Vape-In to Protest New York City’s E-Cigarette Smoking Ban

The following came to us from Patrick McMahon of Reason.org:

Event: A Vape-In to Protest New York City’s E-Cigarette Smoking Ban

The vape-in will be preceded by a discussion on the role electronic cigarettes can play in reducing harm from smoking and the unintended consequences of NYC’s e-cigarette ban

Opponents of New York City’s ban on e-cigarettes will gather to discuss its ramifications on public health and personal liberty. Then they’ll thumb their noses at the prohibitionists by vaping as the ban takes effect at midnight. A DJ will play music as guests show their disregard for the nanny state by vaping and dancing the night away.

The vape-in, hosted by Reason magazine, Museum of Sex, and Henley Vaporium, will begin at 9:00 pm on Monday, April 28 at Play in New York City.

Who:

Moderator — John Tierney, Co-author of Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength

Bill Godshall, Director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania

Talia Eisenberg, Co-founder of Henley Vaporium

Dr. Gilbert Ross, Executive and Medical Director of American Council on Science and Health

Kmele Foster, Co-host of Fox Business Network’s The Independents

Matt Welch, Editor-in-Chief of Reason magazine

What:

Prominent critics of e-cigarette regulations will deliver presentations, take questions and be available for one-on-one interviews. Vaping and dancing will follow.

When:

Monday, April 28, 2014 at 9:00 pm

Where:

Play

1 East 27th Street

New York City, NY 10016
Map

RSVP:

http://thank-you-for-vaping.eventbrite.com

Contact:

Patrick McMahon

Communications Specialist, Reason Foundation

patrick.mcmahon@reason.org

Vape-In to Protest New York City’s E-Cigarette Smoking Ban

NJ Senator Calls for State-Wide Ban on E-Liquid

On the heels of a CDC report that poisonings involving nicotine are up as a result of the rise in popularity of e-cigarettes, New Jersey State Senator Kemp Hannon introduced a bill late last week which would ban the sale of e-liquid in his state.

“I know this bill will make some people angry.”

-New Jersey Senator Kemp Hannon

Hannon says he had previously attempted to pass bill which would have banned e-cigarettes entirely, but admits that “even my colleagues did not agree with me on that.”

According to Hannon, calls to poison control centers for nicotine poisoning via the e-liquid used in electronic cigarettes increased 300%, “and many of these have been calls involving children under 6 years old.”

Hannon did not comment on whether he intends to ban everything toxic, including the thousands of household products which are responsible for far more poisonings than e-liquid, such as cosmetics, cleaning solutions, pesticides and plants.

Ban on e-liquids for e-cigarettes proposed in State Senate – Newsday

 

NJ Senator Calls for State-Wide Ban on E-Liquid

Video: Rachel Ray on E-Cigs -- Still Fighting the Same Battles

This clip from the Rachel Ray show isn’t exactly new (the episode first aired several years ago, in fact), but it’s been making the rounds again recently. It’s interesting in that it shows that the same arguments about e-cigarettes have been occurring almost since they first appeared in stores.

One thing we find particularly interesting is the debunking of the FDA’s study on e-cigarettes, still cited today as evidence that electronic cigarettes are harmful even though problems were seen with their shoddy study as soon as it was published. Still, the findings still appear on the FDA’s website as if they are accurate, or even applicable, to electronic cigarettes sold today.

Video: Rachel Ray on E-Cigs -- Still Fighting the Same Battles

Los Angeles Passes Ban

As expected, a ban on electronic cigarettes wherever smoking is prohibited was passed Tuesday by the Los Angeles City Council. The ban will take effect in April.

“I will not support anything — anything — that might attract one new smoker.”

–Herb Wesson, City Council President

The vote was unanimous, and the new ordinance will be signed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, according to a spokesman from the mayor’s office.

An amendment which allows the use of electronic cigarettes in “vaping lounges” was poassed along with the ordinance, though a measure which would have allowed vaping in bars was defeated 8-6.

Los Angeles bans e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas | Represent! | 89.3 KPCC.

Los Angeles Passes Ban

Senators Demand Restrictions on E-Cig Ads "for the Children"

Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason magazine and a frequent contributor to Forbes online edition — and possibly the guy most cited here at Vape Squad — has another article on the Op/Ed section, this time calling out five senators who are calling for what he calls “unconstitutional” restrictions on e-cigarette advertising.

“Despite claims from some e-cigarette makers that they do not market their products to children, e-cigarette manufacturers have adopted marketing practices similar to those long used by the tobacco industry to market regular cigarettes to youth—including flavoring their products in candy or fruit flavors that appeal to children.”

–Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

The five senators — Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), introduced legislation Wednesday “to protect children from e-cigarettes.” The legislation, titled “The Protecting Children from Electonic Cigarette Advertising Act,” authorizes the FCC to “determine what constitutes marketing e-cigarettes to children,” and to work with state attorneys general to ban any such marketing.

However, as Sullum points out, many senators and others fighting against electronic cigarettes have traditionally played very fast and loose with what amounts to advertising to children. Manufacturers producing sweet flavors, for example, or those using celebrity endorsements, have been accused of “targeting children.”

As Sullum explains in his article, however, it seems unlikely this new legislation would pass constitutional review, citing a case involving Lorillard in 2001 where courts determined that much more modest restrictions on outdoor advertising of cigarettes was “vastly overbroad,” as it interfered with the company’s ability to communicate with its adult customers.

We can’t help nodding our heads in agreement with Sullum when he says that those flavors which e-cig opponents so often claim are “clearly targeting young people” are doing no such thing. Many of the flavors vaped here at Vape Squad HQ are of the sweet variety, and there isn’t a kid anywhere in sight.

Five Senators Demand Unconstitutional Restrictions On E-Cigarette Ads—For The Children – Forbes.

Senators Demand Restrictions on E-Cig Ads "for the Children"

Video: L.A. Moves Closer to a Ban

The Los Angeles city council moved a step closer Monday to banning the use of e-cigarettes in public areas where smoking is prohibited.

“We were surprised at how misinformed the committee was,” he told us. “They were using statements like lighting up, smoking – improper terms.”

–Brandon O’Connell, VapeDay

The matter has now moved out of committee, with a decision made to push forward toward amending smoking legislation to include electronic cigarettes, despite any evidence of health risks. Instead, the council is planning to ban the use of the devices because they look like smoking, according to City Attorney Mike Feuer, who says the ban should remain in place even if it can proven that vaping has no negative health effects whatsoever. “Even if it were determined later on that the emissions from e-cigarettes aren’t dangerous to a bystander in an outside environment, the existence of devices like this… in public places does threaten to renormalize the behavior of smoking.”

Unlike other cities, though, vaping will still be allowed in some shared spaces. LA Weekly reports that an amendment was agreed upon Monday evening which would allow the use of electronic cigarettes in vaping lounges.

L.A. City Council Takes Up Controversial E-Cigarette Ban | KTLA 5.

Video: L.A. Moves Closer to a Ban

Have Bans Gone Too Far?

Monday’s Chicago Tribune contained an editorial from “recovering nicotine addict” Clarence Page, who believes that governments are going too far in banning e-cigarette usage.

Page cites bodies such as Chicago’s city council which, like Los Angeles and New York, voted to prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes in most indoor areas. These governments, says Page, most often cite the protection of children as their reason for passing laws against e-cigarettes. Exposing minors to e-cigarettes, they say, will get them hooked on nicotine, and could make them smokers.

“What next? Will government come after my nicotine gum and nonelectronic inhaler? If not, will there be a class-action suit by e-cigarette “vapers” claiming unlawful discrimination under the Constitution’s equal-protection clause?”

The problem with this logic, says Page, is that indoor bans in places like bars, where minors are not allowed, does nothing to further this cause, no matter how erroneous it might be. It’s a slippery slope, says Page, who worries that giving the government the ability to ban the use of a harmless device, even in places the children they say they’re trying to protect can’t enter, hand over far too much power over our lives. If nicotine vapor can be banned, how about nicotine gum and non-electronic nicotine inhalers?

Page, it should be noted, is not a vaper. Though he uses nicotine gum and a pharmaceutical inhaler as a former smoker, he has no loyalty to electronic cigarettes — he simply worries that we’re giving governments far too much control over our lives in allowing them to ban an activity that hasn’t been shown to harm anyone — not bystanders, and not even the vapers themselves.

Government going overboard in ban of e-cigarettes – Chicago Tribune.

Have Bans Gone Too Far?

California Could Ban Online Sales

A bill introduced Monday could ban the online sales of electronic cigarettes in California.

“There’s supposed to be age verification and notice. It’s not working. The next logical step is to simply ban sales through the Internet.”

–Roger Dickinson

AB1500, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) would prohibit direct sales of e-cigarettes over the Internet.

While Dickinson claims his bill is designed to protect minors from online retailers with inadequate age verification methods, he says forcing people to buy their electronic cigarettes from local brick-and-mortar retailers would net the state $24 million per year in revenue.

Online sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products would also be banned under the bill.

California Considers Banning Online Tobacco, E-Cigarette Sales | CBS Sacramento

California Could Ban Online Sales

UC Irvine Changes Decision, Bans Vaping

Reversing a decision to allow the use of electronic cigarettes on campus, the University of Irvine has now banned them.

The decision comes just weeks after the initial decision to allow vaping, one which deviated from that of the other nine UC campuses which do not allow the use of e-cigarettes on school property as of January 1.

UCI had previously said it had the authority to override the overarching UC policy on its own campus, but apparently has been overruled.

UC Irvine reversing course on e-cigarette use – San Jose Mercury News

UC Irvine Changes Decision, Bans Vaping

Chicago One Step Closer to Public Vaping Ban

Governor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to ban vaping in public spaces advanced closer to enactment Monday as Chicago’s city council pushed his plan forward.

An earlier plan had stalled, with city aldermen concerned that a provision that only e-cigarettes containing nicotine would be banned could prove difficult to enforce. The new plan makes no distinction between e-cigarettes with nicotine and those without it.

“You’re lumping it together in the same category even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm. You’re saying ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions later.’”

–Ald. Rey Colon

Despite the changes in the plan, some aldermen, such as Rey Colon of Chicago’s 35th District, are still not convinced. Colon believes regulating without regarding the lack of any known health risks is premature.

Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd District agreed, suggesting that a limit on sales to minors be enacted, but a ban on public vaping be postponed pending scientific evidence of a real health risk. Banning public vaping would force e-cigarette users into smoking areas, and Reilly explains “I… have friends and family members who are using (e-cigarettes) to quit, to get away from combustible tobacco that kills people.”

Chicago to ban indoor e-cigarette smoking – chicagotribune.com

Chicago One Step Closer to Public Vaping Ban

NYC E-Cig Ban Passes

NYC E-Cig Ban Passes

Chicago"s Anti-Vaping Measure Stalls

Chicago"s Anti-Vaping Measure Stalls

LA Times Urges City Council Not To Overreact

LA Times Urges City Council Not To Overreact

Chicago Raises Cigarette Tax, Plans to Restrict Vaping

Chicago Raises Cigarette Tax, Plans to Restrict Vaping

Maryland County Postpones Ban Vote, Waits for Evidence

Maryland County Postpones Ban Vote, Waits for Evidence

University of California Bans E-Cigs

University of California Bans E-Cigs

Israel to Expand Restrictions on E-Cigarettes

Israel to Expand Restrictions on E-Cigarettes

Benecia, CA City Council to Vote on E-Cigs Tuesday

Benecia, CA City Council to Vote on E-Cigs Tuesday

Online Sales Ban Could Be Boon for B&Ms

Online Sales Ban Could Be Boon for B&Ms

No Vaping for Twins Fans

No Vaping for Twins Fans