Originally Posted by JayDar82
WOW... Thanks for the video!!!
No debate, just misinformation...
OHH HOW NYS IS SO MISINFORMED.....
Jason
I think you meant to say Myth-Informed:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...th-information
Last edited by VapoMonkey; 04-25-2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason: fixed link
I'm actually glad for the brief reprieve, as I've been head-spinningly busy and have hardly had time to feed the cat, much less sort out the developments in JC and respond well. (I apologize for wearily misremembering - and misspelling - the name of the representative who I thought I might be able to contact directly. That would be Barb Lifton, and not of course Gillibrand, doh. Lifton's's not on the Health Committee, so scratch that anyway at this point.) Maddening, because I was able to shoot out timely letters re Illinois, where we saw such excellent success.
Anyway, here is a rewrite of the letter that I wrote and sent to Illinois, revised for NY; that one was also filched and sent by some others (no problem so long as it actually is an effective one). If the action isn't actually to happen on Tues, wouldn't snail-mail be more effective than fax? I thought email followed up by snail. I'll send it to the Health Committee in whatever form seems most effective, and will hold until I'm sure no editing is in order:
Dear ________,
I'm a resident of NYS, and am writing in regards to the recent Assembly passage of a bill that would prohibit the distribution of e-cigarettes here. The bill was passed with no meaningful discussion or debate, erroneous statements were allowed to stand uncontested, and input from your constituency in opposition to the bill was not considered. I, and many others, would like to see the bill amended to forbid the sale of this product to minors only, which would be a sensible and sound legislation.
I'm not a vendor of e-cigarettes and have no financial investment in the product.
As this issue is currently being decided through pending litigation at the federal level, I would urge you to remember that items defined as “tobacco products” are currently legal for anyone over the age of 18 in all states. Bills to forbid e-cigarettes have fallen or been overturned in Utah, Maryland, California, Illinois and elsewhere, as legislative bodies have taken more time to examine the issue more carefully. In New Jersey the bill was amended to prohibit use in public places, but there is no ban on sales. NO state currently bans the sale of e-cigarettes to adults. They have come to understand that the proposed bills were unwise and counter to public health. I earnestly hope that your committee will, as well.
The most recent federal ruling on this matter, in Jan. of 2010, which is awaiting further ruling on appeal, declared:
"(The e-cigarette companies in question) have sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has the FDA cited any evidence that electric cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."
In truth, there IS no such evidence. And there is much evidence to the contrary.
(The FDA itself has yet to provide a successful rebuttal. Their initial argument, I think now abandoned, was based on finding an almost untraceable, very minute quantity of a nitrosamine, far below any harmful level, in just two of many e-cigarette cartridges. Nitrosamines are of course abundant in cigarettes, along with the rest of the toxins, and appear occasionally in small amounts in all nicotine - including the patch, nicotine gum, and other products that can be bought over the counter in this state.)
No reports of related health damage among users have been substantiated, although e-cigarettes have been in use since at least 2007. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have reportedly switched. The American Association of Public Health Physicians, the American Association of Public Health Officials, the American Council on Science and Health, and, from a large body of anecdotal reports, it also seems that many e-cig user's private physicians all agree that e-cigarettes are far safer than cigarettes.
No laboratory findings concluding that the parts and ingredients used in e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes exist.
The ingredient that was referred to in Assembly as an "anti-freeze ingredient" is in fact a very common, FDA-approved food additive that has also been used in asthma respirators, cosmetics, and a host of other approved products. The other non-nicotine ingredients are commonly used food flavorings and water. The product can be ordered in various strengths of nicotine, like the patch, all the way down to zero. The many lethal ingredients and effects of smoking traditional cigarettes, on the other hand, are extremely well-documented and need no reiteration here. Please understand that widely circulating misinformation has been almost entirely disseminated by a few small but very vocal total-abstinence groups. These reports are increasingly discredited.
There is also a very substantial and rapidly growing body of persuasive evidence that e-cigarettes can provide a truly desirable and helpful alternative.
E-cigarette users (virtually all of us are ex-smokers, and we are very grateful to be quit of the hundreds of known toxins/carcinogens delivered by burning tobacco and myriad additives) agree that minors should be prohibited from using any nicotine product. In my own avid perusal of many, many anecdotal reports in open, noncommercial internet forums, I have not yet encountered one person who was initiated into nicotine use by e-cigarettes (they are simply not attractive to non-smokers), nor have I heard anyone promote that idea. It's not a product designed to be, or likely to be, attractive to children. (Theoretically it could happen, of course - but so could a child be initiated into alcohol use by tasting their parent's cherry flavored liquor.) Many claims and arguments presented by those opposed to e-cigarettes are hyperbolic, hysterical, ill-informed and/or shamelessly dishonest.
The numbers of persons on those forums who report that their health has benefited by replacing cigarette use is very impressive.
After 3 months use of the e-cigarette, I have stopped wheezing and coughing, my energy is much improved, and my very interested doctor pronounced my lungs and general health very clear and good last week. This report is duplicated in the experience of many.
We're just ordinary people, many of whom who have either stopped or significantly cut down cigarettes and much prefer ecigs for a number of reasons, and we have seen family members and friends do the same.
I was somewhat touched by the report of the Assembly member who acknowledged that he is a smoker and had tried e-cigarettes and that they had not worked for him. I'd like to think that he might have a chance to give it another try - different models work for different people. I'm concerned for his health. Had he succeeded, like so many have, might the bill have passed? In any case, I value his right as an adult to check it out for himself. But, "it didn't work for me" is no more a persuasive argument for banning a product than are specious claims that the product contains mysterious and deadly carcinogens. I hope that you will ponder the well-considered and legitimate objections to this bill instead.
I started using them after 35 years of heavy smoking and quit the same day, as did my son-in law and several friends. My daughter has cut down to 3 cigarettes a day and is heading toward total success. My Mom died of lung CA; I don't take the dangers of smoking lightly. My previous attempts, using gum, patches, and other methods have all been dismal and immediate failures.
I researched this product well before ordering it, and am persuaded that it is of great help to many and an excellent alternative to inhaling tar, tobacco smoke, and the myriad known toxins added to cigarettes.
But whether or not that argument has weight to you, note that to be consistent in its legislation, fair to citizens, congruent with common sense, and protective of the rights and health concerns of its citizenry, the state of NY would have to ban all cigarette distribution in NYS along with this pending ban. If it is passed some people will simply return to cigarette use, and a black market will quickly open.
We hope most fervently that you will sensibly amend this bill to forbid minors to use this product, and to allow adults to decide for themselves.
Please take the time to inform yourself deeply on this somewhat complex issue. Large corporate interests and lobby-choked governmental bodies have the experience, motive and money to override both good law and common sense. Small, very vigorous "prohibition" groups who want the use of nicotine banned altogether do not have avid general support, or the principles of civil liberty on their side.
This is not good bill, on numerous counts.
Sincerely,
...
Is this just way too long, and does it contain any misinformation, or language that'd do more harm than good? I'm still hung up on whether we should be promoting the cessation aspect at all, or just the smoking alternative tobacco-product angle. Is that just at Fed level?? Experts please respond?
Last edited by aubergine; 04-25-2010 at 03:13 PM.
(I know that some members don't believe that tobacco interest lobbies are players in this - or at least one. But NYS has a very well-organized, frequently angry, vocal, well-supported and active Native American population who derive much of their income from cigarette sales. The issue of whether or not the cigs they sell should be taxed has been going around for ages - at this point I believe that they are supposed to be, but that the enforcement is full of loopholes. I do wonder if that is also being weighed in those halls.)
Aubergine,
The anti-freeze ingredient I think they were referring to was the diethylene glycol. Which the FDA reported they had found in 1 of the samples. I think you should point out the ingredient you are referring to is Propylene Glycol, which is also an ingredient in antifreeze. THe PG is used to reduce the toxicity of regular antifreeze or there are pet safe antifreezes with just PG. Ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are the main ingredients used in most antifreeze.
Last edited by r8ross; 04-25-2010 at 04:10 PM.
There is a notice & link to this thread at the top of ECF when you log in. Also one to the surveys. I'm not sure why people aren't seeing it!
Nitrosamines have been found in all e-cigarettes tested that contain nicotine. The key is the amounts found and the fact that they are also found in nicotine gum and patches.
Cigarettes: 11,000ng
Nicotine Patch: 8ng
Electronic Cigarettes: 8ng
Nicotine Gum: 2ng
The toxic "antifreeze ingredient" the FDA found & objected to is diethylene glycol. Diethylene glycol is not a common food additive - it is deadly. You are thinking of propylene glycol. Vapers really need to get this straight if they are writing legislators.
The key here is that it was found at less than 1% in only one sample out of the 18 samples tested by the FDA and numerous testing done by certified, independent labs has found no more DEG contaminated samples.
Being a non-New Yorker, I sent the email from the CASSA site. Thanks for all your hard work.
The PACT ACT takes care of that.
It's visible, but since I've responded I closed and forgot about the notices.
Just posted this up in the general discussion forum. Why did no-one else do this? If we are going to get the message out to people to take action, we must put posts in forums where people will actually see it.
The notices only go so far, I'm afraid.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks