ‘I wanted to bring this forward so we can stay ahead of the curve, instead of doing a bunch of cleanup work after the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) comes forward with it’s [sic] regulations,’ Comstock said. […] Councilmember Hilary Bryant said the issue was already popping up in Santa Cruz. While out to eat with her two children recently, Bryant said it was difficult to explain why a fellow restaurant patron was ‘smoking’ at the business — something the youngsters had never seen. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
As always this covers both indoor and outdoor vaping, as well as city parks, etc. The outdoor perimeter is 25 feet.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: ***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA*** ]

Title: Santa Clara County moves forward with e-cigarette ban
(San Jose CA US local paper) http://www.mercurynews
[Actually there already is junk science on "third hand <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor," so we may see this county come forward with the nation’s first prohibition on vaping in a multi-unit residential structure:]
"County staff was directed to come back in May with a report on expanding existing ordinances. […] The liquid usually contains nicotine and is available in fruity and sweet flavors that appeal to younger users. […] ‘We’re seeing increasing numbers of stories showing harmful effects of e-cigarettes and don’t know much about the <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapors,’ he said. ‘It’s hard to know the health impacts for those inhaling the <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapors, but we do know they are being very much marketed to youth, and that is of great concern given all the efforts we’ve done to discourage minors from smoking.’ Supervisor Cindy Chavez called the youth marketing ‘terrifying.’ ‘There’s no reason to have a bubble gum or watermelon e-cigarette,’ she said. ‘It’s 31 flavors of getting kids addicted to nicotine.’ As far as residential bans, [supervisor] Yeager said that area was more hazy because there haven’t been the same studies on secondhand <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vaporizer mist as there have for secondhand smoke, which was a key impetus for the ban due to detrimental health effects on nonsmokers. ‘Whether there has been enough research on <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapes to include that, I’m not sure,’ he said. ‘My hope that those areas where we feel very confident that they are in the interest of public health, we can include in May. If we’re not prepared yet with the science to understand whether we need to include multi-unit housing, we can wait on that but move forward with the other ones.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(The ‘facts’ that the supervisors take for granted are essentially indistinguishable from the ALA’s talking points. Note also that any ambiguity about the risks of "second hand <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor" are apparently irrelevant in the context of public places, but may be pertinent when prohibiting use in multi-unit residences. However, it may be that the "unknown" status of the health effects are enough to motivate these supervisors to take that next step.)


Title: 10 years in the making, smoke-free workplace bill reaches Alaska Legislature
(Anchorage AK US ind. online news site) http://www.alaskadispatch
Brief review of house cmte testimony on HB 360, which is a companion of SB 209 – both bills ban indoor "smoking" (including vaping) and establish a 20-ft. outdoor perimeter. Most of the opposition testimony was from <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers. Comments from ALA rep. don’t address vaping – which is what we generally see when vaping is included in expanded restrictions on cigarette smoking – cigarette smokers are the easiest target (and since "vaping is smoking" <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapers get automatically included).



For those of you who haven’t been following the news, I’ve included the first two collections again today (the summary portions). While the tsunami of these stories is by no means entirely over, the number has been significantly reduced. I’ll begin covering the stragglers again tomorrow. If you’re interested in reading some of the sample stories that resulted, please see yesterday’s news roundup:
3/24/14 – Media tsunamiS re: poison stories AND junk cessation study; Ire., Ca., US states: NY,FL,LA,TN,MN,IN,NE,UT,CA

Study followed the online postings of 949 adult smokers for a year. Of these, 88 were known to have tried vaping at least once during the prior month at the beginning of the study. Of the 88, over 60% reported at the beginning of the study that they had no intention of quitting over the next six months. Based on their cessation rates at the end of the study, the authors conclude that "our data add to the current evidence that e-cigarettes may not increase rates of smoking cessation."

Title: New Study on Electronic Cigarettes by UCSF Researchers is Not Only Bogus Science, But is Also Dishonest
(Dr. Siegel’s blog)
Note: the link in doesn’t go to the original paper, but to an index page. Here’s as much as I can get: http://archinte.jamanetwork

Title: More anti-THR junk science from UCSF, the new Karolinska
(C.V. Phillips’ blog)
More anti-THR junk science from UCSF, the new Karolinska | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Title: Rogue research group opens the slurry gusher again
(Clive Bates’ site)
Rogue research group opens the slurry gusher again « The counterfactual



For those of you who haven’t been following the news, I’ve included the first two collections again today (the summary portions). While the tsunami of these stories is by no means entirely over, the number has been significantly reduced. I’ll begin covering the stragglers again tomorrow. If you’re interested in reading some of the sample stories that resulted, please see yesterday’s news roundup:
3/24/14 – Media tsunamiS re: poison stories AND junk cessation study; Ire., Ca., US states: NY,FL,LA,TN,MN,IN,NE,UT,CA

The latest round begin in MN, with a press release from the MN health dep’t.

Title: Poisoning by e-cigarette fluid up sharply among kids, Minn. report says
(Twin Cities MN US local paper) http://www.startribune

Title: Poison control center says cases involving e-cigarette <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>juice rise sharply in 2013
(AP via Twin Cities MN US local paper) http://www.startribune

This was followed up by incendiary pieces in the NYT and a press release by the UT health dept:

Title: Selling a Poison by the Barrel: liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes
(US nat’l paper) http://www.nytimes

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarettes sending more Utah kids to the hospital
(AP via Ogden UT US local paper) http://www.standard

Here are some good analyses:

Title: New York Times goes "more at 11:00" with story on ecigs and poisoning
(C.V. Phillips’ blog)
New York Times goes “more at 11:00″ with story on ecigs and poisoning | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Title: Standards Slip at the Times
(ECF‘s InfoZone)
Standards Slip at the Times – ECF InfoZone

Title: The New York Times Warns That Drinking E-Cigarette Fluid Could Become a Fatal Fad Among Toddlers
(Nat’l US conservative blog site)
The New York Times Warns That Drinking E-Cigarette Fluid Could Become a Fatal Fad Among Toddlers – Hit & Run : Reason.com
Jacob Sullum provides comparative statistics provided here for poison control center calls (etc.) from FDA-approved medications, as well as other analysis.

Title: E-Cigarettes’ Nicotine liquid Triggers Reefer Madness in the New York Times
(LA CA US local alternative weekly) <a href="http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/03/25/e-cigarettes-nicotine-liquid-triggers-reefer-madness-in-the-new-york-times” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>E-Cigarettes’ Nicotine liquid Triggers Reefer Madness in the New York Times | The Informer | Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly
This one is a particularly good deconstruction.



I haven’t even tried to list all of the pieces that resulted from this lawsuit. Most if not all were rather short, although it seemed odd to me that virtually every outlet seemed to want to write its own (instead of using the generic AP story). A few of them wanted to use the story as an excuse to dump in some junk about vaping, but most didn’t bother.

original press release

Title: New York City E-Cig Ban Faces Legal Challenge
.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-491452/ (WSJ)
Generic coverage, no junk.

Title: Group Sues NYC, Seeks To Overturn E-Cigarette Ban
Generic coverage, no junk.

Title: smokers’ rights group sues NYC to overturn e-cig ban
Quotes ALA: "buyer stay away"

Title: E-Cig Advocates Sue City Council To Block Looming Ban
Takes no position

Title: smokers group challenges NYC e-cigarette ban
(Reuters) http://www.reuters
fairly neutral coverage

Title: smokers rights group sues city over e-cig ban
fairly neutral coverage

Title: smokers’ rights group sues to stop NYC e-cig ban
"’Bloomberg’s Health Commissioner Thomas Farley’s own testimony during hearings affirmed that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that concludes that the <a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/eliquid_c_7.html”>vapor in e-cigs is harmful to bystanders, demonstrating it is in direct conflict with the purpose of the SFAA,’ e-cigaratte advocate Russell Wishtart said."

Title: smokers’ rights advocates challenge legality of NYC’s e-cigarette ban
entirely neutral

Title: Lawsuit Could Overturn NYC E-Cig Ban
.com/2014/lawsuit-overturn-nyc-e-cig-ban/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+animalnewyork+%28ANIMAL%29
Story contains this intriguing sentence: "A win for CLASH wouldn’t be the first time the group changed tobacco laws in New York. Last year, a CLASH lawsuit lead a judge to overturn a state law banning smoking in public parks."
(presumably this wasn’t NYC, but some local jurisdiction w/i the state?

Title: smokers are suing against e-cigarette ban in restaurants
entirely neutral


Google Tips

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.)

Fatal error: Uncaught Exception: 12: REST API is deprecated for versions v2.1 and higher (12) thrown in /home/ecigfm/public_html/wp-content/plugins/seo-facebook-comments/facebook/base_facebook.php on line 1273