• This forum has been archived

    If you'd like to post a thread, post it here instead!

    View Forum

My Reply to the CBC VideoJournalist

Status
Not open for further replies.

JayTheVapingGuy

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2011
669
353
45
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Hey guys,

I've done my reading and thinking and this is the email responce that i plan to give to the videojournalist... please check it out and let me know if there are any issues with the formatting and/or content.


I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you... I had a lot of research and discussion to do. I wanted to interact with my community to find out what their thoughts and views were... as i'm relatively new to vaping (only 3 months now) i wanted to be sure that i wasn't going against the communal wishes by going on air with vaping.

I am definitely interested in chatting with you and letting the world know about Personal Vaporizers and my personal story. I'm not an expert, by any means, but i do consider myself to be relatively educated on the topic.... at least in comparison with the general public. Probably the most important things i can tell you are about my own health story and how vaping has helped me feel and live a healthier life. I went from having two inhalers(one a daily multi use and another a rescue inhaler) and within two weeks of starting vaping, i had completely ceased use of them. My walk to work was once a 20 minute ordeal that left me short of breath and mildly sweaty, now i get to work in 10 minutes feeling great.

Due to the fact that there has been opposition from the Government, i do need to ask for an agreement that requires that i approve the story before it goes on air. The last thing i want is for my answers to be misunderstood and/or shown in the wrong light and then find myself at odds with my community because my thoughts may be taken as being in opposition with our collective viewpoints... I would also ask for a list of questions that you might ask so that i can be prepared and not come off as a local yokel who doesn't really know anything. I also have talked with some of the vendors, and because of Health Canada's stance on Vaping, they have asked that i do not say anything, on or off of the record, about their companies or their products... i can use and show a device that many companies carry, but i won't have any devices that may have branding on them.

I can provide some background information to you about vaping to help you prepare. There is a consumer activism organization, CASAA that has links to many independant reviews of Vaping that has been a great source of information for me. The following is information that i've been able to get from CASAA, which is predominantly located and works out of the US but supports Canadian interests as well:

E-cigarettes are just one of the tools that can be used to reduce the harm caused by smoking. Modern smokeless tobacco products such as snus and dissolvable tobacco products (orbs, strips, sticks, etc.) are another tool, as is long-term use of pharmaceutical nicotine. The medical establishment calls it “Nicotine Replacement Therapy” (NRT), but anyone who has ever tried it would tell you that it would more properly be called “Nicotine Reduction Therapy.” The directions are aimed at weaning you down and off nicotine. The methodology employed in Tobacco Harm Reduction is to provide long-term replacement of nicotine from a safer source than inhaling smoke.

See the 4 pages in CASAA’s Harm Reduction section: Casaa.org - Harm Reduction
Also, the FAQs on the Tobacco Harm Reduction organization’s site. (see links on the left side of the Home page): Tobaccoharmreduction.org

Researchers who at the time worked at the University of Alberta conducted a survey of e-cigarette users and there is some extremely useful demographic information on who uses e-cigarettes and for what purposes. It is posted online here: http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

As far as specific facts about e-cigarettes, you might download the following documents from the CASAA web site:
Medical Infograph: http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA Medical infograph(5).pdf
Tri-Fold Brochure, The Facts About Electronic Cigarettes: http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA-Ecig-TriFold-Brochure.pdf
Myths about E-cigarettes: http://www.casaa.org/files/8 Biggest Electronic Cigarette Myths(2).pdf
E-Cigarette Fact Sheet – 1 page Handout: http://www.casaa.org/files/FAQs sheet(2).pdf
Legislative Packet -http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf

Health Canada recommended against the use of e-cigarettes shortly after the FDA held its infamous press conference in July 2009, claiming that there are carcinogens and toxins in e-cigarettes. The FDA report is debunked in several of the CASAA documents that are cited above.

Let me know if you have any questions that are not answered by the above documentation and to let me know if/when you would like to sit down and do the interview.
 

smokum

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 9, 2008
4,669
385
62
Ottawa, Ontario -CANADA-
Mistakes are made..... just step forward and correct the error.

Other than that, the response looks great Jay. I'm not sure I could do the "camera" thing myself (actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't), so thanks for offering to put yourself into the limelight for your 15 seconds of fame, lol, should they decide to go ahead with the interest.
 

kanadiankat

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Oct 14, 2010
1,149
568
Alberta, Canada
www.electrovapors.com
oops!

damned CASAA, i copied that info from them.

You can always mention the correction before the interview.... he's a reporter - he won't burn you at the stake unless it truly advances his career!...:2cool:

You may also want to mention that HC's stance right now has the status of an "advisory", which they define as:

"Public Advisory: This product is used to inform the public of possible serious health hazards and enable Canadians to make informed decisions concerning the continued use of consumer and marketed health products. Advisories are issued through the same channels as Warnings."

Fact Sheet - Health Canada Risk Communication Products
 

cactusgirl

Sage Tribal Queen
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2011
1,937
1,441
Dartmouth, NS
Very well written Jay, good job!

On a side note, I find this interesting: On the Canada Health page (from the link that Kat provided above) it says;

Public Warning
This product is used in the most urgent situations when there is a high probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause death or other serious adverse health effects, such that the public should stop using the product immediately. Warnings are sent to the media through Canada News Wire, are posted on the Health Canada website and are distributed through the MedEffect electronic bulletin (when marketed health products such as pharmaceuticals, biologics, natural health products or medical devices are involved) and the Health Canada media e-mail list.

Public Advisory
This product is used to inform the public of possible serious health hazards and enable Canadians to make informed decisions concerning the continued use of consumer and marketed health products. Advisories are issued through the same channels as Warnings.

So, if both smoking and vaping are considered 'evils' and considering HC's definitions as outlined above and knowing that cigarettes (consumer tobacco products) are labeled with a warning and e-cigs have been issued an advisory, it would seem that even Health Canada considers e-cigs the lesser of the two evils, no? :p.
 

kanadiankat

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Oct 14, 2010
1,149
568
Alberta, Canada
www.electrovapors.com
Very well written Jay, good job!

On a side note, I find this interesting: On the Canada Health page (from the link that Kat provided above) it says;



So, if both smoking and vaping are considered 'evils' and considering HC's definitions as outlined above and knowing that cigarettes (consumer tobacco products) are labeled with a warning and e-cigs have been issued an advisory, it would seem that even Health Canada considers e-cigs the lesser of the two evils, no? :p.

...hey wouldn't that be fun!

The "warning" status though, isn't referring to warnings on labels. HC's "warnings" occur when a product is contaminated or otherwise dangerous (ie: the sliced meat problems last year) - or there's botulism involved or something equally creepy.

Advisories are less than than above - but greater than general advice.

...but a few hours researching their whole stand - the only potential danger they seem to be able to come up with is that they haven't given market authorization for eliquid. ...doesn't sound like a good reason to "advise" the public of anything other than their utter failure to do their job.
 

BlondieLocs

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 24, 2009
541
4
Calgary, AB Canada
...but a few hours researching their whole stand - the only potential danger they seem to be able to come up with is that they haven't given market authorization for eliquid. ...doesn't sound like a good reason to "advise" the public of anything other than their utter failure to do their job.

The problem here is that HC states it is NOT their job to do the research for a product seeking market authorization. The onus of that is on the manufacturer/distributor of said product, in this case e-liquid. HC's position is that eliquid has not yet been submitted, along with research and proof of the safety of nicotine liquids as used in a PV. And as such, cannot and will not approve any such product for market.

Well I am sure if we donated as much money (kick backs) as BP and BT they would probably give us a fair shake muahahahaha

If it was BP or BT looking for market authorization, you can bet that they would have put up the dough to get it (it is NOT a cheap process) and would have been done by now.

It is even further amusing to find out the majority of the population fails to understand the true role of HC, the FDA or the WHO for that matter. :(

+1!
 

rachelcoffe

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 25, 2010
568
230
Toronto
Health Canada has been going on the mistaken notion that e-cigs & e-juice are "smoking cessation products" and/or "a new pharmaceutical," Blondie...both of which call for a significantly more intensive (& expensive) testing process, to be paid for by the manufacturer, before market authorization is granted.

Of course, this bogus ploy hasn't worked even a teeny tiny bit for the FDA in the States. Every* level of court there has ruled unanimously, every time...that as long as e-cigs & e-juice are not marketed as smoking cessation products, and do not make any therapeutic claims...that they must be regulated as a tobacco product (due to the optional nicotine in the e-juice), and not as a smoking-cessation product or pharmaceutical.

*Every level of court, save the Supreme Court...which has not yet deigned to hear any related cases.

So once every last avenue has been exhausted by the FDA, Health Canada (who admittedly made their decision on e-cigs in order to "keep in step" with the FDA) will no longer have any grounds for sticking to their present b.s. position.

In order to keep on "keeping in step" with the FDA, they will need to do what the FDA will have been forced to do...regulate e-cigs & e-juice as a tobacco product. When that happens, we can finally move forward towards a much wider market authorization in Canada.

Meanwhile, I don't blame manufacturers in the least for refusing to pay to have their products tested as a smoking-cessation pharmaceutical, since their products aren't smoking-cessation pharmaceuticals & don't claim to be, either! Vaping is an alternative to smoking, nothing more. E-cigs are simply electronic merchandise; e-juice (despite containing no tobacco) is simply a 'tobacco product' due to the optional nicotine, which is derived from tobacco.

And bottom line - we all know that e-cigs & e-juice have been tested elsewhere, numerous times. The results? Vaping is infinitely safer than tobacco smoking. It's scientifically, clinically concluded. Even the American Association of Public Health Physicians is supportive! Whether the studies to date went through HC's baloney red-tape maze is of absolutely no consequence. We know what the studies will show.

HC knows it too...which is why they've resorted to misclassification & procedural delays to keep e-cigs & e-juice off of store shelves for a little while longer. That's the only card they have left...and it won't last.

Keep on vaping, everyone!
 
Last edited:

BlondieLocs

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 24, 2009
541
4
Calgary, AB Canada
Health Canada has been going on the mistaken notion that e-cigs & e-juice are "smoking cessation products" and/or "a new pharmaceutical," Blondie...both of which call for a significantly more intensive (& expensive) testing process, to be paid for by the manufacturer, before market authorization is granted.

Actually, Rachel, my understanding is that Health Canada considers e-cigs "health products". If marketed as a harm reduction product, as many seem to want to do, it rightly falls into that category. However, Health Canada also states that the e-cig falls under the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, regardless of whether it is associated with a smoking cessation claim.

Of course, this bogus ploy hasn't worked even a teeny tiny bit for the FDA in the States. Every* level of court there has ruled unanimously, every time...that as long as e-cigs & e-juice are not marketed as smoking cessation products, and do not make any therapeutic claims...that they must be regulated as a tobacco product (due to the optional nicotine in the e-juice), and not as a smoking-cessation product or pharmaceutical.

*Every level of court, save the Supreme Court...which has not yet deigned to hear any related cases.

So once every last avenue has been exhausted by the FDA, Health Canada (who admittedly made their decision on e-cigs in order to "keep in step" with the FDA) will no longer have any grounds for sticking to their present b.s. position.

This is incorrect. If I am not mistaken, Health Canada issued it's advisory in March 2009. FDA did not follow suit until July 2009.

In order to keep on "keeping in step" with the FDA, they will need to do what the FDA will have been forced to do...regulate e-cigs & e-juice as a tobacco product. When that happens, we can finally move forward towards a much wider market authorization in Canada.

If we go this route and the e-cig is considered a tobacco product, there are still laws and regulations that are quite restrictive. E-cigs and liquid must be manufactured according to product standards (of which there currently are none, so thus the cost of creating one would also be incurred, and by whom?), manufacturers must provide info about the product and its emissions and all packaging must be labelled with this information. So in short, testing must still be done by the manufacturer.

Then of course, there would be strict regulations on the sale of the product... any advertising is prohibited, product may not be displayed in public places and product may not be handled before purchase (Sorry, Jack... no Dr. Flea's for you!), and inspectors may enter any place they believe a tobacco product to be sold, manufactured or stored ('cuz I know all you vendors want them in your house!).

Meanwhile, I don't blame manufacturers in the least for refusing to pay to have their products tested as a smoking-cessation pharmaceutical, since their products aren't smoking-cessation pharmaceuticals & don't claim to be, either! Vaping is an alternative to smoking, nothing more. E-cigs are simply electronic merchandise; e-juice (despite containing no tobacco) is simply a 'tobacco product' due to the optional nicotine, which is derived from tobacco.

Honestly, I don't know if the manufacturers would pay for testing and submission for market authorization. They've already done it once, and to do so for EVERY country that asked for it would be extremely cost-prohibitive. So then it comes down to whether the distributor would elect to do so, and most of the vendors in Canada are Small Business and might find the costs associated out of their reach.

And bottom line - we all know that e-cigs & e-juice have been tested elsewhere, numerous times. The results? Vaping is infinitely safer than tobacco smoking. It's scientifically, clinically concluded. Even the American Association of Public Health Physicians is supportive! Whether the studies to date went through HC's baloney red-tape maze is of absolutely no consequence. We know what the studies will show.

HC knows it too...which is why they've resorted to misclassification & procedural delays to keep e-cigs & e-juice off of store shelves for a little while longer. That's the only card they have left...and it won't last.

While all this may be true, one of the real issues here is quality control. Whether the e-cig and juice continues to be labelled as health products, or are switched into the tobacco classification, Health Canada is still going to want testing done on EACH product in the market. It's a matter of CYA. If HC deemed e-cigs as safe for sale and consumption, and broadly, then what happens if some less-than-honourable manufacturer/merchant brings a product to Canada that does in fact contain ingredients that are harmful? Every drug on the market is tested and produced according to product standards, and so is every tobacco product.

The regulations are in place to protect the misinformed public. We all know the majority don't or won't do the research - so if HC says it's okay and they purchase and consume to ill effect, then who is to blame? This is how lawsuits happen...
 

Switched

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 18, 2010
10,144
2,544
Dartmouth, NS Canada
Until there is a law that changes the status of nicotine in Canada, we are barking up the wrong tree. Nicotine is a schedules F drug. The FDA OTHO has not claimed such a status on nicotine, but rather want to control it.

Attacking HC is a pointless issue, we need to attack government. Maybe the NDP might be willing to platform vapers :rolleyes:
 

BlondieLocs

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 24, 2009
541
4
Calgary, AB Canada
Until there is a law that changes the status of nicotine in Canada, we are barking up the wrong tree. Nicotine is a schedules F drug. The FDA OTHO has not claimed such a status on nicotine, but rather want to control it.

Attacking HC is a pointless issue, we need to attack government. Maybe the NDP might be willing to platform vapers :rolleyes:

Agreed. Although FDA and HC have similar regulatory guidelines, there are some distinct differences. There are drugs that are approved in the US that are not in Canada, and vice versa. There are differences in the application and approval processes. Most importantly, and this reflects in the FDA case... Drugs in the US are NOT price-controlled like they are elsewhere in the world, which IMHO, is one of the reasons that FDA was pushing for the e-cig to be treated as a drug. Do the math.

Attacking HC is a pointless issue because they are an arm of our government. They are the ones who develop and enforce the legislation.
 

kanadiankat

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Oct 14, 2010
1,149
568
Alberta, Canada
www.electrovapors.com
Actually, Rachel, my understanding is that Health Canada considers e-cigs "health products". If marketed as a harm reduction product, as many seem to want to do, it rightly falls into that category. However, Health Canada also states that the e-cig falls under the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, regardless of whether it is associated with a smoking cessation claim.

This is incorrect. If I am not mistaken, Health Canada issued it's advisory in March 2009. FDA did not follow suit until July 2009.

...
While all this may be true, one of the real issues here is quality control. Whether the e-cig and juice continues to be labelled as health products, or are switched into the tobacco classification, Health Canada is still going to want testing done on EACH product in the market. It's a matter of CYA. If HC deemed e-cigs as safe for sale and consumption, and broadly, then what happens if some less-than-honourable manufacturer/merchant brings a product to Canada that does in fact contain ingredients that are harmful? Every drug on the market is tested and produced according to product standards, and so is every tobacco product.

The regulations are in place to protect the misinformed public. We all know the majority don't or won't do the research - so if HC says it's okay and they purchase and consume to ill effect, then who is to blame? This is how lawsuits happen...

HC's "advisory" is separate from HC's directive to ecig vendors and manufacturers.

The Advisory is meant to let the public know that there is a product they have not approved and "advise" Canadians not to use it.

This is followed by a directive (on an entirely different page) requesting - specifically - that manufacturers of ecigs and all related products (hardware and eliquid) submit their products as "a new drug, untested on humans" and "new medical equipment".

It's not about manufacturers not wanting to do this - they can't. It's impossible. New pharma's can only be submitted through a complex process that begins with academic research, proposed theories and laboratory studies, carried out by authorized university and research labs and headed by at least one PhD.

It's really the most authentic example of a catch 22 I've seen in my lifetime.

Eliquid has market authorization in the UK. Same type of health authority, same level of product oversight. Many of the brands available are the exact same brands by the exact same manufacturers, containing the exact same ingredients as in Canada and the US.

The manufacturers have no problems applying for and receiving authorization. It's not complicated. It doesn't cost a fortune. New food and related products receive authorization each and every day.

Major eliquid manu's already have authorization in every country that has permitted the application. They HAD it in Canada until March 2009, complete with customs authorization.

Between the time that HC first approved eliquids and the time they issued their advisory - nothing changed with the product - just the politics.
 

JayTheVapingGuy

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2011
669
353
45
Halifax, Nova Scotia
LOL.... quite the discussion arose from my thread... i was out all weekend GeoCaching so i had no idea that anyone was chatting about me... when i was on the forums i was checking the battery mod forums for info about making VV devices...(......ed to pay 150 dollars for a VV device when i can make one for about 50ish... just gotta figure out how to put it together or break and buy a little sister... LOL
 

rachelcoffe

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 25, 2010
568
230
Toronto
Completely agree with your post above, Kat! And that's awesome re: the UK!

Blondie, I haven't seen HC refer to e-cigs or e-juice as "health products"...and respectfully, I don't think they view them as such. Health products make therapeutic claims; e-cigs & e-juice do not. In the absence of such claims...it would be a misclassification for HC to view them as such.

Remember that kerfuffle with the FDA a few years back re: claims on the Cheerios box about lowering cholesterol? If they make therapeutic health claims, Cheerios are apparently viewed as a drug. If they don't...Cheerios are just cereal. I know it seems ridiculous, but therapeutic claims make that much of a difference towards marketability.

But Kat summed things up very well, & we're totally ready to sleep...so 'nuff said for now. Goodnight everyone.

14lSs.png
 

Can_supplier

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Oct 27, 2009
2,857
375
Canada
The problem here is that HC states it is NOT their job to do the research for a product seeking market authorization.

If they have not done any research, why do they feel compelled to advise us agaist it?

"We know nothing about the product, we've done zero research on it, but we are going to advise the public against it"

Maybe we are in a Monte Python skit?

HC’s research at nil, ( resulting in not one good reason why we shouldn’t use the product) vs. even my crude research, myself as the guinea pig -- it hasn’t killed me yet. I think we have an easy winner.

If HC’s intent and motive was to product us, they would’ve done their homework.

Red Bull and Vodka. There is a relatively new chemical concoction. Did some bar tender apply for “market authorization” from HC with research to back it up? Doubt it. I would imagine a certain dose over a certain duration would surely have negative consequences. Why does HC not feel compelled to issue an advisory on Red Bull and Vodka, and every other product on the market where an undefined amount of research has not been completed?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread