The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-17-2015 C9 Del RosarioMAR 17 2015 Lomeli, Monique Subject: FW: City Council meeting Tues. 3/17 to vote on an Indoor Vape Ban COUNCIL MEETING: 03 f 17 I ITEM NO.: From: Simon Del Rosario [mailto,sgdirosario @gmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:30 PM To: Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Marx, ]an; Ashbaugh, John; E -mail Council Website Subject: City Council meeting Tues. 3/17 to vote on an Indoor Vape Ban Dear City Council Members, My name is Simon Del Rosario, and I am resident of California, from the Carson area. I am e- mailing the council to oppose banning e- cigarette use where smoking is prohibited. I may not be from and live in San Luis Obispo, but I have friends and fellow e- cigarette consumers in the area and I would be remiss in not supporting them. E- cigarettes have been an effective, life- changing product to those afflicted by regular tobacco cigarettes. I myself switched to e- cigarettes 3 years ago, when I was regularly smoking products such as pipe tobacco cigars and hookahs. A good friend of mine, whose older brother also has switched to e- cigarettes after 15+ years of smoking, suggested it to me, and I have not looked back at a tobacco product since. Smoking has been a trend in my family for awhile; my father smoked, my uncles smoked, my cousins, grandfathers /grandmothers, great - uncles, and so on have smoked tobacco. I have broken that chain with my adopting of the e- cigarette, and things have become much brighter. Now, I understand that new things present many questions, but research is continuously done to find the answers to both the positive and the negative sides of e- cigarette use. I would like to present you these points in regards to your decision - making: 1. Smoking bans are ostensibly enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but e- cigarettes have not been found to pose a risk to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e- cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products. 2. The low risks of e- cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor. 3. A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on over 9,000 observations of e- cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e- cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure. 4. Electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e- cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette from the smell of smoke. E- cigarette vapor is often practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Additionally, e- cigarette users can decide whether to release any vapor ( "discreet vaping "). With so little evidence of use, enforcing use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible. 5. The ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99 %. 6. Losing the ability to test e- liquids before purchasing will have a significant and negative impact on your ability to purchase /sell e- liquids. 7. Many smokers first try e- cigarettes because they can use them where they cannot smoke, however, they often become "accidental quitters." This is a documented phenomenon unique to e- cigarettes. It may take a few months or only a few days, but they inevitably stop smoking conventional cigarettes. This is why including e- cigarettes in smoking bans could have serious unintended consequences! 8. By making e- cigarette users go outdoors, the City will also be sending a strong message to traditional smokers that e- cigarettes are no safer than smoking. This will actually maintain the number of smokers, rather than help reduce smoking. This is a far more realistic risk to public health than any unfounded concerns about possible youth or non - smoker use uptake. In fact, the most recent report by the CDC showed that the dramatic increase in e- cigarette use over that past 3 years has not led to an increase in youth smoking. Youth smoking of traditional cigarttes continues to decline to record low levels. 9. The children of smoking parents are far more likely to become smokers than the children of non - smoking parents who see smoking behaviors in public. The children of smoking parents who quit aren't any more likely to smoke than those of non - smoking parents. Prohibiting vapor products in public does little to protect the children of non - smoking parents from becoming smokers, but significantly increases the likelihood that many smoking parents won't switch to e- cigarettes. This only serves to keep the highest -risk children at risk. 10. E- cigarette use does not promote the smoking of traditional cigarettes, nor does it threaten the gains of tobacco control over the past few decades. In fact, by normalizing e- cigarette use over traditional smoking, the efforts of tobacco control are being supported. If anything, e- cigarette use denormalizes conventional smoking by setting the example of smokers choosing a far less harmful alternative to traditional smoking. The CDC ennTave rlaarly ehnul that thara line haan nn "antpwnv - ffart" rnncina nnn_emnlrPre to etnrt emnlrincr Ac a_ »_ .. _ .. ----- __ �- - -a - -�-- -- - - -- -- -- �-- - - - - - - -- --a - -� - cigarettes have become more popular, all available evidence is showing that more and more smokers are quitting traditional cigarettes, including youth smokers. 11. Important Note: A typical and frequent lawmaker response to e- cigarette users who object to public use bans is "We aren't banning all use or sales, just use where smoking is also prohibited." Don't give them the opportunity to counter you in that way! Make it very clear that you understand that this is not a ban of e- cigarette sales or a ban of e- cigarette use where smoking is allowed, but that what IS proposed is still a step backward in public health, not a step forward. I would also like to direct you to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for further details and reading concerning e- cigarettes. I implore you, City Council Members, to take into serious consideration my story, the multitudes of other e- cigarette users' stories, and these details (which hopefully lead you to research on your own about the topics) when the meeting occurs and whenever laws are to be made regarding e- cigarettes. Sincerely, Simon Del Rosario, a Carson, CA resident