NY state bill banning ecigs

[yvilla]

Go ahead Kristin!

Send it to him!

 

[GregH]

Yes, Kristin. Please do!

 

[kristin]

I think it'd be better coming back from his constituent. He has my permission to copy my post and email it back to him!

 

[Posidon]

Wow Kristen, that's really a great response (along with everything you do for the community). Would you mind if I used some of your points when I write up mine?

I think my original e-mail struck a nerve in that I included both first hand experience and facts from studies in it. I did not call out any politicians, but had a constructive argument and I think that the reply from Joel Miller was also fairly constructive.

It seems that he did use many of the generic arguments, but a personal e-mail from a politician strikes a nerve on my end. Although he did not side with us, I will write him back and hopefully strengthen the argument in favor of the electronic cigarette, by backing it up with what we know and not what I "think".

 

[beebopnjazz]

H.R. 1261 is an interesting bill that is still in committee. Youth Prevention and tobacco Harm Reduction - it's 198 pages long - I'm only on page 7 and am finding interesting arguments for "harm reduction" - can we use the information in this bill to fight our other battles - and the sponsors of this bill are listed as well. I have the pdf file - or you can go grab it at H.R. 1261: Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act (GovTrack.us).

For example: Significant reductions in the harm associated with the use of cigarettes can be achieved by providing accurate information regarding the comparative risks of tobacco products to adult tobacco consumers, thereby encouraging smokers to migrate
to the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products, and by developing new smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products and other actions.

Adult tobacco consumers should have access to a range of commercially viable tobacco and nicotine-based products

Current ‘‘abstain, quit, or die’’ tobacco control policies in the United States may have
reached their maximum possible public health benefit because of the large number of cigarette smokers either unwilling or unable to discontinue their addiction to nicotine.

Current Federal policy requires tobacco product labeling that leaves the incorrect impression that all tobacco product present equal risk.

Kristin and yvilla -is it possible to ask the sponsors what happened with this bill? Or is it dead because of the FDA approval? Maybe we should be contacting this bill's sponsors about the current issues we're having....

 

[kristin]

Wow Kristen, that's really a great response (along with everything you do for the community). Would you mind if I used some of your points when I write up mine?

I think my original e-mail struck a nerve in that I included both first hand experience and facts from studies in it. I did not call out any politicians, but had a constructive argument and I think that the reply from Joel Miller was also fairly constructive.

It seems that he did use many of the generic arguments, but a personal e-mail from a politician strikes a nerve on my end. Although he did not side with us, I will write him back and hopefully strengthen the argument in favor of the electronic cigarette, by backing it up with what we know and not what I "think".

If you can use copy & paste, go for it!

(I cleaned it up a bit for you to use. )

 

[2legsshrt]

Yes but they are not getting a kickback from ecigs. I am not sure if they really think that we think they are honest. They probably do because they bellieve everything that they read from their cronies.

 

[yvilla]

Kristin and yvilla -is it possible to ask the sponsors what happened with this bill? Or is it dead because of the FDA approval? Maybe we should be contacting this bill's sponsors about the current issues we're having....

HR 1261 was Rep. Buyer's harm reduction bill that competed with the tobacco legislation that won out over it last summer, unfortunately. It is dead now.

Many of us here hoped that Buyer's bill would have had a chance, but no such luck. The FSPTCA (or, the Phillip Morris Protection Act as some call it), that gave the FDA regulatory power over tobacco products (and that gave Philip Morris a wonderful competitive edge over other tobacco product manufacturers), was signed into law last June.
Signing of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

 

[D103]

This is in response to your email regarding electronic cigarettes. Thank you for taking the time to write and advise me of your views.

As a healthcare professional myself, I find that I am unable to support legislation allowing the sale of this type of product. The health effects of using electronic cigarettes are currently unknown.

So, they don't know the health effects of no longer inhaling toxic levels of tar, ash, carbon monoxide, arsenic, amonia (and a few thousand other chemicals) and 56 carcinogens?

Wait...isn't that called "quitting smoking?" So, does that mean we don't know the health effects of quitting smoking??

Propylene glycol, a liquid which is used in antifreeze, is the substance vaporized to produce artificial smoke or fog in theatrical productions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified it as an additive that is “generally recognized as safe” for use in food. But when asked whether inhaling it was safe Director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic said “I don’t think so.”

Propylene glycol is used in antifreeze to MAKE IT LESS TOXIC FOR PETS AND CHILDREN.

How did the Director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic become an expert on Propylene Glycol? Has he researched it? Tested it?

By the way, the EPA - which DOES have experience with PG - has found no major cause for concern with exposure to firemen, stage workers and airline workers who regularly are exposed to PG fog.

So...if it's used in theatrical productions, doesn't that mean that actors and stage workers are regularly inhaling it??

In May 2009, the US FDA Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis tested the contents of cartridges and several substances were detected raising further concerns over inconsistent amounts of vapor components being inhaled. In July 2009 the FDA issued a press release stating that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals and continued discouraging the use of electronic cigarettes and repeated previously stated concerns that electronic cigarettes may be marketed to young people and lack appropriate warnings. Other health organizations are concerned that electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.

The same levels of carcinogens as found in a Nicoderm patch. Are they going to call for the patch to be banned then??

They found a chemical which COULD be toxic in high enough amounts, but they did NOT find toxic levels of ANY chemical!

Well, of course. If we weren't already addicted to nicotine, we wouldn't have started using them!! On the other hand, the Virginia Commonwealth University study determined that they didn't deliver nicotine at the same levels as NRTs or tobacco smoking anyhow.

In January 2010, a federal judge ordered the FDA to stop blocking the importation of electronic cigarettes from China, and indicated that the devices should be regulated as tobacco products, rather than drug or medical devices. The judge’s reasoning was that e-cigarettes were not marked as medical devices to help smokers quit, but rather as safer substitutes to give users the “nicotine hit that smokers crave.”

That's the point. You aren't supposed to compare these to quitting smoking, you're supposed to compare these to SMOKING.

To date, no one is able to say whether these electronic cigarettes are safe. In fact, these could be even worse than regular cigarettes.

How anyone with more than two brain cells in their head could say that is amazing. Beside the fact that it's a lie.

There have been several lab tests that show electronic cigarettes have no more carcinogens or toxins than FDA-approved Nicoderm patches. Not to mention the fact that there has been no serious illness or injury attributed to electronic cigarette use in the five years it's been on the world market and twoi years in the U.s.

Addiction could be at the same level or even greater and lack of regulation brings this type of product into the hands of minors. There are already more adolescents than children smoking and the last thing we need to do is encourage them to smoke even more.

IT'S NOT SMOKING. Aside from that, there is no evidence that children (or adolescents) are purchasing electronic cigarettes. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they are buying traditional cigarettes!

If you have information that would dispute these claims please forward it to my office so I may review it.

Sure! Look at the actual FDA report instead of it's press release. See any toxic levels of chemicals listed there? NO. See diethylene glycol listed in the other 17 cartridges? NO. See any toxic levels of DEG? NO. See any other potentially toxic chemicals OTHER than the tiny bit of DEG in one cartridge? NO. Do you see any of the 4,000 toxins found in tobacco cigarette smoke? NO. Can you determine from the report if the carcinogens found are HUMAN carcinogens? NO. Can you tell if there are dangerous LEVELS of those carcinogens? NO. Does the report state that the levels of carcinogens are even high enough to be measured accurately? NO.

Why didn't the FDA tell us that there are ACCEPTABLE levels of carcinogens, such as those found in the FDA-approved patch? Why didn't they point out that they didn't find anything worse than that tiny amount of DEG?

After reviewing the FDA report, check out the completed study from Health New Zealand, which actually revealed that the ecigarettes had levels of chemicals and carginogens comparable to FDA-approved NRTs and which concluded they were not only safe for human use, they were 13,000 times safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes: The Ruyan® (nicotine) E-Cigarette

Now that I've shown you ecigarettes are better for smokers than tobacco cigarettes, where is YOUR actual proof (not press releases and hearsay) that they aren't?

Kristin!!! Did you really send this? If so, You are the Greatest!! Bravo!!
That's what we need - hard hitting, in your face refutation of their B.S. over and over again - the more public the better, the more often the better. Let those opposing this technology know that we will not go away, we will not accept dismissive rhetoric nor psuedo science, political talking-heads double talk and will never allow ignorant, misinformed and/or disingenous public officials of any kind to stand in the way of technology that truly is thousands of magnitudes SAFER than traditional tobacco cigarette smoking.

 

[D103]

This one finally did it for me!!!

Director of Nicotine Dependence Center - Mayo Clinic

(re: question about whether it is safe to inhale vapor from an electronic cigarette) "I don't think so." -wow you don't get any plainer than that. That is "scientific" and "definitive" isn't it? and the MAYO CLINIC - Leaders in Healthcare

I gathered up all my electronic cig. stuff, double wrapped it in BIO-Hazzard
baggies and tossed it. I'm finally back to the good old, LEGAL tobacco cigarettes - and all because of caring, concerned health professionals and Institutions in this country with the "expertise" and tenacity to step up to the plate and call a spade a spud!"

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8-o

OUR Esteemed director below testing out a....is that a Prodigy, Tornado or a KR808?

 

[Posidon]

Thanks again Kristin. I used many of your points that you outlined as starting out points to my reply. I know someone else on another forum got the same e-mail, so I wasn't the only one.

Here is my response.

Dear Mr. Miller,

First I would like to thank you for your response. Although we do not see eye to eye, I feel that the issue surrounding the electronic cigarette is one of dire matters. The electronic cigarette has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States each year and millions around the world.

I see myself as a person who has quit smoking, I no longer inhale tar, ash, carbon monoxide, arsenic, lead, ammonia, cyanide, formaldehyde, nickel, benzene and about 4000 other chemicals and 56 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke each day. In my eyes I am no longer a smoker, I may be addicted to nicotine, but I am getting my nicotine along with other generally regarded as safe and approved by the FDA products. Over the past 6 months of electronic cigarette use and with the absence of cigarette toxins in my body I feel like a non-smoker.

As far as propylene glycol is concerned, most of us consume it every day. Propylene glycol is found many foods that we eat, toothpaste, and asthma inhalers. Humans have been consuming it for decades with no ill side effects. Propylene glycol is found in antifreeze, but it is used in antifreeze to minimize the lethality of it if pets and children come in contact or consume it. Firemen, stage workers, and airline workers have been exposed to vaporized propylene glycol for years in their training with no ill side effects either.

Carcinogens have also been found in the e-liquid of electronic cigarettes. The level of carcinogens is on par with other nicotine replacement therapies approved of by the FDA:

TSNAs
Nicotine Gum: 2ng
Nicotine Patch: 8ng
E-liquid: 8ng
Marlboro Cigarette: 11,190ng
Untitled Document

Although there is plenty of evidence that supports traditional cigarettes target children, there is no evidence to support that the electronic cigarette is targeted towards children. E-liquid, which is vaporized by the electronic cigarette does come in many flavors, including fruits and candy. Many other products that children should not be exposed to also come in fruit flavors including Nicorette Gum and many different types of alcohol.

I suggest you take a look at the New Zealand report.
The Ruyan®.(nicotine) E-Cigarette
This report concluded that the electronic cigarette was up to 13,000 times safer than traditional cigarettes.

As far as the FDA report is concerned, I would like you to take a closer look at it. The report is quite biased and does not give straight facts about the subjects that you outlined in your previous e-mail. The FDA did not release the levels of carcinogens in their report nor did they release the levels of diethylene glycol found. The report was based on assumptions based on their findings that were, in my opinion, hiding the actual facts supporting that the electronic cigarette could be a much safer, viable alternative to smoking cigarettes.

If you have evidence that the electronic cigarette is worse for me than the electronic cigarette would you please be so kind as to share it with me.

Thank you,

XXXX

 

[jiff]

So a quote from the Mayo clinic and the dodgy study by the FDA are good enough for this legislator.

Wow, we really have the top minds in the political class these days, don't we?

Yep. America's top minds, right there.

 

[aubergine]

Kristin, that is a terrific letter. I'd especially like it to be made available to whoever our friend(s) might be in the Health Committee so that they can debate more effectively. (I only know of one.) I don't have time to snail mail ANYTHING else until the weekend - drowning out here - but I'd like to see this one cut and pasted and massively-mailed by everyone, prefaced with something like:
"I'd like to register my strong opposition to the pending ecigarette-ban bill, and request that you carefully consider and emphatically raise these points of dispute on the floor as the debate continues. Those of us who use this product have a right to be represented fully and ably on this matter. I'm a NYS resident (if so). I'm not a vendor (if so); I simply want to retain my personal right to use this product as an alternative to smoking cigarettes. I vote. Thank you. : "____"

Who is on our side, or wobbling? I like inundations... and this one would save them from having to try to remember effective speaking points on an issue that they're obviously not really very familiar with.

 

[Posidon]

Just got another one this morning.

Thank you for your email regarding A.9529, which seeks to ban the sale and distribution of items containing or delivering nicotine that are not currently classified as tobacco products or approved of as tobacco use cessation or harm reduction products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and also to prevent minors from purchasing these products.

Your raise a number of interesting points about this bill and I appreciate that you indicated your own personal experience using e-cigarettes. My specific problem with these devices is that there is now no way to identify the amount of nicotine, carcinogens or other toxic chemicals that are delivered in the vapor. There are also no health warnings that other tobacco products are required by federal law to have on the packaging. I agree with you that the fact that this product comes in a variety of flavors does not mean it is advertised specifically for children. I recently voted against a bill that would have banned the sale of flavored cigars that used the same rationale.

I understand your argument that e-cigarettes can be beneficial to some people who smoke. However, I believe that their potential to be harmful to the public far outweighs the potential benefit. It is reasonable to wait until it is tested by the FDA to know exactly what we are dealing with before we put it on the market. If the FDA approves e-cigarettes, they will go back on the market and contain age appropriate purchase requirements and health warnings. For these reasons, I voted for A. 9529 on April 21, 2010.

I also want to make you aware of a new initiative my staff and I have implemented this year. My office will track the movement of specific legislation for constituents who have expressed interest in particular bills and will relay that information via email.

Since you have expressed interest in A.9529, my staff will notify you by email when action is taken on this bill in committee, on the floor of the Assembly, Senate and by the Governor. If you do not wish to receive these updates please respond to this email to alert my staff.

Thank you again for taking the time to write in to me about A.9529. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact either myself or my Legislative Director, Ashley Pillsbury, at (518)455-4926.

Sincerely,

Andy Hevesi
28th Assembly District

 

[Our House]

I understand your argument that e-cigarettes can be beneficial to some people who smoke. However, I believe that their potential to be harmful to the public far outweighs the potential benefit.

Really??

You believe that the potential for something to maybe possibly happen, but for which there has been no evidence of happening for 100s of 1000s (if not millions) of cartridges, outweighs the ACTUAL benefit of breathing/smelling/feeling better that 100s of 1000s (if not millions) of users have ACTUALLY experienced??

Really? Really?? ....ing really???

 

[jiff]

Really??

You believe that the potential for something to maybe possibly happen, but for which there has been no evidence of happening for 100s of 1000s (if not millions) of cartridges, outweighs the ACTUAL benefit of breathing/smelling/feeling better that 100s of 1000s (if not millions) of users have ACTUALLY experienced??

Really? Really?? ....ing really???

Really. Politicians play this game of saying "go $&%* yourself" in a polite way. Trying to make us think they actually care about what their constituents say.

 

[JerryRM]

Translation:

Dear Constituent,

Look pal, we are making a lot of money off of the cigarette excise tax, plus we have all the "alphabet" people harassing us to ban these e-cigarettes. Not to mention that the pharmaceutical companies are getting ticked off at the prospect of losing some profits, which may translate to less funds for my "re-election" campaign.

We have a good thing going here, so don't rock the boat for us.

Sincerely,

Your Senator

 

[Payne]

Just wondering and I'm sure someone has already tried but has anyone contacted any of the big shows like 20/20 or Primetime. Seems to me this is the kind of story shows like this would love to get there hands on. Profit over public health.

 

[jharres]

That sounds like a great idea, the only issue I could see arising is that the reporter listens to the spin of the public officials and it ends up doing more damage than good...