Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

[Lalesa]

Didn't see this posted anywhere. From yesterday's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
(California)

E-cigarette tests urged by advocates; Governor refuses to sign ban - DailyBulletin.com

E-cigarette tests urged by advocates; Governor refuses to sign ban

Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 10/14/2009 04:29:54 PM PDT


Advocates of electronic cigarettes are urging opponents of the product to seek more health tests before they try to ban them. They are also praising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent decision not to veto a bill that could have banned the sale of the product in the state.
The typical electronic cigarette mimics a real cigarette but is not lit and does not produce any smoke. It allows users to puff on it to produce heated nicotine mist.
"It doesn't make sense to try and take a product that does not have carbon monoxide or tar and remove it while the product that is known to kill is not banned. We're happy that common sense has prevailed," said Matt Salmon, president of the Washington D.C.-based Electronic Cigarettes Association.
A significant difference between the electronic cigarette and actual tobacco is that it allows users to modify their levels of nicotine, said Gregory Puetz of Fontana.
For more than a year, Puetz has been independently selling the product because he feels it is a viable alternative to tobacco.
"I'm not against regulation and making sure it doesn't get to the under-aged," he said. "It allows (smokers) to decide what they want to do."
For Salmon, a former Arizona state senator, the driving forces behind the bill were special interest groups and the tobacco industry, which may have felt that electronic cigarettes could pose a threat to tobacco sales.
"Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every
year. We haven't had any single (electronic) cigarette that has harmed someone's health," he said. "It makes one wonder what the motivation is."
Salmon said he wouldn't mind if the lawmakers tried to rewrite the bill so that it regulates the age of users, which he said was the original intent of the bill.
But Salmon said he knows the medical field is split on the product.
The product has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the World Health Organization.
WHO has said there is a need to strengthen global tobacco product regulation on products such as electronic cigarettes.
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is disappointed in the governor's veto, said Annie Tegen, senior program manager for the Berkeley-based advocacy group.
"We don't believe these products are safe, and we see it as a valid health concern," Tegen said.
In July, the FDA released a preliminary study which found that the product contains carcinogens, she said.
But in order to fully understand the health implications of smoking electronic cigarettes, more research needs to be conducted, Tegen said.
Despite the insufficient amount of testing, Tegen said the organization believes the electronic cigarette should not be considered as a substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes and is concerned about the risks of inhaling second-hand smoke from the electronic version.
For that reason, Tegen said users of the "e-cig" should not smoke it indoors.
Puetz said he thought the bill was bad policymaking from legislators, due in part to misinformation about the product.
Both Puetz and Salmon said they have become advocates for the industry because they feel it's a viable alternative.
The governor's decision could have implications nationally, Salmon said.
"California policy has always been a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the country," he said. "A lot of national policy starts in California and this will send a message to the rest of the country."

 

[yknotagain]

Great article!

 

[DC2]

Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is disappointed in the governor's veto, said Annie Tegen, senior program manager for the Berkeley-based advocacy group.
"We don't believe these products are safe, and we see it as a valid health concern," Tegen said.

I can understand not being sure whether or not they are safe, but to not believe they are not safe means someone either has an agenda, or is sucking on the teat of ignorance.

 

[gammax]

I'm an Radiology technologist(ie xray tech) that happens to live in the Inland valley, I see the evidence of smoking, everyday. I think it is laughable that cigarettes are not banned while they are trying to ban ecigs. I have walked into many smoke shops asking about if they have any ecig products. Most of the time I get the response of how dangerous they are and that FDA has banned them. I just stair blankly and start laughing. I just think how Ironic it is for them to say such a thing, when they sale something much more dangerous.

As far as testing for ecigs, I am all for that, to see if there are any indications of health risks. Well besides the known effects of nicotine. So far the reports from the FDA have shown me that there is no more risk then eating a good steak. FYI there are over 200 different carcinogens in a steak cooked to medium well.

I am a long time smoker, and I have only had 3 cigarettes in the month and a half I have been using my ecig. and I just had them when my ecig ran out of charge. I found that I really only needed to smoke half of one. So beyond cutting out the really harmful thing in cigarettes, I need less nicotine. but I really hate to think what will happen if ecigs get banned. I view them as a great tool to actually quit not just to just a replacement of cigarettes. I feel ecigs well get me to quit in the long run. Especially since I can use the 0% nicotine ejuiice when I done quit and need a smoke when I have a couple to drink.

I feel as an vapor user we should still be respectful to non smokers and treat them like cigarettes in regards to where laws ban smoking Because the vapor does still contain nicotine.. Try to follow the spirit of the law. I still think there are a few places suck as the beach where it is OK to use ecigs like say beaches. Where the law is to prevent litter, which I remind you cigarettes butts are the number one litter in the US. I know this is crazy but we as ecig users need to stop and think is this an ok spot to use my ecig and why. Not just its hasn't been banned by current laws like cigarettes but would this effect or disrespect others.

Overall my option is that Ecigs are a good thing. But do need to be studied for the long term effects. As well as ecig users need to respect and educate others about them.

 

[rothenbj]

I feel as an vapor user we should still be respectful to non smokers and treat them like cigarettes in regards to where laws ban smoking Because the vapor does still contain nicotine.. Try to follow the spirit of the law..

I'm curious about your statement above. I should have probably included the next statement about the beach because it plays into my question also.

What makes you feel that, as a vapor user, you should follow the smoking bans? The bans were put in place because of the effects of second hand smoke, not vapor. As far as beaches and such outside locations, a lot of the reasons for banning smoking has nothing to do with second hand smoke or, as you suggest, littering. It's more oriented toward the fact that non-smokers don't like to see smokers smoking.

I've been vaping in no smoking locations for about two months with not even a bit of negative reaction. In fact, I've stood talking to some hard core non-smokers about the e cig and they've had only positive reactions.

I personally prefer to bring it out in the open and have intelligent conversation about the product. The more knowledge you distribute the less enemies you'll have as this thing moves forward.

I just had a non-smoker hit me with the more dangerous than cigarettes thread (I know he'd like to get his dad off cigarettes). I explained what is known about PG and the ingredients in the e cig and all the tobacco ingredients that are not. I also explained the bad press the FDA distributed. He got it.

 

[gammax]

What makes you feel that, as a vapor user, you should follow the smoking bans? The bans were put in place because of the effects of second hand smoke, not vapor.

Well to be perfectly honest the vapor that we breath out( the simulated smoke) still contains nicotine. Which we know is a poison(in higher quantities) and is highly addictive. Frankly I would not want to subject other people to that. So I error on the side of caution, and don't do it where I think it will effect others. Which means most of the places the law bans smoking.

Now if you are using the ecig with no nicotine, by all means use where you like, though I feel there are a couple places or situations that would be inappropriate. (eg in the movies, or an elevator) After all it is just a flavored mini fog machine at that point. Go nuts. but I doubt many of the vapor users are using the no nicotine eliquid or carts.

As far as educating the public about ecigs or vaporizers or what ever you want to call them. I like mini fog makers. I'm almost always puffing on mine and passing on my knowledge to others, smoker and non smoker alike.

BTW my favorite thing to do is take puff and then put the LED end on my forearm as if I was put it out. Trips people out every time. And normally starts the ball rolling on informing people.

Another is put it in my shirt pocket.

 

[ladyraj]

From the article:
"For that reason, Tegen said users of the "e-cig" should not smoke it indoors."

This was the very first stance taken against cigarettes...and you see where that ended up! Don't buy in to their spin, it will bite you in the back-side with out a thank you for the feeding.

 

[TropicalBob]

Note that you can asphyxiate by putting a plastic bag tightly over your head and breathing your own exhaled breath -- without vapor or smoke involved. You therefore exhale poison -- in sufficient quantity.

Health New Zealand tests concluded 98% of the nicotine in inhaled vapor is absorbed. So a very, very minute amount is exhaled.

I certainly don't consider that a public problem. The real problem is perception! There was wording the other day in a legal proposal that said in essence "children should not be exposed to people pretending to smoke." Therein lies the problem we cannot overcome.

 

[ladyraj]

Gammax...as an x-ray technician you are probably well aware of the individual, racial, and genetic differences both in and between groups that require extrapolation to find the "best fit" for appropriate testing options. Comparing one profile against another medically is not a sound practice unless one controls these variables.

As an example, self-described Afro-American individuals and Asian Americans as a whole have smaller lung capacity than self-decribed "white" individuals. Therefore based on the over all numbers and via extrapolation these three groups use 2 different scales to assess lung health. In practice this seems to be a good method for assessing "true" function.

But...there are 2 obvious problems:
1) the blurring of racial differences versus mixing genetics: We are a nation of "Mutts".
2) variation with in the races: A 6'8" basketball player would have larger lung ratios than a small framed 5'2" desk jockey.

This is not news to respiratory or x-ray techs who use different strategies based on size. But...the nicotine studies do nothing to account for these variables and choose instead to focus on "broad" analysis in the hopes that differences smooth out..they don't.

I'm sure you in particular are very much aware that if I used the same methodology to evaluate the increase in cancer due to exposure to x-ray over the course of a few decades, could in essence...get them banned as a known carcinogen.

20 years ago x-ray techs, on average, died 5 years sooner because of exposure from their jobs. Years before babies were given "preventative" x-rays to rule out disease that increased childhood cancers. Just this year at a VA hospital, veterans were exposed to at least 8 times the "accepted" levels for this known carcinogen and will require follow-up probably the rest of their lives.

The links to radiation from x-rays as a known carcinogen are so varied and many that I would be hard-pressed to offer a few from the thousands but a simple search will turn up the info if desired. But we all know what probably happened to Madame Curie, she died of her own experiments.

I submit that your stance on nicotine is an example of the pot calling the kettle a cooking utensil.

If smoking is a carcinogen and if an individual has been x-rayed at least once every five years, how do we know it was the smoking and not the carcinogen of radiation that created the lung cancer cells 50 years later? We don't. Nicotine is not the carcinogen in tobacco smoke, nor is it addictive in the miniscule quantities of exhalation.

I'm just saying...

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

FYI there are over 200 different carcinogens in a steak cooked to medium well.


Try to follow the spirit of the law... [don't] disrespect others.

Overall my option is that Ecigs are a good thing. But do need to be studied for the long term effects. As well as ecig users need to respect and educate others about them.

gammax,
I found your posts informative and well meaning and agree with most of your points. I think the reaction here have to do with respect. You encourage us [vapers] to follow the spirit of the law. Most of us feel the 'spirit' of the law disrespects us. Therein lies the conflict.

As you point out with steak having carcinogens, even potatoes have nicotine. Just going through our everyday lives puts all of us into jepordy. Trying to legislate safety or morality will never work. It is when we come together as reasoning adults and truly give respect to each other and use common sense in regards to our habits, whether eating, smoking, vapping or even handling our trash that things will work out.

When groups of everyday folks come together to ban behaviors of others they don't like, then you get the fighting, legislation etc that breeds disharmony and discord. There is enough respect, cooperation and freedom for all of us to live together if we will use it. Too many times we see each other as opponents rather than team mates.

 

[Angela]

The 'Spirit of the Law' was certainly not to protect people from nicotine!

• Nicotine is NOT the harmful substance in cigarette smoke.
• Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen.
• Nicotine is only considered a poison in the UK in concentrations over 7.5% (36mg e-liquid is appox 3.6%).
• Even if a significant amount of nicotine were exhaled in the vapour, it is heavily diluted by the air around us and therefore only present in minescule amounts (ppm/ppb/ppt?)
• Nicotine is in several everyday foods (admittedly in much smaller quantities than tobacco) including the potato (as someone already mentioned), peppers, and tomatoes. Would you ban restaurants from serving lasagne / spagetti bolognese to uphold the spirit of the non-smoking laws?

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be respectful (especially until the general public all know about PVs) and considerate, but we do not want to perpetuate the myth that nicotine is some deadly drug / poison that causes cancer, etc.

 

[ladyraj]

Thanks for the heads up on my error of nicotine properties...Dumb morning for me! I corrected my original post.

 

[gammax]

we do not want to perpetuate the myth that nicotine is some deadly drug

Well nicotine is a poison, and I do treat it as such. A 50 mg dose can kill an adult. Smokers do have a higher tolerance, so it would take alot more the kill a heavy smoker.

What i am saying is treat others with respect, because if you are vaping inside restraints and coffee shops, most people reacting is that's smoke so it must be dangerous. my bet is that most people wont come up to you and have a nice chat about it. They will quietly judge and then write the law makers with out knowing anything about them, other then what they hear over the media. And as we all know, there is a lot of misinformation.

 

[Angela]

You have quoted me in your last post: However, you have only quoted part of a phrase which in itself formed part of a sentence and therefore it is completely out of context!

I am also well aware of the danger levels when talking about mg of nicotine, but we were discussing vapour in this thread.

If you have mis-understood what I was tying to say in my last post, I apologise for not making myself clear enough.

 

[gammax]

Actually I think we are both in agreement, I think I mis read you post.