Petitioning Mayor of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and 15 others

Reverse the city ordinance banning the use of e-cigarettes in public places.


Los Angeles City council has imposed an ordinance that harms the health of those who have chosen to give up tobacco products by using e-cigarettes.

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of significant harmful, second-hand effects from e-cigarette vapor to people in the vicinity of a user of an e-cigarette. In fact, all studies show that e-cigarettes are vastly less harmful for the users and that for bystanders there is no detectable absorbtion of the small amounts of nicotine in second-hand vapor. Any restriction on the use of e-cigarettes simply restricts the potential of THE MOST EFFECTIVE smoking cessation device to be effective in the lives of smoking Angelinos and those who recognize the health dangers of tobacco use.

LA City's ordinance forces businesses and workplaces to restrict "vaping" to smoking areas, actually exposing the users of e-cigarettes to the scientifically established dangers of second-hand smoke - and to the first-hand dangers that use of these devices specifically avoid!

By relegating e-cigarette users to "smoking areas" this ordinance also exposes those who have recently given up tobacco cigarettes to the influence of tobacco smokers and the very real temptation to revert to the use of harmful, conventional cigarettes which deliver stronger and infinitely more harmful health effects.

One aspect of this issue, of which non-smokers are mostly unaware, is that an ex-smoker needs to use his or her e-cigarette much more frequently than a tobacco smoker would use tobacco cigarettes in order to get the same amount of nicotine. When used throughout the day many smokers find that they can quit tobacco products successfully within a matter of weeks. If, however they are prevented from using the device then the temptation to return to the "high-delivery system" of tobacco will be that much stronger, making the cessation benefits of their e-cigarettes ineffective.

The successful migration of smokers to e-cigarettes is a benefit to the whole community. There is no question that the use of tobacco products adds hugely to the nation's health care costs. This regressive ordinance is both short-sighted and ignorant of the realities of e-cigarettes. It threatens to undo the benefits of e-cigarette technology both for the people who currently use it sucessfully on a daily basis and those who might use it in the future to improve their health.

Given the obvious benefits of e-cigarettes vs. tobacco cigarettes, one cannot help but wonder what interest groups are pushing this type of ordinance and whether or not tobacco comapanies themselves are behind them. Whatever the forces behind this ordinance, be it ignorance or something more nefarious, it must be reversed.

Letter to
Mayor of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
Councilmember - Los Angleles District 1 Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo
Councilmember - Los Angleles District 2 Councilmember Paul Krekorian
and 13 others
Councilmember - Los Angleles District 3 Councilmember Bob Blumenfield
Councilmember - Los Angleles District 4 Councilmember Tom LaBonge
Councilmember - Los Angleles District 5 Councilmember Paul Koretz
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 6 Councilmember Nury Martinez
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 7 Councilmember Felipe Fuentes
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 8 Councilmember Bernard Parks
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 9 Councilmember Curren D. Price, Jr.
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 10 Councilmember Herb J. Wesson, Jr.
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 11 Councilmember Mike Bonin
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 12 Councilmember Mitchell Englander
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 13 Councilmember Mitch O'Farrell
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 14 Councilmember Jose Huizar
Councilmember - Los Angeles District 15 Councilmember Joe Buscaino
Reverse the city ordinance banning the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

Los Angeles City council has imposed an ordinance that harms the health of those who have chosen to give up tobacco products by using e-cigarettes.

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of significant harmful, second-hand effects from e-cigarette vapor to people in the vicinity of a user of an e-cigarette. In fact, all studies show that e-cigarettes are vastly less harmful for the users and that for bystanders there is no detectable absorbtion of the small amounts of nicotine in second-hand vapor. Any restriction on the use of e-cigarettes simply restricts the potential of THE MOST EFFECTIVE smoking cessation device to be effective in the lives of smoking Angelinos and those who recognize the health dangers of tobacco use.

LA City's ordinance forces businesses and workplaces to restrict "vaping" to smoking areas, actually exposing the users of e-cigarettes to the scientifically established dangers of second-hand smoke - and to the first-hand dangers that use of these devices specifically avoid!

By relegating e-cigarette users to "smoking areas" this ordinance also exposes those who have recently given up tobacco cigarettes to the influence of tobacco smokers and the very real temptation to revert to the use of harmful, conventional cigarettes which deliver stronger and infinitely more harmful health effects.

One aspect of this issue, of which non-smokers are mostly unaware, is that an ex-smoker needs to use his or her e-cigarette much more frequently than a tobacco smoker would use tobacco cigarettes in order to get the same amount of nicotine. When used throughout the day many smokers find that they can quit tobacco products successfully within a matter of weeks. If, however they are prevented from using the device then the temptation to return to the "high-delivery system" of tobacco will be that much stronger, making the cessation benefits of their e-cigarettes ineffective.

The successful migration of smokers to e-cigarettes is a benefit to the whole community. There is no question that the use of tobacco products adds hugely to the nation's health care costs. This regressive ordinance is both short-sighted and ignorant of the realities of e-cigarettes. It threatens to undo the benefits of e-cigarette technology both for the people who currently use it sucessfully on a daily basis and those who might use it in the future to improve their health.

Given the obvious benefits of e-cigarettes vs. tobacco cigarettes, one cannot help but wonder what interest groups are pushing this type of ordinance and whether or not tobacco comapanies themselves are behind them. Whatever the forces behind this ordinance, be it ignorance or something more nefarious, it must be reversed.