Tag Archives: vaping

Update on my lawsuit to stop mandatory biometric ID and an urgent plea for your help TODAY!

Kaye Beach

June 25, 2014

I know my blog posts have been few and far between these days.  You know how I like to tell and I look forward to being able to tell you everything and begin posting frequently and freely again.

(My small talk news is that I am proudly working at a great local vape store! I only applied at one store and that was because of the owners and crew’s commitment to activism and helping smokers choose a safer alternative.   I am excited to be helping others make the transition from smoking to vaping as I have done after almost 30 years of smoking.  I am enjoying this work immensely and will be posting more on this soon!)

I am writing this post in order to  bring you up to speed on my lawsuit in Oklahoma opposing mandatory biometric identification in order to be issued a state driver’s license or ID card and make an urgent request for your support.

If you wish to contribute to my legal fund online through Paypal.com Here is the link: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com
 By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

Biometric ID

‘Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.’ (Dec. 9, 2013, AxXiom For Liberty https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/)

I was honored to be interviewed by Oklahoma Journalist, Patrick McQuigan recently. (OK Woman battles ‘mandatory biometric’ required for drivers’ licenses  19-Jun-2014 )

And as I explained to Mr. McGuigan;

“I filed a lawsuit against this policy in the first place because I believe it is a violation of my right to freedom of religion, as well as my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, both of which are protected under Oklahoma law,”

(Press Release from the Rutherford Institute: Rutherford Institute Challenges Oklahoma’s Mandatory Biometric Photo Requirement for Drivers’ Licenses As Infringement of Religious Freedom)

City Sentinel June 25 2014

I was also very pleased and surprised to see my story make the front page of the City Sentinel today. I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. McGuigan for delving into my story.

Recap As some of you may be aware, I began my battle back in the summer of 2011.  Yes, the wheels of justice do indeed move slowly — especially in comparison to the rapid expansion in the use of the biometric technology.

In 2011, my driver’s license came due and because of all I had learned about the nature of biometric ID and my Christian faith, there was no way I could voluntarily and passively accept biometric enrollment. I had worked hard to gain a thorough understanding of the policy and technology behind the collection of our biometric data and I learned that this biometric identification system is not merely a state level nuisance, or even simply a reviled national identity system.  This is a global system of identification and financial control.   It will apply to everyone.  Right now, the people of the world are well on their way to total global enrollment.  I am determined not to be one of them!  Furthermore, I intend to prove that this is a violation of our rights as individuals so that we can protect these rights!

Regardless of our political or religious persuasions, a great many people oppose mandatory biometric enrollment and they do so on a variety of grounds.  The common thread is preserving individual freedoms. We must not allow ourselves to be trapped in this unbearably intimate, body-based system of government control!

In the spring of 2011, I was cited for driving without a valid license and with the help of my lawyers, I fought that citation in city court.  The Norman City Attorney, apparently reluctant to try and settle such a serious matter in a city court, dismissed my case.

Still, without a valid license or government issued photo ID, the normal duties of life become very difficult.  Purchases, banking, health care, travel and more, become extremely challenging and in the future, these things are intended to become impossible without a government issued biometric ID.

The state of Oklahoma patently refused to consider my religious objections and issue a non-biometric license and since I am certain that I have a right to freely live my life and follow my faith without having to submit the measurements of my body to government databases, my battle could not stop at a city court dismissal.   Ultimately, my lawyers filed a lawsuit on my behalf against the state to protect my right to religious freedom and against the unwarranted collection of my biometric data.

(Petition filed on Sept. 21, 2011 http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Constitutional-Alliance_Kaye-Beach_Petition-Suit-as-Filed.pdf  If you would like to read more about the beginning of this battle, please see My Real ID Reckoning, June 28, 201)

We are NOT criminals!

In a recent interview with local FOX news affiliate, I explained to the Reporter that one of the benefits to being a law abiding citizen is that we get to go about our business without having the government constantly looking over our shoulders, monitoring, evaluating and controlling our lives. When we are arrested, we are fingerprinted and our digital mug shot is captured along with scads of other personal information.  These details are entered into a database allowing the government to keep track of criminals and suspects for the purpose of protecting public safety.  Now, at the DMV, we are fingerprinted and this along with our digital ‘faceprint’ and biographical information is captured and stored for use with facial recognition technology. This data, like criminal data, is also used to keep an eye on us.  Tell me, where is the benefit of being a law-abiding citizen when we are all treated as criminals and suspects?

I am, of course, somewhat limited in what I can say but to bring you up to speed on my lawsuit here is what I can share;

June 18, 2013, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is a pre-trail motion that presents the undisputed facts of my case to the judge asking that based on these undisputed facts that the judge rule in my favor. Page 1-10 lists 36 statements of undisputed facts.  The rest of the petition is legal justifications and exhibits.  I encourage everyone to read pages 1-30. (Motion for Summary Judgment, June 18, 2013, http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Kaye-Beach_Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-as-to-Count-1_6.19.13_reduced.pdf )

Then there were depositions.  The state had its opportunity to thoroughly question me about whatever they wished and I had to answer each of their questions honestly upon my oath.  Likewise, my lawyer had the opportunity to perform a deposition on the state.

On April 1st, 2014, the state responded to my Motion for Summary Judgment and made a counter motion. The series of documents that comprise the state’s response is publicly available on the Oklahoma State Court Network which I have copied and pasted here for your convenience.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / FOR SCANNING PURPOSES, DOC SPLIT INTO 3 PARTS / PART 1: MAIN PLEADING THROUGH EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 59 OF TRANSCRIPT) Document Available (#1024392582)
04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174229 Apr 2 2014 8:19:59:360AM $ 0.00
PART 2: EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 60 OF TRANSCRIPT) THROUGH EXHIBIT 6 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392578)
04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174230 Apr 2 2014 8:20:32:300AM $ 0.00
PART 3: EXHIBITS 7-10 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392574)

 

As you can see, the state’s response was a lengthy one – nearly 300 baffling pages.

My legal team’s response to the state’s response filed on June 17th, at a total of 31 pages, is relatively short and sweet – as the truth tends to be.

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1025965247)

So where are we now?

Very Close! The state will have an opportunity to respond once again and then this Motion for Summary Judgment should go before the District Judge.  It should be 60 days or less till the Judge sees and rules on this pre-trial motion.  I believe that the law is clear and that my rights are being violated.  I believe my Counsel has done an excellent job in stating my case.

“Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”–The Constitutional Alliance

We are very fortunate that my legal challenge attracted the attention of the Rutherford Institute, a nationally respected civil liberties organization. I count this organization as the ‘best of the best’ when it comes to protecting the rights of all in our country and John Whitehead has long been a personal hero of mine. I am so grateful that the Rutherford Institute is providing their experience and support in my lawsuit

My personal attorney is Benjamin Sisney, a man that I have great faith in.  He has a heart for this case and has worked diligently in representing me every step of the way.  I truly believe that I could not have better representation in this case than Ben Sisney and know that my case is in the best of hands.  It is important for you to understand how strongly I believe in my Attorney because this leads me to my purpose for writing to you today.

My excellent legal representation is not free

Right now I have an outstanding balance of about $17,000 for the hard work Mr. Sisney and his firm has done on my behalf and that balance must be paid up and quickly!  I must honor my debt to these good people as they deserve to be paid for their labors.  In my past fundraising efforts, you have come through for this cause and even though I know that money is tight for all, I am counting on you again.

I am on a very short timeline to get this debt cleared and am pleading for your help to get it done. 

For those who think that this issue is too complicated or somehow does not apply to them personally, please pay attention to John Whitehead’s (President of the Rutherford Institute) quote that Patrick McGuigan chose to include in his article about my case. (In bold below)  I think it neatly pins the crux of the problem with mandatory biometric ID, to the wall.

Whatever one’s belief systems — whether a person views a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification as the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same — ultimate control by the government,”

Read more

If you support my effort to stop mandatory biometric enrollment, please, share this message with others and give as generously as you can today!

“As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.”

https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/

Here is how to contribute:

You may make a donation online through Paypal.com Here is the link:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com

By US mail, you can send a check or money order to; Kaye Beach P.O. Box 722381 Norman, Oklahoma, 73070 (Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)

Thank you for all you do for freedom!

 

Kaye Beach

 

 

 

Advertisements

Okla. Stop HB2904! Would classify e-cigarettes as tobacco product, lead to higher taxation

rlc

Kaye Beach

Feb. 25, 2014

Oklahoma Vapors phone calls, emails needed today to stop HB 2904

HB 2904 is scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary committee today at 3PM.

HB 2904 by Rep. Ownbey would define electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product opening the door to higher taxation on vapor products.

Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee members and ask them to please vote NO on HB 2904!

Tell them to keep lifesaving vapor products accessible and affordable for smokers.  (Copy and paste email addresses below)

Vaping is NOT smoking and vapor products should not be treated like tobacco cigarettes

Here is my email to House Judiciary committee members:

Dear Representative,

I am a 30 year, pack a day smoker.  I have failed at every attempt to quit until I tried a personal vaporizing device.  I have not touched a cigarette in over six weeks.  I consider this technology to be a literal lifesaver for myself and other smokers.

HB2904 opens the door to higher taxation on electronic cigarettes.  This is wrong! We should keep vapor products accessible and affordable for smokers so that more people may improve their health and longevity.  Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and are estimated to be 99% safer than smoking.

Please vote NO on HB 2904!

You can call House Judiciary Committee members at House Switchboard 800-522-8502 and 800-522-8506.  (Just ask for the Representative you wish to speak to and the operator will connect you)

Chair Rep. Osborn, Leslie 

Vice Chair Rep. Stiles, Aaron

or Email them in one blast by copying and pasting the emails below.

House Judiciary Committee Members:
leslie.osborn@okhouse.gov; aaron.stiles@okhouse.gov;  ; scott.biggs@okhouse.gov; jon.echols@okhouse.gov; randy.grau@okhouse.gov; scott.inman@okhouse.gov; dennis.johnson@okhouse.gov; fred.jordan@okhouse.gov; stevemartin@okhouse.gov; charles.mccall@okhouse.gov; mark.mccullough@okhouse.gov; richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov; tom.newell@okhouse.gov; bensherrer@okhouse.gov; emily.virgin@okhouse.gov ; cory.williams@okhouse.gov

Oklahoma Vapers call to Action Calls, E-mails needed in support of SB 1892

Kaye Beach

Feb. 17, 2014

**Update**  Feb. 18, 2014  The bill is SB1892 not SB1852 as I had listed.  Sorry about that.

SB 1892 passed the Senate Finance committee today  but due to a minor snafu the title was stricken.  The bill will have to go to conference committee for title to be restored.  If all that sounds confusing, the bottom line is that it will end up before the committee and have to be voted on again.  This should happen shortly and so if you didn’t get your calls or emails in, it wouldn’t hurt to do so now.

Will update again as soon as there is any movement on this bill.  Thank you!

SB 1892 will be heard in the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow morning at 10:30 AM in Rm 535

Call or email the Senate Finance committee members tonight or first thing tomorrow morning and tell them to vote YES on SB 1852!

Electronic cigarettes and vapor products are NOT tobacco and should not be categorized as such.  SB 1852 defines “vapor products’ separately from tobacco products and does not allow vapor products to be taxed like tobacco products.  This is GOOD!  It keeps the safer option of ‘vaping’ accessible to more smokers who have been unable or unwilling to quit smoking.

Briefly tell the committee members how you or your loved ones have benefitted from using a personal vaporizing device.  Ask them to vote YES on SB 1852 and thank them for their time.

Here is the Oklahoma Vapor Advocacy League’s Alert on SB 1852.  (Find out more about OVAL at http://ovalok.org)

oval alert sb 1852

You can email the Senate Finance committee members in one swoop by copying and pasting their emails as provided;

mazzei@oksenate.gov; Brinkley@oksenate.gov; Aldridge@oksenate.gov; dahm@oksenate.gov; david@oksenate.gov; fordj@oksenate.gov; halligan@oksenate.gov; johnsonc@oksenate.gov; jolly@oksenate.gov; mcaffrey@oksenate.gov; simpson@oksenate.gov; sparks@oksenate.gov; treat@oksenate.gov

You can call the Senate Finance committee members by dialing the Senate Switchboard and asking to be connected to the Senator you wish to speak with.   Senate switchboard (405) 524-0126

Senate Finance Committee Members are as follows:

Senator Mike Mazzei – Chair
Senator Rick Brinkley – Vice Chair
Senator Cliff Aldridge
Senator Nathan Dahm
Senator Kim David
Senator John Ford
Senator Jim Halligan
Senator Constance Johnson
Senator Clark Jolley

Senator McAffrey
Senator Frank Simpson
Senator John Sparks
Senator Greg Treat

Clearing the Air on the Oklahoma E-cigarette War

Kaye Beach

Feb. 11, 2014

Recently I wrote an article for The Oklahoma Constitution on the politics and money behind the e-cigarette bans in our state.

Many credible health experts have also noted a curious imbalance regarding the claims made by some public health advocates about
e-cigarette health dangers. . . .  Judging from the reaction to the sudden spate of prohibitions on vaping in our state, the public t buying the hype either. What most people want to know is,  why are they being banned? Who is being hurt by the use of an electronic cigarette? . . . This innovative technology is not a threat to public health but is a grave threat to the entire multi-billion tobacco industry as it exists today.

. . .You’ll find TSET grant funding everything from OETA to bike racks, but let’s look at the “Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control” incentive grants that are driving the vapor bans.

You can read the article ‘Clearing the Air on the Oklahoma E-cigarette War’ in its entirety  at The Oklahoma Constitution.

Also, you may want to see this rebuttal to the OK. State Dept. of Health’s alarmist e-cigarette advisory. FINAL OSDH rebuttal 2 9 2014

And if you haven’t done it yet, subscribe to The Oklahoma Constitution!

‘Vape Ban Warning’ Issued for 26 Oklahoma Counties

super cell 1

Kaye Beach

Jan. 25, 2014

Feb 11, 2014 UPDATE: On Feb. 10th the TSET apparently decided to revamp their entire website and all of the informative links below were rendered dead.  THANKFULLY the Internet has a very long memory and all links were restored on Feb 11th via The Wayback Machine.

 

An electronic cigarette or personal vaporizer (affectionately known by its fans as a ‘vape’) is a battery-operated device that heats a liquid containing nicotine (but not always) and various flavors to produce,  not smoke, but vapor, thus eliminating tar and toxins associated with burning tobacco cigarettes.   Thousands of Oklahomans have switched from smoking to vaping, potentially improving their health and longevity.

The good news about this safer alternative to smoking is being clouded by a potent mix of financial and political interests making conditions ripe in 2014 for potentially disastrous vaping bans and other dangerous political phenomena such as unreasonable taxation of vaping products.

Oklahomans should be advised that the political environment may turn treacherous at any moment.

At 4:59  PM CT AxXiom for Liberty’s Nanny State Prevention Service has issued a Vape Ban Warning for the following Oklahoma counties:

vape ban watch

The previous  state-wide Vape Ban Watch is now upgraded to a Vape Ban Warning for these counties.

TSET funds at work

Residents of these twenty-six Oklahoma counties are advised to expect a whirlwind of TSET funded anti-tobacco coalition agitation at the city level, accompanied by media saturation of anti-electronic cigarette propaganda, local political maelstroms, and SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) team activation.

Immediate city level organization is necessary to  protect life and property from dangerous government overreach.

Don’t wait until the vape ban is on top of you – take your  big government precautions now!   

Oklahoma TSET Communities of Excellence In Tobacco Control

Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control FY 13 budget: $6 million (Source: TSET Program Fact Sheet)

A Vape Ban Watch means that conditions are favorable to the formation of e-cigarettes and vaping bans.  85% of Oklahoma has been under the Vape Ban Watch since last fall when the same political influences that threaten areas in 2014 produced damaging bans in Oklahoma communities such as Shawnee, Ada and others.

Sporadic outbreaks of vaping bans and e-cigarettes prohibitions this fall prompted vigilant vapers and other Oklahomans leery of the nanny state  to take action on impending bans.  Oklahoman’s may feel overwhelmed by sudden storms produced by the explosive combination of cold cash and hot air but as the residents of Tahlequah demonstrate, citizen preparedness and quick action can save the day.

Be proactive.  Call your city council member now and tell them that TSET bribes are not a good reason to ban vaping!

Please remain vigilant.  Under normal circumstances, community health coalitions are relatively benign and even helpful entities but when fueled by tobacco settlement funds granted by the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, these entities can coalesce becoming supercells that produce twisted efforts that can devastate opportunities for Oklahomans to improve their personal health.

tobacco free coalitions TSET

Right now these coalitions are primed to start firing off  Vaping Bans in cities that fall under the 26 county (highlighted in green pg 31-33)Vape Ban Warning area.

Detail is as follows:

These twenty-six Oklahoma counties are part of a ‘Communities of Excellence’ coalition/consortium and are  eligible for TSET Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control funding for  fiscal year 2014.

In 2014, flush with tobacco settlement cash extracted from predominately low-income smokers, the TSET has doubled the grant funds available to communities as part of the Healthy Communities Incentive Grant for Tobacco Control.

If you live within one of these twenty-six  counties, chances are good that your city will be targeted by one or more TSET funded anti-tobacco groups operating in your area in over the course of this year.  TSET has set aside 4.1 million dollars in 2014 just to fund the anti-tobacco coalitions that you will find agitating for the Vape Bans.  (Page 3 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf )

‘Additional grant money of $42,000 would be granted to Choate’s group as part of TSET’s Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control.

An amount of $200,000 is received annually by her group from the tobacco settlement.

She emphasized that it is not money that motivates them to push ecig ban.’

(Reported by North West Watch http://www.northwestwatch.org/news/speculations-that-money-push-council-to-ban-ecigarettes/)

These health related coalitions work within our communities to promote public health education and policies that many of us welcome and support but the TSET and it’s partners have decided to focus in on eradicating the imaginary scourge of e-cigarettes and are funding the coalitions to be the tip of the spear in this misguided effort.  Given the well established and devastating effects of smoking, redirecting health activists’ efforts away from this and other pressing health concerns can only be described as perverse.

turning point coalition e cigarette

Coalition applicants must develop work plans to address five (required) Core Indicators defined in TSET’s 2014 Request for Proposals (RFP) for Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control funding. (Page 24 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf)

Required “Core Indicator 1” is a city-wide tobacco-free policy which is defined to include e-cigs/vapor products.

CI red lined

Pg 25 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf

Oklahomans fed up with the ever encroaching nanny-state would do well to inform themselves by spending a little time perusing the TSET’s website http://www.ok.gov/tset/    (Well, not so much now since they have removed MANY public information links!) You should get to know these coalitions that are getting their paychecks and marching orders from TSET while professing to represent ‘the community’ and thus YOU!

Each of the twenty-six  counties eligible for TSET tobacco control grants in 2014 are listed below.  They are linked with their respective TSET funding pages that identifies the lead coalition as well as their most recent yearly and cumulative total TSET funding to date.

Coal
End Advisory.
When the political weather heats up, stay tuned to AxXiom for Liberty, we’ll keep you advised.

Gov. Fallin Banishes E-cigs, Promotes Dangerous Drugs Instead

fda approved

Kaye Beach

Dec. 30, 2013

On Dec. 23, 2013 Gov. Mary Fallin issued an executive order (Executive Order 2013-43) banning the use of e-cigarettes or personal vapor devices on any and all property owned, leased or contracted for use by the State of Oklahoma “including but not limited to all buildings, land, and vehicles owned, leased or contracted for use by agencies or instrumentalities of the State of Oklahoma.”

There are many problems with this approach and as a result a backlash is brewing in Oklahoma.

Many are outraged by the action itself apart from the issue of e-cigarettes entirely. Oklahoma is a decidedly populist leaning state and the public generally frowns upon unilateral, un-deliberated decision making such as the edict issued by Governor Fallin in 2012 banning all tobacco use on state property and her most recent arbitrary addition of e-cigarettes (which contain no tobacco)  to the previous ban. It is also arguable that this executive order exceeds the scope of power of the Governors office.

The order becomes effective on Jan 1st, a mere ten days after the governor issued it and despite the order being announced right before Christmas when it could have been overlooked entirely, it has prompted a cadre of Oklahoma citizens (many of whom neither smoke or ‘vape’) to answer the call for an assembly at the state Capitol on Jan. 1st at 1PM to express their disapproval of her unilateral lawmaking and poor reasoning for issuing the e-cigarette ban.

If you want to know more about this event, follow this link to Snuff Out the BAN! 

As of today about 100 (and rising!) Oklahomans have committed to demonstrating their ire with the Governor by showing up at the Capitol on Jan. 1st.  Some of the participants plan to go as far as actual civil disobedience but all will stand in evidence of their disapproval of the governor’s stroke-of- the pen, unilateral lawmaking.

One thing that makes the e-cigarette prohibitions so politically explosive at this time is that the devices are now used widely enough that many people have had some direct or indirect experience with them and have witnessed the benefits.  We have used the devices ourselves or have friends and loved ones, otherwise hopeless smokers, that have succeeded in reducing or quitting smoking with vapor products where all else has failed.  Many have experienced close contact with vapor users and have appreciated the absence of any noxious odor associated with cigarettes and they have shared the enthusiasm of those that have freed themselves from the health burdens of smoking.  We have asked our doctors about using e-cigarettes and have most often been told that ‘vaping’ is far safer than continuing to smoke.

These alarmist statements being made by our public officials regarding vapor devices directly contradict our own experiences as well as defy common sense and as a result, many are beginning to smell a rat. I don’t know if these officials realize it, but their overwrought reactions to the rise in popularity of these relatively benign vaporizing devices is causing them to lose public confidence and personal credibility.

Fallin’s executive order lays out the reasoning behind the ban.  I find the reasoning weak.   A lot of this has been covered in a rebuttal to the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s Public advisory on E-cigarettes which can be accessed here.

One faulty point that Fallin uses to justify the need for a ban is the result of an embarrassing misreading of existing e-cigarette research by the Oklahoma State Department of Health.  Executive Order 2013-43 states that secondary e-cigarette vapor contains formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde?!!.

The actual research that the Oklahoma State Department of Health is basing this claim on (see footnotes for their sources) did show a minute increase in formaldehyde that began when the subjects entered the testing room and BEFORE they even began using the e-cigarette.

In the study cited by OSDH the researchers themselves note that the increase in formaldehyde might be caused by the person in the chamber itself, because people are known to exhale formaldehyde in low amounts”

If you want to know more about this, Dr. Farsalinos, a Greek cardiologist and researcher does a great job covering the actual findings of the German study that Fallin and the OSDH are basing their formaldehyde claims on here

Protecting Public Health?

Governor Fallin, by acting in what may appear to be an overabundance of caution, chose to limit the ability to utilize technology that is already helping thousands of Oklahomans successfully reduce or quit cigarette smoking altogether.  She did this without public discussion or debate and without the input of our elected representatives and she did so even though there is little disagreement among scientists, whether for or against, that ‘vaping,’ is much safer than smoking.

 “We have every reason to believe the hazard posed by electronic cigarettes would be much lower than 1% of that posed by (tobacco) cigarettes . . .if we get all tobacco smokers to switch from regular cigarettes (to electronic cigarettes), we would eventually reduce the US death toll from more than 400,000 a year to less than 4,000, maybe as low as 400.” –Joel Niztkin, MD, MPH, DPA, FACPM, Chair, Tobacco Control Task Force, American Association of Public Health Physicians

As pointed out by The McCarville Report, there is no reason to believe that electronic cigarettes present a public health hazard.  Nevertheless, Governor Fallin implemented this ban under the guise of safety and protection of public health.

Given this fact,  it is interesting to note that implicit in Governor Fallin’s new (and ALL tobacco control) policy that deters smokers from using vapor devices as an alternative to smoking cigarettes, is promotion for pharmaceutical smoking cessation products including Chantix which, unlike e-cigarettes, is actually implicated in some truly dangerous adverse side-effects.

OSDH pushing pharma

(Read the resource page for policy implementation for Executive Order 2012-43 at OK.gov. Promotion of the Oklahoma Tobacco Helpline that recommends and provides pharmaceutical smoking cessation products is part and parcel of the policy. http://www.ok.gov/health/Wellness/Tobacco_Prevention/E-cigarettes_and_Other_Vapor_Products/E-cigarettes_and_State_Property/)

Chantix is FDA approved but does that mean it is safe?

The FDA itself warns that this drug can cause serious psychiatric problems, including suicidal thinking.  In addition a wide range of side effects attributed to Chantix have been reported including cardiovascular events, diabetes and renal failure.   Source  In 2009, the FDA approved smoking cessation drug, Chantix, was deemed to require a ‘black box’ warning on the label to alert users to dangerous possible side-effects.

chantix black box

As of March 2012 there were approximately 2,500 lawsuits filed against Pfizer over adverse effects of Chantix.

How does banishing a product like electronic cigarettes that have no indication of significant adverse effects and instead promoting a drug like Chantix protect the public’s health?

What we are finding when we take the time to research the facts about vapor devices and products, is that something is awry.  E-cigarette bans are not in the best interests of public health. Banning them through executive order is an example of poor policy-making that undermines representative government at best and blatant protectionism for established corporate government partners at worst.