Help me respond to King county Email.

[Dandith]

I emailed the list and got a response from Sally. I would like to respond but would like some avenues to take other then, "You're a bunch jack asses." (Personally I think the government doesn't want you to quite smoking it's their cash cow). But here is her response anyone got any ideas to get through a thick headed political person.


Hi, Adrian –

Good job on your journey to quit smoking. So many people fail for different reasons. It’s great that the e-cigarettes are moving you along the spectrum.

Quick clarification. I think the proposed action for the Board of Health to consider would be matching up the rules for how you buy and where you can use e-cigarettes to be the same as for the real ones. Testing on the vapor varies from product to product and may contain some trace chemicals in addition to the core chemical – the addictive nicotine. It’s still a problem in terms of people getting addicted to the substance the e-cigarette delivers and the look of the e-cigarette makes enforcement a real challenge.

So, I think you’d still be able to readily find e-cigarettes, but the Board would make it so kids can’t legally buy them and you’d still have to cease (or not vape) in the usual public places.

Sally

 

[Thulium]

Dandith, are you available to attend the public hearing on this tomorrow?

 

[mauzey]

I would respond with the truth, many people vape no nicotine. as well as the fact that they should not ban anything based on perception of danger to others, rather than the real danger to others... None proven.

 

[Dandith]

My kid starts school at 9:30 so it would be hard and really Late at best.

 

[t9c]

Well, I might be a little smartypants saying this, but since Sally seems to believe that nicotine is sooooo bad for you, I would ask her if she would have any objection to you using the patch or gum to quit analogs. If she listens to herself at all, she will understand the gist.

 

[Vocalek]

The vapor has been tested by many different labs and no lab has found enough "trace chemicals" in the vapor to create a health hazard. Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand found "In Ruyan V8 e-cigarette mist tested for over 50 priority-listed cigarette smoke toxicants so far, no such toxicant was found. Ruyan® V8 nicotine e-cigarette users do not inhale smoke or smoke toxicants. The modest reductions recommended in 2008 by WHO’s Tobacco Regulation committee for 9 major toxicants in cigarette smoke, in line with Articles 9 and 10 of the FCTC (WHO Framework Convention Tobacco Control treaty), are already far exceeded by the Ruyan® e-cigarette, as it is free of all accompanying smoke toxicants." Regarding nicotine, Health New Zealand wrote, "A 35 mL puff from the Ruyan® V8 delivers only 10% of the nicotine obtained from a similar puff of a Marlboro regular cigarette. The nicotine dose and particle size are too small to ensure deposition in the alveoli or bronchioles and rapid nicotine absorption as in cigarette smoking."

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

Although the FDA fussed about finding a quantity of "carcinogens" in the liquid that was no larger than the amound found in an FDA-approved nicotine patch, health professiona should take note that when the FDA tested the vapor (the form in which the product is actually used), they found no harmful ingredients: "Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative."

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

The research lab Analyze was hired by Sotterra for the specific purpose of determining whether there are carcinogenic TSNAs present in the vapor. Their report was reviewed and evaluted by the Ben Thomas Group. They concluded:

In summary, of the four TSNAs evaluated by ANALYZE, only NAT was detected at low levels in the aerosol samples from the NJOY electronic cigarettes. NAT was tested by Hoffman et al. (1984) and was shown to be non-toxic and noncarcinogenic in rats receiving a combined subcutaneous dose of up to 9 mmol/kg. Based on the above, there is no evidence that carcinogenic TSNAs are present in the aerosol from NJOY electronic cigarettes.

http://www.casaa.org/files/Study_TSNAs_in_NJOY_Vapor.pdf

Can the King County Board of Health explain why they feel it is a good idea to send former smokers to the smoking area to inhale second-hand smoke?

 

[Bill Godshall]

The King County Board of Health proposal is at:
King County Board of Health meeting agenda

I sent the following letter to board members, and sent a copy to city council.

----- Original Message -----
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@kingcounty.gov
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

 

[clark8876]

Can the King County Board of Health explain why they feel it is a good idea to send former smokers to the smoking area to inhale second-hand smoke?

I think this is a very good point, the Board of Health is placing vapers in direct danger by making them go to the smoking areas. I gave up the smokes so that I would avoid all the toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke. This law will send vapers straight back into the smoke.

 

[Brutus Buckeye]

Bill, that was an amazing letter! Dandith, I think you can use a lot of points from that along with some of the info from Vocalek to make your points with Sally.

 

[reverendg]

Here are several emails sent by my wife and I as well as a biochemist friend of ours.


You can use this text or tweak it or whatever but put it up on the forum and send it as an editorial to as many NW publications as possible. Encourage everyone to write. Letters can be emailed to Maria.Wood@kingcounty.gov

If they vote to ban, I will contact the Attorney General.

Here's the letter:


Once again, we’re faced with a binding regulation from bureaucrats who failed to do a cost/benefit analysis and failed to consider the unintended consequences of their ill-considered decisions.



Here are the benefits of electronic cigarette use:

* They help people quit smoking tobacco cigarettes
* They don’t smell and there are no second-hand effects
* There are no ashes or butts
* They’re often used without nicotine
* Many models don’t even look like cigarettes anymore
* Fewer people will die from tobacco smoking related illnesses
* Nobody will die from puffing on an electronic cigarette



Here are the potential costs:

* According to the King County Board of Health, children may feel encouraged to buy and try.



Oh, the horror!! Kids might try something that won’t destroy their lungs!



If your only argument is that kids may be tempted to try them, then let’s ban cars because some kids may be tempted to drive without a license. How about sex? Let’s ban because kids might want to try that! Oh, wait ... And by all means, you should ban alcohol immediately for the same reason.



The very idea that it is necessary to regulate the activity of all adults in order to prevent potential abuse by children is absurd. And how has that worked out for kids anyway? How about that teen pregnancy thing, eh? And how about all those teen alcoholics?



Finally, let’s consider the hypocrisy of this decision. On your own website, the use of nicotine inhalers is encouraged as an option to help quit smoking cigarettes. What do nicotine inhalers look like? Why, they look like cigarettes!



Ultimately, this is not your decision to make. Your choice to “rule” on this matter is an indication of your failure to remember who you really are. You are public servants, not nannies.



Sincerely,



"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis


King County Board of Health members,



I'm writing in regard to the proposed ban of electronic smoking devices in today's agenda item, R&R No. BOH10-04. I urge you to reconsider banning these items.

I am a child of 45-year smoker. My father had to undergo major health issues before he acquiesced to a stringent, clinic-based recovery. He had attempted to quit countless times before and couldn't do it. I believe electronic smoking devices would have helped him quit sooner, and I have friends who have benefitted from these items--finally nonsmokers after decades of fighting to quit. These devices do help, and as an increasingly intolerant nonsmoker, I don't mind them even in restaurants! They are usually odorless or have a pleasant aroma.



Here are the benefits of electronic cigarette use:

* They help people quit smoking tobacco cigarettes.
* They don’t smell, and there are no second-hand effects. (If an aroma is added, it is pleasant.)
* Fewer people will die from tobacco smoking related illnesses
* There are no ashes or butts, which eliminates the need for ash trays and bins.
* They’re often used without nicotine, which helps smokers with the physical habit of smoking.
* Many models don’t even look like cigarettes anymore.
* Nobody will die from puffing on an electronic cigarette.



Here are the potential costs:

* Continued tobacco-smoking related illnesses, including second-hand smoke effects to nonsmokers.
* Continued monitoring and campaigns against smoking in minors.
* Reduced luxury/penalty tax revenue.



On your own website, the use of nicotine inhalers is encouraged as an option to help quit smoking cigarettes. So, voting to ban them seems a strange contradiction.



As members of team representing the best interests of your constituents, you are entrusted to advise and recommend, not restrict, lawful privileges. As tobacco use is harmful and you've already recommended a viable, more healthful solution, I hope you stand firm and continue to support these items' lawful use in our county.


feel free to copy and paste, or change these emails anyway you'd like , but let's fill their inboxes.

 

[Dandith]

I sent Vocalek's letter verbatim. Thank you so much for that, I did add some local talk at the top. I would love to go but I just can't make the time. But I can make the time to be the first arrested for it.

 

[mauzey]

I sent Vocalek's letter verbatim. Thank you so much for that, I did add some local talk at the top. I would love to go but I just can't make the time. But I can make the time to be the first arrested for it.

Lets not get crazy, we still have to keep our jobs

 

[Vocalek]

I sent Vocalek's letter verbatim. Thank you so much for that, I did add some local talk at the top. I would love to go but I just can't make the time. But I can make the time to be the first arrested for it.

You're very welcome.

Feel free to reuse text from any of the CASAA publications (just do not change the meaning!). You can also print them to hand to or send to your legislators and your doctor. The following can be downloaded at no cost.

CASAA Medical Infograph (aimed at health professionals) - http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA Medical infograph(4).pdf
CASAA Trifold e-cigarettes brochure - http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA-Ecig-TriFold-Brochure.pdf
CASAA Position Statement - http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA Position Statement.pdf
Are electronic cigarettes safe? l - http://www.casaa.org/files/Are Electronic Cigarettes Safe.pdf
Infograph on e-cigarettes with link to petition: http://www.casaa.org/files/E-Cigarettes_Petition.pdf
CASAA Legislative packet - http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf


CASAA Business Cards can be purchased at cost: ProductCart shopping cart software - CASAA
The cards contain a list of benefits of e-cigarettes on the back side.

 

[Brutus Buckeye]

Awesome information Vocalek!

 

[kristin]

If anyone wants to listen to what happened at the Board meeting today, I've posted CASAA's recording of it (and an excerpt of Thad's testimony, too) http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...had-marney-speaks-before-king-county-boh.html

 

[Dandith]

My "After the fact" response to Vocalak wonderful response.
H again, Adrian –



I think the big motivator for the ban on using e-cigarettes in public places boils down to the image and attractiveness of smoking overall. Over the past couple of decades great strides have been made in being much more honest about the health impacts of tobacco. That work has included trying to diminish the “cool” factor associated with cigarettes. That’s been great and we’ve seen some progress in terms of smoking rates. The argument I found compelling was that the image of smoking being acceptable is a problem. The e-cigarette may very well be a useful “harm reduction” tool. However, having e-cigarette use proliferate as an entry for new smokers/vapers could make for new smokers of real cigarettes, as well as lead to broader acceptance of the act of smoking. More people smoking means more primary health problems and secondary smoke impacts. There are several studies out testing e-cigarette vapor and almost show variable degrees of nicotine and trace chemicals even among different samples of the same brand.



Given the range of actions we’re seeing around the world, I think the King County Board of Health chose a reasonable path. Instead of banning what might be a useful product (as have several countries (including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and more), we’ve focused on restricting access to adults only, restricting access to free or reduced-priced e-cigarettes via coupons, and minimizing the attractiveness of smoking as an activity.



In reality, I figure these new rules last only until the FDA takes a formal action to ensure the safety of the ingredients in the e-cigarette chambers. The big question is how long that will take.



Sally

 

[clark8876]

Instead of banning what might be a useful product (as have several countries (including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and more),

Dandith, I can assure you that Australia has not banned ecigs. Only nic liquid is banned from being sold in Australia, but we are still allowed to purchase the nic liquid (so we buy it overseas).

Also, I believe New Zealand is even more relaxed. I know a friend of mine purchased an ecig from a pharmacy in NZ while visiting and it included cartridges containing nicotine. (Kiwi's, please confirm?)

As far as being banned from workplaces, I'm in my office vaping as I type.

 

[kristin]

This is the statement CASAA wrote for Thad's presentation to the King County BOH (we had only 2 minutes):

My name is Thad Marney, here to represent the members of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association. CASAA is a non-profit organization and is not financially affiliated with any tobacco or electronic cigarette companies.

CASAA is deeply concerned about portions of the Proposed No. BOH10-04.1 regulation relating to electronic cigarettes. First, let me be clear that CASAA strongly supports banning the sales of these products to minors. However, additional regulation restricting the use of these products by adults in public and work places would have a severe, NEGATIVE impact on public health. Allowing the indoor use of these products will clearly send a POSITIVE message, not a negative one. Youth will see adults who eschew smoking cigarettes and are choosing a reduced harm alternative. Smokers will see that there is a smokeless alternative available that can keep them from going outside to smoke. Non-smokers will not have to walk through smoke and cigarette butts outside establishments. E-cigarette users who have managed to eliminate their exposure to tobacco smoke will not be forced into smoke-filled smoking areas.

If smokers are encouraged to switch to smokeless products such as e-cigarettes, by allowing their use in public spaces, exposure to toxic smoke will be greatly reduced for both smokers and non-smokers alike. In contrast, treating e-cigarettes the same as tobacco cigarettes will simply encourage smokers to keep smoking. Additionally, the ability for adult smokers to sample e-cigarettes in the store has been shown to greatly increase the likelihood that they will switch from smoking to using e-cigarettes.

Proponents of this regulation argue that indoor use of e-cigarettes will be confusing to patrons, encourage smokers to light up and create difficulties enforcing the current indoor smoking ban. While this may SEEM to be true, including smokeFREE products in a SMOKING ban will only serve to INCREASE confusion, but if the Board focuses on educating the public about e-cigarettes, the public will quickly learn the difference and confusion will be minimal. Additionally, due to the lack of lingering odor and cigarette ashes or butts, proving non-compliance for e-cigarettes would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Others will argue that e-cigarettes pose a risk to youth and bystanders. In fact, testing by the FDA and several researchers and labs has found nothing to support this claim. The FDA testing did find tobacco-specific nitrosamines in some of the two brands they tested, but they found them to be at the same levels found in FDA-approved nicotine patches. The only chemical of concern they found was a tiny amount of diethylene glycol in one out of 18 liquid samples and it was at a very low, non-toxic level, moreover there was nothing toxic nor carcinogenic found in the vapor itself. Compared to tobacco cigarette smoke, testing by the FDA and other known researchers has shown e-cigarettes to be extremely low in carcinogens, do not contain toxic levels of any chemical and deliver lower doses of nicotine than many FDA-approved nicotine products.

In conclusion, there is just no evidence that these products would be of any danger to the public. On the contrary, an article published today in the Journal of Public Health Policy argues that QUOTE electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate. END QUOTE
I’m giving you a copy of this article for your review, as well as sample door decals to help establishments to distinguish e-cigarettes from tobacco cigarettes.

Public policy and rules for behavior should be based upon scientific evidence and not reliant upon misinformation and conjecture. CASAA strongly urges the Board of Health to support harm reduction in public health by either striking sections nine B and twelve from this proposal or re-examining the entire proposal before committing to a vote. The greater implications of this proposed regulation should not be taken lightly.

Thank you.

 

[rothenbj]

This is a good read of what just happened in King County from across the pond.

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

 

[Dandith]

It really comes down to money. The Government here collects 3+ dollars a pack, they don't want anyone to quit.

But I am crafting an evil plan to make some waves. 100% legal maybe a little spammie to start since I'm so new here. But it will be Fun as hell and I will follow the rules ... I just have to learn them first.