City of Wauwatosa Vaping ban-Defeated (for now)

December 9,2014

AES Web Team

We were in attendance last night for a meeting in our local area to ban vaping indoors and in “certain places”. We wanted to recap the meeting and high points for those out there who couldn’t attend, or those who are looking to figure out how communities are winning vaping bans to prepare for their own local meetings.

The proposed ordinance was overly broad. It specified “certain places” and referenced the Wisconsin Indoor Air Quality initiative (which was the ORIGINAL cigarette smoking ban). Representatives for various smoke free groups were present, and attempted to wait to be the last to speak. Fortunately, there were more vapers there to stand up, and their skewed data and statistics were drowned by the testimony of people who said, my REAL LIFE means more than people who use numbers to craft a good story.

Don Muehlbauer, the Founder of the Durasmoke® brand was present and presented fantastic scientific testimony that directly opposed the numbers spoken by the representatives from the ACA and Health Department. It was clear that the committee took the recommendations and thoughts of business owners into heavy consideration. They also appreciated the local income base vaping provided to their community, and there was the fact that one of the council members had a vaper friend, and had been exposed to it. These personal stories really carry impact. The committee made it clear that the data available isn't really clear, and that’s not because nobody is trying to provide the proof. In that case, acting on incomplete information, they felt, would be damaging to their citizens without any verified positive outcome to balance it from a public health perspective.

These bans are cropping up in a lot of places. If you have one coming to your area, here are some suggestions of topics and things that might help you at least prompt your lawmakers to think more deeply before taking rash action that affects a lot of people:

Businesses can choose to enforce vaping bans themselves. Laws aren’t needed, and are a heavy handed way of moralizing the personal choices of others

There is no definitive evidence that second hand vapor produces negative health outcomes. Many anti-vaping advocacy groups cite heavy metals and other particulates, but this is not a universal, these are cherry picked data based on Chinese e-cigarettes no longer on the market in the USA. Using the same numbers of supporters for indoor cigarette smoking bans to reflect support for vaping bans is a standard tactic, and is a misrepresentation. Knowing the numbers matters.

Passion matters, but anti-government arguments aren’t likely to go far. Remember, these officials are here to represent the will of large groups of constituents. Making derogatory comments about them and their job function is counterproductive. They will tend to respond better to arguments that speak to how many of their constituents are vapers, or prospective vapers.

The support of the business community is important. Remember that politics and election is about money. If businesses are hurt by overly broad regulations that force them to act in any certain way, they could simply move, or they could go out of business, which is the worst possible outcome for a politician. Finding local business owners who support vaping and encouraging them to attend and have a voice can be the thing that makes the difference between a vote or no vote.

Every circumstance is different, of course, but it’s clear that vapers are ready and willing to go to battle for the thing they love. When your life is saved by something, it’s hard not to be passionate about it. We hope these points will be helpful should your you have to attempt to stave off a ban against misinformation and people who are certain vaping is exactly the same as smoking, when we’ve seen the data, and the proof in ourselves that nothing could be farther from the truth.