CASAA mentioned in Richmond Register story on Madison County indoor use ban

[Vocalek]

CASAA is mentioned several times.

RICHMOND — In April 2007, the Madison County Board of Health enacted a Clean Indoor Air Regulation that banned smoking in indoor public places.

Tomorrow night, the board will decide whether so-called “e-cigarettes” should be including in the ban.

Because no combustion takes place in an e-cigarette, they produce no airborne particulates, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or other harmful products of combustion, their users and sellers say.

Because of that, the health department should not regulate them as it does smoke-producing products, according to Dr. Theresa Whitt, medical director for a group that calls itself Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives.

Board set to pass ban of e-cigarettes » Local News » The Richmond Register

 

[Vocalek]

If you live in the area of Madison County, KY, I urge you to attend this board meeting tomorrow night.

The health board will hear second reading and vote on the proposed amendment during its bi-monthly meeting in its administrative office building, 214 Boggs Lane, Richmond.

The Agenda for this 7 p.m. meeting can be viewed here: Board of Health Meetings and Agenda

I have a feeling that the Richmond Register reporter, Bill Robinson will be there. He should be the guy taking a lot of notes. If you get a chance to converse with him, do so to let him know what e-cigarettes have done for you.

 

[Demarko]

Did I read correctly that people are using the fact that they are banned on airplanes as "evidence of danger?" Oh please!

 

[Placebo Effect]

Contact info for Board of Health members that I was able to collect -- accuracy probably isn't 100%.


Stuart Tobin, MD -- N/A

John M Johnstone, MD – 859-624-8647 (office)

Nancy M. Crewe – NancyM.Crewe@ky.gov

Dale Barlow -- 859-985-0454 (office)

Kent Clark -- 859-624-4700 (office) (Judge Executive for Clark County)

James Miller, MD – 859-624-0026 (office)

Mary Oldfield, DMD – 859-986-2060 (office)

Michael Oliver, PE – 270-994-1438 (office), 270-753-2993 (office), MICHAEL.OLIVER@KY.GOV

S. Patrick Reister -- 859-623-7481 (CVS pharmacist)

Anthony C. Harris, OD -- 859-623-3358

Philip Runyon -- 859-623-4590 (home) (retired elementary school teacher)

Jack Taylor, DVM – 859-623-7387 (Barnes Mill Animal Hospital)

William Tudor, Magistrate – 859-623-4636 (home or office)

 

[Vocalek]

Did I read correctly that people are using the fact that they are banned on airplanes as "evidence of danger?" Oh please!

Yes, you did.

This proposed regulation is an excellent example of a solution in search of a problem. So far, who has been harmed by being around someone using an e-cigarette? Bring them forward and let's hear from them.

Usually, you propose legislation or regulation to solve a problem that actually exists.

Because e-cigarettes are unregulated, no one knows for sure just what chemicals the liquid contains, said Kelly Owens, the health board’s tobacco Cessation and Control Coordinator.

Why is that a problem? How many cases of e-cigarette poisoning have been reported to the heealth department so far?

Also, the lack of regulation means users cannot be sure of the amount of nicotine or other substances each inhalation contains, she said.

Why is that a problem? How many cases of nicotine overdose from e-cigaretes have been reported to the heealth department so far?

The exhalations of e-cigarettes users “likely ... emit nicotine, propylene glycol, carcinogens and other substances,” according to a study cited by the University of Kentucky College of Nursing’s tobacco Policy Research Program.

Oh? How many brands of vapor did the authors test? Oh, they did not do any testing? Well, then how many studies of vapor content are included in the 24 references to the article? None? Then how can they justify making such a statement?

In July 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “warned of the toxic ingredients in e-cigarettes, according to a page of the UK program’s website, which the local health board includes on its website.

Name these toxic ingredients, specify the quantities, and specify the minimal toxic dose of each.

The websites also cite a 2010 study by Sleiman that found “nicotine deposits react with an element in the air to form potent carcinogens.”

Sleiman studied cigarette smoke deposits. Vapor is not smoke.

People around e-cigarette users are “exposed to third-hand smoke” by inhalation, skin exposure and ingestion,” the web documents state.

How can people be exposed to "third-hand smoke" by a product that does not produce smoke? Vapor is not smoke.

Also, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and The Campaign for tobacco-free Kids all recommend prohibiting e-cigarettes where smoking is banned, according to the health board website.

To further bolster its case for banning the use of e-cigarettes, the health board notes that all U.S. airlines ban their use.

Mommy, mommy! Can I jump off a cliff? All the other kids are doing it.

In addition, allowing e-cigarettes where smoking is banned causes confusion for enforcement personnel and the owners of restaurants and other public places that must conform to indoor air regulations, the heath board website states.

Train your enforcement personnel to use their nose. Vapor does not smell like smoke. Owners can tell complainers, "You can't smoke in here, but you are free to use a personal vaporizer."

While nicotine may not cause cancer, it is a toxic substance that is used as a pesticide and can damage target organs, such as the lungs, Owens said.

Give me a break. Nobody has ever been poisoned or suffered nicotine-induced lung damage by inhaling side-stream smoke from a real cigarette, which contains 10 times the nicotine as a puff of vapor.

However, children who see adults using e-cigarettes may be more likely to try smoking, said Dr. Jack Taylor, a health board member, said when the regulation was heard on first reading.

Oh really? Are huge numbers of children are running out to get a pack of Winston because they saw some stranger using an e-cigarette? A few? Even one?

 

[Placebo Effect]

I put in phone calls to everyone I could get on the phone, and left messages for those who I couldn't reach.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Madison County health board bans electronic cigarettes | Madison County | Kentucky.com

The ban passed 8-1 -- utterly ridiculous. At least CASAA got another mention in the above article.

What's truly appalling is that when they passed their SMOKING ban, there were two 'Nay' votes.

 

[Demarko]

One there's PROOF that ecig vapor doesn't contain nicotine, etc, I wonder how open these ordinances are to legal challenge.

 

[DC2]

And like dominos they shall fall...

 

[Placebo Effect]

And like dominos they shall fall...

Board of Health votes are always going to be hard. Who's going to take a position in local government that is often unpaid and always unglamorous? In a lot of instances, it's people who think they possess some great intelligence that allows them to decide what is best for others.

I'm trying to find out who the lone dissenting vote is so people can send him some appreciation.

 

[cookiebun]

"The exhalations of e-cigarettes users “likely ... emit nicotine, propylene glycol, carcinogens and other substances,” according to a study cited by the University of Kentucky College of Nursing’s Tobacco Policy Research Program."

Link to the study any one?

"In July 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “warned of the toxic ingredients in e-cigarettes, according to a page of the UK program’s website, which the local health board includes on its website."

Link?

"The websites also cite a 2010 study by Sleiman that found “nicotine deposits react with an element in the air to form potent carcinogens.”

Link?

Why mention several websites and studies and provide no links?
Useless twits.

 

[Placebo Effect]

The sole dissenting vote was from Board of Health member Michael Oliver. Kudos and appreciation can be sent to MICHAEL.OLIVER@KY.GOV.

 

[Demarko]

And like dominos they shall fall...

No kidding, especially when they use other people's uninformed, stupid decisions as "proof" that there's harm. Ugh! Personally, I can't believe these ordinances are constitutional. But it would take a business owner to fight them, since they're the ones getting fined - and instead, they just don't allow it in their establishment, which is their right to do ...

 

[Vocalek]

"The exhalations of e-cigarettes users “likely ... emit nicotine, propylene glycol, carcinogens and other substances,” according to a study cited by the University of Kentucky College of Nursing’s Tobacco Policy Research Program."

Link to the study any one?

"In July 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “warned of the toxic ingredients in e-cigarettes, according to a page of the UK program’s website, which the local health board includes on its website."

Link?

"The websites also cite a 2010 study by Sleiman that found “nicotine deposits react with an element in the air to form potent carcinogens.”

Link?

Why mention several websites and studies and provide no links?
Useless twits.

The reporter was quoting from the document on the Madison County Health Department Web site. http://www.madisoncountyhealthdept....cigarettes and Secondhand Smoke EH 112110.pdf

That document was adapted from the one of the same name on the University of Kentucky web site. http://www.mc.uky.edu/tobaccopolicy/KCSP/OnePagers/OnePagerECigandSFPolicy.pdf

After reviewing that document a week or so ago, I became miffed at the fact that only one of the references led to research conducted directly on e-cigarettes, and even that one was not one where the vapor was tested to determine whether it creates air pollution.

• The quote about "The exhalations of e-cigarettes users likely ..." came from an EDITORIAL. It was nothing more than conjecture, as the authors neither conducted research themselves on the vapor, nor referenced any research conducted on vapor.
• The FDA reference leads not to the Lab Report, but rather to the Press Conference on the FDA Web site.
• The Sleiman study is a red herring, in view of the fact that the reserach was conducted regarding deposits on surfaces from cigarette smoke. They evaluated the quality of a couple of brands of cartridges and complained that some of them leaked. What does this have to do with air pollution?

So I wrote a revised document with facts coming from real reserach on e-cigarettes and references to the documenation. http://www.casaa.org/files/E-cigarettes_and_Smoke-free_Policies.pdf

On March 21, I sent a copy of this document to the Kelly Owens at the Madison County Board of Health, and also to Ellen Hahn, the person at the University of Kentucky responsible for the original propaganda piece. So far, I have not heard anything back from them. I have a feeling that neither woman likes to be contradicted.

After we heard the vote, I sent a copy of that email message to Bill Robinson, the reporter at the Richmond Register.

 

[Vocalek]

For the record, here is the text of my email message to Ms. Owens.

Dear Ms. Owens:

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is pleased to be able to provide you with information regarding research on electronic cigarettes. CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives.

The document “E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies” posted on the Madison County Health Department web site (http://www.madisoncountyhealthdept....cigarettes and Secondhand Smoke EH 112110.pdf) contains many inaccuracies. Only one of the sources (Trtchounian et al, 2010) describes the findings of research conducted on electronic cigarettes. The remaining sources include a press release, opinion pieces, and research conducted on smoke. This document appears to be based on a document of the same name produced by the Tobacco Policy Research Program at the University of Kentucky, so I am copying Ellen Hahn on this message as well.

Bullet points in the document regarding the FDA’s testing of 18 cartridges are based on an FDA press conference, rather than the on the laboratory report issued by the scientist who conducted the testing. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

Inaccurate statements were lifted verbatim from the press release, e.g. “they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.” The truth of the matter is that the 8 nanograms of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) found in the liquid of a “high” dose cartridge are no more likely to cause cancer than the 8 nanograms of the very same TSNAs in a 21-mg Nicoderm patch. No TSNAs were detected in the vapor. There was only one potentially toxic chemical found, again in the liquid but not the vapor. However, the quantity of diethylene glycol (DEG) that the FDA measured was 0.01 ml -- thousands of times below the toxic level of 1 ml per kg. Screening for tobacco-specific impurities in the vapor was negative except for a non-toxic quantity of β-Nicotyrine.

When you compare the lab report to statements in the press release, it becomes obvious that the FDA found nothing in the e-cigarettes tested that would endanger health. However, the Agency used inflammatory wording in its press conference to make it appear as though the using an e-cigarette is more dangerous than continuing to smoke. That is egregious behavior on the part of officials of an Agency charged with protection of public health.

Henningfield and Zaatari might suspect that e-cigarettes emit carcinogens, but the scientists who actually studied the vapor have found no carcinogens--or any other harmful substance--in vapor. One such scientist is Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand who has been studying e-cigarettes for over four years. He states, “Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders.” More than one researcher has found that e-cigarette vapor contains only one-tenth the amount of nicotine as a puff of tobacco smoke, and most of the nicotine is absorbed by the user, rather than exhaled.

Slieman’s research was conducted on smoke residue. Including bullet points that imply Slieman’s study results are applicable to e-cigarette vapor is a gross misrepresentation of the science.

In 1990, there were 43.8 million smokers. Twenty years later that number stands at over 46 million smokers. The smoking prevalence statistics and the smoking cessation rates tell us quite clearly that a more effective approach is needed. In “Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addiction: Helping Smokers Who Can’t Quit”, a 2007 report by the Tobacco Advisory Group for the Royal College of Physicians, the authors discuss the relative harm of different nicotine products. They state that many lives could be saved and much morbidity prevented if we recommended that smokers substitute less hazardous alternatives for smoking.

All of the smoking cessation programs in existence today are based on the concept of imposing nicotine abstinence--an approach that does not work for the overwhelming majority of smokers. When used as directed, to wean down and off nicotine, the FDA-approved products have a 7% success rate at 6 months, dropping to 5% at one year, and only 2% after 20 months. (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.)

The success rates reported in surveys of e-cigarette users indicate that the harm reduction approach is much more effective than the nicotine abstinence approach. In studies limited to a single product, success rates of 31% have been reported (Siegel, et al. Electronic Cigarettes as a Smoking-Cessation Tool: Results from an Online Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. http://www.ajpm-online.net/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE3013.pdf).

I’m sure you will agree that a 6-month point prevalence rate of smoking abstinence of 31% is superior to a 7% rate of smoking abstinence.

Now what happens if you don’t limit users to a single product, allow them to find the combination of hardware and liquid that works best for them, and provide advice and assistance by an online community of experienced users? Success rates soar. A survey of 270 e-cigarette consumers (303 before excluding possible duplicates) found that 100% smoked before starting to use the e-cigarette, 92% had tried to stop smoking—63% trying 4 or more times to do so, and 87% had tried pharmaceutical nicotine products. Only 1% reported that pharmaceutical products helped them to stop smoking permanently. How well did the e-cigarette work? Only 3% were using the product in addition to smoking, 15% were using them as a partial replacement for smoking, and an astonishing 82% were using them as a complete replacement for smoking.

Which would save more lives? If a range of 2% to 7% of smokers can quit nicotine altogether, or if a range of 31% to 82% of smoker are able to abstain from smoking but use a less hazardous alternative source of nicotine?

In the case of Smoking Everywhere and Sottera (dba NJOY) versus the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Honorable Richard J. Leon, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stated that the FDA failed to provide any evidence that the products have harmed anyone. Since that opinion was issued, millions more of the products have been sold; and to date there have been zero reports of any serious adverse event. Side effects reported are no different from those reported with use of FDA-approved nicotine products.

Both the lower court and the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have issued opinions that, as long as vendors make no claims that electronic cigarettes can cure or treat a disease, the FDA cannot regulate the products as a drug or drug-delivery device combination under the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. If electronic cigarettes are marketed without health claims, the FDA can use the authority granted under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

There is no evidence that vapor presents any sort of danger to bystanders. In fact the same surveys that report exceptional rates of smoking abstinence with e-cigarette use also report that more than 90% of users are experiencing health improvements. Given that fact, how could the vapor they exhale possibly endanger the health of bystanders?

When continuing smokers see electronic cigarette users staying in a nice, climate-controlled environment while they are exiled outside to the elements, this observation can serve as a powerful incentive. They may think, “Why not give e-cigarettes a try?” Many e-cigarette users at first had no intention of quitting smoking. But once they began using an e-cigarette, they no longer had any urge to smoke.

CASAA has revised “E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies” to provide a more accurate picture of the scientific facts about e-cigarettes. A copy is attached. I have sent a printed copy of this document to members of the Madison County Board of Health. Feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.

Very truly yours,

Elaine Keller
CASAA Vice President
CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

 

[Nicko]

As always Elaine, extremely well written and researched. Well done! Such a tragic pity that poeple like Ms Owens are incapable of seeing the truth. I often despair that maybe this fight is unwinnable.

 

[Vocalek]

The sole dissenting vote was from Board of Health member Michael Oliver. Kudos and appreciation can be sent to MICHAEL.OLIVER@KY.GOV.

As an engineer, he probably brings a very objective and scientific approach to the table. The health nuts, on the other hand, have their prejudices tightly rammed into their little brains.

 

[Jazzgiz]

Hopefully I can post to this thread. I didn't know about this until last night. I found it on our hometown "topix" website. Yeah, sorry...anyway, I posted this in the newby thread. I didn't realize that you had posted this here. I'm late, but I know how some of the people on that board are, personally... Walls are easier to have conversations with, then those on that board.

If there is a lawsuit (which I would be amazed if there will be) I'm going to try and get involved. You have to remember, Kentucky is well known as a "tobacco state" or was, anyway.... The powers that be are making up for lost ground and public accolades. I will be keeping my eyes open from now on, about this.

 

[Jazzgiz]

Sorry, when I said I knew them "personally", I don't mean we have lunch, or anything. They have their reputations...small town, gossip,....some I have seen for health reasons, and quit because I didn't like them...I'm picky.

 

[Placebo Effect]

As an engineer, he probably brings a very objective and scientific approach to the table. The health nuts, on the other hand, have their prejudices tightly rammed into their little brains.

New Richmond Register story -- E-cigarettes included in county smoking ban » Local News » The Richmond Register

Board member Michael Oliver was the lone vote against banning use of e-cigarettes in public spaces by amending the health department’s Indoor Air Quality Regulations.

Oliver, who represents the civil engineering profession, is the only board member not directly associated with a health-related profession. Former magistrate William Tudor, who represents the fiscal court on the health board, happens to be a retired dentist.

Oliver said he had voted against the original regulation because he believed such measures should be adopted by an elected law-making body such as a fiscal court and not by through regulation by an appointed body, such as the health board.

Some members of the audience broke into applause at the comment.

He also said he was “disappointed” the board “would go to the World Health Organization, or anywhere outside of America, to find out if something might be dangerous.”