Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council Rejects Vaporizer/E-Cigarette Ordinance

http://tinyurl.com/l4pxve3 Save 20% at anything you buy from Halocigs.
Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Staff Presentation - Speakers: Ms. Chen 9:46, Ms. Brown-Mackin 29:36, Mr. Rogers 32:53, Mr. Swanson 34:57 - Council Discussion 40:01 - Motion and Vote 46:33 1. Serena Chen, American Lung Association 2. Marcia Brown-Mackin Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition 3. Randy Rogers, Ready Set Vape in Castro Valley https://youtu.be/HZugMqp2Q0Q 4. Bob Swanson, Castro Valley Resident Monday, March 16, 2015 Council members: Marc Crawford; Chair, Cheryl Miraglia; Vice Chair, Dave Sadoff, Sheila Cunha, John Ryzanych. Location: Castro Valley Library –3600 Norbridge Avenue, Castro Valley, CA 94646 AGENDA V. E-Cigarette Use Ordinance Update – Alameda County Public Health Department http://www.acgov.org/bc/cvmac/ This is from notes which I believe to be 98-100% correct but you may want to check the tape for accuracy: Motion that the MAC hereby advises the Board of Supervisors that a) the jury is still out – vaping has NOT been proven hazardous to your health and b) vapor is NOT smoke and e-cigarettes that do not contain tobacco are not and cannot be considered a tobacco product therefore c) e-cigarettes should absolutely NOT be lumped in with tobacco products because they are not in and of themselves tobacco products d) the Board should be cognizant and give serious consideration to the fact that this ordinance as written may be more about financial health than public health – it is being pushed by entities which have a vested interest in maintaining cash flow from the State Tobacco Fund via ultimate taxation of e-cigarettes as tobacco products e) enactment of this ordinance will actually deter smokers from quitting tobacco and will have a negative impact on public health. f)this draft ordinance is more problematic than the previous and too over-reaching and should be either thrown out or rethought and re-written yet again g) the only changes to the ordinance worth saving are that which makes it illegal for e-cigarettes to be sold to minors (which is already State law) and that steps should be taken to insure that they are kept behind counters, not sold in vending machines, mandatory carding for those appearing 27 or older, etc. h) rather than lumping e-cigarettes in with tobacco, the County should begin work anew on a dedicated e-cigarette ordinance that enlists and involves the stakeholders and those directly affected by the ordinance through an open public process and further move that this motion of the MAC be presented in its entirety to the Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report to the Board. The Vote: 4 YES votes for the motion rejecting the ordinance. One absent/excused and 2 member vacancies.