This is a single-focus blast e-mail with a double Action-Itemone for Philly and one for Harrisburg.

Addressed specifically are e-cigs, which afford another method of nicotine-delivery to cigarette-addicts that is admittedly far safer than are tobacco-products; although some of my literary flourishes infra may appear extreme, the goal is to shake legislators into seeing a forest rather than individual trees. Specifically, as an anti-tobacco activist for 1/3-century, I have observe the world evolve from viewing us skeptically to perceiving us as empowered-fanatics; its time to return-to-baseline, for all stakeholders. Philadelphia City Council should DEFEAT Bill No 140095 [which, per Bill Godshall, would ban vaping everywhere smoking is banned (including outdoors within 20 feet of building entrance, outdoor patios and sidewalk cafes), would require employers and managers to enforce this unenforceable ban, would falsely redefine smokefree vaporizers as electronic smoking devices (to further confuse and scare the public), would require signs posted at all banned locations, would impose $300 fine for violators]; Philadelphia City Council should AMEND Bill No 140096 [which, per Bill Godshall, would falsely define smokefree vaporizers as electronic smoking devices, would create new category of unapproved nicotine delivery product, would ban sales of both to minors, would require all e-cig retailers to post intentionally deceptive signs stating: SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND UNAUTHORIZED NICOTINE DELIVERY PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PHOTO I.D. WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS LAW WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. ]; and Pennsylvania Senate should PASS SB-1055. To follow is a reformulation of what I have written about the current situation in Philly; essentially, those who claim to be promoting Public Health are actually sabotaging its fundamental goal, namely, to help individuals achieve optimal medical well-being. Why they feel compelled to corrupt how a reasonable individual would interpret the peer-reviewed medical literature, such analysis is deferred. Here is what I wrote to the activist-community: I have a suggestion; lets engage in the battle-field of ideas! I have uploaded my testimony, and its easy for everyone else to do likewise @ scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/212166693/ecigs?post_id=1448468906_10203439945106486#_=_ I invoked this hyperlink within my comment on the piece in the Daily News [broken-up]. This contrasts with broad assertions from advocates of these bills, which are also online. http://www.smokefreephilly.org/smokfree_philly/assets/File/Ecig%20Fact%20Sheet%20for%20Merchants%208%2020%2013.pdf http://www.phila.gov/health/pdfs/ElectronicCigaretteFactSheet_72513_final.pdf The Gentle-Reader is then empowered to compare/contrast available literature [anecdotal] with sweeping conclusions [condemnatory]; when recognized simply as

nicotine-delivery systems, it is detrimental to a recognized-addicts best-interest to deny him/her maximal potential-usage of e-cigs. Indeed, ponder how truth is mangled by a conclusion in an edict based upon a false premise, for e-cigs are NOT marketed as safewhen the justifiable, intuitive claim is that they are safer. Sez advocates for restrictions: Ecigarettes should not be recommended for customers to quit smoking or as a safe alternative to smoking. Although they are marketed as a safe alternative to cigarettes, these claims are untested. THEREFORE, lets get all these data and analyses online, disseminate key-hyperlinks among ourselves, and then present this opportunity achieve awareness to the 17 members of Phillys City Council; in the process, we can invoke what is transpiring statewide regarding youth-access as a reasonable alternative [and, thus, as an amendment that can be subject to a vote prior to considering adoption of these two parent measures]. In response to a depiction of what transpired yesterday [Committee approves adding e-cigs to public ban on smoking], Jimmy Mack characterized this effort as A solution looking for a problem, and ipray4philly provided a political insight [Your Dumbocrat gubment is doing everything for you, including controlling where you can and can't smoke your e-cigs. Don't blame me! Blame yourself for voting them in year after year! No hope, only chains!]; this is what I wrote i [broken-up, due to length]: It is appalling that a "nanny-state" attitude trumped all available scientific data. Should government ban [a.k.a. "regulate"] behavior because we fear that, at some future time, it may be found--possibly--to be harmful? * During the colloquy, witnessing the simple-mindedness of those who adhered to using the word "smoke" to depict "vaporizing" was both contrary to all dictionary definitions and denigrating to the memory of those who suffered death and disability from cigarettes. http://www.thefreedictionary.c... There is not a shred of evidence to support the theory that e-cigs serve as a "gateway drug" to teens who might subsequently pick-up tobacco; indeed, such Draconian measures as are proposed, here, contravene the trend to liberalize the use of Medical Marijuana. That's why long-term anti-tobacco activists congregated yesterday to drive some sense into the ideologues promoting this bill.

In my case, I had first testified before the NYC Board of Estimate--a zoning entity-against advertising on bus-stop shelters in 1979; this time, I heavily referenced the yeoman-labor of Bill Godshall, M.P.H. [Smokefree Pennsylvania] and the dependablereasonableness of Gilbert Ross, M.D. [American Council on Science and Health]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2121... E-cigs supplant disease-causing tar and carbon-monoxide with innocuous water-vapor, 'tis all. * This prompts me to feel that I am an "Alice in Wonderland" observing our unserious City Council at-work, defying medical knowledge; perhaps the full body, "Wizards of Oz," will recognize that "Harm Reduction" is a realistic goal...as nicotine-addiction is confronted medically. Far from restricting e-cigs, as a public-health tool, it would actually be desirable, perhaps, to provide them to cigarette-smokers free-of-charge! {It hadnt been published due to its length and usage of two hyperlinks, until editeddown; I thank Joshua Mellman [JMellman@philly.com] for having sent it back to me via e-mail, for I had not saved a copy prior to trying to upload it [a reminder for us all!].} In addition, the safety of e-cigs appears to have been confirmed @ Drexel, in Philly: Burstyn I. Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:18 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-18]. It was digested by advocates for TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION (THR) [the public health strategy of encouraging smokers to switch to low-risk alternatives like smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes. It is the only proven method for reducing smoking below about a fifth of the population once it becomes established] as disseminated by the CASAA [The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association].