Nothing that couldn't be solved by shipping all cigarette manufacturing to Somalia.

I'm just curious whether or not one can still purchase and consume in public non-alcoholic beer and wines in King County. Couldn't my near-beer lead to someone else's binge drinking?

The assertion that e-cigs are merely another nicotine delivery system is laughable.

E-cigs are designed to mimic the appearance and experience of cigarette smoking in almost every way, sans the actual harmful smoke.

If someone lit (started? ignited? turned on?) an e-cig in a dim restaurant a few tables away, it is fairly likely that I'd think it was a real cigarette. If I was a visitor from another state or country where smoking in restaurants is allowed, I would see that an assume that smoking in that establishment was permitted.

@3 for the Tourists Are Always Right, Far Right win.

Truth might be on our side...
However, the King County Board of Health couldn't care less.

Superman fought for Truth, Justice, and the American way of Life
but he now is retired and last heard to say the voters need to carry
the message to the ballot box. However, the word on the street is...
King County's elections are "Rigged"

RANTS from the locals (SeattlePI)

http://tinyurl.com/28b6uyd

Thanking my lucky stars that I don't live in King County

Matt Luby shit all over something? No way!

You know, I love how corporations work: stick some weird new thing on the market because it hasn't yet been proven dangerous. And because you can always find somebody dumb enough to stick it in their body. And how dare the nanny state tell us to fully test a product when there are profits to be made!

And then when enough people start using it and (surprise!) it turns out to be killing people? Oops! How were we supposed to know that was going to happen? And then corporate cocksuckers like Luby will be there to say that you can't sue! You can't fine them! They're doing the work of the free market, after all.

You gotta really love the living shit out of capitalism to want to live in a world like that. Love, hell. Worship it, like a nutty cult.

@2:

Why stop at non-alcoholic beers? Bottles of root beer look just like bottle of beer from a short distance. By their reckoning it's not what's IN the container, but simply that some people cannot distinguish contents based on the similarities of the containers themselves, so therefore any containers that appear similar to containers containing controlled substances must be contained as well.

I'm pretty sure that's how it goes...

Jesus you're a dick, WIS.

Anyone who has ever read more than a couple of my comments over the last several years knows I'm anything but far right.

The e-cig evangelists are trying to claim that nobody could possibly see someone with an e-cig, mistakenly come to the conclusion that cigarettes were permitted, and light up. I merely wrote an example of how that could very easily happen.

The truth is that no one really knows what are in any of these products. In the United States, drug delivery devices must prove they are safe BEFORE they are permitted to be marketed- not the other way around. If one of these Chinese companies actually goes through the FDA approval process and proves their devices are safe, then we can talk about when and where they should be used. Until then, King County seems to have just taken the reasonable step of ensuring that youth are not legally able to purchase the products and that they are not used in places where the public would be exposed to them.

Again, the burden of proof is on the drug maker to prove their product is safe. I am very skeptical though, considering the problems China has had in keeping even their milk and toys free from contaminants and toxins.

I won't defend China, but if you did any research you would notice that a majority of the e-juice sold in the US is also made in the US.

Anybody else got assumptions?

Guys, guys. Who gives a shit if these things are safe? They could be made out of fucking rat poison and they'd still be more "safe" than cigarettes. Jeeeezus.

@11

Because they're not the sole alternative to smoking cigarettes?

@12

Their success rate (though mostly anecdotal) far surpasses
other alternatives.

Are they banning candy cigarettes too? Because those things look very cigarette-y.

I also believe that holding a pen in between your teeth while thinking should be outlawed. From a distance, it could be perceived as a cigarette.

No one is arguing that e-cigs should be completely free of regulation. Far from it; there should be regulation to ensure that they do not contain overly harmful chemicals. I think the reason people are upset about this is because the main opponents of e-cigarettes are funded by tobacco companies, who have zero interest in a lower-risk, less expensive alternative to their product being easily available. As a consequence, the BOH and other regulatory agencies are doing what they can to shut down the product entirely so that the tobacco company profits aren't threatened. It's the blatancy of it that bothers people.

The BOH should be doing what they can to ensure that these products are safe and that the water vapor they expel is harmless. If that can be ensured, they should be pushing these things as an easy way for smokers to cut down on their exposure to the other harmful particles in cigarettes, and as a way for them to "vape" back inside the club with the rest of civilization. And if some idiot or out-of-towner lights up a real cigarette, they can be politely told, "sorry, vaporizers only sir". Problem solved.

@13

Anecdotal? Don't waste my time.

@ chasman -- Well played!

@ Reverse Polarity -- God, you are the classic statist example of the useful idiot. Listen to you justify them taking away your freedoms.

@ Fox in Socks -- You don't even read. I've known this for a while, but it's getting worse. Like you laughed at @ lowdown for citing anecdotal evidence. You know what the Board of Health cited in banning e-cigarettes? ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. And then you bring up this stupid, conflationary garbage about me being a corporate shill. I'm sure all you wanted to do was get a response out of me. Enjoy it.

@ COMTE -- (nodding head)

@ 5280 -- This is both the most obvious thing said in the thread and the smartest thing said in the thread.

@ Scalpel -- Actually, I am arguing that they should be free of state regulation. The only regulation they should be subject to is whatever regulations private property owners may impose. Same goes for cigarettes. God, do I hate the smoking ban. It isn't even that I smoke; I don't. It's just that the idea of the state telling private property owners what they can and can't do on their property is offensive. And don't even tell me that it's about employee safety--no one puts a gun to your head and makes you work in a smoking bar, let alone the soccer mom bullshit about people smoking in bowling alleys.

You know who has banned electronic cigarettes outright? Canada, dumshit. Because they put the burden of proof where it belongs.

Just...this needs to be preserved as a lasting testament to the intellectual qualifications of Fox in Socks:

Canada, dumshit.

Oh, and you already know this and are choosing to ignore it, but my interest in moving to Canada has much more to do with no longer financing death and imperialism than it does Canadian regulatory policy.

Also, when I refer to anecdotal evidence, it is simply by virtue of e-cigs being in production (and constantly improved) since 2006.

Laboratory evidence against real cigarettes existed for decades before anyone made any positive inroads legislatively. Yes we lack data about e-cigs, but funny how I don't see the big interests throwing money at the IVAQS research fund to prove themselves right, maybe they already know e-cigs are substantially healthier that regular cigarettes, and far better than inhalers, gum, patches and whatnot.

Chantix is an approved nicotine-reduction-therapy and one of it's well-noted side effects is "suicidal ideation", hopefully you quit before you off yourself.....either way you're done smoking....thanks FDA!

The fact of the matter is that many users have massive health benefits, and non-smokers who have experience around vaporizers rarely object and often support it.

Actually, success rates are much more than anecdotal. Anecdotal refers to one case being used to extrapolate to a larger group. An example would be a "case history" that appears in a medical journal. In contrast, we have evidence from clinical trials that electronic cigarettes are effective at combating withdrawal symptoms, even though they do not raise blood nicotine levels by very much. These studies also show that using an e-cigarette does not raise blood pressure. One study conducted in Italy used only 7.5 mg of nicotine and had a 20% success rate for smoking abstinence. We also have cross-sectional studies of groups of e-cigarette consumers who select their own levels of nicotine. The earliest of these was published by J. F. Etter and showed a 63% success rate. The Tobacco Harm Reduction Organization study surveyed 303 users and showed a 79% success rate. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association study surveyed 2,217 consumers and found an 80.5% success rate.

If the only issue the BOH has with indoor use of e-cigarettes is that they might be mistaken for the real thing, the solution is simple. Ban the use of e-cigarettes that look like the real thing (have an orange LED at the end) or train your inspectors to use their nose. Nobody is going to mistake an e-cigarette with a purple, green, or blue LED for a burning cigarette. Nobody is going to mistake a Joye Ego, a "juice box" mod, or a "Chuck" for a burning cigarette. Furthermore, a burning cigarette has a very distinctive odor. Vapor is either ordorless or has a pleasant odor (e.g., "winter blackberry" flavor) that is gone in a second. Indoor vaping is legal everywhere throughout the commonwealth of Virginia, whereas smoking is banned in all public buildings. Those who choose to continue to smoke must don their coats and go out to face the wind and snow. Those of us using our PVs (personal vaporizers) don't even get a second glance inside where it is nice and warm. Many of us have been smoke free for quite a while. It has been 1 year, 8 months, and 23 days since I last smoked. My wheezing and morning cough are gone. If I were forced to go stand in the smoking section to use my PV, how is that in the best interests of my health?

Dumshit... dumbshit, you knew your name right away when you saw it, didn't you?

Dumbass, dumbfuck, fucknuts, fuckhead, shit for brains... you can say it any way you want to but everyone recognizes the one and only Matt Luby.

And you don't merely have "an interest in moving to Canada" dude. You go around pretending to be fucking Canadian. And to keep up the delusion you pick and choose which facts abut Canada to ignore and which to believe. It's no different than your infatuation with the magic of free enterprise. When some product like electronic cigarettes starts killing people, you pretend its an aberration, because the market can do no wrong. Because when the market does does do wrong, it didn't really happen. It's self-contained solipsism.

I actually agree that Canada is a pretty damn nice place to live. One of the reasons for that is that they aggressively protect consumers. It's not out of character for Canada to ban these things; it's part and parcel of what makes the country tick. Conversely, where is business given the most freedom? And why don't you dream of moving to one of those shitholes with a failed, collapsed governemnt? Because harsh reality doesn't let you off the hook for your hypocrisy? Better to snuggle warm in the arms of a big, intrusive, functional state where you can spin bullshit fantasies of childish "freedom".

I quit smoking using e-cigs (one year in Jan) and the ones I purchased are black with a blue light tip. It looks like something out of Blade Runner. I've tried quitting smoking many times before and this is the only thing that's ever worked for me. The funny thing is that I don't even really use them very much anymore, but this ban still pisses me off.

I quit smoking 8 months ago with the e-cigarette, and have had numerous health benefits. My family, (none of whom have ever smoked) are very happy about it. None of them find any slight odor from it to be offensive or bothersome. I use it at our local bar, which we visit on a weekly basis. No complaints have been made from staff or other patrons. It seems to me the only people complaining are our government officials. Wonder WHY? Maybe it has something to do with the loss in tax money from tobacco sales? How about letting adults make their own decisions instead of the government regulating everything!

@3 Since you don't know if an e-cigarette is even "lit" or "turned on", how can you possibly claim to know that it could be confused with a real cigarette?? Electronic cigarettes are NEVER "lit" and you don't turn them on or off. E-cigarettes are operated manually or automatically while the user is inhaling, and shut off immediately. If you use an e-cigarette that doesn't have an LED indicator or you simply cover it with your finger, there's no way to know that it is in use. The visibility of the vapor usually only lasts for a few seconds so if you simply hold in the vapor a little longer than usual, it will be invisible. Since nothing is burned, there's no telltale scent of burning tobacco or lingering clouds of smoke and nobody is left holding a burning butt.

In all reality, King County's ban is rather meaningless because there is really no possible way to enforce this law. If a business owner does happen to see someone using an e-cig, it can quickly return to their pocket for plausible deniability. There's no "Sir, you need to put out that smoking device" because it already IS out and in fact was NEVER lit and it is not, strictly speaking, a "smoking device" at all.

If King County is worried about people getting confused, they shouldn't pass regulations to classify SMOKELESS tobacco products as "electronic smoking devices".

This particular justification is silly, but the idea that e-cigs only emit pure water vapor is so fucking laughable that I can hardly believe you keep typing it. There are countless comments from e-cig users on Slog itself that mention an odor. Go to Wikipedia, look at all the ingredients of the various recipes. Look at the studies that found water-soluble tobacco by-products and carcinogens in the products. You truly believe that 100% of all of those compounds are absorbed into the lungs? You're either a tool or a liar.

#28 - Can you provide a clue as to where you found these studies? I Googled "water-soluble tobacco by-products" and had one match: your comment above. I tried Googling using the terms "carcinogen" and "electronic cigarettes" and all the matches went back to the FDA press conference of July 2009. The FDA was in the process of being sued by Smoking Everywhere and NJOY, so it tested products from (only) those two companies. When the testing found nothing harmful in the products, Joshua Sharfstein asked his PR staff to come up with wording that would make the products look bad. What they came up with was a couple of classic propaganda tricks. "Carcinogens" and "anti-freeze" sound very harmful and frightening. But trick #1 was to lie by omission. The FDA was referring to Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines and omitted a) the quantity found and b) the fact that the same quantity (8 nanograms) is found in FDA-approved nicotine patches--and these are not considered carcinogenic due to the miniscule quantity. Contrast that to the 111,000 nanograms of TSNAs in a pack of Marlboros. Trick #2 was to substitute a word with negative ("antifreeze") connotations for the real one. Diethylene glycol is commonly used as a tobacco humectant. And the amount found is so far below the toxic level that no human could possibly take in enough liquid in one day to poison themselves. So now that we have disposed of the FDA's misleading and morally reprehensible report on their testing, what other studies do you have that have found any evidence of ingredients in the vapor in quantities that present a danger to human health? If links are prohibited here, give me the search terms to Google.

@29, However, the amount of nicotine found in many of the vials of "juice" is more than enough to kill a person.

#31: I found out by experience that nicotine poisoning via ingestion is self-correcting. I had a Commit nicotine lozenge in my mouth that was close to gone and popped a piece of Nicorette gum. I neglected to keep the two nicotine products apart in my mouth and ended up swallowing a small chunk of the lozenge. About 15 minutes later I broke out in a cold sweat and the room started spinning. My stomach then decided to reject what was in it. Naturally, I spit out the gum, too. After that, everything returned to normal.

The e-cigarette liquid is not intended to be swallowed. Nor is a bottle of bleach. Both should be kept out of reach of children and pets. In 2004, the American Assn of Poison Control Centers reported 867 incidents of poisoning by pharmaceutical nicotine products. 183 were treated in a health care facility. 3 cases were considered "major". There was 1 death.
In the same year there were 7671 incidents of poisoning by tobacco products. 1532 were treated in a health care facility, 9 were considered "major", and there were zero deaths.

You know the old saying "Opinions are like A-holes" everyone has them lol
While there at it they mind as well ban perfume or cologne in public places. I can tell you from experience that I would rather smell dog shit than some fragrances people put on and the ecig is much less offensive than perfumes. 80% of the flavors have no odor at all and the ones that do actually smell like you are in a bakery. I do have to admit that the Honey Flavor tastes good, but to others around it , smells like cat piss.

I say F them, do it anyway. When I vape in public I usually keep a low profile anyway so ignoramus dont get all worked up.

VAPE ON!!!!!!!!!!!

You know the old saying "Opinions are like A-holes" everyone has them lol
While there at it they mind as well ban perfume or cologne in public places. I can tell you from experience that I would rather smell dog shit than some fragrances people put on and the ecig is much less offensive than perfumes. 80% of the flavors have no odor at all and the ones that do actually smell like you are in a bakery. I do have to admit that the Honey Flavor tastes good, but to others around it , smells like cat piss.

I say F them, do it anyway. When I vape in public I usually keep a low profile anyway so ignoramus dont get all worked up.

VAPE ON!!!!!!!!!!!

All they did was stop something they personally didn't like. It had nothing to do with health clear and simple. Here is their report giver saying things like "I think" I'm not sure" "they think so" all he gave were opinions. CASA on the other hand give them factual data backed up with reports from confident organizations. No this was a personal vendetta or dislike that King Co BOH wanted done. They have sent non smokers (people who have quit) and forced them to breathe second hand smoke and it's harmful and wrong. Watch out barbaquers you may be next because char broiled meat does contain harmful carcinogens and that is fact.

What really gets me about this ban is that it's based on the idea that people may see someone vaping and think that they're smoking. I say, only if the e-cig looks like a real cigarette! I've been an e-cig user for almost three months, and my e-cig looks more like a pen than anything. I'm not sure where I read it, but someone said that perhaps this blanket ban should also apply to people sticking pens in their mouth, because that could be construed as a person vaping, and of course we all know that vaping looks so much like smoking, regardless of whether or not the e-cig itself resembles a cigarette. We also all know that things can be banned according to how they appear, rather than what they are. That's why people go to jail for appearing guilty, rather than going to jail when there is evidence that they're guilty. Of course. Happens all the time! Oh, is that not the way things work? People *do* only go to jail when there's evidence of their guilt? You don't say!
But in all seriousness, most e-cigarettes are about as harmful to bystanders as spraying perfume. The amount of nicotine that enters the air (and dissipates within moments) is negligible. This ban is ridiculous.

"Again, the burden of proof is on the drug maker to prove their product is safe"

Technically speaking any Nicotine Replacement Product (NRP) is given immunity since it's the general consensus, despite a lack of long term studies of the long term affect of any of the various Nicotine solutions, that anything beats smoking. They skirt this issue by stating VERY clearly that they don't "intend" for smokers to continue using NRPs despite the use of a HIGHLY addictive chemical even in medically approved nicotine inhalers.

This is really the bottom line. We KNOW the affect of tobacco and mainstream cigarettes, and we KNOW they are not safe, but are legal. We know the medical opinion is NRPs are better because ANYTHING is better than smoking. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that nicotine suspended in water and either food grade glycerin or glycol is a viable alternative since the alternative is SMOKING given all these products are approved for human consumption. And it's also reasonable to accept the simple fact that a system that mimics the act of smoking, without the smoke, is the most logical method to not actually smoke.

The same King County Ban is going forward in Pierce County.

The Pierce County Health Dept is holding an open formum Monday, May 16th 6-7pm

To learn more, please visit:http://www.thevaporium.com/blog.html

Attached is a letter sent by the Medical Director for CASAA to the Pierce County Health Department detailing their concern that this regulation could cause more harm than good.

Dear Tacoma/Pierce County Official:

Pierce County and City of Tacoma area members of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) have asked us to contact you to urge you to reject the proposed ordinance, Restrictions on Sale, Use, and Availability of Electronic Smoking Devices and Unregulated Nicotine Delivery Products. CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking tobacco products and to provide the public with truthful information about such alternatives.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on April 25, 2011 that it will regulate products made or derived from tobacco, including electronic cigarettes, as tobacco products under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. [1]

There is no evidence that electronic cigarettes are being purchased by minors. However, CASAA urges you to accomplish the goal of banning sales to minors by editing Title 5 of the City of Tacoma Municipal Code. Furthermore, electronic cigarettes emit NO smoke and pose NO known health risks to users or nonusers.

Smoking bans were enacted for the purpose of protecting non-smokers from the potentially harmful effects of second-hand smoke. But electronic cigarettes have not been shown to harm bystanders or users. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless tobacco products and nicotine gum and lozenges.

There are enormous differences between smoke and vapor. Smoke is created by the process of combustion. Setting tobacco on fire creates tar, carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, dozens of carcinogens and thousands of other hazardous chemicals. Inhaling these substances in smoke is the cause of 99% of tobacco-related diseases and deaths.

Vapor from an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) does not contain any of these substances. Vapor, while resembling smoke, is not a product of combustion but rather the product of the process of condensation. Vapor is created by heating a tiny droplet of liquid. Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested e-cigarette vapor for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants. No such toxicant was found. Dr. Laugesen stated, “Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential.” [2]

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes—including the testing conducted by the FDA in 2009—and concluded, “A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.” [3]

The Journal of Public Health states that there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on potential harm to bystanders. The majority of consumers use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for all their tobacco cigarettes, and most of the rest use e-cigarettes to reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke. These products are improving the health of their users, and could save the lives of many more smokers—provided their use is not discouraged. [4]

As written, the proposed ordinance stands to do more harm to public health than good by grouping electronic cigarettes with combusted tobacco products, which have a long history of proven health risks. Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them being used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use, forcing e-cigarette users outside, removes an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that could very well reduce their risks of smoking-related disease.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Theresa A. Whitt, MD

CASAA Medical Director

twhitt@casaa.org

tw:ek

References:

1. US Food and Drug Administration. Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHeal…

2. Laugesen M. Health New Zealand. Poster Presentation at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco conference, Dublin, April 30, 2009. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenc…

3. Cahn and Siegel. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control. Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health Policy 1–16. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-inst…

4. Heavner K, Dunworth J, Bergen P, Nissen C, Phillips CV. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results of an online survey of e-cigarette users. Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 Yearbook, Chapter 19. http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/…