Get Ready for a Fight, New Yorkers

[Vocalek]

Received this messsge today in response to my email of March 17, 2010.

From: Richard N. Gottfried [mailto:gottfriedr@assembly.state.ny.us]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:28 PM
To: 'Ekeller'
Subject: RE: A9529: Prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes

Thank you very much for writing to let me know of your opposition to Assembly bill A. 9529, which would prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors and prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I apologize for the delay in my response.

This bill was introduced in response to an FDA report showing that electronic cigarettes contain several cancer-causing ingredients, and are not necessarily a safe smoking-cessation product. The FDA has not approved the use of these devices as smoking-cessation products, and recently warned five manufacturers not to advertise their products as such.

The FDA has announced its intention to begin regulating electronic cigarettes. I believe that it is appropriate for New York State to prohibit the sale of these products until the FDA has determined whether or not they are safe and effective for their intended use.

I appreciate your consideration in writing to me.

Very truly yours,
Richard N. Gottfried
Chair
Assembly Committee on Health

My response to him:

Will you also outlaw the Nicoderm patch which contains exactly the same quantity of “carcinogens” (8 nanograms) as the liquid in an electronic cigarette? Instead, how about outlawing traditional tobacco cigarettes, which contain over 100,000 nanograms per pack of the same chemicals?

The U.S. District Court has ruled that the intended use of electronic cigarettes is to function as modified-risk alternative to smoking, not as a “smoking cessation” medication. Tens of thousands of New York citizens have already determined that they are effective for this purpose. In fact, across the U.S. nearly 80% of users find them to be an effective replacement for inhaling deadly smoke. Over 90% of users report that their health improved after making the switch.

Before banning these products, don’t you think it would be prudent to ask your constituents who use them to let you know how they feel about having their government insist that they go back to smoking?

May I suggest that you send him an email letting him know whether you have found e-cigarettes to be "effective" and "safe" and how you would feel about having the products outlawed.

 

[yvilla]

I love your response to Gottfried, Elaine.

However, as the Assembly version of the bill to ban has already passed, I would suggest that we concentrate all our continuing efforts in NYS on Senators, rather than on Assembly persons.

Senator Jeffrey Klein, the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, has recently announced his determination to renew his push to get the Senate version of the ban passed when the new legislative session starts in January. (See the Fox news show as posted and discussed here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/134047-foxnews-23-safer-cigarette.html).

 

[JerryRM]

Elaine and Yvilla, I just have to say, out of sheer frustration, that since I have been following this battle for e-cigs, I have not heard any of these self-righteous clowns, acknowledge one single positive statement made about e-cigs. Instead they just keep spitting out the same old anti e-cig propaganda that has been fed to them. I think you would get a better response from a brick wall.

Sorry about the rant, but I just had to say it.

 

[CES]

I received the same anti-e-cig email from Gottfried yesterday....months later and safely after the election.

 

[Crumpet]

For once, I demand that these assclowns offer one single explanation for why they are not trying to outlaw tobacco cigarettes. Just one......but they won't have one.

 

[GregH]

For once, I demand that these assclowns offer one single explanation for why they are not trying to outlaw tobacco cigarettes.

Me too. But to add to it, I not only demand that they offer one single explanation for why they are not trying to outlaw tobacco cigarettes, but to offer one single explanation for why they want us to go back to using them.

 

[JerryRM]

Offhand, I can think of two reasons why they want us back on cigarettes. First, the excise tax revenue that the federal and state governments get and second, to protect the profits that the pharmaceutical companies make, from the sales of their "quit smoking" devices.

 

[TreverT]

For once, I demand that these assclowns offer one single explanation for why they are not trying to outlaw tobacco cigarettes. Just one......but they won't have one.

Well, they do, but not one of them is going to say it. The taxes brought in from sales of traditional tobacco products are gigantic, and are a huge boon to struggling government budgets both state and national. By contrast, ecigs have little taxation beyond standard sales tax, ergo they can be demonized (Letting the politicos look noble) without actually costing the government anything in lost income.

 

[GregH]

Offhand, I can think of two reasons why they want us back on cigarettes. First, the excise tax revenue that the federal and state governments get and second, to protect the profits that the pharmaceutical companies make, from the sales of their "quit smoking" devices.

We know those are the reasons. But I want them to say it as a matter of official public record.

 

[JerryRM]

We know those are the reasons. But I want them to say it as a matter of official public record.

I want them to say it too, but we know that's never going to happen.

 

[oldgoat]

Offhand, I can think of two reasons why they want us back on cigarettes. First, the excise tax revenue that the federal and state governments get and second, to protect the profits that the pharmaceutical companies make, from the sales of their "quit smoking" devices.

One thing no said yet, is that the big tabacco lobby money contributions help sway there feelings about e-cig.
We really need to get the name changed on our PV's, I don't think having Cigs assoc. with our PV's helps.

 

[GregH]

I want them to say it too, but we know that's never going to happen.

Of course it isn't. But that doesn't mean that we can't keep demanding that they do in every e-mail, phone call, blog, online comment, and letter we contribute to. I loved that last line in Elaine's response from the OP. We should all always include something similar in every correspondence to and about these people.

It's a simple concept, really. You want e-cigs banned (whoever you are -- FDA, AHA, ASH, elected official, average anti-smoking Joe on the street), then you tell me why you want me to start smoking cigarettes again. One. Good. Reason.

 

[Vocalek]

Elaine and Yvilla, I just have to say, out of sheer frustration, that since I have been following this battle for e-cigs, I have not heard any of these self-righteous clowns, acknowledge one single positive statement made about e-cigs. Instead they just keep spitting out the same old anti e-cig propaganda that has been fed to them. I think you would get a better response from a brick wall.

Sorry about the rant, but I just had to say it.

Absolutely. I was very tempted to ask this elected official whether he intentionally ignores what was actually written or whether he has a reading comprehension problem. This is my original message to him last March:

After smoking for 45 years, and trying you-name-it to quit, I switched to an electronic cigarette on 3/27/2009 and have been smoke-free ever since. One of the businesses from which I order supplies is headquartered in New York. As written, A9529 would put this life-saving company out of business.

For the following reasons, A9529 needs to be amended to remove the text (lines 37-46) that would make it illegal to sell "electronic cigarettes" in the state of New York to anyone, regardless of age:

1. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have been able to replace all of their tobacco cigarettes with vaporized nicotine from an electronic cigarette.

2. As a result of no longer inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, thousands of toxins and hundreds of carcinogens that are in cigarette smoke, those who have switched are experiencing improvements in their lung health and markers of cardiovascular health. They have also greatly reduced their risk for a variety of types of cancer. See: e-cigarettes reduce cancer risk

3. Electronic cigarettes are not targeted to young people. A University of Alberta survey shows that 87% of users are older than 31 years and all were previous smokers. http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

4. The FDA test report failed to specify the quantity of carcinogens (TSNAs) it found in e-cigarette; however Health New Zealand conducted tests and determined the quantity is 8 ng/g, which matches the quantity found in a nicotine patch. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

5. Approximately 60% of electronic cigarette users would go back to tobacco cigarettes, which deliver a daily dose of 5,5000 to 11,000 ng/g of TSNAs, if electronic cigarettes are banned.

Banning the sale of electronic cigarettes would create a public health crisis, as thousands of former smokers relapse. It would also make these products unavailable as a less-harmful alternative for the millions of continuing smokers. For more information, visit my organization’s web site: CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA)

And his belated response to me shows that he either failed to read or he failed to comprehend what I wrote to him.

This bill was introduced in response to an FDA report showing that electronic cigarettes contain several cancer-causing ingredients, and are not necessarily a safe smoking-cessation product.

Hello? What part of 8 nanograms do you not understand, Richard?

And this statement:

I believe that it is appropriate for New York State to prohibit the sale of these products until the FDA has determined whether or not they are safe and effective for their intended use.

What part of "Those who have switched are experiencing improvements in their lung health and markers of cardiovascular health" don't you understand?

Your logic is that because tens of thousands of New Yorkers have found them effective, they must not work? And because switching results in improvement to the health of those who use them, they must be an unsafe product? Duh?

 

[JerryRM]

Elaine, I wonder if maybe a change of tactics is needed, they obviously don't comprehend logic and truth. They do comprehend the power in numbers, though. The membership of the ECF has more than doubled, since I joined and more people are switching to e-cigs every day. That's why I hand out ECF cards and talk about e-cigs, to every smoker that I meet. I know for sure that I converted one person, maybe more.

 

[Vocalek]

Saw this bumper sticker the other day and hastily grabbed a pen and some scratch paper to write it down:

When injustice becomes law
Resistance becomes duty

 

[JerryRM]

Saw this bumper sticker the other day and hastily grabbed a pen and some scratch paper to write it down:

When injustice becomes law
Resistance becomes duty

That's a great saying, Elaine and very true.

 

[crashinbrn]

When injustice becomes law
Resistance becomes duty

I'm ready to resist, i just wish i lived in NY. i would snail-mail a packet from CASAA to him but i doubt he would even look at it as i am from Texas, and it would be postmarked as such.

as for a new strategy, how about a cease and desist to him directly? but that would take time to get started.
maybe something else along those lines?
he wants to play hardball, a court action may get his attention.

 

[salemgold]

That was a truly great response from you Elaine! I loved it and it is so very true!

 

[HeatherC]

Elaine and Yvilla, I just have to say, out of sheer frustration, that since I have been following this battle for e-cigs, I have not heard any of these self-righteous clowns, acknowledge one single positive statement made about e-cigs. Instead they just keep spitting out the same old anti e-cig propaganda that has been fed to them. I think you would get a better response from a brick wall.

Sorry about the rant, but I just had to say it.

I have to agree. Sometimes I think a brick wall has more brains than those we actually voted into office.

 

[Covale]

I got a similar email today:

Thank you very much for writing to let me know of your opposition to Assembly bill A. 1468, which would prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors and prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA has found that electronic cigarettes contain several cancer-causing ingredients, and are not necessarily a safe smoking-cessation product.

To the extent they are intended to be a smoking cessation device, they should be legal for adults, and would be under the bill, if and when the manufacturers seek and obtain FDA approval, as with other medical products.

I appreciate your consideration in writing to me.

Very truly yours,
Richard N. Gottfried
Chair
Assembly Committee on Health

Here are some issues I would like more information on:

1. Can someone cite the actual FDA study findings he is quoting that show were they found cancer causing ingredients in electronic cigarettes?
2. If this claim is being made wholly due to the nicotine that can be found in e-liquid, how can the FDA determine that the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes is good enough to be FDA approved, so long as the Surgeon General can place his warnings on the packaging?
3. Maybe I am misunderstanding these proposed bans, or FDA seizures, but what is being seized or banned? Anything related to electronic cigarettes, or just the nicotine being added to e-liquid?

Perhaps this is the conspiracy theorist in me, but all of this sounds like the government hasn't figured out how to take a greater share of the sales yet, so they flex their authority where they can get away with it.

I propose that they spend their resources studying the effects of electronic cigarettes, which should lead to the inevitable taxation of nicotine alone. Seizing batteries and other related hardware is like seizing imported tobacco pipes because people could potentially use them to smoke illegal substances.