Just a short rant

[Vicky]

There is a balance in the world... good and evil, wealthy and poor... there is also a balance in economic structures. Those that have risen to the top and those that have failed trying. It is the nature of successful entities, powerful in both political might and finances, to extend their tenure as long as possible. It is the tendency of balanced systems to maintain that balance, that status quo. When something threatens a balanced system, that system will attempt to maintain its stability.

We as smokers are addicts... quite the captive audience and as smokers we support a couple of large sectors of the economy. Obviously the tobacco industry, whose product we purchase, not as a luxury but rather as a need. A need, I might add, as great as food and water. We are also supportive of big pharma. As smokers, we are far more likely to get seriously ill and are more likely than the non-smoking public to require medical attention. As such, we are a burden to the healthcare system therefore we are taxed heavily. I can understand that system.

Along comes a product that we find is a way to help ourselves. We have found something that we believe, and that yes, there are quite a few studies to prove, is far less harmful to us, but alas, we destabilize a system that has existed for a long time.
We no longer support big tobacco. The lack of purchasing that product harms tax revenue. We may not be requiring as much medical attention as we have significantly reduced our risk of serious illness. We also no longer need to purchase those expensive 'quit smoking aids' that never worked for me, but that I kept trying in my desperation to stop smoking. So big pharma suffers as well. Fortunately, there is an entity in place that is supposed to protect the public, to provide balance against the greed of capitalism and mandates that safe methods and products are available to us, the public.

On the one end, we have large corporate structures that we are harming, we run the risk of depriving society with significant tax revenue. We have the entity in the middle whose duty it is to protect and then we have us, fighting for what we feel is our very lives...

So I also understand the problem.




The same struggle of throwing a balanced system off its axis is occurring in the EU and as we get closer to regulating ecigs here is what just happened.

From an article by Clive Bates:
Late last week the European Commission circulated a confidential new proposal for regulating e-cigarettes. The document was sent only to those negotiating the future of e-cigarettes behind closed doors in Brussels – representatives of the European Parliament and European Council. This isn’t a final proposal, but it provides the negotiators with something to discuss. The Nicotine Science and Policy website has obtained the document, and it is here. It is quite frankly appalling – lacking any legitimacy in public health or internal market policy-making… Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products - and may make it commercially unviable to develop in future.

The main troubling features include:

• Allows only single-use cartridges. No refillable units or tanks will be permitted and so the most effective devices will be removed from the market.
• Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT. Hands control to pharma companies and against the view of the Parliament that recognised the importance of flavours.
• Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification, cutting out the stronger liquids that appeal more to heavily addicted smokers and those just switching
• Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit – this is extremely low and arbitrary (see new paper on lethal doses for nicotine) and makes no sense
• Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” – a completely unnecessary, severe and limiting technical challenge derived from medicines regulation – unlike with medicines, e-cigarette users control the dose.
• Bans advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet (through “information society services“) – this just protects incumbents (tobacco industry) and those who can rely on established distribution channels (tobacco industry)
• Bans e-cigarette sponsorships that have cross border impact (e.g. anything that might be shown on TV) – reduces competitiveness of disruptive technology
• Applies onerous and unnecessary warning, labelling and leaflet requirements that may be impractical and are disproportionate to risk deterring smokers who may wish to switch
• Bans cross border distance sales (internet etc) in clear contravention of the aims of the internal market
• Requires manufacturers to track so-called ‘adverse effects’ even though nicotine is widely used and understood
• Requires the submission of large quantities of seemingly irrelevant technical and commercial data despite recent high level commitments to reduce red tape
• Asserts (against the evidence) that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers” continuing the European tradition of smearing valuable harm-reduction option, notably snus, to the detriment of health in Europe.

I began using ecigs in 2009. During that time, the FDA was claiming these were a 'new drug' and were having them seized at the border when detected. I was of the opinion that unless these were found to be illegal, every smoker needed to know they had this choice and so I started a company to try and get as many into the country as I could and provide my fellow smokers with a product I found to be nothing short of life changing. My activities of the last 4plus years affords me first hand knowledge of the people I serve as well as intimate knowledge of some of the various products available. I have personally assisted thousands of smokers through their transition to not smoking and I am proud of that.

(As a side note, a Federal Court found that these were not a 'new drug' so now when I have product held in customs, it is for different reasons)

A few comments on the above proposed regulations.

It just does not make sense to think that Cartomizers that have fiberfilling in them, that can burn when dry, could be safer than a tank. In one you have a coil heating up, a wick and liquid. In the other you have a coil heating up, a wick, liquid and fiberfill. You need not have any technical knowledge to see that the latter has more potential for something going wrong.

A nicotine solution of 3% could not be as dangerous as many things I have under my sink... for instance my deadly drain cleaner.

Making me purchase a single use item is far more expensive than an item that is reusable. Forcing me to do so, does not allow for me, as the consumer, to make my own decision as to whether I want the convenience of disposable or the burden of maintenance.

I see perfectly good studies go unnoticed while other questionable studies seem to make sensationalized headlines like 'E-cigarettes contain chemicals that make some as harmful as normal tobacco' or E-cigs contain Diethylene glycol and tobacco derived nitrosamines. (CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association has done a nice job of compiling some of the studies)


I wonder how I could feel so good these past years I have used ecigs in lieu of traditional cigs if they are so bad for me?

I wonder when I hear on the news that 'no studies have been done... why it is that I have access to so many studies and these people whose job it is to know about cigarette alternatives have never seen them?

I think we all agree that 'reasonable' regulation does need to happen in the ecig industry.

I do not think that making me buy a disposable product is reasonable:
Batteries should be recharged and used as long as possible if not for economic reasons, than for environmental ones.
Disposable products put it in the realm of underage use. They are inexpensive to try once, but a more expensive product (as compared to refillable units) if your use is ongoing. A child would be far more apt to try and get a 10.00 throwaway as opposed to a 50 or 100 dollar reusable product that requires constant charging and maintenance.
So under the guise of protecting us, essentially they would be putting ecigs in the realm of our youth and at the same time burden me, the adult smoker, who uses an ecig instead of a cigarette.

I am quite capable of filling a tank if I choose to... I am also capable of pouring bleach in my laundry and drain cleaner down my sink without supervision.

I do not think that capping nicotine level at a point that the over the counter product is no longer useful is reasonable, I do not think that making me have a doctors order to get a higher nic level from a pharmaceutical company is reasonable (after all, no one restricted which strength cigarette I purchased, nor was it regulated how many I could smoke in a single sitting even though I had a pack of 20 sitting in front of me...)

I do not think I should have to be forced to taste a flavor I am trying to get away from... like a penalty for my addiction? I drink tasty vodka as well and there are no neighborhood kids demanding strawberry vodka instead of the juice box I am offering. A child would choke on that strawberry vodka as well as on my 25mg (2.5%nicotine) Peach flavored ecig... whose tank I just successfully filled again without serious injury.

The regulations should be in place to protect me the consumer... me... not the status quo.

I know that this product undermines years of our society vilifying the very act of smoking... The vapor does look like smoke, the vapor actually feels like smoke, but it is not...and this very likeness is part of what makes this product successful in my no longer smoking. So I truly am sorry that my vaping looks likes smoking... it isn't.


What I read about what is happening in Europe and in our own country leads me to ask those entities, who exactly are you protecting?


I would tell the lawmakers who struggle to make fiscal ends meet that: YOU MAY NOT BALANCE YOUR BUDGET WITH MY LIFE... you are all simply going to have to figure out another way.

 

[Rickajho]

Vicki hazza a rantz? Vicki?

I wouldn't say it was short, but it was well said. While these issues affect us all, I sure do not envy the business owners having these matters hanging over your head. These short sighted boobs who cannot see the health implications of running e-cigs out of town by taxation or condemnation also fail to see the potential businesses closed and jobs lost as well. In an economy that can't cough up decent jobs if it's life depended on it the last thing we need is putting people out of work and left with having to regress to grossly over taxed cigarettes at the same time.

 

[Vicky]

Vicki hazza a rantz? Vicki?

I wouldn't say it was short, but it was well said. While these issues affect us all, I sure do not envy the business owners having these matters hanging over your head. These short sighted boobs who cannot see the health implications of running e-cigs out of town by taxation or condemnation also fail to see the potential businesses closed and jobs lost as well. In an economy that can't cough up decent jobs if it's life depended on it the last thing we need is putting people out of work and left with having to regress to grossly over taxed cigarettes at the same time.

LOL! Here, this one is shorter... was my testimony at the Chicago Committee Meeting... I think it is better:

Chairmen and Committee members, thank you for allowing me to speak today.

A notable characteristic of the US economy is the freedom of the private sector to dictate direction. And the private sector is speaking loudly when it comes to ecigs. Their sustained popularity can only serve to tell you that these are providing the consumer with something they find valuable. This is an industry that is being driven by demand.

My name is Victoria Vasconcellos and I was a smoker for 33 years. I began using electronic cigarettes in the beginning of 2009. During that time, the FDA was claiming these were a 'new drug' and were having them seized at the border when detected. I was of the opinion that unless these were found to be illegal, every smoker needed to know they had this choice and so I started a company to try and get as many into the country as I could and provide my fellow smokers with a product I found to be nothing short of life changing.

We have 4 local stores, an online store and are currently looking at a space within the City of Chicago proper.

We have 14 employees, pay a living wage, and are a responsible and contributing Illinois corporation. I have served close to 60,000 customers and as the sole customer service rep have shared around 381,000 emails with those customers. I have personally guided thousands of adult smokers through the transition to no longer smoking and have supplied the tools required to thousands more.

I want to point out to you that the electronic cigarette industry was founded by others like myself, victims of Big Tobacco and I believe back in 2009 when many of us started, it was thought to be a fad. It is only after standing the test of time with consumers that Big Tobacco decided to enter the ring in 2012.

But this is a disruptive technology… we are changing the balance and are harming a couple of financially and politically powerful industries… We no longer support big tobacco. The lack of purchasing cigarettes harms tax revenue. We may not be requiring as much medical attention as we have significantly reduced our risk of serious illness. We also no longer need to purchase those expensive 'quit smoking aids' that never worked for me, but that I kept trying in my desperation to stop smoking. So big pharma suffers as well.

We, the early adopters of ecigs are giving the tobacco industry reason for pause. They are recent to the game and if legislation is passed that is based in ideology as opposed to good science this will do nothing but help unnecessarily set the bar so high that the only ones able to hurdle it will indeed be the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.

A restriction is being proposed that would limit the use of ecigs and put them into the same category as analog cigarettes.

Contrary to what I have heard this morning, there is a rather large number of studies about what is in the vapor and the levels of it. The headlines about ecigs have been disturbing.. one headline read something to the effect that the FDA found that ecigs contain tobacco specific nitrosamines which are carcinogens… what the headline failed to say was they contained as much of it as the FDA approved nicotine patch.

Another headline reads that ecigs contain formaldehyde and heavy metals. Your sofa contains formaldehyde as well, and the level of heavy metals are below USP standards for inhalation medications.

Yet another headline said that the CDC reported that use amongst teens doubled, but the headline failed to say that most were tobacco users and that while ecig use went up, cigarette use went down.

I hear testimony that more study needs to be done and of course, we could always use more studies, but we have an arsenal of studies that show that ecigs are not only far far far safer than cigarettes, the first and second hand vapor poses no harm.

I believe that most of us vapers in the room agree that billowing vapor in public is rude, but there is good scientific data that shows it does not pose a safety hazard. Rudeness should not be a matter for this Committee.

Electronic cigarettes are effective, but they go against some long held ideology of proper methods to curtail the tragedy that cigarette smoking is. I would ask this Committee to refrain from the knee jerk legislating that is happening around the country and to base their decision in evidence and good science and not unfounded fears and long held prohibitionist ideology. Far more damaging than the banning of something that has not been shown to be harmful is the message it sends. Anything that impedes a smoker’s ability to learn about or desire to try this revolutionary product and any legislation that slows the growth of this burgeoning, consumer based phenomenon carries with it high stakes. 430,000 people die each year due to smoking related illness and we believe we have found a solution.

I have here some packets of information… The smaller packets are just the summary information and the larger folders are both the summary as well as a few of the actually studies. In an effort to give you the absolute best information available, I would request that you allow me to bring in an expert that could address any questions you may have having to do with your concerns of potential harm in the vapor, Dr Michael Siegel and Dr Igor Burstyn are experts in this area, Dr Farsilanos is a Cardiologist and research scientist that has testified before the FDA on this matter and has done extensive research in the area of electronic cigarettes. I have spoken with Dr Farsilanos and he has agreed to come to Chicago and be at your disposal but he needs a couple weeks notice as he is in Greece and would have to arrange his travel.



In the ‘old days of ecigs we vapers banded together primarily via internet forums, email and local meetups. We have chemists and technicians among us that test and share their findings, we discuss our personal experiences so the whole can learn from them, we share information on old and new technologies, we mentor newcomers… we are relatively cohesive and we are vocal because we feel as though we are fighting for our very lives.

Thank you again for your time