Campaign to recognise nicotine eJuice as a Schedule 2 Poison in Australia

[soundasleep]

Good evening ECF people!

Quick intro seems approprate so my name is Sana Nolan and I run an educational blog on tobacco usage, and more specifically e-cigs, in Australia. To summarise the situation downunder, e-cig hardware is fully legal (at least, there are currently no laws to say otherwise) and there are also no laws currently restricting e-cig usage. It's just a bit too new for our politicians

The problem we have is that NICOTINE for human use is illegal if not inside of tobacco or an approved/listed nicotine replacement therapy product. Our States get to make the final laws that affect us, though they take advice from the Commonwealth Poisons Standard 2010 document. Nicotine's parent classification is Schedule 7 which makes it illegal to possess in every state. However if used for therapeutic use, then it becomes Schedule 2 which although still illegal to SELL without government approval (basically proof that it's not harmful and a heap of money), it would make it OK to import for personal use. The exact wording of the Schedule 2 entry for nicotine is “aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation” which seems to be a perfect match for e-cig usage.

Fortunately for Aussie vapers only one state (Queensland) has decided that e-cigs are not an unapproved therapeutic product (even typing that seems stupid) and have taken the action of seizing nicotine imports. Although nothing has happened yet in the other states, neither have these state's health departments confirmed the legality one way or another.

So in cooperation with members of the AussieVapers forum we are preparing a grass-roots letter writing campaign to have our right to import nicotine confirmed once and for all.

It's almost ready to roll, but I wanted to ask members of ECF to have a look at both the campaign page and the letters we have prepared, and offer corrections or suggestions on how we might be more effective.

You can find the campaign page (and links to the letters) at my blog SMOKESCREEN.INFO

I thank you all in advance for any help offered

 

[FunkyVapes]

I'm just on my way to work now, but read over your writeup while having a my morning coffee and vape. If your blog is as well-written this page, I'll be sure to enjoy it. I'm going to check everything out on my break this afternoon.

Great reporting, best of luck, and Vape Groovily! (hopefully for a long time)

 

[Vocalek]

It all started with a comment that I left on a news story about the product seizures.

Name : Elaine Keller

Email : ekeller @ casaa.org

Comments : Sophie Dwyer needs to keep up-to-date on medical research. Miss Dwyer, look up these researchers' names: Bullen, Laugesen, Vansickel,Darredeau, Polosa. All have conducted research with smokers and found that e-cigarettes supress nicotine abstinence symptoms without raising BP or heart rate. Have a chat with Dr. Coral Gartner at Queensland University. Look up these names: Etter, Heavner, Siegel, Goniewicz, Dockrell. All have surveyed consumers of e-cigarettes and found that users are successfully substituting them for their smoked cigarettes and reporting their health has improved. In fact, Dockrell of ASH UK found that 3% of UK smokers have made the switch. That's 300,000 fewer smokers in the UK. Wake up Queensland Health. These surveys show success rates of as high as 79%. Contrast that with the patches and gum QH is pushing -- at best a 7% success rate. The Heavner survey showed that 65% of the e-cigarette users had tried at least 4 times in the past to quit, and 21% had tried 10 or more times. Why do you insist on pushing folks into using what's ineffective? Do you still prescribe rubbing butter on a burn?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the paper sent my comment on to the Health Protectorate for a response.

From: HProtSD_dchocorro HProtSD_dchocorro [mailto:HProtSD_dchocorro@health.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 1:36 AM
To: ekeller@casaa.org
Subject: Fwd: Contact Us

Dear Ms Keller

Please find attached a response in relation to your query below regarding electronic cigarettes.

Kind regards

Health Protection Directorate
Postal Address:
PO Box 2368
Fortitude Valley BC QLD 4006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their attachment was the "party line". "Nicotine is a schedule 7 substance, blah, blah, blah". It did not mention any of the issues I raised in my newspaper comment. My response, sent the same day, July 5, 2011

Dear Ms. Dwyer:

Thank you for responding to my post regarding the medical research that has been conducted on the safety and effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic imitation cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to serve as a reduced-hazard replacement for inhaling smoke. Your response, however, did not address the issues that I raised. You stated: "There is no evidence e-cigarettes are effective in helping people to quit smoking" and I responded with the names of scientists who have conducted research.

I was already aware of the fact that nicotine is listed as a Schedule 7 poison on the SUSMP. What I do not understand, however, is why the Australian government allows tobacco cigarettes to be sold, when each pack of 20 cigarettes contains between 212 and 252 mg of nicotine. The prescription Nicotrol inhaler sold in Canada and the US comes with 168 cartridges, each of which contains 10 mg of nicotine (a total of 1,680 mg)[ii].

Why is nicotine considered poisonous when it comes in An e-cigarette cartridge that contains between 6 and 36 mg of nicotine sold in 5 packs (a total of 30 to 180 mg), but the nicotine in cigarettes and prescription inhalers is somehow not poisonous?

The amount of nicotine delivered via these methods varies, but it consistently is smaller than the quantity in the unconsumed product. It has been estimated that a cigarette delivers about 1 mg. of its nicotine. Pfizer states that the 10 mg cartridge delivers 4 mg. of nicotine. Dr. Murray Laugesen (New Zealand) has tested e-cigarette vapor and found that each puff from a 16 mg cartridge delivers about 10% of the nicotine found in a puff of smoke[iii]. Dr. Thomas Eissenberg (Virginia Commonwealth University, US) found that 10 puffs from an e-cigarette did not raise blood levels of nicotine, heart rate, or blood pressure. He did find, however, that the e-cigarette puffing was effective at relieving the distress of nicotine abstinence.

So if you will excuse a pun, I would say that having e-cigarette cartridges declared a Schedule 7 poison is a smokescreen. Whether you realize it or not, by taking this position, you are preserving the profits of both tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture “smoking cessation” products that have an effectiveness of only 2 to 7% when used as directed[iv]. Smokers are advised to stop smoking. They spend their money on a temporary therapy aimed at weaning from nicotine. Drug company profits start. When therapy stops, relapse begins and tobacco company profits resume. Within 6 months, 93% have relapsed to smoking, growing to 95% at one year and to 98% at 20 months. Smokers are told to try, try again. Repeat ad infinitum.

This is a very cruel merry-go-round for smokers. Even worse, smokers are made to believe that they have failed, when in reality, the therapy they were offered failed them. The real problem is that the nicotine abstinence approach is very ineffective.

The Royal College of Physicians studied nicotine addiction extensively and concluded that some smokers may never be able to quit all nicotine use. They also state that alternative nicotine products could provide a safer long-term substitute. Such a practice might benefit both individual and public health[v].

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding regarding the purpose of the electronic cigarette. It was never intended to be a new version of Nicotine Reduction Therapy. It was intended to replace smoking with sufficient nicotine to ward off nicotine abstinence symptoms without exposing the lungs and cardiovascular system to all the pollutants found in combusted tobacco, and to reduce carcinogens to the low level found in pharmaceutical products.

Is the product “safe”? It isn’t a medicine, so it doesn’t need to be proven as safe as a prescription drug. As an alternative to smoking, it only needs to be safer than inhaling smoke. If you had a loved one who had tried numerous times to stop smoking without success, would you prefer that he or she continue on that nasty merry-go-round described above? Or would you apply common sense to the situation? Switching to vapor eliminates the inhalation of tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals that are created by the process of combustion. If the vapor is unsafe, shouldn’t users be reporting serious health problems by now? Instead, 90% are reporting that they breathe easier, cough less, wheeze less, and feel more energetic.

Does it work? Don’t you think that the best folks to ask are those who have actually used the product? Several researchers have already done so.

Survey
# Subjects
Quit Rate

Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, online survey of e-cigarette users.
2217
80%

Dockrell, M. What smokers tell us about e-cigarettes. 12th annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Europe. Bath, UK, 2010.
486
33%

Etter JF. Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:231.
81
63%

Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x.
3587
70%

Goniewicz ML. Patterns of use of electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS) among Polish e-smokers. 12th annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Europe. Bath, UK, 2010.
170
66%

Heavner K, et al. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results of an online survey of ecigarette users, Tobacco Harm Reduction Yearbook 2010.
303
79%

Siegel MB, Tanwar KL, Wood KS. Electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation tool: Results from an Online Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011 Apr; 40(4):472-5
222
31% - 70%

Ms. Dwyer, once again I thank you for taking the time to respond to my initial post. I look forward to your explanation of how the nicotine in e-cigarette cartridges manages to be more poisonous than the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes and medicinal nicotine products—but only in Australia. E-cigarettes have been on the market world-wide since 2004 with no poisonings reported. I also look forward to any evidence you can provide that e-cigarettes with nicotine have proven harmful to users and/or ineffective as a less hazardous alternative to inhaling smoke.

All the best,


Elaine D. Keller, Vice President
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

I. UK Department of Health Smoking Policy Unit. Determination of the fate of nicotine when a cigarette is smoked. LGC Report FN40/M24/01 (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/technicaladvisorygroup/nicotfate.pdf).

II. Pfizer. Nicotrol Inhaler Prescribing Information. http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/uspi_nicotrol_inhaler.pdf

III. Laugesen, M. Ruyan E-cigarette Benchtop Tests. Poster 5-11. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT), Dublin, Apr 30, 2009.

IV. Moore D, Aveyard P, Connock, M, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, Barton P: Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 338:b1024 2009.

V. Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addiction: Helping People Who Can’t Quit. 2007. RCP Publications. http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf

So far, I have not received a response from them. Please note that the quit rates appeared in nicely formatted table, but I have yet to get a table to work within a forum.

 

[Ande]

Elaine is my hero.

Fight the power,
Ande

 

[soundasleep]

Australian politicians don't seem to like to give real responses when they can just send out another canned one.

So far I've received two copies of the same letter from Queensland Health services (one myself, one via a reader and I'd bet it's the same one you've gotten) but it doesn't address two key points:

1. ALL medicines are poisons. In Australia a nicotine inhaler is Schedule 2, while gum and lozenges are Schedule 4. Eucalytpus Oil is Schedule 6 while the flouride in our water is Schedule 7!

2. Our Therapeutic Goods Administration has the Personal Importation Scheme to ALLOW the import of unapproved products for
person usage. The problem is the states can override this decision on any particular product which only QLD has choosen to do despite all the evidence.

The funniest bit is the contact details. CJ Healey is NOT the person so speak to, and the telephone number provided is out of date, it now belongs to a legal firm in Westgarth. I've now spent a week just trying to get onto the right person for comment. I have a blog post about it - "When Health Departments Go Mad"

What a joke...

To make the situation even worse, PayPal has raised a dispute on my account asking for information that I am a non-profit/charity despite their donation button maker saying nothing of these requirements. I've changed the wording on my page from DONATION to CONTRIBUTIONS and am waiting for a response from PayPal on what I need to do next. Hopefully it will be as simple as changing the DONATE button to a BUY IT NOW one, but somehow I doubt it :/

 

[soundasleep]

Everything is sorted and taken care of, and in the tradition of anti-smoking groups having stupid acronyms I'm proud to annouce the official launch of:

Australians Unbiased Support Scientific Information Education About Smokeless products and Health

or

The AUSSIE ASH Campaign.

 

[Vocalek]

Still no response. I'm beginning to think that she doesn't love me any more.

 

[soundasleep]

She doesn't love any of us. We have sent her 14 letters so far as part of AUSSIE ASH and nobody has reported getting any reply back yet beyond 2 local MPs "referring the matter" to Ms Roxon (despite being asked not to).

I'm starting to think the bigger story here is how Australian politicians don't seem capable of reading and comprehension!

 

[cigarbabe]

I don't think any politicians or supposed "Boards of Health" have any useful skills reading comprehension being one of the main problems for these folks.
Let's not forget "common sense" is also not their forte'!
C.B.

 

[VapApe]

Now there is the problem. If common sense were truly common every one would have it.