Letter to CUNY

[Broklynite]

Recently, the City University of New York (CUNY) decided to enact a tobacco ban across every campus int he university system. Unlike previous attempts (which were never enforced) the newest one (planned to start this coming September) includes e-cigarettes in the list of banned products. There was a contact e-mail with the announcement. I decided to speak up and sent the following letter:

Hello,

I am writing in regards to the tobacco-free initiative. Specifically, I question the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the school-wide ban. I question it on several grounds.

Before I explain my reasoning, I realize that you may not be familiar with exactly what an electronic cigarette is. An electronic cigarette is a device wherein a fluid (normally propylene glycol, a little bit of vegetable-based glycerine, some flavoring, and a little bit of nicotine) is heated to the vaporization point (there is no combustion, and thus no potentially harmful Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons) and then inhaled. As propylene glycol is highly hygroscopic, water molecules stick to the molecule. Thus, when the user breathes out the vapor, a visible mist is seen- a tiny amount of propylene glycol with mostly water droplettes stuck to it.

My arguments are as follows:

1. If all nicotine-containing compounds are to be expunged from the campus, then Nicorette gum and nicotine patches (which a recent study showed had no effect whatsoever on quitting smoking) should also be banned.

2. If the argument is over potential harm to others from secondhand vapor, this is ridiculous. The vapor is mainly water vapor, with trace amounts of propylene glycol, even smaller amounts of flavoring, and insignificant amounts of nicotine.

3. Nicotine is not readily absorbed into the body in vapor form, so it is unlikely even in this arguably minute quantity to cause any harm to those nearby.

4. Electronic cigarettes do not contain the hundreds to thousands of harmful compounds associated with cigarettes.

5. There are companies who use inferior chemical cocktails in their liquids which may include trace amounts of harmful substances. In an FDA study of exactly two companies (neither of which is a particularly well known or popular company in the electronic cigarette community) they found that *some* of the cartridges tested contained some of the harmful compounds. However, it has also been shown that the test used to determine this fact was sensitive enough to detect the presence of the compounds in amounts more than one million times smaller than is considered toxic to the human body. The FDA did not report amounts found, simply whether or not it was detected. The liquids tested came from unknown companies in China which had no requirement to publish any kind of ingredients list. This is not the case for many American companies. For many American companies, it is a point of pride that the liquids produced are safe, and they will readily provide gas chromatography analyses of the liquids they sell.

6. Added to this, many electronic cigarette users go the DIY (do it yourself) route and make their own liquids. The reasons for this are the ability to control the exact taste, strength, and makeup of the liquid produced. A typical DIY recipe may be 70% Propylene Glycol, 20-25% Vegetable based Glycerine, 5-10% flavor (spearmint oil, for example), and a fraction of a percent of nicotine.

7. All liquids intended for use in electronic cigarettes are sold in nicotine-free forms. It is quite common for users of electronic cigarettes to simply go nicotine-free in the use of their electronic cigarettes. The pleasure comes from the taste and the fulfillment of the oral fixation, rather than any kind of drug-based stimulation. This is particularly true for many DIYers.

8. Propylene Glycol is listed by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Please do not confuse it is Poly-Ethylene Glycol, the substance found in automobile antifreeze, as they are completely different compounds. Glycerol is found in food, drinks, pharmaceudicals, and more because of its usefulness and low toxicity.

In summary, electronic cigarettes are a safer, healthier alternative to cigarettes. They do not produce harmful smoke because there is no combustion. The vapor produced is almost entirely water, and does not harm anybody nearby. The user does not even walk around smelling like the classical "smoker stench." The liquids generally used contain no cancer-causing toxins, and many of them have little to no nicotine present. There is no waste left behind, no dirty cigarette butts to be swept up or to contaminate the grounds. There is no particular reason, based on current science, to ban these devices from the schools. I happily invite you to question any of my assertions, and will gladly put you in contact with members of the electronic cigarette community, including vendors and manufacturers, or point you to some of the papers which have been published regarding these issues.

-[my name]

I'd like anybody's feedback on it. If you have any other arguments or suggestions, I would welcome them.

Edit: Apologies. I've been told that this should not be in the New User forum (thought I was still considered a New User, turns out I'm not) but I dunno how to move it.

 

[Engraced]

I'd toss the first argument (or eliminate the commentary on effectiveness).

Also, I'd include citations as far as the information goes. Without that, it looks like made up information (especially in regards to the FDA info)

 

[SadLittlePony]

Very awesome and powerful. The people who initiated the ban probably will feel bad about themselves after reading this but I hope that is not the case and as such I also hope they lift the ban.

 

[the_vape_nerd]

You are being far too wordy. These people do not care about the truth, nor do they care about your hobby. They've got a an agenda brought about by ignorance.

Cut it down to as few points and as few words as possible. The longer it is, the less likely it is to be read in its entirety.

 

[Broklynite]

You are being far too wordy. These people do not care about the truth, nor do they care about your hobby. They've got a an agenda brought about by ignorance.

Cut it down to as few points and as few words as possible. The longer it is, the less likely it is to be read in its entirety.

I'm hoping that isn't so much the case. A short letter where I make this many points would more likely come across as angry. I'm trying to come across as being reasonable and giving explanations for any concerns. I'm *pretty sure* that they don't know what an ecig is, and they just stuck it in the list because they didn't know any better.

 

[the_vape_nerd]

I'm hoping that isn't so much the case. A short letter where I make this many points would more likely come across as angry. I'm trying to come across as being reasonable and giving explanations for any concerns. I'm *pretty sure* that they don't know what an ecig is, and they just stuck it in the list because they didn't know any better.[/QUOTE

I surely don't mean to discourage your intention here. I just think it's too long. Maybe keep the many points and cut down on the number of sentences. Whatever you decide, I hope you'll let us know what kind of response you got.

 

[Broklynite]

I'm hoping that isn't so much the case. A short letter where I make this many points would more likely come across as angry. I'm trying to come across as being reasonable and giving explanations for any concerns. I'm *pretty sure* that they don't know what an ecig is, and they just stuck it in the list because they didn't know any better.[/QUOTE

I surely don't mean to discourage your intention here. I just think it's too long. Maybe keep the many points and cut down on the number of sentences. Whatever you decide, I hope you'll let us know what kind of response you got.

You make a very good point and it's something I'll keep in mind for the future- I do have an unfortunate tendency to being a tad long in the tooth.

 

[JAY73]

yeah it might be long in the tooth but i felt it was concice and well written they should be able to tell that it was composed by a well educated and informed author good luck and remember its all good in da hood when ya got love peace & chicken grease...

 

[Vocalek]

This part isn't quite accurate:

5. There are companies who use inferior chemical cocktails in their liquids which may include trace amounts of harmful substances. In an FDA study of exactly two companies (neither of which is a particularly well known or popular company in the electronic cigarette community) they found that *some* of the cartridges tested contained some of the harmful compounds. However, it has also been shown that the test used to determine this fact was sensitive enough to detect the presence of the compounds in amounts more than one million times smaller than is considered toxic to the human body. The FDA did not report amounts found, simply whether or not it was detected. The liquids tested came from unknown companies in China which had no requirement to publish any kind of ingredients list. This is not the case for many American companies. For many American companies, it is a point of pride that the liquids produced are safe, and they will readily provide gas chromatography analyses of the liquids they sell.

Here is the story behind the FDA's test results and the way the Agency chose to frame the results in its press release: FDA's partial truths and exaggerations endanger health

The liquids FDA tested were not necessarily "inferior" and it is probably playing right into the hands of the enemy to imply that some companies are careless and sell products containing harmful substances. How is CUNY to know whether the particular student they see using an e-cigarette isn't using one of those "inferior" brands that contain harmful substances?

The article in the link provided explains the significance of the two potentially harmful substances the FDA reported on: The "carcinogens" (Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines) are found in equivalent amounts in FDA-approved nicotine patches and gum. And the so-called "antifreeze" was measured in a quantity several THOUSAND times below lethal level.

The FDA conducted their tests in the spring of 2009. It is now summer of 2012. If the liquids are so dangerous, why haven't there been any poisonings reported by the 2 to 3 million US e-cigarette consumers?

Rather than focusing on the FDA's flawed testing in item #5, it might be better to cite the following article:
Cahn Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy 2011 Feb;32(1):16-31. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

Cahn and Siegel reviewed 16 studies that characterized, quite extensively, the components found in e-cigarette liquid and vapor. One of those studies was the FDA's lab report (the actual report, as opposed to the "spin" found in the FDA's press release). The authors concluded, "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."

NOTE: The two companies whose products were tested were quite well known, because they were the plaintiffs in the law suit against the FDA that stopped the FDA from banning all e-cigarettes as "unapproved drug-delivery devices." The companies were Smoking Everywhere and Soterra, Inc, that does business as NJOY. Given the fact that in 2009 there were already dozens of companies selling the products, it is not entirely coincidental that the FDA chose to test only those two brands. The FDA's press release was a publicity stunt intended to generate public support of their intention to ban the products.

Here is a history of e-cigs: E-cigarette History

 

[rolygate]

What are the real reasons behind opposition to e-cigarettes? Almost always because somewhere, someone behind it is funded by pharma directly or indirectly. Essentially, the health arguments are irrelevant - action is being taken to protect pharmaceutical industry income.

A logical argument that you could make in this situation is: why ban something that is the best way seen yet to substantially reduce smoking-related death and disease, and which several professors of medicine who are experts in this field have said is likely to be several orders of magnitude safer than smoking?

But since CUNY is likely to be found to be in receipt of pharma funding, you may as well write this off as a lost cause. It doesn't matter how many die, as long as the drug trade is protected (chemotherapy drugs, cardiac drugs, COPD drugs, vascular drugs, and all the other treatments for sick smokers). No one can speak the truth, or speak out about the pharma pressure, because they would lose their funding.

If people actually wanted to stop this ban they would need to attack the cause: almost certainly pharma pressure on CUNY. If you could get the funding figures, then point out that the uni is folding under financial pressure, and that they must have severe financial conflicts of interest since protecting pharma's drug trade promotes disease and death; and then get that into the media - you might have a chance. Trying to argue on health issues is unlikely to succeed because CUNY most likely have their orders.

 

[Broklynite]

This part isn't quite accurate:



Here is the story behind the FDA's test results and the way the Agency chose to frame the results in its press release: FDA's partial truths and exaggerations endanger health

The liquids FDA tested were not necessarily "inferior" and it is probably playing right into the hands of the enemy to imply that some companies are careless and sell products containing harmful substances. How is CUNY to know whether the particular student they see using an e-cigarette isn't using one of those "inferior" brands that contain harmful substances?

The article in the link provided explains the significance of the two potentially harmful substances the FDA reported on: The "carcinogens" (Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines) are found in equivalent amounts in FDA-approved nicotine patches and gum. And the so-called "antifreeze" was measured in a quantity several THOUSAND times below lethal level.

The FDA conducted their tests in the spring of 2009. It is now summer of 2012. If the liquids are so dangerous, why haven't there been any poisonings reported by the 2 to 3 million US e-cigarette consumers?

Rather than focusing on the FDA's flawed testing in item #5, it might be better to cite the following article:
Cahn Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy 2011 Feb;32(1):16-31. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

Cahn and Siegel reviewed 16 studies that characterized, quite extensively, the components found in e-cigarette liquid and vapor. One of those studies was the FDA's lab report (the actual report, as opposed to the "spin" found in the FDA's press release). The authors concluded, "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."

NOTE: The two companies whose products were tested were quite well known, because they were the plaintiffs in the law suit against the FDA that stopped the FDA from banning all e-cigarettes as "unapproved drug-delivery devices." The companies were Smoking Everywhere and Soterra, Inc, that does business as NJOY. Given the fact that in 2009 there were already dozens of companies selling the products, it is not entirely coincidental that the FDA chose to test only those two brands. The FDA's press release was a publicity stunt intended to generate public support of their intention to ban the products.

Here is a history of e-cigs: E-cigarette History

That is a series of truly excellent points, and something I'll keep in mind for the next letter that I write. Thank you.

 

[Berylanna]

What are the real reasons behind opposition to e-cigarettes? Almost always because somewhere, someone behind it is funded by pharma directly or indirectly. Essentially, the health arguments are irrelevant - action is being taken to protect pharmaceutical industry income.

While I'm sure the pharma industry is behind the push to ban ecigs at the Federal level, and maybe other high levels, I'd bet a lot of smaller agencies just say "We gotta ban smoking and make it stick" -- then some idiot in the back of the room says "don't forget ecigs" -- because they're called *cigs* and white stuff comes out of them, so they assume they are identical to cigarettes except they are somehow electronic. Sort of like a smart phone is still a phone.

And the politicians don't want to look stupid, so they include the idiot's suggestions.

So a VERY SHORT and easy-to-read statement (with little "See 'Medical Study referenced below", "See XXX below" etc) will go further in actually getting acted upon.

I'm wordy, and everybody stops reading my emails BEFORE they get all the info! Even native English speakers.

Somehow, make it short, to-the-point, and include the ancillary information at the end, so that it works like a short statement followed by a Q-and-A.

I love your first point but the answer is too easy: Nicotine patches are tested and certified as smoking cessation devices, we ain't there yet.

Maybe you can say that the cigarette ban will be easier to enforce if there is a comfortable alternative like (harmless-to-bystanders) "pv" devices?

Overall, your letter looks too long and too technical AND too angry ("this is ridiculous") -- you need to be short, cheery, and, most-importantly, ON THEIR SIDE!

"Hi! So glad you're going to ban smoking, let me help you! E-cigs are misnamed, they are not electronic cigarettes, they are a smoke-free alternative to cigarettes that can be easy to distinguish from cigarettes even at a distance! No second-hand smoke (that is vapor, like steam), and it will make it easier to comply with your ban!"

(Well, maybe not THAT chirpy but close)

Advocacy letter-writing groups learn to be short, SWEET, and friendly -- they pretend that that OF COURSE the pol will side with the letter-writer. Because politicians are MORE influenced by people that appear to support them than they are by money, it is subliminal, this "I want to be loved" thing they have.

 

[Broklynite]

Hi all, thought I'd give an update. Just got the following letter in my mailbox:

hi XXXX.
Thanks for your email and I apologize for not responding earlier.
While I understand your concern, e-cigs are not currently approved for cessation and the FDA regulates them as tobacco products. Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
If the status of e-cigarettes changes, their inclusion in the policy may be reevaluated.

Best,
XXXX

Now that I actually have a response, I thought I'd be smart this time and come to you folks for suggestions on how to reply.