- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I sent the following letter to King County Board of Health
From: Bill Godshall
To: Julia.patterson@kingcounty.gov ; jan.drago@kingcounty.gov ; kathy.lambert@kingcounty.gov ; nick.licata@seattle.gov ; sally.clark@seattle.gov ; richard.conlin@seattle.gov ; MayorDave@cityoflfp.com ; benjamin.danielson@seattlechildrens.org ; bnicola@u.washington.edu ; wsboh@doh.wa.gov ; reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov ; mike.obrien@seattle.gov ; dsherman@desmoineswa.gov ; david.fleming@kingcounty.gov ; Maria Wood
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:29 PM
Subject: BOH should reject proposed e-cigarette usage ban, correct inaccurate and misleading claims, ban sales to youth
RE: Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 (A Rule and Regulation relating to electronic smoking devices and unapproved nicotine delivery devices)
Dear Ms. Wood and King County Board of Health members:
There are many inaccurate, misleading and inflamatory statements in Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 and the accompanying King County Board of Health Staff Report (see below). Therefore, I strongly urge the King County Board of Health to reject or table the proposal, make corrections, and reconsider proposed e-cigarette regulations at a future date.
The title of the proposal and its definition inaccurately state that electronic cigarettes are "smoking devices" despite the fact that they emit NO smoke. The title of the proposal and its definition also inaccurately state that the products are "unapproved nicotine delivery devices" despite the fact that Federal Judge Richard Leon https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 and the DC Court of Appeals (just last week)
http://www.casaa.org/files/ct app opinion on injunction.pdf have both ruled that the FDA doesn't have any legal authority to regulate electronic cigarettes as "drugs or devices". I was one of many public and consumer health advocates who filed an amici curiae brief http://www.vapersclub.com/Ouramicusbrief.pdf in the lawsuit.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that e-cigarettes "have a high appeal to youth due to their high tech design and availability to child-friendly flavors like chocalate and strawberry." In fact, there is no evidence indicating that ANY youth (anywhere in the world) use e-cigarettes or that e-cigarettes appeal to or are marketed to youth. Although these false claims should be eliminated from the proposed rule, banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors (Section 8) and requiring age identification (Section 7), as occurs with all other tobacco products, is sound public policy, and the Board of Health is urged to do so at a later date after corrections to the proposal are made.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that the "FDA has conducted laboratory tests on numerous brands of electronic smoking devices and found that they contained toxic chemicals". In fact, the FDA conducted tests on just two e-cigarette brands, and found one so-called toxin (diethelyene glycol) in just one sample (out of nineteen e-cigarettes tested) at a trace level that posed no toxicity risk. The proposal also misleadingly claims that the FDA lab test found carcinogens, but failed to acknowledge that FDA approved nicotine gums and lozenges also contain identical levels of those same carcinogens (i.e. at trace levels) http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf. Is the BOH similarly proposing to ban the use of nicotine gums and patches in workplaces throughout the county?
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that e-cigarettes "present a substantial risk of nicotine addiction and resultant harm to the public health and safety. In fact, the liquid in e-cigarettes contains less than 5% nicotine and the only two published studies at http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf and http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eissenberg-study-vindicates-e-cigarettes.html both found that e-cigarettes emit significantly less nicotine than cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and even nicotine gums, lozenges and patches. As such, there is no evidence to indicate that e-cigarettes emit enough nicotne to cause nicotine addiction.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 absurdly claims (without any evidence) that "the use of electronic smoking devices in public places and places of employment returns smoking to the public consciousness, and complicates enforcement of the state and county laws governing the smoking of tobacco products in public places." In fact, e-cigarettes are easily distinguishable from tobacco cigarettes because the products come in a variety of colors, shapes and sizes, have different colored lights, and the smokefree water vapor emitted from an e-cigarette disappears within a second. Thus, there is no evidence to support enacting Section 12 of the proposed rule.
Besides, if a new goal of the BOH is to remove public health problems from the public consciousness, will the BOH next propose banning obese people from public places?
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also inaccurately states that "It is expressly the purpose of this chapter to provide for and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by this chapter. In fact, there is no evidence that the use of e-cigarettes has ever harmed or poses any risks to anyone's health, safety or welfare (including users of the products), and the sole beneficiaries of this chapter are intolerant anti-tobacco extremists that have knowingly and intentionally lied to and misled the public in order to achieve their goal.
Regarding the proposed sampling ban (Section 9), if/when the FDA classifies and regulated e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA, there will be a nationwide sampling ban on the products. Regarding the proposed coupon ban (Section 10) and proposed mechanical sales ban (Section 11), there is no evidence that any e-cigarette vendor uses coupons or mechanical sales. As such, I suggest the Board of Health approve the proposed sampling ban on e-cigarettes, while the other two sections appear moot.
In sum, e-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, don't appear to emit enough nicotine to cause addiction, pose no known health or safety risks for nonusers Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled, appear to be at least 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and are easily distinguishable from tobacco cigarettes.
Further, about 500,000 smokers in Ameria have quit smoking or sharply reduced cigarette consumption by switching to e-cigarettes in the past several years, and many/most e-cigarette consumers have found the products effective for quitting smoking and improving respiratory health (which was confirmed in recently published surveys at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf and THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (see chapter 9).
As such, the available evidence indicates that usage of e-cigarettes by smokers substantially benefits both consumer and public health. In contrast, banning the usage of e-cigarettes in workplaces will discourage smokers from switching to far less hazardous e-cigarettes, and may encourage e-cigarette users to switch back to truly deadly cigarettes.
Therefore, Smokefree Pennsylvania encourages the King County Board of Health to reject or table this entire proposal, correct the inaccurate and misleading statements in the proposal, eliminate the proposed ban on e-cigarette usage in workplaces, and enact a new rule to ban e-cigarette sales to minors and ban free sampling of the products.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania or I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.
Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
From: Bill Godshall
To: Julia.patterson@kingcounty.gov ; jan.drago@kingcounty.gov ; kathy.lambert@kingcounty.gov ; nick.licata@seattle.gov ; sally.clark@seattle.gov ; richard.conlin@seattle.gov ; MayorDave@cityoflfp.com ; benjamin.danielson@seattlechildrens.org ; bnicola@u.washington.edu ; wsboh@doh.wa.gov ; reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov ; mike.obrien@seattle.gov ; dsherman@desmoineswa.gov ; david.fleming@kingcounty.gov ; Maria Wood
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:29 PM
Subject: BOH should reject proposed e-cigarette usage ban, correct inaccurate and misleading claims, ban sales to youth
RE: Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 (A Rule and Regulation relating to electronic smoking devices and unapproved nicotine delivery devices)
Dear Ms. Wood and King County Board of Health members:
There are many inaccurate, misleading and inflamatory statements in Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 and the accompanying King County Board of Health Staff Report (see below). Therefore, I strongly urge the King County Board of Health to reject or table the proposal, make corrections, and reconsider proposed e-cigarette regulations at a future date.
The title of the proposal and its definition inaccurately state that electronic cigarettes are "smoking devices" despite the fact that they emit NO smoke. The title of the proposal and its definition also inaccurately state that the products are "unapproved nicotine delivery devices" despite the fact that Federal Judge Richard Leon https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 and the DC Court of Appeals (just last week)
http://www.casaa.org/files/ct app opinion on injunction.pdf have both ruled that the FDA doesn't have any legal authority to regulate electronic cigarettes as "drugs or devices". I was one of many public and consumer health advocates who filed an amici curiae brief http://www.vapersclub.com/Ouramicusbrief.pdf in the lawsuit.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that e-cigarettes "have a high appeal to youth due to their high tech design and availability to child-friendly flavors like chocalate and strawberry." In fact, there is no evidence indicating that ANY youth (anywhere in the world) use e-cigarettes or that e-cigarettes appeal to or are marketed to youth. Although these false claims should be eliminated from the proposed rule, banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors (Section 8) and requiring age identification (Section 7), as occurs with all other tobacco products, is sound public policy, and the Board of Health is urged to do so at a later date after corrections to the proposal are made.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that the "FDA has conducted laboratory tests on numerous brands of electronic smoking devices and found that they contained toxic chemicals". In fact, the FDA conducted tests on just two e-cigarette brands, and found one so-called toxin (diethelyene glycol) in just one sample (out of nineteen e-cigarettes tested) at a trace level that posed no toxicity risk. The proposal also misleadingly claims that the FDA lab test found carcinogens, but failed to acknowledge that FDA approved nicotine gums and lozenges also contain identical levels of those same carcinogens (i.e. at trace levels) http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf. Is the BOH similarly proposing to ban the use of nicotine gums and patches in workplaces throughout the county?
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also falsely claims that e-cigarettes "present a substantial risk of nicotine addiction and resultant harm to the public health and safety. In fact, the liquid in e-cigarettes contains less than 5% nicotine and the only two published studies at http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf and http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eissenberg-study-vindicates-e-cigarettes.html both found that e-cigarettes emit significantly less nicotine than cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and even nicotine gums, lozenges and patches. As such, there is no evidence to indicate that e-cigarettes emit enough nicotne to cause nicotine addiction.
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 absurdly claims (without any evidence) that "the use of electronic smoking devices in public places and places of employment returns smoking to the public consciousness, and complicates enforcement of the state and county laws governing the smoking of tobacco products in public places." In fact, e-cigarettes are easily distinguishable from tobacco cigarettes because the products come in a variety of colors, shapes and sizes, have different colored lights, and the smokefree water vapor emitted from an e-cigarette disappears within a second. Thus, there is no evidence to support enacting Section 12 of the proposed rule.
Besides, if a new goal of the BOH is to remove public health problems from the public consciousness, will the BOH next propose banning obese people from public places?
Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 also inaccurately states that "It is expressly the purpose of this chapter to provide for and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by this chapter. In fact, there is no evidence that the use of e-cigarettes has ever harmed or poses any risks to anyone's health, safety or welfare (including users of the products), and the sole beneficiaries of this chapter are intolerant anti-tobacco extremists that have knowingly and intentionally lied to and misled the public in order to achieve their goal.
Regarding the proposed sampling ban (Section 9), if/when the FDA classifies and regulated e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA, there will be a nationwide sampling ban on the products. Regarding the proposed coupon ban (Section 10) and proposed mechanical sales ban (Section 11), there is no evidence that any e-cigarette vendor uses coupons or mechanical sales. As such, I suggest the Board of Health approve the proposed sampling ban on e-cigarettes, while the other two sections appear moot.
In sum, e-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, don't appear to emit enough nicotine to cause addiction, pose no known health or safety risks for nonusers Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled, appear to be at least 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and are easily distinguishable from tobacco cigarettes.
Further, about 500,000 smokers in Ameria have quit smoking or sharply reduced cigarette consumption by switching to e-cigarettes in the past several years, and many/most e-cigarette consumers have found the products effective for quitting smoking and improving respiratory health (which was confirmed in recently published surveys at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf and THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (see chapter 9).
As such, the available evidence indicates that usage of e-cigarettes by smokers substantially benefits both consumer and public health. In contrast, banning the usage of e-cigarettes in workplaces will discourage smokers from switching to far less hazardous e-cigarettes, and may encourage e-cigarette users to switch back to truly deadly cigarettes.
Therefore, Smokefree Pennsylvania encourages the King County Board of Health to reject or table this entire proposal, correct the inaccurate and misleading statements in the proposal, eliminate the proposed ban on e-cigarette usage in workplaces, and enact a new rule to ban e-cigarette sales to minors and ban free sampling of the products.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania or I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.
Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
