Dear Senator,
It has been brought to my attention that there is currently a proposed bill in which the definition of smoking is to include "electronic cigarettes." While I agree completely that electronic cigarettes should not be sold to minors, considering electronic cigarettes to be the same as smoking tobacco would place more people in harm's way than not.
The proposed bill 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 completely 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 tar, carbon monoxide nor most of the other toxins that are created by the burning of tobacco, because there is no burning in electronic cigarettes. This is the very reason that, in spite of the
FDA "warning," 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 reportedly found no DEG and it is thought to have been a contaminated sample by many people. The
FDA also reported finding some carcinogens, but failed to report that they found these in TRACE amounts - parts per BILLION - amounts so low that they could also be found in the same levels in some processed meats and even
FDA approved nicotine gums, patches and inhalers.
In a report released by Health New Zealand, who did extensive research on electronic cigarettes (and found no diethylene glycol), they found that there is no cause for concern about the possibility of "second hand vapor":
"Cigarette smoke is a mixture of sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke. In constrast, the e-cigarette generates no sidestream smoke from its (artificially lit) tip. Any exhaled
PG mist visibly dissipates to vapor within seconds. Non-smoking bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant. The mist is odorless, and those close by quickly realize it does not have the odor of smoke or the irritating quality of tobacco cigarette smoke.
Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed 6, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO. (see Figure 3.5) Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the
PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders.
The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit – and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke."
(
http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ex...ety-report.pdf)
Does this sound like something that would bother anyone? Just because it "looks" like a cigarette does not mean it is. It is about as far from a tobacco cigarette as a Nictrol inhaler is. This is purely a knee-jerk reaction of people to something new and unknown. Just because something "may" cause a reaction is not a reason to put electronic cigarette users back into the KNOWN dangers of second hand smoke exposure!
By requiring electronic cigarette users to move into smoking-only areas or be outside with other smokers, you are not doing anything to protect your constituents, as they were never in any danger of any "second hand vapor" in the first place. In fact, you are placing your non-smoking, electronic cigarette using constituents directly into the path of the second hand smoke that they are trying to get away from.
By all means, limit the sale of electronic cigarettes to legal adults, but I strongly urge that you place aside this other part of the bill for now, until you have truly educated yourself about electronic cigarettes and before you place your non-smoking, electronic cigarette constituents in harm's way.
Please consider your vote on this bill very carefully. If you vote yes, you "may" be protecting some people from "possible" danger, but you will DEFINITELY be putting thousands of electronic cigarette users right back into the KNOWN danger of tobacco smoke.
Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh,
Secretary
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Letters, Phone Calls & Emails NEEDED for NJ
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RatRacer
Bookmarks