Letters, Phone Calls & Emails NEEDED for NJ

[Our House]

A different angle since the bill is solely selling the "danger" of PG:

Dear Senator,

While I wholehartedly support the prohibition of electronic cigarette sales to minors, I STRONGLY oppose the ban of propylene glycol use indoors. Whether the propylene glycol is contained in an asthma inhaler, Nicotrol inhaler, or electronic cigarette, having to go outside defeats the purpose of using the device in the first place. Asthmatics should not be unnecessarily exposed to the cold and former cigarette smokers should not be forced to join current cigarette smokers when that's the very thing they're trying to avoid.

There is much scientific evidence to support the notion that nobody is harmed by being exposed to propylene glycol -- any more than they are harmed by breathing in substances that exist in everyday air, such as hairspray, perfume or cologne (or *gasp* car exhaust). Even the FDA has listed propylene glycol as "Generally Regarded As Safe." This is the reason why indoor use of DJ, nightclub, and theatrical smoke/fog machines cause no issue for the thousands of people who attend events daily; despite of the high amount of propylene glycol these devices emit. To ban less harmful devices as part of a "clean air act" does not make any sense and only restricts the freedoms of grown adults, and those in need of inhalation treatment, without just cause.

Please consider voting against Senate Bill 3053/3054 in its current form.

Sincerely,

I hope it's ok.

[ski]

Nice one, Our House. Fairly short and to the point but contains way more info than the short message I sent.

[Bill Godshall]

Thanks for reposting correct e-mail addresses for NJ State Senators.

I think it important to urge the Senators to support S 3504 (to ban sales of e-cigarettes to minors under 19) and to reject S 3503 (to ban adult use of e-cigarettes in ALL indoor workplaces). NJ is one of four states that currently prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors under 19 years (the other states are AL, AK and UT).

Doing so can help convince Senators that e-cigarette users and vendors are responsible, and don't want the products marketed to youth.

Although recent news articles indicate that Senate Health Committee approved a merged version of both bills on Monday, I cannot find the actual number of the Committee approved bill. So its probably best to cite the original bill numbers.

Regarding Frank Lautenberg, he's one of two US Senators from NJ. He's not a member of the NJ State Senate (which enacts laws for NJ).

[Charlie58]

Just got this reply so e-mails went through.

Thank you for contacting the 8th Legislative District Office of Senator Philip E. Haines, Assemblyman Scott Rudder and Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego.



Your email is very important to us and will be replied to in the order in which it was received. Please note, due to the high volume of emails we received in our joint office, our response time may be delayed.



If your issue or concern requires immediate assistance, please feel free to call or stop by our legislative office. We are located at 32A North Main Street in Medford or we can be reached by phone at 609-654-1498.

[DaShiVa]

I'm an australian living in texas, but i sent an email to all of them also.

[Kamanjah]

Emails sent. I stole a bit from several other letters and added a few things.

Now it's time to make phone calls!

I am writing to request you to vote no on S3053. I do support S3054, which prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors.

S3053 states:

"Electronic smoking devices have not been approved as to safety and efficacy by the federal Food and Drug Administration, and their use may pose a health risk to persons exposed to their smoke or vapor because of a known irritant contained therein and other substances that may, upon evaluation by that agency, be identified as potentially toxic to those inhaling the smoke or vapor;"

I believe the authors of this bill have misinterpreted the FDA report. In truth, the FDA has done no research nor released any statements on the possible effect of EXHALED vapor, because they only did limited tests on the unvaporized liquid. In fact, the tests they did revealed that electronic cigarette liquid contained a minuscule fraction of the ingredients found in tobacco cigarettes, showing that they do not pose the same risk as tobacco!

There is no smoke, tar, carbon monoxide or other toxins that are created by the burning of tobacco from an electronic cigarette, because electronic cigarettes do not burn anything. This is the very reason that, in spite of the FDA "warning" (released two months after completion of testing), tens of thousands of electronic cigarette users (and more every day) consider the devices to be a life saver and have used them to escape the dangers of cigarette smoke. In fact, there have been NO reports of any illness or deaths associated with electronic cigarettes in the 5 years they have been available and the majority of electronic cigarette users report improved health and breathing.

While the FDA did report finding diethylene glycol, they found less than 1%, in only ONE cartridge and tested only 18 cartridges, from just two companies. Independent testing of numerous other brands have found no DEG. The FDA also reported finding some carcinogens, but failed to report that they found these in TRACE amounts - parts per BILLION - amounts similar to FDA approved nicotine gums, patches and inhalers and even found in some processed meats and tap water.

Using this logic, the use of the Nicotrol Inhaler would have to be limited to smoking areas too, since there is a possibility that nicotine could be exhaled.

Please consider the following statements from medical professionals:

- Dr. Joel L. Nitzkin and Dr. Kevin Sherin, American Association of Public Health Physicians: "We urge FDA to make public the laboratory data behind the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes, along with comparable data on pharmaceutical nicotine products and conventional cigarettes. Then, on the basis of these data, either fully justify or retract the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes." and "It should be possible to save the lives of 4 million or more of the 8 million adult American smokers who will otherwise die of a cigarette-related illness over the next twenty years. This could be done by making smokers aware of selected smokeless tobacco products (including but not limited to snus and electronic cigarettes) that promise to reduce the risk of tobacco-related illness by 99% or better for smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. Rather than discouraging nicotine cessation, however, such an approach, even with no medical intervention, would be expected to triple the rate at which current smokers eventually discontinue their nicotine use." The full letter to the FDA can be found at http://www.aaphp.org/special/2009/20090829LtrDeyton.pdf .

- Dr. David Baron, former Chief of Staff at UCLA Medical Center, appeared in a video about the electronic cigarette, Smoke-Stik: All that's happening is you're heating up a liquid to the point of becoming a vapor. So referring to it as smoke doesn't make sense at all. Therefore, considering it subject to a smoking ban doesn't really make sense, either."

- Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, who also has 20 years of experience in Tobacco Control: "There is no existing evidence that e-cigarettes pose a risk for nonsmokers. The nicotine exposure from the exhaled vapor produced is likely to be extremely small and there is no reason to think that it poses a danger for nonsmokers. But there is certainly no evidence to suggest that it poses a hazard."

- Dr. Carl Phillips, Associate Professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health: "The claim that the trivial amount of vapor would be much of a risk seems ridiculously far-fetched."

- Dr. Brad Rodu, Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville: "Claiming that e-cigarettes are dangerous for non-smokers is about as credible as claiming that air travel is dangerous for people who never set foot in an airplane."

As you can see, banning the use of electronic "cigarettes" in places where tobacco smoke is prohibited has no basis in science and is in direct opposition to any policy truly concerned with public health, which should include anything that dissuades people from inhaling tobacco smoke, as electronic "cigarettes" do. S3053 would seem to be opposed to the mere appearance of smoking, which is a political and moral issue--not a public health issue--and as such, oversteps the boundaries of the legislative process.

There is no smoke from an electronic cigarette. Most people who use electronic cigarettes have completely stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes. Would you require that people who are using the patch, gum, lozenges or inhaler to go to the smoking area to get their nicotine? Of course not!

Respectfully Submitted,

[djdavis75]

Even though I'm from Oklahoma, I sent the following. It was kind of rushed and I'm not the worlds greatest writer by far, but hopefully it's one more voice in support of the e-cig.

Honorable Senator:

I am a resident of the state of Oklahoma but was very concerned to hear from fellow electronic cigarette users about pending legislation in the New Jersey Senate.

Until recently I was a 3 to 4 pack a day smoker, and it was starting to have a serious impact on my health. Since discovering electronic cigarettes only about one month ago, I have almost entirely stopped smoking regular cigarettes, something I was never able to do with patches, gums, or prescription medications. I feel so much better, breath easier, and do not smell like tobacco smoke anymore. I am also no longer exposing my family to potentially dangerous second hand smoke.

I understand there is a strong anti-smoking sentiment with many people in modern society. I would think such sentiment would result in people embracing the electronic cigarette as a much safer alternative for tobacco smokers and they would welcome the lack of second hand smoke. Despite this, I understand people have concerns about the unknown.

I know concern has been expressed regarding the marketing and sale of electronic cigarette products to minors. I personally have not found this to be the case. From my experience electronic cigarettes are marketed as an alternative for adult tobacco smokers and not to minors or persons who are not already tobacco users. I personally support, as I believe many electronic cigarette users do, a ban on the sale of any product that contains nicotine, including electronic cigarettes, to any person under the age of 18. I also have no issue with mandatory warning labels on these products and fines for those who are found to be engaged in illegal sales of these products to minors.

I know evidence exist that exposure to second hand smoke, especially over a long term period, may have a negative impact on the public's health. The burning of tobacco in traditional cigarettes produces a smoke containing many dangerous chemicals, including many known to cause cancer. Unlike traditional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes contain no tobacco, do not burn anything, and produce no smoke. They do produce a light vapor comprised mostly of water and propylene glycol (PG). PG is a substance considered safe by the FDA and used in various products including electronic smoke machines, cosmetics, food products, and medications. This light vapor produced by electronic cigarettes has little or no odor and dissipates within a matter of seconds after being exhaled. It does not leave the lingering cloud of toxic smoke that traditional tobacco cigarettes create. I've personally used my electronic cigarette around many non-smokers and none have noticed any smell, lingering vapor, or ill effects from my use of the device.

My wife has also switched to using an electronic cigarette in place of tobacco cigarettes. She uses her electronic cigarette at work in an office she shares with two other people. Neither of her coworkers noticed any odor, lingering vapor, or ill effects since my wife started using the device at work. As a matter of fact, they didn't realize she was even using the device until she showed it to them and explained what it was and how it worked.

Cigarette smoking was once common in the work place, at restaurants, bars, and many other public places. While evidence has shown the health risk of traditional tobacco smoke, resulting in public smoking bans, no such evidence exists showing a negative effect on the public from electronic cigarettes. Since the ingredients in electronic cigarettes are regarded as safe by the FDA, I see no reason why electronic cigarettes should be subject to the same bans as traditional tobacco cigarettes.

Not only do I believe that electronic cigarettes don't pose a danger to the public, but I also believe they represent a great benefit to society in general. Image the greatly reduced cost of health insurance to employees and employers if smokers switched to electronic cigarettes. Think of the money the government would save with the drastic reduction in uninsured individuals who receive medical care for smoking related disease. Also think of the improved productivity from a healthier workforce who spends more time working and less time outside smoking.

One final thing I would like to mention. Banning the use of electronic cigarettes indoors pushes former smokers right back into the toxic haze of cigarette smoke from which they are trying to escape, putting their health at risk. Additionally, persons trying to stop smoking traditional tobacco cigarettes will have a much more difficult time quitting if forced to stand side by side with those still using traditional cigarettes.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

Sincerly,
David J Davis
Bethel, Oklahoma

[lordmage]

TGWTF has also come out with an e-mail and response letter has modeled kama NJ Ban proposal | TGWTF

i have already sent my e-mails in addition to sending it out for my offline vapers with permission of course

[NJDrew]

Well I like the spirit, but I must say that this is probably in vain. The fact is these bills are politically driven not scientifically driven. These bills are an easy win for the "health and safety of our children". Just one more thing for these politicians to add to their resume. One more useless law to show that they care about us, so we should keep them around. The sad part is that people believe it.

[sachiaiko]

Beautifully written Letter, Mine is not quite as fact oriented, i kinda wish it was now that i read yours :grimaces: Now i'm all worried that my letter wasn't as helpful as i thought it would be. What do you guys think?

PS, i did Fib a tiny bit since i dont actually have my first PV yet, hehe, but i didnt want to imply i was ignorant so :shrugs: Hopefully its a forgivable fib.

Dear Senator,



I wanted to write to ask you to oppose the new bill set to ban e-cigarette use indoors. As an e-cigarette user I have some information that may be of value to you in making a decision that very well could negatively impact ex-smokers on a large scale. I greatly appreciate the time and effort that you have put in for the people, and hope that my letter is helpful to you in casting your vote as NO in regards to this new bill.



It’s really important to know that e-cigarette’s do not put out any noxious fumes when in use, no flame is present, no smoke containing carcinogens are expelled into the air around other people, and the nicotine present in this nontoxic vapor is absorbed harmlessly by the user using the personal vaporizer much the way Nicotine Gum and Patches are used.



The companies selling these devices made a mistake by calling them ‘e-cigarettes’, thinking that would help in marketing, but they are not cigarette’s at all! Smokers who have moved to Personal Vaporizers (what they are calling e-cigarettes) are considered ‘non-smokers’ by the medical profession. Their lungs clear up, they no longer suffer from chronic bronchitis, breathing problems, risk for lung cancer or other cigarette related illnesses. It is important to realize that banning Personal Vaporizers to the ‘smoking section’ will result in placing ex-smokers into a harmful environment that exposes them to second-hand smoke. After just quitting this noxious and dangerous habit, I’m sure you can see why we would not wish to have our health jeopardized simply because the device we are using to stay quit is poorly understood.



Despite the incorrect assumption that Personal Vaporizers are marketed to children as a user and some one who’s purchased these products I can tell you that PVs are not geared nor marketed to a younger population. Actually, it’s quite the contrary; in fact most sites will not even allow minors to browse the products and require you to be 18 or older in order to even be purchased. It seems silly to me that the simple fact different flavors are in production for use with Personal Vaporizers has lead people to believe that the children are a target market – don’t you like the flavor of chocolate, or butterscotch? Wouldn’t you rather taste that then the flavor of smoke that might tempt you back towards a habit you know is dangerous and life threatening? The flavors are marketed for adults of all different sorts. All humans like flavor choices, thats not limited to minors or children, in fact many of the flavors are like Rum and Whiskey, flavors obviously not intended for children, but rather for adults who’d prefer to taste something other then smoke when using their PVs. The addition of flavors simply does not indicate an intent to market to minors, we all love different flavors, in fact PVs could also be used with a non-nicotine juice to help people control their sweet tooth when dieting, there are many other potential uses for PVs that have nothing to do with smoking or nicotine.



I hope you can see how damaging it could be to a person, newly quit smoking, to be placed in an area filled with smokers and second hand smoke simply because the product that they use to quit smoking is poorly understood. You would not force some one using nicotine gum, or the nicotine patch, to go to the smoking section for example, and they are about as dangerous as Personal Vaporizers are to the public. I myself would be heartbroken if I had to engage with other smokers to use a product that has no smoke, no ill or dangerous effects to myself or those around me, no nasty smell, no flame or coal that could burn anyone, and basically is not remotely like a cigarette but for the simple fact it carries nicotine, just like other quite-smoking-aids do.



Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I hope you have taken my information to heart and that you will vote against banning Personal Vaporizers as this would be detrimental to those of us who have quite smoking, and there no harm, smell, or logical reason ban a person using their PVs in public.



Sincerely,



Nicole B. Willmeth,
a happy ex-smoker and PV user, who hopes all smokers move to the safe and harmless PVs in the very near future.