HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2015 C9 CacavasLomeli, Monique
f MAR 17 1015
Subject: FW: PLEASE OPPOSE PROPOSED INDOOR VAPING BAN
COUNCIL MEETING: 03/ 17 5
ITEM NO.: C q
From: Jennifer Jean [mailta:i2livesa7aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:37 PM
To: Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; E -mail Council Website; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: PLEASE OPPOSE PROPOSED INDOOR VAPING BAN
Greetings:
I have a few comments with respect to your proposed rule banning indoor vaping.
1. If your intent is to protect non - vapors from the effect of the vapors emitted by the smokeless cigarette, no qualified
medical evidence exists that this activity is harmful. There is a reluctant observation by the medical community that if
anything vaping is less harmful than second -hand cigarette smoke.
2. If your intent is to make vaping less desirable to impressionable youngsters, this regulation will only drive more
youngsters to have an interest in the product because it is a simple example of defiance, i.e., tattoos and pierced ears. If
you have children you know how well that works.
3. If your intent is to classify the activities as a tobacco product, thus subject to more rigorous regulation, this will leave the
door open for'big tobacco' to dominate this industry. As you are well aware, the restrictions on the sale and use of
tobacco products are onerous. Regulators have mandated warning labels; restricted advertizing banned flavored
cigarettes, all in an attempt to reduce the consumption of tobacco products. In fact, Britain has recently mandated that
logos cannot appear on packaged cigarettes. The potential of this new market has not gone unnoticed by the traditional
tobacco manufacturers.
I suggest that before you ban the use of smokeless cigarettes, you obtain a study from a reliable source that will support
your regulatory action. Moreover, you should have the purveyor of the report determine that the atmospheric effects of
scented candles, incense sticks, essential oils, room deodorizers and lastly vented exhaust for barbeque and pizza
establishments, are not as harmful as the vapor emitted from these devises., as otherwise you may expect further
regulation.
Any theory of public health that you rely upon; if not supported by competent data risks a challenge by the affected groups
as essentially you are negating free will. This will not be without cost. And notwithstanding the rule, it will be difficult to
enforce without clear evidence of a greater good for the invitees of public establishments.
There is reliable evidence for second hand smoke; but here you have none. Thus, it leads a reasonable person to opine
that fear of the unknown is driving this decision. At present, I believe your plan is unwarranted and will not accomplish any
meaningful goal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jean Cacavas