City Council Acts to Protect A Vulnerable Population

e-cigby Tia Will

A recent poster on the Vanguard made a dismissive comment regarding those who want to protect everyone. This led me to reflect on who we could agree are in need of protection. I think that most of us would agree that it is reasonable to protect children. Others might extend this through adolescence recognizing that these groups do not have the same impulse control or cognitive abilities that most adults achieve.

We seem to have general agreement that children should be protected from dangerous use of bicycles with helmet and light regulations. Driving, marrying, dropping out of school, or entering the military prior to obtaining an age felt to be associated with an assumed level of maturity are all regulated. Likewise, we restrict the use of certain medications and other substances such as cigarettes and alcohol, and entertainment in terms of games and movies felt inappropriate for youth.

Tonight, the city council took a step that may prove valuable in the protection of the youth of our community from a rapidly growing threat to their health. The council chose to extend the current restrictions on use of tobacco in public places to e-cigarettes and other inhalational devices.

One might reasonably ask how restricting the use of e cigarettes might benefit our youth. To answer this question, we first need to understand what we do and what we do not know about e cigarettes. First, what we do not know:

1) We do not have any efficacy data. The companies that produce a large portion of e cigarettes are touting them as harm reduction devices. Ironically, much of the production and marketing of e cigarettes is done by the large tobacco companies themselves. Therefore what we have is the situation in which the manufacturers are producing a product which they claim can help break the addiction to another of their products, traditional tobacco cigarettes. What would obviously be more effective would be to prevent this addiction in the first place, but this does not fit their business model which is dependent upon addiction.

2) We do not have any safety data. Because e cigarettes are not regulated by the FDA although they are claimed to be a medical harm reduction device, we do not know the amount of nicotine, or the amount of any of a number of known carcinogens that have been isolated from them are in any given product. We do not know if they are safe for the primary user and we do not know if they are safe for second hand inhalers.

So what do we know about e cigarettes ?

1) We know that nicotine, a highly addictive substance, is a key component.

2) We know that carcinogens have been found in many isolates from e cigarettes.

3) We know the intent of the manufacturers is to promote addiction to their product.

How do we know that ? We know from their own statements. I have included some quotes from executives of cigarette manufacturers to illustrate this point. Please note that all of these statements were made past the point in time when the carcinogenicity and lethality of cigarettes was well known.

1) 1978 – Newport executive TL Achey states “ The base of our business is high school students”. He says this because by that point in time it was established that most addicted adult smokers started smoking before age 18.3)

2) 1984 – RJ Reynolds CEO states “Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers….if younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline.”

3) 1969 “Long after adolescent preoccupation with self-image has subsided, the cigarette will even preempt food in times of scarcity on the smoker’s priority list.” Presentation to Reynold’s Board of Directors

4) 1990 – Terrance Sullivan, a sales representative for RJ Reynolds when enquiring whether the target population was high school or junior high students quotes the CEO as replying “ They got lips ? We want them.”

5) 1992 – RJ Reynolds executive as quoted by Dave Goerlitz when asked why he didn’t smoke, “We don’t smoke that shit. We just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid.”

So how might restricting devices help against this youth directed marketing goal ?

Smoking prevention and cessation in adolescence is most important since intervention in this age group may prevent nicotine dependence which is the major factor preventing teens from stopping smoking. Other factors that could also be affected include a perceived boost in social standing associated with the perception of smoking or vaping as a social norm, the use of e cigarettes for self medication in cases of depression or other mental illness, the use of e cigarettes as a coping mechanism and stress reduction device. Perhaps more importantly, bans have been shown in some small studies to be associated with decreased smoking starts.

This is of course the most important public health prevention strategy. The child or adolescent who is not exposed to the use of cigarettes and/or e cigarettes is much less likely to start, and therefore less likely to become addicted. All we as a society have to do to prevent the majority of nicotine addiction is to keep these products out of the hands of those under the age of 18. Anything that we can do to prevent the early introduction of these products will be a major benefit for both individual and public health.

My thanks to the council for taking this stand for primary prevention of a major individual and public health risk and for choosing to protect our single most vulnerable population, our children.

About The Author

Tia is a graduate of UCDMC and long time resident of Davis who raised her two now adult children here. She is a local obstetrician gynecologist with special interests in preventive medicine and public health and safety. All articles and posts written by Tia are reflective only of her own opinions and are in no way a reflection of the opinions of her partners or her employer.

Related posts

46 Comments

  1. Frankly

    1) We know that nicotine, a highly addictive substance, is a key component.

    Yes, we know this. As are many other substances.

    2) We know that carcinogens have been found in many isolates from e cigarettes.

    Carcinogens exist everywhere. The question is in what quantity/concentration and is there any proven danger. However, e cigarettes have far fewer carcinogens than do regular cigarettes. If you make it more difficult to purchase and use e cigarettes, you will cause more people stick with or go back to smoking much more dangerous regular cigarettes.

    3) We know the intent of the manufacturers is to promote addiction to their product.

    No, the intent of the manufacture is to make a profit by selling products that people want. Tobacco existed before there were tobacco companies… and people smoked tobacco before there were tobacco companies.

    most of us would agree that it is reasonable to protect children.

    I agree 100%. But protecting a person also includes developing their ability to make good life decisions. Just banning things does little to nothing in that regard. In fact, there is evidence that banning makes the thing more attractive to youth. And when they are 20 they should be considered adults. At that legal age they can do anything and everything any adult can do.

    The best type of protection is education so people… including children… are informed enough to understand the consequences of their decisions. However, I certainly agree that we should always do more to protect children since they have not yet been fully-educated, and have not yet developed enough decision capability.

    Now back to banning e cigarettes for adults. Bad move. More nanny government. More intrusion into personal freedoms. More elite liberal meddling into the business of everyone else.

    1. Tia Will

      “Now back to banning e cigarettes for adults.”

      Once again, this ordinance does not ban the use of e cigarettes by adults. It only limits the locations in which they can be used to the same limitations that currently pertain to smoking. This is not a ban. Repeating the word ban again and again will not change that fact.

    2. Tia Will

      Frankly

      Let’s pretend that I am the CEO of a tobacco/e cigarette company and I know the following:
      1) The more of my product I sell the more profit I will make.
      2) My product is addictive.
      3) Addicts buy more of my product than those who are not addicted.
      4) The younger a person is when they start using my product, the more likely they are to continue using it
      and the more of it they will be buying over their life time resulting in more profits for me.
      5) Young people are more susceptible to advertising than are older people.

      So as a CEO whose goal is to increase profits, I can say that is my only goal.
      This does not mean that if I choose to target the most susceptible population, children, that I am not attempting to create addiction since I know that is the desired outcome if I want to maximize profits.

      To argue that this is not their intent is to pretend that tobacco company executives are stupid. I do not believe this to be the case. I choose to listen to and believe their own rationales in their own words as I quoted them.

  2. Barack Palin

    I don’t smoke E cigarettes, cigarettes, pot or anything else so I really don’t care. What bothers me though is once again we’ve got Big Bro and Big Sis dictating to us what they feel is right in their eyes and this time it’s all speculation without any proof to back it up. The “for the children” is always a good go to excuse to push their agenda on everyone. What’s next, children will need to show their ID’s or have a parent with them when they want to buy a Big Mac or a sugary soft drink? I think a case could be made that those products are unsafe and addictive too.

    1. Tia Will

      Barack Palin

      A question for you. Do you believe that a child of any age should be allowed to buy any video game ?
      How about see any movie ? If not, why not given that there is no “proof” not even any scientific consensus that seeing these movies or playing these games causes any of what Frankly would call “material harm”. Yes, there is lots of speculation and anecdotal suggestions, but there is no proof, just speculation. . So should we just let little Johnnie into any porn movie he takes and interest in or play Grand Theft Auto to his heart’s content ?

      I honestly don’t know the answer to this question. I am just wondering what your thoughts are ?

    2. Tia Will

      Barack Palin

      “I don’t smoke E cigarettes, cigarettes, pot or anything else so I really don’t care.”

      I had another thought about your post.

      I have no plans to stab, shoot, poison or in anyway harm any other individual. So should I really not care whether or not we have restrictions that prevent others from doing these acts ? With an act that causes no harm to another individual, I agree that there should be no regulation. The problem comes in with deciding at what level of harm to intervene.

      I believe that targeting youths to get them addicted to a known highly addictive substance is over my limit. It is over my limit whether it is a gang member peddling an illegal drug to kids on a street corner hoping to addict them, or whether it is a tobacco/ e cigarette manufacturer trying to portray their product as fun and harmless so as to create a new generation of addicts to their products.

      I suspect that you would agree with attempting to prevent a gang member from selling their drug of choice, but you are advocating for the right of a tobacco/ e cigarette company to perform exactly the same act. This is not a matter of principle, but rather a matter of where we choose to draw our lines on what is acceptable commercial activity.

  3. South of Davis

    Tia wrote:

    > My thanks to the council for taking this stand for primary prevention
    > of a major individual and public health risk and for choosing to protect
    > our single most vulnerable population, our children.

    I think that Tia was a little older than me in the “Mad Men Era” of the late 60’s when I remember just about everyone smoking. We had parents smoking in cars on field trips (as we sat in the back of station wagons without seal belts) and even school bus drivers smoked. At my Dad’s office more than half the people smoked all day and almost every desk had an ash tray on it.

    Despite all that smoking around us for most of my life (including the clove cigarettes in every club and bar in the early 80’s) everyone I know that didn’t smoke and take care of themselves are fine. I’m in my 50’s and I can still run a 6 minute mile (for one mile if I push it).

    Smoking cigarette’s pipes and e-cigarettes are a problem for the people that smoke them, but they are not a “a major individual and public health risk” for the rest of us (I’m waiting to read an coroner’s report that lists the cause of death as “second hand smoke”).

    Our entire family is going to do a triathlon this weekend and if other people would run around and ride their bikes a little more we would reduce the real “public health risk” that anyone can see at a local Wal Mart where more often than not EVERY person in the store over 12 weighs more than me (and I’m over 6′ tall)…

    1. Tia Will

      South of Davis

      “(I’m waiting to read an coroner’s report that lists the cause of death as “second hand smoke”).”

      You won’t have to wait to see the pediatricians comments of asthma exacerbation secondary to second hand smoke on a child”s chart. You also won’t have to wait to see the annotation of the chart of an adult with COPD “advise that spouse not smoke in presence of patient. “These are just a few examples of how we attempt to mitigate the harms of second hand smoking. I just think that it is a better idea to minimize second hand vaping now rather than discovering 5-10 years down the road that we wish we had.
      Let those who stand to profit prove the safety and efficacy of their product first rather than just assuming it is safe.

  4. Elizabeth Bowler

    I am very pleased that CC took this action.

    According to a New York Times article, “Nationwide, the number of (accidental poisoning) cases linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351 in 2013, a 300 percent increase from 2012, and the number is on pace to double this year, according to information from the National Poison Data System. Of the cases in 2013, 365 were referred to hospitals, triple the previous year’s number.” Unfortunately, most of the these poisonings involve children under 5.

    A number of countries have banned e-cigs altogether, including Australia, Canada, Israel, and Mexico. I would like to see the US do the same.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html?_r=3

  5. Davis Progressive

    i would have preferred to see the council wait for more definitive science. i don’t really see the harm that this is trying to correct.

    1. Tia Will

      DP

      Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my section on what we do know.
      We do not need more evidence to tell us that nicotine is highly addictive. The sales of nicotine products depend upon creating addiction. Addiction in and of itself is harmful to those who become addicted. This is, plus the unknown health risks are what this is attempting to correct.

      ” I would have preferred to see the council wait for more definitive science”

      I would have preferred that the tobacco and e cigarette manufacturers prove their product safe and effective before marketing them.
      I see this exactly the opposite way from what you are expressing. We wait for years for potentially beneficial medications while companies prove that they are both safe and effective. This is how medications are developed because what we do not know can definitely hurt us. It is generally better to do the testing first and the marketing second. Anyone who is old enough to remember the terrible birth defects caused by the inadequately tested and monitored drug thalidomide will understand this principe.

      1. Don Shor

        Nicotine is addictive. The question is how harmful nicotine is, and whether the e-products have secondary compounds in them that are significantly harmful.
        My son uses these. They help him stay alert on his long drives (he’s a trucker). He’s aware that nicotine is addictive. It’s also a useful stimulant, like caffeine.
        The ordinance, though, just seems to proscribe where people can consume these products, correct?

        1. Tia Will

          South of Davis

          “(I’m waiting to read an coroner’s report that lists the cause of death as “second hand smoke”).”

          You won’t have to wait to see the pediatricians comments of asthma exacerbation secondary to second hand smoke on a child”s chart. You also won’t have to wait to see the annotation of the chart of an adult with COPD “advise that spouse not smoke in presence of patient. “These are just a few examples of how we attempt to mitigate the harms of second hand smoking. I just think that it is a better idea to minimize second hand vaping now rather than discovering 5-10 years down the road that we wish we had.
          Let those who stand to profit prove the safety and efficacy of their product first rather than just assuming it is safe.

          1. Frankly

            I just think that it is a better idea to minimize second hand vaping now rather than discovering 5-10 years down the road that we wish we had.

            Sounds like you supported the US going to war with Iraq just to make sure that we did not discover 5-10 years down the road that Saddam had WMDs and would use them on us.

            My, what a slippery slope is that proactive action against the unknown. I think you could go crazy with that sort of thing. Use the fear of the unknown to enact policy after policy to prevent the unknown. You could possibly rule the world with that type of approach since people tend to be so fearful of the unknown.

            But haven’t you read “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”?

          2. The Centaur

            Sounds like the key question is the trade off between the rights of people to smoke in public areas versus the rights of the people to be smoke free in public areas? One question is the harms people suffer but the other unexplored question is what is the advantage to smoking in public?

          3. Tia Will

            “Sounds like you supported the US going to war with Iraq just to make sure that we did not discover 5-10 years down the road that Saddam had WMDs and would use them on us.”

            Frankly, tell me who will be killed, or “materially injured: in any way by not allowing them to smoke or vape in public places. When given the choice of a harmless option in order to prevent
            potential harm, I’ll take that option. And, we know that it is not harmless ( just less harmful) than tobacco smoke. I would never call marketing a known addictive substance harmless, especially when deliberately targeting children.

          4. Elizabeth Bowler

            I don’t think we can say that it is less harmful than tobacco smoke because, the fact it, we have no idea how harmful it is. We don’t even know everything that is in the vapor or how much of whatever is in it gets into the environment or the effect that those substances have on the users or others (via a second-hand effect) including pregnant women and children.

          5. Tia Will

            Elizabeth

            I agree with you. We really don’t know. When I was writing this I was thinking of the small studies done which do show that smokers already known to have cardiovascular disease do have less risk of heart attack or stroke when using e cigarettes than when smoking tobacco at their baseline level. To me, this means that more research should be conducted since e cigarettes may be beneficial as a tobacco avoidance adjunct in attempting to stop smoking traditional cigarettes. This should in no way be construed that there is knowledge that they are any less harmful for general use as a recreational device. That we most certainly do not know.

        2. Tia Will

          Don

          “The ordinance, though, just seems to proscribe where people can consume these products, correct?”

          This is correct. The ordinance only places the same restrictions on location of use as already are specified for cigarettes. What it does not do is very important. It does not make e cigarettes more difficult to buy. It does not restrict any adult from using them outside of these specified locations. It does not prevent the companies that produce them from marketing them.

        3. Tia Will

          Don

          Like virtually every product, nicotine has some pros and some cons.
          What we know about its cardiovascular effects are that it raises the heart rate and promotes blood clot formation through a complicated clotting cascade. These two effects can lead to an increased risk of blood clot formation with increased risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism and heart attack in those who are susceptible. It is true that the use of medically managed nicotine helps to lower these risks in smokers who are successful in cutting back on their concomitant use of combustible tobacco products. There is as of yet no evidence that it is beneficial for those who are not already smokers. I have no problem with the use of alternative delivery systems for nicotine as an adjunct to smoking cessation. But we should have the knowledge of how much nicotine is present and what other compounds are present in the products we are using just as we should for any other medical device or medication. This we do not know because the products are completely unregulated. Therefore the buyer has no way to “beware” because the companies have no obligation to inform us of the contents of their product.

  6. Davis Progressive

    tia, you talk about vulnerable populations and the need to protect – but do you mean by preventing people from smoking or do you mean by keeping smokers away from kids? i think the bigger risk here is preventing kids from smoking and this does nothing to stop that.

    1. South of Davis

      DP wrote:

      > i think the bigger risk here is preventing kids from
      > smoking and this does nothing to stop that.

      This is an example of the dominant “religion” in the region pushing their religion on others and is no different from when my friend went on a six month job in Saudi Arabia and the dominant religion “protected” his wife by forcing her to cover her face, and not go anywhere without a man…

      1. Davis Progressive

        i don’t know that i would call it a religion. if there were health impacts, then i’d be supportive of it as i am with a smoking ordinance.

      2. Tia Will

        SouthofDavis

        There are limits to analogies.
        I do not believe that covering ones face or not has ever resulted in life long addiction.

        Again, I believe that this is the choice of an adult. I do not believe that companies should be allowed to deliberately target children. I think the comments of the tobacco company executives make it clear that this is their intent.

        Does any one of you honestly think it is a good idea to try to addict children ( their words, not mine) in order to have a steady pool of future customers ? I just haven’t heard any of you address this point.

        1. South of Davis

          DP wrote:

          > i don’t know that i would call it a religion.

          Non smoking, recycling, iPhones and driving Hybrid cars are the new religion and things that bond people in Davis together just like prayer, farming, lack of phones and driving buggies bond the Amish together.

          Then Tia wrote:

          > There are limits to analogies.
          > I do not believe that covering ones face or
          > not has ever resulted in life long addiction.

          Not many women die driving in Muslim countries and not many Mormons die drunk driving. If you want to stop thousands of DEATHS (not just reduce addiction) we can ban woman from driving and make Davis a “dry” city.

          I hate smoking and think that every smoker (and dipper and vaper) is an idiot, but just like it is not my place to stop the kids in town from playing beer pong until they pass out or stop the 400 pound moms from feeding their 200 pound junior high kids at McDonalds inside the Woodland Wal Mart before they fill the cart with junk food (using their EBT card) I don’t believe it is my (or the cities) place to tell people they can’t smoke, chew or vape tobacco…

          1. Tia Will

            “I hate smoking and think that every smoker (and dipper and vaper) is an idiot, but just like it is not my place to stop the kids in town from playing beer pong until they pass out or stop the 400 pound moms from feeding their 200 pound junior high kids at McDonalds inside the Woodland Wal Mart before they fill the cart with junk food (using their EBT card) I don’t believe it is my (or the cities) place to tell people they can’t smoke, chew or vape tobacco…”

            Well,now we have identified a major reason for the differences in our points of view. You do not see it as your place to encourage preventive health measures. I see it not only as my place, but as my duty. I consider myself to not be doing my job as a primary care physician if I do not discuss with my patients in the private clinical setting the risks that they are taking with their behaviors. This is what I am paid to do on a daily basis. But for me that is not where is stops. Public health is based upon me also spreading the word about healthiest practices to those who may not have been exposed, or may have been misled by advertising, or may have been addicted as children, because no one took on the responsibility of helping them to develop a heather lifestyle. This is my job and I would be delinquent if I did not do it to the best of my ability.

          2. South of Davis

            Tia wrote:

            > Well,now we have identified a major reason for the
            > differences in our points of view. You do not see it
            > as your place to encourage preventive health
            > measures. I see it not only as my place, but as
            > my duty.

            When I was an undergrad a crazy guy used to come to campus with a bull horn and tell us we were all sinners and were going to hell. I think free speech laws will allow you to yell at fat people driving their fat kids in to the McDonalds drive through, but I don’t want to live in a world where people yell at me (or others) and tell them what to do…

          3. South of Davis

            I think this comes down to my world view of being Pro Choice on EVERYTHING.

            Most liberals don’t think that people should get to chose to smoke or use a plastic bag while most conservatives don’t think that people should be able to chose to have an abortion or get married to someone of the same sex.

          4. Elizabeth Bowler

            So if I understand correctly, you don’t believe that people should have the right to a smoke-free workplace? and by extension, you don’t believe people should have the right to a vapor-free workplace? So should non-smokers just not be in the workplace and not go to restaurants, movies etc.? Is this your vision of a fair and just society?

          5. Tia Will

            “I don’t want to live in a world where people yell at me (or others) and tell them what to do…”

            And neither do I. But then no one but you mentioned anything about yelling or approaching people with bull horns. Do you really have anything against using education to counter marketing lies ? Because this is what I am advocating.

          6. South of Davis

            Tia:

            Correct me if I’m wrong, that the council “chose to extend the current restrictions on use of tobacco in public places to e-cigarettes and other inhalational devices”

            NOT

            that council “is using education to counter marketing lies”

            I’m fine with “using education” but just hate the “feel good bans”. Believe it or not I do a lot of grocery shopping when I hook the Burley to my bike and bring my own canvas bags. It would be great if more people did this (they would save money on gas get in better shape and cut down on pollution) but I would be the first one to try and stop the city council from banning cars from grocery store parking lots…

            P.S. I feel that we are moving away from a truly “free” country to a country where gays and abortions will be “banned” in conservative areas and smoking and plastic bags will be “banned” in liberal areas…

          7. Tia Will

            SouthofDAvis

            Your post made me smile. When you described the environmentally constructive steps that you are taking, the thought I had is that you are doing exactly what I am advocating. Leading and educating by example. Your constructive behaviors are very likely to lead to some young people thinking “wow, that looks like a better way than driving the car”.
            I am hoping that through ordinances that do no “material harm” by merely restricting location, not activity, we can educate and motivate our youth through positive, not negative example.

    2. Tia Will

      DP

      ‘but do you mean by preventing people from smoking or do you mean by keeping smokers away from kids?”
      Fair question. I mean:
      1) Minimizing children’s exposure to both smoking and vaping.
      2) Lessening to the extent possible children’s perception that these activities are cool and socially desirable

      There is nothing at all in this ordinance that will keep anyone from smoking. It only extends the rules already in place for smoking to e cigarettes and hookahs.

      1. Barbara King

        Hookah was always included implicitly in the ordinance based on the definition of “smoking.” The word “hookah” was added only for clarification. From http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20140527/08-Ordinance-Use-of-E-Cigarettes.pdf,

        “Although hookah bars/lounges are not allowed based on the current ordinance, staff recommends hookah specifically be named in the ordinance for clarification.”

    3. Tia Will

      “i think the bigger risk here is preventing kids from smoking and this does nothing to stop that.”

      Actually DP it does. Younger people are much more susceptible to social cues due to their well known desire to
      “fit in”. When we adopt policies that prevent children from ever being exposed to the kind of behavior where older adolescents can be seen sitting around in groups apparently having fun and “looking cool” like one poster’s description of the group in the park, we help to prevent them from wanting to try that themselves. Less exposure, whether at home or in the parks or on the street means less chance of wanting to try it.

      This is not the same as Frankly’s comment about what is forbidden being more attractive. From a child’s point of view this isn’t about anyone telling them the can’t do it. It is about simply not seeing it as a social norm to smoke
      ( or vape) with your friends as a way to be “in”. Not allowing it to become a social norm by restricting location is not the same as banning.

      1. Barack Palin

        Should the Davis city council also stop restaurants from serving alcohol? I mean after all a child could be sitting at the table next to a beer drinker and see it as the social norm.

        1. Tia Will

          Barack Palin

          You are using the “slippery slope” argument which I really do not believe is valid.

          I believe that each ordinance/regulation should be considered on its own merits.
          Let’s look at your question in a slightly different way. We, as a society have decided to designate bars ( places where the goal is to go and drink alcohol and for some this will mean to become intoxicated) as places where children cannot go.
          I believe that this is a reasonable restriction. I know a number of 16 year olds who would probably disagree, but we have decided upon this restriction as reasonable given the potential for harm to children.

          By allowing alcohol to be served in restaurants where children are allowed, but not allowing children in bars, our society has struck a reasonable compromise between the rights of the individual wanting to drink, and the rights of families who want to dine out together. I see this ordinance as a reasonable compromise between those who want to smoke or vape and can still do so in private locations, and the rights of those who want to be able to enjoy and take their families to smoke and vapor free environments.

          Actually, I would think that you and Frankly might be rejoicing at the opportunity this presents for private business. I have no objection whatsoever to the establishment of smoking/vaping/hookahing bars just as we have bars that specialize in wine, or beer, or mixed drinks as long as children are excluded. I just believe that we have demonstrated that reducing the public consumption of tobacco products has contributed to a reduction in smoking by teens ( and thus adult addiction ) we are likely to see the same reduction in the use of all forms of addictive nicotine if we do not define vaping as harmless and therefore everyone’s
          “right” to do anywhere they choose.

  7. TrueBlueDevil

    Tia, does your desire to protect children include protecting them against marijuana? Because it has all the risks you mentioned above, plus serious and proven risks of potential brain damage to teenagers, even with occasional use.

    Yes, the Big Brother aspect bothers me.

    1. Tia Will

      TBD

      “does your desire to protect children include protecting them against marijuana?”
      Yes, and I would point out that the ordinance includes hookahs.
      When I spoke last night at council, I was clear in my message that I felt that this should pertain to all inhalational
      devices.

  8. Tia Will

    “If you make it more difficult to purchase and use e cigarettes, you will cause more people stick with or go back to smoking much more dangerous regular cigarettes.”

    There is nothing at all in this ordinance that makes it more difficult to buy e cigarettes. E cigarettes are available on line and in many shops. None of that will change with this ordinance. It will not make it any more difficult to smoke or vape since they will be allowed in exactly the same locations.

  9. Elizabeth Bowler

    It is not just nicotine in e-cigs that is the problem, the e-cig vapor has been shown to contain tin, copper, nickel, and silver silicate beads and in some cases, the levels are greater than what you might be exposed to from smoking a conventional cigarette. According to Tim McAffee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

    “We just don’t know what’s in them, and we don’t know how much of what’s in them would get out into the environment — but the assumption would be that it would.”

    Surely we have enough toxic chemicals in the environment already without adding more. Since we are talking about nanoparticles, they enter the blood stream more readily and are even able to affect a fetus.

  10. Tia Will

    Elizabeth

    I completely agree. The unknowns in these products are the single biggest issue.

    We don’t know if they are effective in the stated goal of “harm reduction”
    We don’t know if they are truly safer than traditional tobacco products because we don’t have the studies to demonstrate safety. Are we truly reducing risk as has been shown ( in small studies) to be the case for cardiovascular events, or are we merely shifting the risk to some other condition. Without the studies, we simply don’t know. What comes to mind for me when I hear the “harm reduction” argument is thalidomide. Early studies demonstrated less miscarriage risk. This turned out to be the tragedy of limb deformities that did not turn up until later. The efficacy and safety studies should always precede widespread use and that is not being done here even though they are being marketed as safe and effective.

    We don’t have any idea of what effects they may have on children and fetuses.

    To me the rapid increase in the use of e cigarettes has been a major coup for the tobacco companies who have largely taken over their production. What could be better than marketing a new device which you can claim is both therapeutic ( in helping to lessen harm for illnesses that you yourselves have contributed to for years) and a “harmless recreational ” device without having to prove any claim since they are not regulated. Windfall !

    As the winner of this years Don’t Buy the Lie contest puts it :

    “E- diction is still just addiction.”

    Why would we want to promote or encourage in any way another addiction causing device for the use of our youth ?

    1. Tia Will

      Oyster

      Regrettably I do. However, I have been trying very hard over the past few years to limit my usage and am rearranging my life so as to be able to eliminate my use of cars as soon as feasible. I drive a hybrid. I have relocated to old East Davis in order to be able to walk as much as possible. I am nearly retirement from a job in which I work in Davis two days a week and in Sacramento in an area where there is not ready access from the
      AMTRAK. I confess to not be a proficient enough bicyclist to make the trip by bike.

      I guess that you might think of me as a smoker who recognizes the harm that my habit does to others and who is trying to wean off. Ending car dependence is very much like ending tobacco dependence. It takes major commitment, resources, a lot of time, and a willingness to appreciate that other people’s well being matters. It is often a slow hard process. In the end, if enough people are willing to accept that some of our personal conveniences cause real world harm, not only to ourselves, but to others who are forced to share the environment that we are polluting, then we may be able to move slowly towards a healthier environment for all.

      Taking away people’s right to drive cars, would as Frankly has pointed out, cause unacceptable economic harm.
      What “material harm ( not just the “you can’t tell me what to do” pretend harm) is caused by restricting where one can smoke or vape ?

  11. Tia Will

    SouthofDavis

    “I think this comes down to my world view of being Pro Choice on EVERYTHING.”

    I gave this a little more thought. Pro choice on everything is a nice sounding slogan. But I am willing to bet that neither you nor I take it literally. Some far fetched examples to illustrate.

    I am guessing that both of us agree that driving down the side walk or through a mall is a sufficiently bad idea that we should as a society restrict this activity. A die hard individualist might say, “well if there is no one else there for me to harm, why can’t I drive down the sidewalk if I want to ?” And in a technical sense, they would be correct. Why should there be a regulation if there is no potential harm ? And yet I am guessing that both of us see not driving on the side walk, or not running a red light even if we think no one is approaching the intersection are reasonable safety measures.

    I see restricting where smoking and vaping can occur as reasonable safety measures.
    Knowing that children of smokers ( being raised with this as their familial norm) are much more likely to smoke themselves, and knowing that children in a society that accepts smoking in public as the norm are much more likely to take up the habit themselves before age 18 when they are much more likely to become addicted due to their brain physiology, I see it as a reasonable harm reduction technique to limit where adults can smoke much as I see it reasonable to limit where one can drive their car. I also see it reasonable to restrict where one can use other, equally as addictive ( this is known about nicotine) substances in a manner equal to that of tobacco cigarettes.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for