Need help responding to Ban

[xxspikexx]

Electronic smoking device use prohibited indoors in New Jersey


Legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz that prohibits the use of electronic smoking devices in indoor public places and workplaces and prohibits the sale of the devices to minors was signed into law Monday by Governor Jon Corzine.


The bill, A-4227/4228, amends the New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act to also include an electronic smoking device which is defined as an electronic device that can be used to deliver nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, or pipe.


“This legislation is a matter of public safety,” explained Munoz, R-Essex, Morris, Somerset and Union. “While many of the health risks associated with the product remain unknown, laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples by the federal Food and Drug Administration have found they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals including an ingredient used in antifreeze.”


Noting that the devices can easily be purchased on the internet, including by minors, Munoz said, “Until the FDA says otherwise, I’d rather err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of public health and safety, especially when it involves the sale of potentially harmful products to minors.”


Under the bill, the penalties that currently apply to a person who smokes tobacco in an indoor public place or workplace (a fine of not less than $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense) would apply to a person who uses an e-cigarette in violation of this bill.


An e-cigarette is operated by a battery that warms liquid nicotine and propylene glycol from a replaceable plastic cartridge when a person inhales the device. Propylene glycol, a liquid used in antifreeze, vaporizes when a person exhales and produces a mist that is nearly identical in appearance to tobacco smoke.

 

[NobleMaN79]

The college where my wife works did the same, Bassn. I was very unhappy to have snus and dissolvables in the ban. A student there went to the administration and asked about using his e-cig. It was banned as of that question.

It is very arbitrary. But we can easily see the anti-anything remotely related to tobacco trend (meanwhile, e-cigs are in court trying to get themselves certified as a tobacco product; go figure; we can't have things both ways!).

And, no, approved MEDICINES for treating a medical condition called nicotine addiction will not be banned. E-liquid is not approved. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

On what grounds are they banning any and all tobacco use products on their campus? Seems like the school's administration has gone in a very dictatorship kinda trend there in the communistic since. "You can't do that because it's bad for you."

 

[xxspikexx]

so what about nicotine inhalers? which is very similar except for the need of a prescription.. should those users go outside as well? and certain jobs have tobacco bans for instance home depot. would these count nicotine patches, gums, inhalers, suppositories..ect the answer to the latter is no because they are not tobacco.. so wtf what about e-cigs yes why because it looks like you are smoking. that's the best answer i can come up with. its a stigma like alot of users are also addicted to the hand to mouth movement the nice deep inhale.. well we are apparently all sol.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

 

[tedescr]

Here is a quick Risk-Benefit analysis. Which one has the most benefits and the fewest health risks?

NOTE: The list of Health Risks for CHANTIX is incomplete. It includes only those specified in the product WARNING and some of the post-marketing adverse event that Pfizer described under "Frequent".

My doctor has said there are to many possible side effects with Zyban/Chantix and as I said before would prefer not to subscribe them. There was mention of NJ citing PG as being in antifreeze and an irritant but I've heard PG being in many different foods but not sure if that is true or not. What gives here would they prefer us back on the smokes.. I assume somebody knows the numbers of success/fail rates of trying to quit using all current products except ecigs. Then you look at the success of using ecig I mean it just doesn't make sense!

 

[tedescr]

OOPS I meant to say prescribe them not subscribe... Oh well you know what I mean. Glad I found this... I've been stealth vaping at my desk Get lots more work done and don't have to go out in this cold weather not to mention breath in a ton of second hand in a designated smoking area that is not suppose to be there in the first place!! The entire campus is suppose to be smoke free

 

[xxspikexx]

well as far as what other products that use Propylene glycol. pretty much you name it most glycerin base products shampoo

as per Wikipedia -

As a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations. Notably, diazepam, which is insoluble in water, uses propylene glycol as its solvent in its clinical, injectable form.[5]

As a humectant food additive, labeled as E number E1520

As an emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters

As a moisturizer in medicines, cosmetics, food, toothpaste, mouth wash, and tobacco products

As a carrier in fragrance oils

As an ingredient in massage oils

In hand sanitizers, antibacterial lotions, and saline solutions

In smoke machines to make artificial smoke for use in firefighters' training and theatrical productions

As a solvent for food colors and flavorings

As an ingredient, along with wax and gelatin, in the production of paintballs

As a moisture stabilizer (humectant) for snus (Swedish style snuff).

As a cooling agent for beer and wine glycol jacketed fermentation tanks

As a less-toxic antifreeze

you get the idea if its bad why is it so widely used
anyway back to the point that i strayed away from i called the govoners office and the only way we can possibly appeal this new bill reform or even just parts of it. im ok with the restriction of sale to minors. we would have to bombard the Legislatures office namely the ones who started and backed the bill A-4227/4228 and the names are Wagner, N. Munoz, Voss, Moriarty, Angelini, Stender/Gordon, Vitale. their respective e-mail addys are on the nj legislatures web site. as well as phone numbers im sure we can raise some eyebrows!!!!

 

[tedescr]

Thank you for the info. According to some videos on zigcig, forget his name off the top of my head but there is one where he uncovers everything he could find out about PG and supposedly there were tests done with vaporizing the chemical no issues even a very high doses noted.. There are some pretty informative videos up there...

I'm very new to ecig period but I know I'm starting to feel a little better and it's keeping me off the cancer sticks. As long as the product has proven it's safer than an analog and poses no risks to others then it should be allowed!

The FDA supposedly tested several products and I guess it was clinically safer then real cigs right? Including the PG or VG and other chemicals in the Cartomizers? I really think it should be called e-inhaler or something along those lines.. A soon as you mention cigarette people get funny.

What www will give me the addresses etc?

 

[xxspikexx]

well i would have to actualy get permission to put a link here njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp if u copy & paste in your addy bar that its the full list and you can match the names to my previous post. and i am new to e-cigs/e-ni/pv and i have almost completely stopped smoking analogs i have a slip here and there but that's not a surprise for someone stopping something they have been doing for 17yrs but ya on that list just click a name and you will get an address, phone# and email. we put these people in office and its our duty to make sure we are represented.!

 

[tedescr]

Agreed and I will be sending email.. I've been smoking since mid teens about 30 years, got to about a solid pack a day. After a few good days of no analogs my taste buds are coming back. It has only been several days but when I get a crave I just hit the ecig pretty good!! Working so far! Other methods have failed to many times...

Just and FYI after 15 posts you can edit your signature in the profile settings and add a banner or whatever you want to call it..

 

[Vocalek]

The FDA supposedly tested several products and I guess it was clinically safer then real cigs right? Including the PG or VG and other chemicals in the Cartomizers? I really think it should be called e-inhaler or something along those lines.. A soon as you mention cigarette people get funny.

You can read the FDA's Press Release here: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

The first paragraph of the Press Release reads as follows:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

Someone posted the entire FDA Press Release as a comment to one of the more postive news stories about Judge Leon's Ruling. This is what I posted as a response:

Susanna: I'm delighted you posted the FDA's press release. It is a text-book example of "spin."

If the first paragraph had been written to provide objective facts, it would have read as follows.

"...today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that some cartridges contain miniscule traces of some chemicals present in tobacco, from which the nicotine is extracted. These include diethylene glycol (DEG), used as a tobacco humectant, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). The amount of TSNAs is approximately equal to that found in FDA-approved nicotine replacements products, and thousands of times smaller than the quantities found in tobacco cigarettes. Although DEG is a toxin, the quantity present is so small that a user would need to consume the vapor from thousands of cartridges in a single day to reach a dose that would be harmful."

To put all of this in perspective, however, the FDA should have addressed the differences between the substances found in the vapor and substances found in tobacco cigarette smoke that a user would be replacing.

"E-cigarattes deliver their medicinal-grade nicotine, if present, suspended in a vapor of propylene glycol, the chemical used to create artificial fog in dance clubs and theatre productions. Tobacco cigarettes deliver nicotine attached to droplets of tar, along with particles of tobacco and paper ash, carbon monoxide, hundreds of carcinogens, and thousands of toxins."

Given this more complete information, the reader would have been in a better position to make a reasoned judgement about which way of taking in nicotine is more likely to be harmful to health.

It was irresponsible of the press release to make unsubstantiated accusations such as "These products are marketed and sold to young people," implying that the target marketplace is minors. The University of Alberta conducted a survey of people who actually use e-cigasrettes. Here is an extract from their report, available at http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

"All respondents previously smoked and 91% had attempted to stop smoking before trying e-cigarettes. Most respondents resided in the USA (72%) and 21% were in Europe. About half (55%) were 31-50, while 32% were >50 years old. Most (79%) of the respondents had been using e-cigarettes for less than 6 months and reported using them as a complete (79%) or partial (17%)replacement for, rather than in addition to (4%),cigarettes. The majority of respondents reported that their general health (91%), smoker’s cough (97%), ability to exercise (84%), and sense of smell (80%) and taste (73%) were better since using e-cigarettes and none reported that these were worse. Although people whose e-cigarette use completely replaced smoking were more likely to experience improvements in health and smoking caused symptoms, most people who substituted e-cigarettes for even some of their cigarettes experienced improvements."

If this product is so dangerous, why are so many users healthier than they were when they smoked? I am an e-cigarette user who smoked for 45 years. I tried numerous smoking-cessation products, programs, and even hypnotism, to no avail. Now that I have substituted vaporized nicotine for tobacco smoke, my wheezing has disappeared and I am able to laugh out loud without breaking into a coughing fit. Previously, I was diagnosed with prehypersion. Now my BP is 117/79 and I am not on medication.

The so-called public health experts quoted in the FDA press release engage in fear-mongoring to achieve their ends. Despite their Hippocratic oath, they apparently don't care how many people continue to smoke, and as a result sicken and die because they don't have access to a satisfying less-harmful alternative.

 

[beingbekah]

You can read the FDA's Press Release here: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

Someone posted the entire FDA Press Release as a comment to one of the more postive news stories about Judge Leon's Ruling. This is what I posted as a response:

Well done. I couldn't have said it better myself, and I rarely admit that.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I suspect that this issue is more a case of the old adage 'The lights are on, but there is no-one at home'.
Either the FDA are very dumb (I don't believe that for one moment) or they have an agenda. Luckily Judge Leon was impartial enough to see through the deliberate misinformation. We have a shout now

 

[tedescr]

Thanks for the press release info Vocalek. Strange thing is they mention carcinogens in ecigs however they will continue to sell analogs that contain at the very least much more deadly sludge.. We should report good findings to that medwatch link MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program

If you ever come across that ejuice testing information please let us know. I think it was mentioned most are waiting for REAL evidence (Toxicology report) Problem I see is that all ejuice manufacturers would have to certify and their juice etc. not sure if that will happen.

 

[CaptJay]

IMO what they need to do is study the damn thing. We know PG is safe when vaped - on its own - studies back to 1940 have proven this. We know that nicotine, alone, is 'safe'. We know that food flavorings, alone, are safe (not sure about the vaporizing part)- what we don't know is if these things are 'safe' (or within safe limits) when vaporized together. Its the 'unknown' factor that, I think, makes people panic and knee-jerk ban them. This is where the FDA could actually HELP - by studying if they are, and what, if any, side effects might be produced. Anecdotal evidence suggests a drying of mucus membranes (in some cases with certain solutions); this would be ofbenefit to PVers as well as everyone else. Could there be another medium that nicotine is better suspended in in order to vape it 'more safely'?
Anecdotal evidence also supports that this method of vaping can break the chain of tobacco smoking (and therefore the illness associated with it), but a proper study would help with this.
Could a proper study, and the more general acceptance of using a PV, bring taxes?
Well obviously yes it could, but personally I'd be willing to pay a tax on something like this if it meant better education and safer, and more accepted, PVing for all.
If the Govt, and by association the FDA, truely want a world without analog cigarettes, they would be well advised to stop the witch hunt and start the lab testing.That's my 2c worth anyway

 

[beingbekah]

If the Govt, and by association the FDA, truely want a world without analog cigarettes, they would be well advised to stop the witch hunt and start the lab testing.That's my 2c worth anyway

The problem is that this is precisely what they don't want. Taxes on tobacco products are a huge source of revenue for the government. The state of Texas took in $1 billion in tobacco-related taxes in one year. Yes, they take a public anti-smoking stance. However, the fact is that cigarettes are still readily available and still marketed vigorously, Big Tobacco is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, and add in Big Pharma's vested interest in their own smoking-cessation products (which don't work 90-95% of the time and are often purchased by the same individual over and over again as a result*) and you have a tri-fecta of anti-PV sentiment that is really quite daunting.

Not saying we don't need testing. We do, and it would be great if the FDA or other organization would do so, provided they were honest with their findings. Considering the slant on the FDA's initial report on e-cigarettes, that doesn't seem likely.

*think light bulbs (or atomizers ). if they didn't fail, you wouldn't buy more.

 

[tedescr]

I totally agree with you but you really think the FDA and Government wants us off analogs.. I doubt it, they make a TON of tax money off that junk. Meanwhile the Pharmas.. which I happen to work for one of them but in IT dept.. They are making a chunk off of their medicines trying to get people off the analogs.. It's a win/win situation for GOV/Tobacco and Pharma the way I see it. GOV complains about health care costs being driven up by Tobacco use and they are dinging all of us with the unbelievable tax hike on those things. It's totally insane... I worry about them banning ecigs altogether and if not that then taxing it till people are paying threw the nose all over again... I mean I would not mind paying some tax for a healthier solution.

Thinking about it a little more.. and if there were independent studies done we might not have to pay any added taxes or possibly a small hit in the pocket. The burden would be on the juice and device manufacturers to certify with proof sent over to the FDA just like a Pharma would do.. It might be a better way...

 

[beingbekah]

I totally agree with you but you really think the FDA and Government wants us off analogs.. I doubt it, they make a TON of tax money off that junk. Meanwhile the Pharmas.. which I happen to work for one of them but in IT dept.. They are making a chunk off of their medicines trying to get people off the analogs.. It's a win/win situation for GOV/Tobacco and Pharma the way I see it. GOV complains about health care costs being driven up by Tobacco use and they are dinging all of us with the unbelievable tax hike on those things. It's totally insane... I worry about them banning ecigs altogether and if not that then taxing it till people are paying threw the nose all over again... I mean I would not mind paying some tax for a healthier solution.

LOL! I just posted much the same comment.

Thinking about it a little more.. and if there were independent studies done we might not have to pay any added taxes or possibly a small hit in the pocket. The burden would be on the juice and device manufacturers to certify with proof sent over to the FDA just like a Pharma would do.. It might be a better way...

The problem is, most suppliers of ejuice and hardware are relatively small. They probably wouldn't be able to meet the burden of proof that their products are safe without going bankrupt. It's all about economies of scale. Big Tobacco (and Big Pharma) want their industries to be regulated. (Big Tobacco was a big supporter of the Act which allowed the FDA to regulate traditional tobacco products in 2009.) They can absorb the cost of testing while their smaller competitors cannot.

 

[CaptJay]

You guys may be right thats kinda why i started the sentence off with 'if' lol But honestly if the BT have any sense (business that is) they'd be jumping on the PV bandwagon with their supplies of high grade Nic and covering ALL the markets; analogs, patches, lozenges and PVs. It's not like they don't KNOW that analogs don't kill people; they DO know, they admit it, and people still smoke them anyway. At least if they started making carts/juices they'd get in on the profits; and lets face it thats the only thing that motivates these people. As for the Govt and FDA having agendas - maybe they do, but it could be another source of revenue as more smokers give the sticks the boot so there's another motivation right there lol.

 

[beingbekah]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of Propaganda

A$$hat's favorite quote, no doubt.

 

[kai kane]

Good backup for ecigs?
--> How about Dr. Dean Edell?
Heard him on the radio yesterday - pretty much PROMOTING ecigs! I've got an audio file (1 minute 30 secs) from the show and link to the whole broadcast (starts at about 17 minutes in) but I can't post cause I'm a noob here. Glad to email to a moderator since it might be worth its own header here.
Aloha
Kai