Let’s Be Real San Francisco Press Conference

By | 2018-02-05T01:10:11+00:00 July 24th, 2017|Categories: Flavor Bans, Let's Be Real, News|Tags: , , , , , |

As previously announced, a ballot committee has been formed to address the "flavor ban" ordinance in San Francisco to force a public referendum. For details on what this means, please check our Q&A. Since that announcement, signature gathering has started in order to get the nearly 20,000 required signatures to file. As of today, that goal has been accomplished!

Let’s Be Real, San Francisco Q&A

By | 2018-02-05T01:10:14+00:00 July 8th, 2017|Categories: Flavor Bans, Let's Be Real, News|Tags: , , , , , |

Over the last few months, Not Blowing Smoke has spearheaded the fight against the local flavor bans in the San Francisco Bay Area along with a wider coalition of consumer, industry and small business partners. We have continued working closely with our colleagues and are excited to jointly unveil the beginning of a new campaign.

Let’s Be Real, San Francisco – Coalition to Qualify Referendum on Flavored Tobacco Sales Ban

By | 2018-02-05T01:10:17+00:00 July 8th, 2017|Categories: Flavor Bans, Let's Be Real, News|Tags: , , , , , |

In the wake of the city’s passage of an ordinance that would ban the sale of most vaping products and e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and other tobacco products, a group of concerned residents, including small business leaders, retailers, adult consumers, and free choice advocates have announced the formation of Let’s Be Real, San Francisco.

How Not Blowing Smoke Eclipsed Still Blowing Smoke

By | 2018-01-31T22:58:06+00:00 March 31st, 2017|Categories: News, Not Blowing Smoke|Tags: , , , , , , |

We love the publication in PubMed titled "Campaigns and counter campaigns: reactions on Twitter to e-cigarette education" as it takes a look at the metrics of campaign efforts between the California Department of Public Health's campaign called Still Blowing Smoke and our response that launched within an hour of it, called Not Blowing Smoke.

Contra Costa County Flavor Ban Health Services Meeting

By | 2018-02-05T01:16:49+00:00 March 2nd, 2017|Categories: Flavor Bans, News|Tags: , , , , |

The meeting over at the C3-PH today was a bit chaotic and I guess what they really mean with "informal" is lots of people all trying to have a say and things being a little... disorganized. There were about 40 or so people there in total and only two ladies from the department. I noticed in the round of quick introductions that none of the body parts (ALA, ACS, etc.) folks were there which I thought was a little odd unless they already had done all their groundwork with them. And, indeed, as I suspected, they have.

Contra Costa County Flavor Ban Testimony

By | 2018-02-05T01:17:36+00:00 March 2nd, 2017|Categories: Flavor Bans, News|Tags: , , , , |

I suspect that any material and policy suggestions provided to you that refer to a prohibition of flavored e-liquid may be a little outdated. Based on the model ordinances, such as those created by Change Labs in Oakland, and often lobbied for by public health organizations, argue that a prohibition of flavored e-liquid is based on preventing youth access to these products.

E-Cig Advocates Respond to Misleading Stanford Research

By | 2018-01-31T19:53:16+00:00 November 30th, 2015|Categories: News, Not Blowing Smoke|Tags: , , , , , , |

A new research paper from Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising, published in the British Medical Journal, raises serious questions about the university’s use of research funds. The paper, authored by Stanford professor Dr. Robert Jackler, makes accusations of “brandalism” – manipulating an existing work to convey a different message, a tactic often used in anti-tobacco advertisements over the past two decades.

Misleading Research by Robert Jacker at Stanford

By | 2018-01-31T19:46:00+00:00 November 25th, 2015|Categories: News, Not Blowing Smoke|Tags: , , , , , , |

It is our opinion that this paper falls far short of both BMJ and Stanford’s long history of producing and publishing fine research both in the tobacco control field and many other areas of medicine. Due to myriad inconsistencies, significant factual errors and material misrepresentations, Not Blowing Smoke requests that this paper be retracted in its entirety.